# The Truth about Mormons



## Truthspeaker

I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have. 
I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.


----------



## Neubarth

Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.

Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.  

I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.

Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.  I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases.  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.

Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!

Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.


----------



## xsited1

I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s.  There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas.  I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II".  Quite interesting.


----------



## Truthmatters

Tell me about magic underwear please?


----------



## Truthspeaker

For the shirtless man,(you gotta love a guy who has the guts to post himself shirtless). Bravo! 
I am glad that you brought up all those points. Most mormons have not done their homework the way I have. Most don't really have to because, like you said, faith in Christ and good principles are the only thing you really need. However, I find it fun to dig for the truth and mysteries of God. I am grateful to be able to answer your questions because I believe I can do so in a satisfactory manner.
Point number 1: Yes we do believe that many tribes have some bloodline of descendency from people of Israel. But it is not that simple. Herein lies the misconception that even a lot of Mormons hold because they are not as studious of the Book of Mormon as they should be. There were three main migrations spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The nation of Lehites which divided into 2 peoples of the same blood called Nephites and Lamanites. The second people spoken of but often forgotten were the Jaredites. The third, often glossed over completely are the Mulekites. I can delve into each of their histories in detail later if you like, but to sum up. The first people here, the Jaredites actually came from Asiatic area of Babylon. Quite a different DNA scheme. They were the first ever to set foot on this continent. This people as a nation dissolved and spread into unknown parts of the continent, certainly later mixing in with the future nations that would come, first mixing with the Mulekite people, who also came from the land of Jerusalem about 12 years after the more famous Nephites and Lamanites. 
I can't remember exactly the study, but I can produce it later if need be that showed that the people of the Americas were found to be primarily descended from Asiatic origins, which would fit perfectly in with the chronology of the Book of Mormon.......whew!

Oh yes, point two, the "Nuclear submarines" in question. The vessels themselves had to be made differently than your normal ship of the day with it's sails and common boat shape. To be clear, the people who first used these vessels were the Jaredites when they were told by God to take up this voyage. To a westerner, I agree, this story does not make much sense. But when put into historical context, it is an impressive stamp on the authenticity of the book.
First it has been well documented that most of what we have learned of Ancient weather and dates of storms and destruction has been discovered in the last 100 years with the carbon dating process and knowledge of Geology and so on. We have learned in this time that there was a great and terrible weather pattern which leveled entire civilizations and left thriving cities, such as Bablyon completely destitute circa 2200 bc, right around the time the jaredites left bablyon. Strikingly, The most learned scientists of 1830 had no such knowledge of this timeline of destruction. Certainly not a poor farmboy named Joseph Smith in upstate rural New York.
Hence had these Jaredites been in regular ships with sails, it would have been a quick destruction for all on board. The construction of the ships was very peculiar, not like a submarine like you have described, but certainly "tight, like unto a dish" as Ether points out. "Ye shall put a hole in the top thereof, that will close tight like unto a dish so that when the mountain waves shall dash upon you, you shall not be broken into pieces. You shall be as a whale in the sea, and I shall cause my winds to blow and a tempest to be thy wind continually blowing toward the promised land." I know I slightly misquoted the scripture in Ether because I don't have my book with me, but those are basically the words spoken to "the brother of Jared" in the book. "And when ye shall suffer for air ye shall unstop the hole when you come to the surface".
They were not submarines. They were boats that would normally float on the water, but because of their shape, could stand for short whiles to be underneath water for a time. Just like a whale that needs to come up for air......whew...
Next point... where was I?
Oh yes, the great cities and their locations. We all know that there have been cities that have been buried by volcanic eruptions, or erased by large earthquakes and floods and such throughout the ages. Then why not in America. But some may say, well certainly not all the cities would be lost right? It would take one heck of a natural disaster wouldn't it? Yes it would.
The book of mormon talks about just such a disaster, where after the death of Christ, Mountains were removed out of their place and fell on cities, giant waves, tornadoes and and vicious earthquakes that lasted for the space of three hours. Do any of us have any idea what would happen if a magnitude 9 earthquake shook for three hours? We do if we look in the book of mormon. Think something like that couldn't happen? Just watch that show on TLC Mega Disasters.


----------



## eots

*the truth about mormons*..they tend to smile to much..they tend to be polite..and their sock drawers are well organized and stocked and even tho there are 50 pairs in there they will notice if you have _barrow_ a pair cause your not a mormon and therefore all yours are dirty...but being mormon they will just say.. make sure you put them back into their laundry hamper when your done with them so they can be washed and not put them with all your dirty ones ok ?.....


----------



## Truthspeaker

"I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s. There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas. I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II". Quite interesting."

It's too bad that you are hearing a one sided point of view from some bitter ex-members that want to portray half-truths. I would like to know what was so interesting.


----------



## Truthspeaker

And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?


----------



## Truthspeaker

eots said:


> *the truth about mormons*..they tend to smile to much..they tend to be polite..and their sock drawers are well organized and stocked and even tho there are 50 pairs in there they will notice if you have _barrow_ a pair cause your not a mormon and therefore all yours are dirty...but being mormon they will just say.. make sure you put them back into their laundry hamper when your done with them so they can be washed and not put them with all your dirty ones ok ?.....



Scarily, you tend to be right!


----------



## xsited1

Truthspeaker said:


> "I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s. There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas. I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II". Quite interesting."
> 
> It's too bad that you are hearing a one sided point of view from some bitter ex-members that want to portray half-truths. I would like to know what was so interesting.



One thing that I found interesting was Mormon Baptism for the Dead.


----------



## chloe

Actually you can talk to different Mormons from different Wards and they will give you there version of the interpretation of the book of mormon and it will be different then what the last brother or sister said.  Additionally a lot of Mormons who come to Utah become disenchanted by the snootiness and cliques the Church has out here. It really depends on who you know who you talk to and how they interpret what the church says.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Actually you can talk to different Mormons from different Wards and they will give you there version of the interpretation of the book of mormon and it will be different then what the last brother or sister said.  Additionally a lot of Mormons who come to Utah become disenchanted by the snootiness and cliques the Church has out here. It really depends on who you know who you talk to and how they interpret what the church says.




Well actually it doesn't depend on what interpretations people have. There are going to be a lot of mormons who will be in a lot more trouble at the judgment day than non-mormons because they fail to listen to the prophet and the official translations of all doctrines. there is no room for interpretation of official doctrines. Every thing I will say will be based on official church doctrine, otherwise I will say it is just my opinion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

xsited1 said:


> One thing that I found interesting was Mormon Baptism for the Dead.



What questions do you have about baptism for the dead?


----------



## chloe

Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.



I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.


----------



## chloe

I mean that depending on who you talk to you get contradictory versions of how they interpret the book of mormon. The Best Ward I ever went to was in the Taylorsville/Murray area, I loved the relief society there it was like a "Group Therapy" for women. But if you visit some in Bluffdale Herriman you will have a totally different experience. Perhaps its because of The Allred Family influence who knows.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Also how do you mean, Relief Societies are different from ward to ward. In what way? what  have you seen that makes you say this.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well, I can't help that some people give you contradictory interpretations, as individuals often do, but I can pretty much assure you that if you go to a bishop and certainly a stake president, you will get the same story every time. those are the people you need to be asking if there is a debate. I would tend to be right with the stake presidency, but if I am wrong, they would be right, though I wouldn't give misinformation.
the ultimate end of debate on doctrine is the Prophet Thomas S. Monson, who I try to emulate in his teachings.


----------



## chloe

Thats good of you. I am just telling you its kinda like how people interpret the bible differently and you wonder if they are reading the same book, this happens in utah alot with the book of mormon. I have a lot of mormon friends , heck I was once married to a  mormon. My Mormon friends do laugh at the fact that some mormons have a drastically different interpretation of the book.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Yes you are right, and those people with wild interpretations tend to be the ones who don't go to church too often or don't read the book or other scriptures that often. Fortunately there is only one valid interpretation of scriptures. The Prophet's. He tells us the correct one so there doesn't have to be confusion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Anybody got any more of those tough questions? I am trying to brush up here! Perhaps any about


----------



## chloe

They go to church regularly but most people just laugh at them (not to there face). Although they seriously believe that there interpretation is the correct one.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> Anybody got any more of those tough questions? I am trying to brush up here! Perhaps any about



Would you share your Patriarchal blessing with us? Kidding. The body is the temple no smoking, no drinking, no coffee/tea, no premarital sex. The church has a lot of good qualities. Family night (lots of board games and stimulating conversation, date night, and a sense of duty for your neighbor and brothers & sisters.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well no one should laugh at them, but sometimes it happens cuz we're all people and don't always make the right individual decisions.


----------



## chloe

I don't think your going to find alot of people hating mormons here.


----------



## eots

have you ever seen this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2btjXHRPJg]YouTube - Mormons Owned[/ame]


----------



## Truthspeaker

You are right, but I do expect questions. People who hate mormons, don't really want to ask questions, they just want us to die or if not, are certainly not interested in seeing our point of view and therefore wouldn't enter this arena. I know people have a lot of questions out there and are very angry at us for some of our political stands or religious views which may seem extreme, but when heard out are not so extreme.


----------



## chloe

I don't hate mormons, but I don't like some of the corruption in utah especially surrounding the polygamists. I know that is not the Churches official stand but believe me out here its like a wink wink thing.


----------



## chloe

eots said:


> have you ever seen this...
> 
> YouTube - Mormons Owned



Nope


----------



## eots

chloe said:


> Nope



I wondering more about truthspeakers take on it..as he was seeking questions
I was interested in how he might respond to this


----------



## Truthspeaker

I love that video, I really got a kick out of it. I think anyone who watches it should know that the crazy guy who doesn't let the others talk, is full of himself and knows nothing about the scriptures. He didn't let them talk because he was trying to show off in front of his friends and definitely didn't want to risk the missionaries saying anything that might make him look foolish. The missionaries are taught not to argue with people as you see they kept their composure while the man babbled on about scriptures he grossly misinterprets. 
Arguing gets no where and contention drives the spirit away, which is why the missionaries left. Because that guy wasn't about discussion. He had his friends videotape the thing so he could trap the missionaries and insult them. I also think it is interesting that the man himself fulfilled a prophecy spoken of in the Book of Mormon in the book of Nephi chapter 28 where the Lord is warning people of the latter days which states,"There shall come many in that day which shall say"A Bible, A Bible, we have got a bible, we need no more bible and there cannot be any more Bible. thou fool that shall say this, Ye shalt have a Bible, and what thanks do ye give for what ye have received, Do ye remember the pains of the Jews, in bringing forth salvation unto the gentiles, yea, what do the Gentiles mean? Have they thanked the Jews for the bible which they have gotten from them, Nay, but ye have cursed them and hated them, and they have become a hiss and a byword among them. 
thou fool that shall say a bible, we have got a bible, and we need no more bible. know ye  not the I the Lord speak unto the Jews and they shall write, and I shall speak unto the nephites and they shall write and I shall speak unto the lost tribes of israel and they shall write. Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is proof that I am God? therefore ye need not suppose that I have not caused more to be written. For I am the same yesterday today and forever and my words cease not.

I know I paraphrased a little but that is mostly the point of that chapter. I didn't have my book in front of me but that is my memory. You will see all those phrases in there.


----------



## eots

he does tend to dominate ,,but the dude has skills..looking at it strictly from a debate skill perspective..


----------



## eots

TS..check out thIs response video..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m54vqHzMtKE&NR=1]YouTube - Mormon Missionaries Debating A Georgia Preacher[/ame]


----------



## Truthspeaker

i'll check out the other video tomorrow cuz I am gonna go to bed. but from a person like me, not meaning to boast, who has real knowledge of chapter and verse and not just that, but historical context, this guy is an absolute ignoramus. this guy may appear to have skill because he bullies those young kids and doesn't let them speak, and throws a verse or two out there, it doesn't mean he has skill. 
It just means he says what he thinks, knowing all along, he wasn't going to let the young kids speak in front of his friends, then laughs at them because they are nice young kids who don't reduce themselves to bickering with his uneducated arse.


----------



## Truthspeaker

How about him fulfilling the prophesy though. You gotta admit, that's pretty cool.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

chloe said:


> I don't think your going to find alot of people hating mormons here.



There are a couple.


----------



## Truthspeaker

That's ok. we are easy to hate. we are more used to it than anybody. we just have better things to do than go hold protests and wave signs against people who prejudge us. You see for us, we almost like it when people talk bad about us because it's a confirmation that we are doing the right thing. when jesus said the way to heaven is a straight and narrow path, and few there be that find it, but broad is the way and wide is the gate that leadeth to hell, and many there be that go in thereat. 

sorry guys, I am only quoting scriptures from memory, but I know it's there if somebody wants me to verify it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> There are a couple.



Does your title mean, retired gay seargeant. then i understand why you might hate me if that's true. if you are gay, we really don't hate you. In fact you would be hard pressed to find another group of people that would be as kind to you as the mormons, crazed individuals, not counted among us.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthspeaker said:


> Does your title mean, retired gay seargeant. then i understand why you might hate me if that's true. if you are gay, we really don't hate you. In fact you would be hard pressed to find another group of people that would be as kind to you as the mormons, crazed individuals, not counted among us.



You may want to do a little research on this board of who I am and do some research on what Marine Corps titles and ranks are. You may just avoid embarrassing your self.


----------



## Truthspeaker

i was genuinely asking, not trying to make fun of you. I know little about military titles. please enlighten me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I am going to sleep. Can't keep up with you creatures of the night. I will respond to anything tomorrow.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthspeaker said:


> i was genuinely asking, not trying to make fun of you. I know little about military titles. please enlighten me.



So you assumed that GySgt was short for Gay Sgt? And you assumed I was one of the people that hate or dislike Mormons?

You will find there are several posters on this board that have some very ignorant views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Some are hateful of all religion and some claim to be Christians while claiming Mormons are NOT Christians.

If you had done just a small bit of searching you would have found that I am a retired GUNNERYSgt and that while not very active I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I joined in 1979 shortly before I joined the Marine Corps. I was baptized in Lacey Washington.

I do not attend services as I have certain medical problems. However the Missionaries visit now and again. The Ward is very bad at assigning home Teachers and the last Bishop that I knew was suggesting I just quit the Church cause I did not attend to his satisfaction.


----------



## editec

One thing I admire about the Mormons is their ability to create a sense of community.

One thing I don't admire about that community is the obvious classism and nepotism that seems to dominate that community.

But given that pretty much every society and culture tends to become classist and nepotism is extremely common, I guess my complaint about the Mormons isn't all that much different than my complaints about this society generally.


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthspeaker said:


> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?




everything


----------



## xsited1

Truthspeaker said:


> What questions do you have about baptism for the dead?



What is the scriptural basis for baptising the dead?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

xsited1 said:


> What is the scriptural basis for baptising the dead?



One must be baptized in order to enter heaven?


----------



## chloe

Many people have died without receiving a valid baptism, and they cannot undergo this precious ritual as mere spirits. "Because all on the earth do not have the opportunity to accept the gospel during mortality, the Lord has authorized baptisms performed by proxy for the dead. Therefore, those who accept the gospel in the spirit world may qualify for entrance into God's kingdom" . One thing that should be made perfectly clear about Mormon baptisms for the dead is that each deceased soul has the personal choice to accept or reject it. There is nothing in Mormonism that states that the person who is being baptized by proxy must accept this ordinance; he or she is simply given the opportunity to choose.

Baptisms for the dead can only be performed in Mormon temples. Elder Mark E. Petersen explained this requirement: "Always a center of interest is the baptismal font. In each of the temples this font rests upon the backs of twelve stone or bronze oxen, following in this, as in other particulars, the pattern given by the Prophet Joseph Smith as he instituted temple building in his day under the direction of the Lord. Why is there a baptismal font in the temple? Cannot people be baptized anywhere? The living, yes. But the font in the temple is for vicarious baptisms performed in behalf of the dead.
Elder Petersen went on to explain what these passages teach us:

(1) Jesus was a Personage of both spirit and flesh, like all of us.

(2) When Jesus went to the realm of the dead, he was still himself, an individual, the humble "carpenter from Nazareth," although a spirit divested of his body of flesh and bones which had been crucified.

(3) The deadeven those who died in the floodalso were intelligent persons, still individuals, although spirits like Jesus himself.

(4) These dead were so much in possession of their reason and their faculties that they could hear the gospel like men in the flesh although they lived in a world of spirits, and they were alive and alert and could use discretion in accepting or rejecting the teachings of Christ.

(5) Jesus taught them the gospel, which was their opportunity for salvation.

(6) Having heard the gospel, they might accept it or reject it and thus be "judged according to men in the flesh." As they did accept it, they could then "live according to God in the spirit" just as the scripture indicated.

Mormons are therefore very zealous about collecting and submitting the names of their ancestors for this great, saving work. Baptism for the dead in Mormon temples gives those who would have embraced Christ and His Church the opportunity to do so after death. It is a wonderful gift granted by a merciful God.

Article on Mormon Baptism for the Dead


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.


I am not sure how any organized religion or person can attempt to say they have all the answers in truth.  The Lord said He would write his law into His peoples hearts and minds. To me that says His people already have the information within them and need only the Bible and the Holy Spirit within to confirm and discern that information.

On the other hand all churches have made some errors along the way in the quest for control over mankind. The only church fully approved that will overcome according to the Angel in Revelations is the church of Philadelphia.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Matthew 3:13-16


----------



## RetiredGySgt

It does little to convince an unbeliever to quote the Book Of Mormon or any documents from the Mormons, except to show what they are saying. When discussing with an unbeliever find common ground and work from there. Christians that are not Mormons believe in the Bible. Use the Bible to make the point.


----------



## sky dancer

Mormons have big families.  I traveled through Utah and I've never seen such big picnic tables in my life!

You don't want to be born Mormon and gay.


----------



## xsited1

RetiredGySgt said:


> One must be baptized in order to enter heaven?



But you're already dead.  How can you be baptized if you're already dead?


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Having been raised a mormon, it's just like any other messed up organized religion, just in different ways.


----------



## strollingbones

i have questions:

is it true that woman must be married to enter heaven?

is it true that mormons become "god like" upon there deaths in their heaven?

how accurate is "big love" on hbo about mormons?

o and i have noticed you really havent answered anyones questions..

why not explain the "blessed" undergarments?


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> So you assumed that GySgt was short for Gay Sgt? And you assumed I was one of the people that hate or dislike Mormons?
> 
> You will find there are several posters on this board that have some very ignorant views of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Some are hateful of all religion and some claim to be Christians while claiming Mormons are NOT Christians.
> 
> If you had done just a small bit of searching you would have found that I am a retired GUNNERYSgt and that while not very active I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I joined in 1979 shortly before I joined the Marine Corps. I was baptized in Lacey Washington.
> 
> I do not attend services as I have certain medical problems. However the Missionaries visit now and again. The Ward is very bad at assigning home Teachers and the last Bishop that I knew was suggesting I just quit the Church cause I did not attend to his satisfaction.



Well Sarge, nobody is perfect, I admitted that I don't know much about the military other than my brother just went to the army. I am sorry if I offended you. I am glad you are not gay in fact. 
I am also sorry to hear the bishop would say anything like that to you. I haven't heard of a bishop who would say something like "you should just quit" before, but hey, it's a big world out there. If he did he was way out of line and his leaders would chastise him if they knew about it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

editec said:


> One thing I admire about the Mormons is their ability to create a sense of community.
> 
> One thing I don't admire about that community is the obvious classism and nepotism that seems to dominate that community.
> 
> But given that pretty much every society and culture tends to become classist and nepotism is extremely common, I guess my complaint about the Mormons isn't all that much different than my complaints about this society generally.



You are right. Our religion doesn't teach people to exclude, it teaches to include and invite everyone to partake of it's gospel. Individuals may form cliques or whatever but they are sinning if they do.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> everything



Well because of the sacred nature of the undergarments which you call "Magic Undies", I won't be able to tell you everything. I have made promises not to discuss them in detail. What I will say however in a nutshell is that they are a symbol and a reminder to us daily to keep the commandments of God, it's just that they are worn out of sight, rather than displayed out in the open like in other religions, who were their religious symbols on their heads, around their necks or on their whole body.
That will have to suffice.


----------



## midcan5

Another question. To whom do you owe allegiance, the Mormon church or the US government in those issues that conflict?


----------



## Truthspeaker

xsited1 said:


> What is the scriptural basis for baptising the dead?



Impressive post by cloe, but the scripture in question is 1 Peter verse 4 which states "for for this cause was the gospel preached to them that are dead, that they might be judged according God in the flesh but live according to God in the spirit."

I hope that was accurate from my memory


----------



## Truthspeaker

RodISHI said:


> I am not sure how any organized religion or person can attempt to say they have all the answers in truth.  The Lord said He would write his law into His peoples hearts and minds. To me that says His people already have the information within them and need only the Bible and the Holy Spirit within to confirm and discern that information.
> 
> On the other hand all churches have made some errors along the way in the quest for control over mankind. The only church fully approved that will overcome according to the Angel in Revelations is the church of Philadelphia.



I will say that is quite an interpretation of the scriptures but that is not the issue of the forum, to take away your opinion. You are totally entitled. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I feel the church has provided me with all the answers to questions I need to know. 
I agree that the Spirit, if one is truly worthy to be governed by it, will verify the truth of a teaching to a person.  
The church of Philadelphia is the way, the truth and the life? Ok, you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> It does little to convince an unbeliever to quote the Book Of Mormon or any documents from the Mormons, except to show what they are saying. When discussing with an unbeliever find common ground and work from there. Christians that are not Mormons believe in the Bible. Use the Bible to make the point.



I am not here to Bible bash with people. that has gotten debaters of religion nowhere through the course of history. I am here to help clear up misconceptions about the church and answer questions. If people want to really know what we believe, then I can't avoid quotes from the book of mormon


----------



## Truthspeaker

xsited1 said:


> But you're already dead.  How can you be baptized if you're already dead?



Great question. Baptisms for the dead are performed by the living in lieu of the dead. For example, I was baptized for a man named John Smith who lived in 1790. I was immersed in the water and then John, witnessing the act from the spirit world, or the other side of the veil, has the choice to accept the baptism or reject it, having been taught the gospel on the other side the same way it is done here. It is a very forward doctrine but I believe it whole heartedly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Having been raised a mormon, it's just like any other messed up organized religion, just in different ways.



You can help yourself by saying how we are so "messed up" so I can answer you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

midcan5 said:


> Another question. To whom do you owe allegiance, the Mormon church or the US government in those issues that conflict?



It is not a matter of allegiance with me. It is a matter of conscience. Fortunately my conscience agrees with the church so far when the two disagree


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> i have questions:
> 
> is it true that woman must be married to enter heaven?
> 
> is it true that mormons become "god like" upon there deaths in their heaven?
> 
> how accurate is "big love" on hbo about mormons?
> 
> o and i have noticed you really havent answered anyones questions..
> 
> why not explain the "blessed" undergarments?




After I went to sleep last night asking for questions, You all have surely not disappointed, which I appreciate. So please be patient if I can't be on here 24-7. It doesn't mean I am not going to answer questions just because I don't live on here.

1.Alright lets go with the first one here. It is not true in the official doctrine that a woman needs to be married to anyone in order to go to heaven. That is false doctrine.

2. I am not quite sure what you mean by "god-like" but I can tell you that we will be ressurected with an immortal physical and perfect body, like God has. But will not become Gods at the ressurection.

3. I have not seen the show, but apparently from the weird title and the fact that HBO airs it, I am skeptical as to it's accuracy.

4.If you haven't noticed me answer anyones questions then that is quite a blanket statement since I immediately answered a very complex question from the first poster about the jaredite barges and orgin of native americans rather quickly. I have answered questions several times before yours if you care to observe. As per my aforementioned life outside of the computer I only just now got the chance to respond to the "magic underwear" comment which term we find quite offensive and inacurate that they would be called such a disrespectful name.


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> I will say that is quite an interpretation of the scriptures but that is not the issue of the forum, to take away your opinion. You are totally entitled. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I feel the church has provided me with all the answers to questions I need to know.
> I agree that the Spirit, if one is truly worthy to be governed by it, will verify the truth of a teaching to a person.
> The church of Philadelphia is the way, the truth and the life? Ok, you are entitled to your opinion.


It is not just simply my opinion what I said is already written in the Bible and the Torah. My opinion is I would rather the Holy Spirit teach me than a man who simply listens to a man made church of any kind and men/women teaching from their own precepts. That is not to say each church does not have a place.

You have answered certain questions in this thread yet that is not what many have heard from Mormon's over the years. Some Mormons take a stance that it is okay to cheat a nonmormon/what they call gentiles. So the "truth about Mormons" can only be determine by each individual as is the same case for any religious affiliation a person may have.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthspeaker said:


> After I went to sleep last night asking for questions, You all have surely not disappointed, which I appreciate. So please be patient if I can't be on here 24-7. It doesn't mean I am not going to answer questions just because I don't live on here.
> 
> 1.Alright lets go with the first one here. It is not true in the official doctrine that a woman needs to be married to anyone in order to go to heaven. That is false doctrine.
> 
> 2. I am not quite sure what you mean by "god-like" but I can tell you that we will be ressurected with an immortal physical and perfect body, like God has. But will not become Gods at the ressurection.
> 
> 3. I have not seen the show, but apparently from the weird title and the fact that HBO airs it, I am skeptical as to it's accuracy.
> 
> 4.If you haven't noticed me answer anyones questions then that is quite a blanket statement since I immediately answered a very complex question from the first poster about the jaredite barges and orgin of native americans rather quickly. I have answered questions several times before yours if you care to observe. As per my aforementioned life outside of the computer I only just now got the chance to respond to the "magic underwear" comment which term we find quite offensive and inacurate that they would be called such a disrespectful name.



Big Love is NOT about Mormons at all. It is a show about a Polygomist Family that breaks away from one of the cults that still believe in plural marriages. Explaining to people that the Mormon Church has not believed in Polygomy since the 1890's doesn't seem to convince them that any group proclaiming it is not Mormon.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RodISHI said:


> It is not just simply my opinion what I said is already written in the Bible and the Torah. My opinion is I would rather the Holy Spirit teach me than a man who simply listens to a man made church of any kind and men/women teaching from their own precepts. That is not to say each church does not have a place.
> 
> You have answered certain questions in this thread yet that is not what many have heard from Mormon's over the years. Some Mormons take a stance that it is okay to cheat a nonmormon/what they call gentiles. So the "truth about Mormons" can only be determine by each individual as is the same case for any religious affiliation a person may have.



Mormons do NOT believe it is ok to cheat non Mormons. It is not ok to lie to non Mormons either.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RodISHI said:


> It is not just simply my opinion what I said is already written in the Bible and the Torah. My opinion is I would rather the Holy Spirit teach me than a man who simply listens to a man made church of any kind and men/women teaching from their own precepts. That is not to say each church does not have a place.
> 
> You have answered certain questions in this thread yet that is not what many have heard from Mormon's over the years. Some Mormons take a stance that it is okay to cheat a nonmormon/what they call gentiles. So the "truth about Mormons" can only be determine by each individual as is the same case for any religious affiliation a person may have.



Well, I am not sure I see the logic in your argument. You have an interpretation of the scriptures that I don't agree with and can't understand how the church of philadelphia is God's way. I have never met a mormon in all the years of my life that has taken a stand that it is ok to cheat anyone. You do not understand the term gentile. It has many meanings and whoever uses a term in the way you have described does not understand the term either. I am afraid you are very misinformed about us.


----------



## RodISHI

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mormons do NOT believe it is ok to cheat non Mormons. It is not ok to lie to non Mormons either.


It is the same as any organized religion. People/individuals have their own personal take on their religion. I have met some very fine people who are/were Mormons. It is not an attack on the religion. I have met some fairly screwed up Mormons also who thought it was fine to do such to another since they did not belong to that church. Again, it is in all organized religions. Nothing personal.


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> Well, I am not sure I see the logic in your argument. You have an interpretation of the scriptures that I don't agree with and can't understand how the church of philadelphia is God's way. I have never met a mormon in all the years of my life that has taken a stand that it is ok to cheat anyone. You do not understand the term gentile. It has many meanings and whoever uses a term in the way you have described does not understand the term either. I am afraid you are very misinformed about us.


I lived around Mormons for over seventeen years. I am not misinformed as I do have a bit of personal experience in the matter. If I did not I would not have said so. I have met both good and bad that belong to the Mormon church. I sure do not hold anything I personally experience against the whole church. I just said this in the previous post. It is not a personal attack. All organized religions have problems.


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> Well, I am not sure I see the logic in your argument. You have an interpretation of the scriptures that I don't agree with and can't understand how the church of philadelphia is God's way.


The Church of Philadelphia is the only Church that overcomes fully and goes out no more. Philadelphia means brotherly love. That is the short of it. We can discuss it at another time if you wish.


----------



## chloe

RodISHI said:


> It is not just simply my opinion what I said is already written in the Bible and the Torah. My opinion is I would rather the Holy Spirit teach me than a man who simply listens to a man made church of any kind and men/women teaching from their own precepts. That is not to say each church does not have a place.
> 
> You have answered certain questions in this thread yet that is not what many have heard from Mormon's over the years. Some Mormons take a stance that it is okay to cheat a nonmormon/what they call gentiles. So the "truth about Mormons" can only be determine by each individual as is the same case for any religious affiliation a person may have.



In Utah a lot of non-mormons have felt secretly discrminated against in business in politics, because there has been a grove of non-mormons who moved here during the 1990's it has changed the population politics a little bit. But still for an example there is a bank here called "Zions Bank" and some people have been passed over for promotions who were not a brother or a sister, but just a gentile. This has happened locally in a lot of compainies. I also worked for a local Mayor and a Judge and I can tell you first hand that if the Judge knew the brother or sister from the local ward they got to go in the Judges chambers and have a lot dismissed, now same charges against a gentile full charges stuck.

In the the history: With the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, the development of the Ogden community changed considerably. Politically, the Mormon community leadership was challenged by the increasing non-Mormon population that came into the area with the railroad. The non-Mormon leaders tried to wrestle the political and economic control of Utah from the Mormons and center their control at Corinne, a main stop on the transcontinental line north of Ogden.

Brigham Young and the Mormon leadership would allow none of this and took steps to bypass Corinne with a railroad line to the north as well as an agreement with the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroad companies that Ogden would be the main terminal of the transcontinental line. By 1874 the challenge of Corinne was over; Corinne continued to decline as businesses moved to Ogden, and Ogden became recognized as a major railroad and commercial center. In Ogden, Mormons and Gentiles (non-Mormons) mixed together in business and politics. In 1889 Fred J. Kiesel, a Gentile, was elected mayor of Ogden, the first breakthrough in Utah of the Mormon-dominated politics. 

Utah History Encyclopedia


Im sure that Truth will deny this, but I have seen it first  hand. Additionally I was married to a mormon he graduated from BYU Law School, trust me when I tell you that if he needs to use the "brother" card he will. Its a wink wink thing it is not something written in the book of mormon. It is subtle but things are a lot better now then now prior to the 1990's. I am not saying every single mormon does this, but in high up positions politically or financially it certainly does happen in utah. In fact one high up Zion's Bank stated that he doesnt promote women because he believes it is wrong for women to work and firmly believes women should be at home raising children. He was not saying it to be mean it was honestly how he felt.


----------



## chloe

The Official Church does not advocate Polygamy on earth. Big Love is focused on more the metropolitan polygamists and the different sects out here who arent from ther church but believe the church sold out to the government when they ended polygamy. So if you talk to the polygamists around here they will tell you they are actually living the True meaning of the church and book of mormon. But the Church does not agree with that. I happen to live near this polygamist family. They are actually pretty decent people.  

5.20.2003Minutes


----------



## Truthspeaker

RodISHI said:


> I lived around Mormons for over seventeen years. I am not misinformed as I do have a bit of personal experience in the matter. If I did not I would not have said so. I have met both good and bad that belong to the Mormon church. I sure do not hold anything I personally experience against the whole church. I just said this in the previous post. It is not a personal attack. All organized religions have problems.



Well again I am going to challenge your thinking. Just because you have mentioned that individuals twist the meaning of mormonism to their own views does not mean the church itself does. People who are guilty of perverting the gospel will stand accountable for that one day. the problem is that the people you say have done these things, cast a bad name on the people following the official doctrine. The official doctrine is what I am trying to clarify. i can't help it if individuals screw around with the teachings. Those people, if discovered, are chastised and if they don't straighten out are disciplined.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> In Utah a lot of non-mormons have felt secretly discrminated against in business in politics, because there has been a grove of non-mormons who moved here during the 1990's it has changed the population politics a little bit. But still for an example there is a bank here called "Zions Bank" and some people have been passed over for promotions who were not a brother or a sister, but just a gentile. This has happened locally in a lot of compainies. I also worked for a local Mayor and a Judge and I can tell you first hand that if the Judge knew the brother or sister from the local ward they got to go in the Judges chambers and have a lot dismissed, now same charges against a gentile full charges stuck.
> 
> In the the history: With the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, the development of the Ogden community changed considerably. Politically, the Mormon community leadership was challenged by the increasing non-Mormon population that came into the area with the railroad. The non-Mormon leaders tried to wrestle the political and economic control of Utah from the Mormons and center their control at Corinne, a main stop on the transcontinental line north of Ogden.
> 
> Brigham Young and the Mormon leadership would allow none of this and took steps to bypass Corinne with a railroad line to the north as well as an agreement with the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroad companies that Ogden would be the main terminal of the transcontinental line. By 1874 the challenge of Corinne was over; Corinne continued to decline as businesses moved to Ogden, and Ogden became recognized as a major railroad and commercial center. In Ogden, Mormons and Gentiles (non-Mormons) mixed together in business and politics. In 1889 Fred J. Kiesel, a Gentile, was elected mayor of Ogden, the first breakthrough in Utah of the Mormon-dominated politics.
> 
> Utah History Encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Im sure that Truth will deny this, but I have seen it first  hand. Additionally I was married to a mormon he graduated from BYU Law School, trust me when I tell you that if he needs to use the "brother" card he will. Its a wink wink thing it is not something written in the book of mormon. It is subtle but things are a lot better now then now prior to the 1990's. I am not saying every single mormon does this, but in high up positions politically or financially it certainly does happen in utah. In fact one high up Zion's Bank stated that he doesnt promote women because he believes it is wrong for women to work and firmly believes women should be at home raising children. He was not saying it to be mean it was honestly how he felt.




I don't know why you are so sure I would deny it. It makes perfect sense that there are corrupt individuals who don't follow their religion.
As for the Brigham Young decision, I don't see what was so wrong with it. I believe he was the governor at the time and did what he felt was best for the community since I know the main focus on completing the railroad was to help further the construction of the Temple, which is what most people in the community were bent on finishing. Just also keep in mind that there was a separation of church and state all the time. Just because Brigham Young made a government decision as governer does not mean he was acting his separate role of President of the Church. The Temple had been under construction for almost 40 years already and the completion of the railroad would speed transport of granite from the quarries considerably. I don't think his decision was a personal attack on non-members. 
I will emphasize again that I know there are individuals who do wrong things. Just don't assume that the church backs them when they sin. Just like we shouldn't assume that Islam teaches all their students to fly planes into skyscrapers.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> The Official Church does not advocate Polygamy on earth. Big Love is focused on more the metropolitan polygamists and the different sects out here who arent from ther church but believe the church sold out to the government when they ended polygamy. So if you talk to the polygamists around here they will tell you they are actually living the True meaning of the church and book of mormon. But the Church does not agree with that. I happen to live near this polygamist family. They are actually pretty decent people.
> 
> 5.20.2003Minutes



As for most of the Polygamists, they don't tend to read the Book of Mormon as much as they read the Bible, because there are far more enabling circumstances in the Bible to twist to their interpretation of the Polygamy doctrine. Be it for the record, they broke away from us, not us from them. It has been made clear.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> It does little to convince an unbeliever to quote the Book Of Mormon or any documents from the Mormons, except to show what they are saying. When discussing with an unbeliever find common ground and work from there. Christians that are not Mormons believe in the Bible. Use the Bible to make the point.



Also sarge, I hope it's ok to call you that affectionately, if not let me know. But I want to emphasize that we don't refer to anyone as non-believers, especially other christians. I think it is a negative word that doesn't reflect how we feel about those who are not of our faith.

Any body got any more questions?


----------



## chloe

The church doessome good things for its members. Grandma was married in the temple downtown in 1940 she had 6 sons, within a period of three months she had major tragedies. First one of her little boys was run over by a drunk driver and killed, the next month her husband died of illness, the next month her mother died, she was left alone with 5 little children very poor. The church paid her bills fixed her house and took care of her until her children were old enough to do ti themselves.

This is common in the church even today, the lady down the road has 8 children her husband left the church and elft her alone with 8 kids to feed. she had enver worked has no education, the church frequently helps her with her bills and house maitanance. 

Young womens teaches high morals, cooking, sewing and also cleans up the city, volunteers to assist elderly and sick people at hospitals. 

There are alot of good mormons. But in Utah there is an overshadowing of some corruption and it does make it harder for the non-mormons. Still, the mormons who arent corrupt are some of the nicest people you will ever meet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I am sorry you feel there is an undercurrent of corruption among the people. My feeling is that if there is an undercurrent of corruption in Utah, it is a lot less than anywhere else you will go. Also there may be a correlation between said corruption and the huge recent influx of non-members moving into the state. I am not so sure that there is a lot of corruption going on. I would be interested in some specifics there. But again I think we would be going off topic to discuss that. The main point of this thread is to clarify misconceptions about the church's teachings.


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> Well again I am going to challenge your thinking. Just because you have mentioned that individuals twist the meaning of mormonism to their own views does not mean the church itself does.


Individuals do that in all organized religion. The fact is though when you have Ward leaders or Bishops that follow such activities and prescribe such activities it truly damages the whole congregation of any church.






> People who are guilty of perverting the gospel will stand accountable for that one day. the problem is that the people you say have done these things, cast a bad name on the people following the official doctrine.


Which gospel are you speaking about. The blue book or the Bible? I agree thoe who twist and pervert what Jesus taught will stand accountable. It is called a Rod of wrath and the Rod of correction.




> The official doctrine is what I am trying to clarify. i can't help it if individuals screw around with the teachings. Those people, if discovered, are chastised and if they don't straighten out are disciplined.


 I take it here you are talking about the book of mormon. If those who take negative actions against others were chastised that may help your whole cause. By the way what is the cause of the Mormon church since you are saying that is who you represent. Is it to teach the Bible or the book of mormon? That seems to be a confused issue from what I have seen.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RodISHI said:


> Individuals do that in all organized religion. The fact is though when you have Ward leaders or Bishops that follow such activities and prescribe such activities it truly damages the whole congregation of any church.
> 
> Ward leaders and Bishops do not teach contrary to what is the official doctrine of the LDS church. If some have gone astray, it is less than a quarter of a percent that have done that and they are dealt with swiftly.
> 
> 
> Which gospel are you speaking about. The blue book or the Bible? I agree thoe who twist and pervert what Jesus taught will stand accountable. It is called a Rod of wrath and the Rod of correction.
> 
> I am talking about both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. The way we see it the Bible is in harmony with the "blue book" you disrespectfully refer to.
> 
> I take it here you are talking about the book of mormon. If those who take negative actions against others were chastised that may help your whole cause. By the way what is the cause of the Mormon church since you are saying that is who you represent. Is it to teach the Bible or the book of mormon? That seems to be a confused issue from what I have seen.



The reason that it may confuse some people is simply because they have not read the Book of Mormon, or understand what it is about. The Bible is a record of God's dealings with people of the fertile crescent area. The Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with his children in the new world. Both teach the divinity of Christ and the need for his Atonement. They firmly strengthen each other

by the way, some of my responses are included in your quotation above. I couldn't figure out how to get them out of the gray area.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> I am sorry you feel there is an undercurrent of corruption among the people. My feeling is that if there is an undercurrent of corruption in Utah, it is a lot less than anywhere else you will go. Also there may be a correlation between said corruption and the huge recent influx of non-members moving into the state. I am not so sure that there is a lot of corruption going on. I would be interested in some specifics there. But again I think we would be going off topic to discuss that. The main point of this thread is to clarify misconceptions about the church's teachings.



hah.

I lived in Salt Lake for ten years and worked for the SLC Police for five of the ten years.  Your feelings are incorrect.  Furthermore, when crimes are committed by high-ranking members of the church and their family members, the LDS church has a liaison with SLCPD to hush these situations up.

One of Thomas Monson's sons has quite a little hooker problem, for instance, but you will never read about it in the Deseret News.


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthspeaker said:


> Well because of the sacred nature of the undergarments which you call "Magic Undies", I won't be able to tell you everything. I have made promises not to discuss them in detail. What I will say however in a nutshell is that they are a symbol and a reminder to us daily to keep the commandments of God, it's just that they are worn out of sight, rather than displayed out in the open like in other religions, who were their religious symbols on their heads, around their necks or on their whole body.
> That will have to suffice.





That sounds very cult like to have "secrets" the public cant know.


----------



## Skeptik

First of all, thank you Truthspeaker for an enlightening thread about a largely misunderstood religion.  I didn't realize just how many misconceptions there were until Romney's run for the Republican nomination.  I heard people saying that the Mormons aren't Christian, that they once were sun worshipers, and I don't know how many other notions that are simply false.

The Mormon church says that Jesus and the Father restored the same church that Jesus establlshed on the Earth when He was here in the flesh.  It holds that Jesus visited the people of the Americas during the three days between the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Every other Christian church was established by a man, or by men, who read scriptures, interpreted scripture, and in some cases (Gnostics) picked out what would and would not be included in the Bible. 

Many of the evangelicals would condemn the pre Columbian people to Hell, as they never had a chance to hear the words of Christ.

What kind of god would be so unfair?

Mormons do not believe that people who have died without hearing the gospel are condemned to Hell.

Mormons believe in the apostasy (leaving the true church), and restoration.  

There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has read the history of Christianity that the apostasy really happened.  Therefore, if the true church is here, then it has to be the Mormon church.

In other words, if Christianity is correct, then Mormonism is also correct.  The only way that the true doctrines of Christ could have been restored is through prophecy.  No other church believes in modern prophecy, so far as I know.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> hah.
> 
> I lived in Salt Lake for ten years and worked for the SLC Police for five of the ten years.  Your feelings are incorrect.  Furthermore, when crimes are committed by high-ranking members of the church and their family members, the LDS church has a liaison with SLCPD to hush these situations up.
> 
> One of Thomas Monson's sons has quite a little hooker problem, for instance, but you will never read about it in the Deseret News.



There are a million people who would fabricate stories like this. Usually it is disgruntled ex-members who want to attack our culture to try and make us look bad. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not one of those. In which case, it doesn't matter if individuals in the police department are corrupt. Or even the Prophet's son if that is true. We are all individuals and corruption of which you are speaking is not preached from the pulpit or in any of our literature. Just because the prophet's son goes astray, like any prodigal son, or Saul from the Bible, or the son of Alma in the Book of Mormon who fought against the church, or people like this, there is hope for them to return to the true way and be forgiven of their sins through repentance. Christ's Atonement makes it possible.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> hah.
> 
> I lived in Salt Lake for ten years and worked for the SLC Police for five of the ten years.  Your feelings are incorrect.  Furthermore, when crimes are committed by high-ranking members of the church and their family members, the LDS church has a liaison with SLCPD to hush these situations up.
> 
> One of Thomas Monson's sons has quite a little hooker problem, for instance, but you will never read about it in the Deseret News.



The church doesn't run the PD, Senate, Government offices, or the News companies.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> That sounds very cult like to have "secrets" the public cant know.



The truth is, WE ARE A CULT. That's right! We absolutely are. I am not kidding. If you look up the definition of a cult, it reads: A system of specific religious beliefs or practices.
Not so bad is it. I am proud to be a cultist

If you are thinking that these garments we wear give us magical powers, we don't believe in that. If I told you all of the ordinances and tokens of the Temple you wouldn't think it was such a big deal. Like I said before, Because we respect the garment and it's symbolism to remind us to keep God's commandments, we don't talk about the specifics, but if I did, you wouldn't be that amazed.
You are more than welcome to find out what they are by being baptized and found worthy to enter the Temple.


----------



## jillian

Truthspeaker said:


> What questions do you have about baptism for the dead?



Mormonism is interesting... but my question is why do they feel the need to baptize dead jews who died in the holocaust?

That's a pretty big no-no, IMO.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> First of all, thank you Truthspeaker for an enlightening thread about a largely misunderstood religion.  I didn't realize just how many misconceptions there were until Romney's run for the Republican nomination.  I heard people saying that the Mormons aren't Christian, that they once were sun worshipers, and I don't know how many other notions that are simply false.
> 
> The Mormon church says that Jesus and the Father restored the same church that Jesus establlshed on the Earth when He was here in the flesh.  It holds that Jesus visited the people of the Americas during the three days between the crucifixion and the resurrection.
> 
> Every other Christian church was established by a man, or by men, who read scriptures, interpreted scripture, and in some cases (Gnostics) picked out what would and would not be included in the Bible.
> 
> Many of the evangelicals would condemn the pre Columbian people to Hell, as they never had a chance to hear the words of Christ.
> 
> What kind of god would be so unfair?
> 
> Mormons do not believe that people who have died without hearing the gospel are condemned to Hell.
> 
> Mormons believe in the apostasy (leaving the true church), and restoration.
> 
> There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who has read the history of Christianity that the apostasy really happened.  Therefore, if the true church is here, then it has to be the Mormon church.
> 
> In other words, if Christianity is correct, then Mormonism is also correct.  The only way that the true doctrines of Christ could have been restored is through prophecy.  No other church believes in modern prophecy, so far as I know.



You have got to be one of us. It's ok to admit it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

jillian said:


> Mormonism is interesting... but my question is why do they feel the need to baptize dead jews who died in the holocaust?
> 
> That's a pretty big no-no, IMO.



That's a legit question, I can understand where you are coming from.
We baptize by proxy every deceased persons name we can get our hands on, unless their family tells us not to. But it doesn't really matter. If one understands the doctrine of baptism for the dead, they would realize that once taught the gospel, those people on the other side of the veil have a choice to accept that baptism or reject it according to their own conscience. 

We are not making them members when they die, we are just baptizing them in case they decide to join once they have formed their own decision about the gospel.  We don't broadcast the names over the news so we are not slandering their name.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Also you will have to educate me. I don't know what IMO means


----------



## jillian

Truthspeaker said:


> That's a legit question, I can understand where you are coming from.
> We baptize by proxy every deceased persons name we can get our hands on, unless their family tells us not to. But it doesn't really matter. If one understands the doctrine of baptism for the dead, they would realize that once taught the gospel, those people on the other side of the veil have a choice to accept that baptism or reject it according to their own conscience.
> 
> We are not making them members when they die, we are just baptizing them in case they decide to join once they have formed their own decision about the gospel.  We don't broadcast the names over the news so we are not slandering their name.



The problem is that the people who died in the holocaust were specifically targeted because of their religion. We didn't change our religion during the inquisition. We didn't change our religion during the crusades. We didn't change our religion during the holocaust.... and all the pogroms and swastikas couldn't  make us afraid enough to do that.

I have no problem with people making choices about what they believe. But dead people aren't making a choice. Personally, I'd be really cranky if I thought I would be baptized. We don't like it much. I understand that it comes from a place where you want to do good... but that's like converting us against our will where even putting us into crematoriums couldn't make us do that. 

BTW, I mean no offense to you by saying that. Just discussing the issue. And, like I said, I find mormonism interesting and don't have any issues with LDS (so long as they aren't the guys from the sect who are marrying 14 year olds).


----------



## Truthspeaker

jillian said:


> The problem is that the people who died in the holocaust were specifically targeted because of their religion. We didn't change our religion during the inquisition. We didn't change our religion during the crusades. We didn't change our religion during the holocaust.... and all the pogroms and swastikas couldn't  make us afraid enough to do that.
> 
> I have no problem with people making choices about what they believe. But dead people aren't making a choice. Personally, I'd be really cranky if I thought I would be baptized. We don't like it much. I understand that it comes from a place where you want to do good... but that's like converting us against our will where even putting us into crematoriums couldn't make us do that.
> 
> BTW, I mean no offense to you by saying that. Just discussing the issue. And, like I said, I find mormonism interesting and don't have any issues with LDS (so long as they aren't the guys from the sect who are marrying 14 year olds).



As some might imagine, I get extremely excited when I get a chance to talk to a Jew about religion. Nobody respects Jews like we do. And again, the nature of the doctrine of baptism for the dead is not one of compulsory nature. As I said before each person in the realm of the afterlife has their own choice to accept that baptism or reject it. They know when it is going to take place and can choose to not show up if they want. There is no forcing here. 
In fact you may be surprised how much we understand about the Jews and their faith. We believe that the children of Israel are God's chosen people and that he will come to reclaim them and take vengeance on their oppressors. 
The reason some Jews are fascinated by the Book of Mormon is because it tells of a branch of Israel which was broken off of the house of Joseph and scattered into the nether most part of the Lord's vineyard. To follow a parable of the prophet Zenock.


----------



## Truthspeaker

About the pedophiles and polygamists, they broke off from us and are not recognized by us.  They have a weird interpretation of our doctrine which doesn't make sense to anyone of us who examines it. They say they believe in Joseph Smith as a prophet but they grossly twist his words to their desires. They are badly misinformed and got started by disgruntled ex-members who wanted more wives than they deserved, which was zero. the only ones they could convince of this were the young, impressionable teenage girls who had little say in the matter and wound up believing that their polygamst husbands were prophets and that they had to be married to them in order to make it to heaven, which is an abominable doctrine, but easy to believe when that is the only teacher you have.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthmatters said:


> That sounds very cult like to have "secrets" the public cant know.



The magic underwear are called garments, and have occult symbols on the breast, belly, and right thigh.  

Temple garment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The symbols were adopted by Joseph Smith from Masonic symbols (Smith was a Mason).


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> I am sorry you feel there is an undercurrent of corruption among the people. My feeling is that if there is an undercurrent of corruption in Utah, it is a lot less than anywhere else you will go. Also there may be a correlation between said corruption and the huge recent influx of non-members moving into the state. I am not so sure that there is a lot of corruption going on. I would be interested in some specifics there. But again I think we would be going off topic to discuss that. The main point of this thread is to clarify misconceptions about the church's teachings.



Have you ever lived in Utah?


----------



## sky dancer

The problem I have with LDS, is the enormous amount of money they poured into my state to pass Proposition 8.

What's up with that?


----------



## jillian

Truthspeaker said:


> As some might imagine, I get extremely excited when I get a chance to talk to a Jew about religion. Nobody respects Jews like we do. And again, the nature of the doctrine of baptism for the dead is not one of compulsory nature. As I said before each person in the realm of the afterlife has their own choice to accept that baptism or reject it. They know when it is going to take place and can choose to not show up if they want. There is no forcing here.
> In fact you may be surprised how much we understand about the Jews and their faith. We believe that the children of Israel are God's chosen people and that he will come to reclaim them and take vengeance on their oppressors.
> The reason some Jews are fascinated by the Book of Mormon is because it tells of a branch of Israel which was broken off of the house of Joseph and scattered into the nether most part of the Lord's vineyard. To follow a parable of the prophet Zenock.



I always find it so funny when someone gets "excited" to talk to a Jew about religion... lol... to me it's obviously no biggie given I'm pretty much surrounded by other jews, some of whom know a lot about our religion, some of whom know nothing about our religion and some, like me, who know a little about our re,ligion.. .and appreciate the things I get from it. I'll tell you the truth, though, I appreciate the whole chosen people thing, but I don't really subscribe to it because a) I think we're all loved equally; b) I think we all have an equal shot at paradise if we do good things; c) I find that the "chosen" thing has been used more to our detriment by people who hate us than for good, so I think it's fairly dangerous to either be treated as "chosen" or believe we're chosen.... particularly if, as in some branches of christianity where being chosen means dying fighting the anti-christ. 

I find all peaceful beliefs interesting.... 

And I understand what you're staying about the baptisms... but we really don't like it. And I happen to know that right now there's a dialogue going on between some of our orthodox community and your leadership where it will hopefully stop where we're concerned. It's kind of a biggie to us. 

Pleasure to meet you, btw.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> The magic underwear are called garments, and have occult symbols on the breast, belly, and right thigh.
> 
> Temple garment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The symbols were adopted by Joseph Smith from Masonic symbols (Smith was a Mason).



That is what most people think. And on the surface it would make sense. However it is not that simple. Joseph did align himself with the masons for a time because he was curious as to what it is they teach. When he inquired of the Lord as to the meaning of the symbols and tokens used by the Masons, he was told that they were not being used for their true purpose and had lost their meaning. He had revealed to him later the true meaning of the symbols and the correct demonstration of them. Just like many branches of Christianity had kept precious truths over the years since the apostacy, such was the case with the Masons. However, we believe that the full gospel was restored with all the important ordinances required for salvation when Joseph Smith had them given to him by angels and God himself. Piece by piece he was given the rites and ordinances necessary and eventually was commanded to lead God's restored church. That is the doctrine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Have you ever lived in Utah?



yes


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> The problem I have with LDS, is the enormous amount of money they poured into my state to pass Proposition 8.
> 
> What's up with that?



I understand why people would be angry with us for our general opposition to gay marriage. That is our stance because we believe homosexuality is a sin that can be repented of and beaten, never to be tempted with it again, by applying the atonement of Christ in their lives.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Piece by piece he was given the rites and ordinances necessary and eventually was commanded to lead God's restored church. That is the doctrine.



Occham's razor, dude.  I'm sure that's the story promoted by the church, but the symbols happen to be identical to those used in freemasonry, and the explanations given in the temple are virtually identical, as well.  The simplest explanation is likely right.  Smith must have been a very charismatic sort of con man, at the least.  And of course, since members of the LDS church are discouraged from becoming freemasons these days, they are unlikely to discover the truth.


----------



## sky dancer

If Mormons want to baptize me after I'm dead and cremated, so be it.  I'll already be in my next incarnation so it doesn't matter to me.

The motivation for the after death baptisms seem harmless enough to me.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> yes



For what length of time, not counting the MTC?


----------



## Truthmatters

Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wyhat does the LDS teach you about the Mountain Meadows Massacre?


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> If Mormons want to baptize me after I'm dead and cremated, so be it.  I'll already be in my next incarnation so it doesn't matter to me.
> 
> The motivation for the after death baptisms seem harmless enough to me.



I'm sure that for those who believe in a different faith, to baptize their loved ones after their deaths, into a faith they never espoused in life, seems the height of disrespect.  Particularly when the people in question died heinous deaths at the hands of the Nazis.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I understand why people would be angry with us for our general opposition to gay marriage. That is our stance because we believe homosexuality is a sin that can be repented of and beaten, never to be tempted with it again, by applying the atonement of Christ in their lives.



That's why I am so happy to not be a Mormon.  I'm Buddhist, and was married in a Buddhist monastery by a Lama and legally married in California.

Homosexuality is not considered a sin in my spiritual tradition.  

What I think is obnoxious is your church thinking to impose your values on other people who aren't LDS.

Utah needs to stick to Utah's business.

I've counseled a couple of gay Mormons and they were the most confused men I ever met in my life.  

One of them was married and was in the habit of getting drunk and having sex with a man and then MOVING HIS ENTIRE FAMILY out of town and out of state every time he lapsed.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> What I think is obnoxious is your church thinking to impose your values on other people who aren't LDS.
> 
> Utah needs to stick to Utah's business.



I'm sure the church became involved because of the huge number of LDS faithful in southern california.


----------



## Dr Grump

I see Mormons as nice friendly people. They are a cult, but a nice cult. Not too many religions that are cults are nice. In fact, most a paranoid.....Mormons aren't...


----------



## Truthspeaker

jillian said:


> I always find it so funny when someone gets "excited" to talk to a Jew about religion... lol... to me it's obviously no biggie given I'm pretty much surrounded by other jews, some of whom know a lot about our religion, some of whom know nothing about our religion and some, like me, who know a little about our re,ligion.. .and appreciate the things I get from it. I'll tell you the truth, though, I appreciate the whole chosen people thing, but I don't really subscribe to it because a) I think we're all loved equally; b) I think we all have an equal shot at paradise if we do good things; c) I find that the "chosen" thing has been used more to our detriment by people who hate us than for good, so I think it's fairly dangerous to either be treated as "chosen" or believe we're chosen.... particularly if, as in some branches of christianity where being chosen means dying fighting the anti-christ.
> 
> I find all peaceful beliefs interesting....
> 
> And I understand what you're staying about the baptisms... but we really don't like it. And I happen to know that right now there's a dialogue going on between some of our orthodox community and your leadership where it will hopefully stop where we're concerned. It's kind of a biggie to us.
> 
> Pleasure to meet you, btw.



Likewise a pleasure. There is also a wide misunderstanding of Jews, which has led to their persecution, of which we feel we can relate, since we also had an extermination order placed on us by the Governor of Missouri. A lot of us were murdered by intolerant, so-called Christians.
We also believe that everyone is loved equally by God, as quoted in The Book of Nephi chapter 28 "Wherefore all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, black and white. And he remembereth the heathen, and all are made partakers of salvation. For he denieth none that he should come unto him but inviteth all that they should partake of his salvation."

When we use the phrase "chosen people" it doesn't mean that they are guaranteed paradise. We believe that they were chosen first to receive the Gospel and eventually will be the last to accept it, thus fulfilling the prophecy, the last shall be first and the first shall be last. 
As for the baptisms, I heard somewhat about Jews being upset and I believe we stopped performing the ordinances for names in question because their families complained. So we wouldn't fight over it. These things have a way of working themselves out in the next life anyway.
There is so much more to it than just this life here.


----------



## sky dancer

Doc Grump--

What makes Mormons a cult?


----------



## sky dancer

Here is an organization for gay and lesbian Mormons

Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Occham's razor, dude.  I'm sure that's the story promoted by the church, but the symbols happen to be identical to those used in freemasonry, and the explanations given in the temple are virtually identical, as well.  The simplest explanation is likely right.  Smith must have been a very charismatic sort of con man, at the least.  And of course, since members of the LDS church are discouraged from becoming freemasons these days, they are unlikely to discover the truth.



So you say, but I think I know a little more about my religion than you do. there are definite differences between the symbols the masons use and the ones we use. and different meanings. some are the same, some are not.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> If Mormons want to baptize me after I'm dead and cremated, so be it.  I'll already be in my next incarnation so it doesn't matter to me.
> 
> The motivation for the after death baptisms seem harmless enough to me.



It certainly is harmless. But if someone tells us not to perform the ordinance on them or their family while they are alive, then we will honor their request.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> For what length of time, not counting the MTC?



Not counting the numerous visits to family and friends, I have lived there for 1 month at a time. All combined I have spent at least a year physically in the state, but I am not sure why it is so important for you to know. 
Mormons usually are attacked for not getting out. I live in San Francisco so I think I have a pretty fair view of the spectrum.


----------



## Dr Grump

sky dancer said:


> Doc Grump--
> 
> What makes Mormons a cult?



Wikipedia sums it up nicely: New religions are often considered "cults" before they are considered religions by social scientists.

Some would argue Mormons have moved beyond a cult. Christianity and Islam were cults once, and most consider Scientology to be one now. The difference between a cult and a religion appears to be about 1000 years 

Personally I think all religions are cults:O)


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wyhat does the LDS teach you about the Mountain Meadows Massacre?



I tell you what, I am surely impressed with the questions you guys bring up. I can see why you haven't gotten a lot of answers to them before. Fortunately church history and doctrine are kind of my hobbies and passion if you will. I will get to this one but I gotta get home to my son's birthday party or my wives will kill me.
Be back on later this evening, so keep the questions coming.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> It certainly is harmless. But if someone tells us not to perform the ordinance on them or their family while they are alive, then we will honor their request.



What is your view of other spiritual paths?  Do you think that baptising others who are not Mormon is respectful of others?

Why does someone have to make a special appeal to be let off the hook with your baptisms?


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> So you say, but I think I know a little more about my religion than you do. there are definite differences between the symbols the masons use and the ones we use. and different meanings. some are the same, some are not.



Why do you believe this?  You know nothing about me.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Not counting the numerous visits to family and friends, I have lived there for 1 month at a time. All combined I have spent at least a year physically in the state, but I am not sure why it is so important for you to know.



I don't think you can definitively address the culture and/or existence of corruption in the state of Utah having never resided there for any length of time.  Taking your relatives' word for it is sloppy.

I lived in Utah for 10 years.  For five of those years, I worked for the major police agency in the state.  You make the claim that the culture in Utah is immune to corruption, and if corruption exists, it is likely from outsiders.  I disagree.  Close to 90% of the population of Utah is Mormon.  However, the state has the highest PER CAPITA rate of suicide and child sexual abuse in the U.S.  For many years running, Utah has been in the top five states in the nation, overall (not per capita) in clandestine methamphetamine labs, in spite of its relatively small population size.  It has an exceptionally high rate of methamphetamine abuse, as well as abuse of prescription drugs.

There is no state in the country with a more concentrated population of LDS faithful.  And yet, the state has more serious problems with suicide, child sexual abuse, and drug abuse than most other states.  If the LDS church is as efficacious as you suggest, certainly, this would not be the case.

You are here wanting to proselytize for your faith.  Fine.  But, I know just as much about it, and lived immersed in it for more than a decade.  If you plan to gloss over the numerous serious problems with your faith, be on notice that I will not let you slide.  I consider your faith extremely socially detrimental.  It imposes an unachievable standard on people that is probably directly correlated to the high suicide rates.  I spent day after day immersed with serious crime problems in the capital of your faith.

I know the dark underbelly of your beliefs in a way that you never will.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> It certainly is harmless. But if someone tells us not to perform the ordinance on them or their family while they are alive, then we will honor their request.


And then, when they have passed away, you'll do it anyway.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> The church doesn't run the PD, Senate, Government offices, or the News companies.



Actually Orin Hatch and Hunstmans are mormon, I've met them both ! Additionally the Deseret Newspaper is mormon run, I know the Daughter whose father for many years ran KSL which was mormon influenced heavily. To say the Church has no influence whether for the good or bad in utah is just not true. I can accept your "ideal" that it shouldn't be that way or that if some folks in the political arena push the Church agenda and are being corrupt that is against what the church wants and so they will be dealt with accordingly in one of the kingdoms. But To say to people who have lived here 10 years, 20 years or all there life that it just doesnt happen, is either naive or untrue on your part. I worked for a mayor once (namewithheld) and was encouraged to go to a city council meeting and while there every member on that city council was mormon and in fact went to the same ward. One of the city residents addressed them at the mic as "The High Council" (freudian slip) and the whole room laughed except for the gentiles. So don't act like it doesnt happen in utah. I have lived here a long time and it does happen.


----------



## catzmeow

> The church doesn't run the PD, Senate, Government offices, or the News companies



:falls down laughing her ass off:

Well, that's a naive perspective, poorly connected from reality.  The Deseret News is indeed owned by the church, and KSL television is heavily influenced by the church.  The vast majority of elected officials in Utah are LDS.  I think the Senate at this point is probably about 90% active LDS.  As far as the police departments are concerned, it varies.  The influence of the church is indeed far-reaching.

And, when the first presidency makes a phone call to the governor's office, you better know that the governor says, "how high?" when told to jump.

As I thought, you have no clue about how life in Utah actually works.


----------



## no1tovote4

There is a common belief that John Smith was a Freemason and stole much of the symbolism of Mormonism from the Freemasons.

I have a few questions that should either begin to dispel or maintain the myth.

1. Are there three degrees for entry to the Temple, with handshakes?
2. Are you raised into the Temple?
3. Are there passwords?


----------



## catzmeow

chloe said:


> A But To say to people who have lived here 10 years, 20 years or all there life that it just doesnt happen, is either naive or untrue on your part.



He has no clue.


----------



## catzmeow

no1tovote4 said:


> There is a common belief that John Smith was a Freemason and stole much of the symbolism of Mormonism from the Freemasons.
> 
> I have a few questions that should either begin to dispel or maintain the myth.
> 
> 1. Are there three degrees for entry to the Temple, with handshakes?
> 2. Are you raised into the Temple?
> 3. Are there passwords?



I think the name you're looking for here is Joseph Smith.  There is use of a handshake in the temple, along with certain gestures, and everyone who goes through receiving their ordinances in the temple also receives a temple name.


----------



## no1tovote4

catzmeow said:


> I think the name you're looking for here is Joseph Smith.  There is use of a handshake in the temple, along with certain gestures, and everyone who goes through receiving their ordinances in the temple also receives a temple name.


Yeah, Joseph Smith.  Give me a break, I'm not even a Christian, let alone a Mormon.  You're lucky if I get that Jeebus guy right!


----------



## no1tovote4

catzmeow said:


> I think the name you're looking for here is Joseph Smith.  There is use of a handshake in the temple, along with certain gestures, and everyone who goes through receiving their ordinances in the temple also receives a temple name.


That didn't help to dispel this belief at all.  Bummer.  Although you don't receive any special name when you become a Freemason.


----------



## catzmeow

no1tovote4 said:


> That didn't help to dispel this belief at all.  Bummer.  Although you don't receive any special name when you become a Freemason.


Oh, I think they are very similar.  I'm no freemason, but the similarities are striking.  I suspect that huge portions of the LDS temple ceremony are stolen wholesale from freemasonry.


----------



## no1tovote4

catzmeow said:


> Oh, I think they are very similar.  I'm no freemason, but the similarities are striking.  I suspect that huge portions of the LDS temple ceremony are stolen wholesale from freemasonry.


It makes sense, using symbolism to help teach ideas is as old as man himself.


----------



## chloe

jillian said:


> The problem is that the people who died in the holocaust were specifically targeted because of their religion. We didn't change our religion during the inquisition. We didn't change our religion during the crusades. We didn't change our religion during the holocaust.... and all the pogroms and swastikas couldn't  make us afraid enough to do that.
> 
> I have no problem with people making choices about what they believe. But dead people aren't making a choice. Personally, I'd be really cranky if I thought I would be baptized. We don't like it much. I understand that it comes from a place where you want to do good... but that's like converting us against our will where even putting us into crematoriums couldn't make us do that.
> 
> BTW, I mean no offense to you by saying that. Just discussing the issue. And, like I said, I find mormonism interesting and don't have any issues with LDS (so long as they aren't the guys from the sect who are marrying 14 year olds).



Well the World Family Center Genealogy library is the biggest and best kept around the world the church has archived history of all the ancestors in the world for the purpose of baptising the dead. This is because they believe so much in saving people after death giving them one more chance. Even if the Jewish religion doesn't approve the church will continue and they don't really need your info they can get it from genealogy eventually.


----------



## jillian

chloe said:


> Well the World Family Center Genealogy library is the biggest and best kept around the world the church has archived history of all the ancestors in the world for the purpose of baptising the dead. This is because they believe so much in saving people after death giving them one more chance. Even if the Jewish religion doesn't approve the church will continue and they don't really need your info they can get it from genealogy eventually.



They need to stop ... it's offensive to us. We don't view it sa them "saving" us. And we don't need to be "saved" by someone else's belief.

As I said, those people were targeted because they were jews. Trying to make them not jews and distort the geneology is wrong.


----------



## no1tovote4

chloe said:


> Well the World Family Center Genealogy library is the biggest and best kept around the world the church has archived history of all the ancestors in the world for the purpose of baptising the dead. This is because they believe so much in saving people after death giving them one more chance. Even if the Jewish religion doesn't approve the church will continue and they don't really need your info they can get it from genealogy eventually.


Are people allowed to access that genealogy if they simply have an interest?

It is doubtful I will ever be a Latter Day Saint as I have difficulty even thinking of God in the same manner as most Western religions do even though I was raised in a Pentecostal church.  But I would love to be able to see if my family were in this book.

And BTW - Buddhists don't care if you baptize them after the body they currently inhabit dies.


----------



## chloe

no1tovote4 said:


> Are people allowed to access that genealogy if they simply have an interest?
> 
> It is doubtful I will ever be a Latter Day Saint as I have difficulty even thinking of God in the same manner as most Western religions do even though I was raised in a Pentecostal church.  But I would love to be able to see if my family were in this book.



Absolutely, its 100% free, it is  the best Genealogy center in the world, you can have access to immigrations records, ship passenger lists, birth & death certificates, census and voting records, the list goes on....They even have a new DNA Project (but that costs money) and you can swab your mouth and see who you family line is related to genetically.


----------



## no1tovote4

chloe said:


> Absolutely, its 100% free, it is  the best Genealogy center in the world, you can have access to immigrations records, ship passenger lists, birth & death certificates, census and voting records, the list goes on....They even have a new DNA Project (but that costs money) and you can swab your mouth and see who you family line is related to genetically.


How much does it cost?  My father was adopted, I would be fascinated to find out such things.


----------



## sky dancer

jillian said:


> They need to stop ... it's offensive to us. We don't view it sa them "saving" us. And we don't need to be "saved" by someone else's belief.
> 
> As I said, those people were targeted because they were jews. Trying to make them not jews and distort the geneology is wrong.



I would think any non-Mormon would have been 'targeted' for baptism.


----------



## chloe

no1tovote4 said:


> How much does it cost?  My father was adopted, I would be fascinated to find out such things.



It's $100 bucks for each line mothers or fathers or you can do both at a discount, look up DNA Project they have a website.


----------



## no1tovote4

chloe said:


> It's $100 bucks for each line mothers or fathers or you can do both at a discount, look up DNA Project they have a website.


I will do.

Is the genealogy available online as well?


----------



## chloe

You can only get the free access at the World family center in downtown salt lake city utah. But you can subscribe to Ancestor.com an affiliate to the church, still its pretty expensive if your going for worldwide records. You can only get all access free in slc. The Church has volunteers at the center and they will help you research whatever your looking for. They have several floors of archives & records and people who speak every world language to help you.


----------



## chloe

sky dancer said:


> I would think any non-Mormon would have been 'targeted' for baptism.



This is true all the ancestors unbaptised would be put on a list by a friend or living relative for baptism.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Doc Grump--
> 
> What makes Mormons a cult?



The truth is, WE ARE A CULT. That's right! We absolutely are. I am not kidding. If you look up the definition of a cult, it reads: A system of specific religious beliefs or practices.
Not so bad is it. I am proud to be a cultist


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> I'm sure that for those who believe in a different faith, to baptize their loved ones after their deaths, into a faith they never espoused in life, seems the height of disrespect.  Particularly when the people in question died heinous deaths at the hands of the Nazis.



Maybe people can consider it disrespectful. If they have a problem with it they can have their families names removed from the list.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> That's why I am so happy to not be a Mormon.  I'm Buddhist, and was married in a Buddhist monastery by a Lama and legally married in California.
> 
> Homosexuality is not considered a sin in my spiritual tradition.
> 
> What I think is obnoxious is your church thinking to impose your values on other people who aren't LDS.
> 
> Utah needs to stick to Utah's business.
> 
> I've counseled a couple of gay Mormons and they were the most confused men I ever met in my life.
> 
> One of them was married and was in the habit of getting drunk and having sex with a man and then MOVING HIS ENTIRE FAMILY out of town and out of state every time he lapsed.



We are willing to have people think we are trying to impose if it means protecting values we hold sacred. We are not imposing our way of life on anyone. We voted on an issue we were allowed to vote on. We made up a small minority of the vote, so we certainly don't deserve all the credit for passing prop 8.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Here is an organization for gay and lesbian Mormons
> 
> Affirmation: Gay & Lesbian Mormons



That's nice, they don't have any idea what they are talking about.


----------



## no1tovote4

Tell us the truth about the people on the moon.  

I know a bunch of it, but I think it will come better from you.

It began, as I understand it, in a magazine article, in fact an LDS magazine entitled "The Young Woman's Journal," wherein there was an assertion that the Prophet told somebody that they would preach to the inhabitants of the moon.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> What is your view of other spiritual paths?  Do you think that baptising others who are not Mormon is respectful of others?
> 
> Why does someone have to make a special appeal to be let off the hook with your baptisms?



Because of our belief in the afterlife and the type of life that goes on in the next existence, we believe it is very good to baptize individuals in case they would have accepted the gospel had they had the chance to.
As for other religious paths, we don't condemn them. We believe God takes into consideration all plights and circumstances and in fact many of them will achieve paradise a lot sooner than a lot of so called "Mormons". God doesn't judge us on what religion we are a part of as much as what is in our hearts and what we do with knowledge we receive and how kind we are to others.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Why do you believe this?  You know nothing about me.



I believe the things I have said because of the research and prayer I have done. This thread is not about you or how much I know about you. It is about clarifying the truth about Mormons. I am not here to debate our principles or apologize for them. I am here to state them so people can be informed about us and form their own opinions based on truth and not heresay.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> That's nice, they don't have any idea what they are talking about.



It bugs you, nonetheless.  Why is that?

http://www.gaymormon.com/


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Because of our belief in the afterlife and the type of life that goes on in the next existence, we believe it is very good to baptize individuals in case they would have accepted the gospel had they had the chance to.
> As for other religious paths, we don't condemn them. We believe God takes into consideration all plights and circumstances and in fact many of them will achieve paradise a lot sooner than a lot of so called "Mormons". God doesn't judge us on what religion we are a part of as much as what is in our hearts and what we do with knowledge we receive and how kind we are to others.



Your assertion is that whatever YOU believe is paramount and whatever other paths human beings follow is 'lesser' somehow.

You baptize the deceased whether they would have accepted the gospel or not.   

Where is it you think the dead are when they are being 'baptized'?


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> I don't think you can definitively address the culture and/or existence of corruption in the state of Utah having never resided there for any length of time.  Taking your relatives' word for it is sloppy.
> 
> I lived in Utah for 10 years.  For five of those years, I worked for the major police agency in the state.  You make the claim that the culture in Utah is immune to corruption, and if corruption exists, it is likely from outsiders.  I disagree.  Close to 90% of the population of Utah is Mormon.  However, the state has the highest PER CAPITA rate of suicide and child sexual abuse in the U.S.  For many years running, Utah has been in the top five states in the nation, overall (not per capita) in clandestine methamphetamine labs, in spite of its relatively small population size.  It has an exceptionally high rate of methamphetamine abuse, as well as abuse of prescription drugs.
> 
> There is no state in the country with a more concentrated population of LDS faithful.  And yet, the state has more serious problems with suicide, child sexual abuse, and drug abuse than most other states.  If the LDS church is as efficacious as you suggest, certainly, this would not be the case.
> 
> You are here wanting to proselytize for your faith.  Fine.  But, I know just as much about it, and lived immersed in it for more than a decade.  If you plan to gloss over the numerous serious problems with your faith, be on notice that I will not let you slide.  I consider your faith extremely socially detrimental.  It imposes an unachievable standard on people that is probably directly correlated to the high suicide rates.  I spent day after day immersed with serious crime problems in the capital of your faith.
> 
> I know the dark underbelly of your beliefs in a way that you never will.




I don't have time to debate your bogus stats. they are so illogical it blows my mind. I NEVER said that the state was incapable of corruption. I actually backed you up by saying it is possible for individuals to be corrupt. I never claimed Utah to be some holy city in the clouds. My only claim was that the churches teachings are not corrupt. I have invited you over and over again to ask questions about our teachings, not questionable individuals who operate without church sanction. 
I have invited you to expose the "dark underbelly" of the which you know so much but you have shown nothing other than mention individual sins of people who happen to have membership in the church on paper. I fail to see any logic in your argument and it is clear that you are bitter at an organization that has not wronged you when you should be bitter towards individuals. In fact you shouldn't be bitter at anyone. It takes time off of your life to worry about what other people are doing. Let them do their thing and worry about your own life and doing good to others.


----------



## sky dancer

This site has been created to provide a forum for gay men, lesbians and their families and friends to share their stories. The common denominator is Mormonism with the hope that those who are journeying therein will feel less alone after reading these stories.



At best, the Mormon Church has provided a less than hospitable environment for its gay and lesbian members, leaving most of us to find our own way out of the confusion, condemnation and guilt. It can be a pretty lonely road and sometimes just knowing that somebody else is going through the same things we are helps make the journey a little easier.



Rather than going to battle with the Mormon Church over its beliefs and practices, this site focuses on the first-person narratives of those who are impacted by it all. Sometimes we get so caught up in the doctrine that we forget the human toll involved in a one-size-fits-all plan. Hopefully these stories will help put a more human face on the complex issues of religion and sexuality and generate a greater feeling of tolerance and understanding.
Gay Mormon Stories - Family & Friends


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> And then, when they have passed away, you'll do it anyway.



No we won't. You act like we barge into peoples homes interrogate them to find out where the grave is, dig them up and baptize their corpses. You are way wrong.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Actually Orin Hatch and Hunstmans are mormon, I've met them both ! Additionally the Deseret Newspaper is mormon run, I know the Daughter whose father for many years ran KSL which was mormon influenced heavily. To say the Church has no influence whether for the good or bad in utah is just not true. I can accept your "ideal" that it shouldn't be that way or that if some folks in the political arena push the Church agenda and are being corrupt that is against what the church wants and so they will be dealt with accordingly in one of the kingdoms. But To say to people who have lived here 10 years, 20 years or all there life that it just doesnt happen, is either naive or untrue on your part. I worked for a mayor once (namewithheld) and was encouraged to go to a city council meeting and while there every member on that city council was mormon and in fact went to the same ward. One of the city residents addressed them at the mic as "The High Council" (freudian slip) and the whole room laughed except for the gentiles. So don't act like it doesnt happen in utah. I have lived here a long time and it does happen.



You guys are missing the point. You are still pointing out wrongdoings by individuals in a government setting who happen to be mormon by virtue of the percentage of mormons in the population. I never said that this doesn't happen and you are right to assume that it would be naive and untrue. that is not what I am saying.


----------



## sky dancer

I think it's possible truthspeaker, that you are missing many posters points.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> :falls down laughing her ass off:
> 
> Well, that's a naive perspective, poorly connected from reality.  The Deseret News is indeed owned by the church, and KSL television is heavily influenced by the church.  The vast majority of elected officials in Utah are LDS.  I think the Senate at this point is probably about 90% active LDS.  As far as the police departments are concerned, it varies.  The influence of the church is indeed far-reaching.
> 
> And, when the first presidency makes a phone call to the governor's office, you better know that the governor says, "how high?" when told to jump.
> 
> As I thought, you have no clue about how life in Utah actually works.



Ok, will give you that I forgot about DESERET NEWS. It's not like they push mormon propaganda anyway. Of course the church through it's teaching of individuals is going to have an effect on the community. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that. You are way out of line if you think that President Monson gets on the phone with government officials to dictate policy. Nope never happened except when it comes to what we consider to be a moral issue. Very rarely does that even happen except for recently with the gay marriage issue.
Of course the population of the senate and other government officials is going to be represented by mainly mormons. What are they supposed to elect all non-mormons. Your argument misses the mark. Again you can't claim church involvement with individual or political decisions except moral ones.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> There is a common belief that John Smith was a Freemason and stole much of the symbolism of Mormonism from the Freemasons.
> 
> I have a few questions that should either begin to dispel or maintain the myth.
> 
> 1. Are there three degrees for entry to the Temple, with handshakes?
> 2. Are you raised into the Temple?
> 3. Are there passwords?



You can do your own research on that, but only because of my covenants I will not talk about such details. What I will say is that it is not important to the discussion. There are rituals and and performances that go on in the temple to remind us to keep a steadfast faith in Christ and keep his commandments.
And before you ask, there is no nudity.


----------



## Skeptik

sky dancer said:


> Your assertion is that whatever YOU believe is paramount and whatever other paths human beings follow is 'lesser' somehow.
> 
> You baptize the deceased whether they would have accepted the gospel or not.
> 
> Where is it you think the dead are when they are being 'baptized'?



One of the big differences between Mormons and Evangelicals is that the latter believe that a person who dies without accepting Christ is lost forever, never mind whether or not he/she even heard of the Christian god.  

I've never understood how anyone could believe that Mahatma Ghandi, for example, would have to be damned for not being a Christian, but that's just me.

Mormons believe that the dead are in Paradise (not the same as heaven, but close) with others, particularly family members who have predeceased them.  

If there is anything that could change a person's belief system, it is to wake up after death, and find that they are with their parents an grandparents in Paradise.  If, after having experienced death and finding out what is on the other side, the Mormons believe that the person might accept baptism.  If not, then the baptism for the dead has no effect, so nothing is being forced on anyone.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> Yeah, Joseph Smith.  Give me a break, I'm not even a Christian, let alone a Mormon.  You're lucky if I get that Jeebus guy right!



I like that you have a sense of humor.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> That didn't help to dispel this belief at all.  Bummer.  Although you don't receive any special name when you become a Freemason.



this woman claims to know so much but she's just angry at us and trying to cross me up unsuccessfully. she is not interested in the truth about mormons. She only wants to spread more false rumors about us mixed in with half truths and attacks on individuals who operate outside of church sanction.


----------



## Truthspeaker

jillian said:


> They need to stop ... it's offensive to us. We don't view it sa them "saving" us. And we don't need to be "saved" by someone else's belief.
> 
> As I said, those people were targeted because they were jews. Trying to make them not jews and distort the geneology is wrong.



Again you guys are missing the mark. We are not transforming dead people into members. People who have had a problem with it and have asked us to stop have been respected. We will never get all the names done anyway. that ordinance does not save people by itself. we are not forcing anyone to go into our temple and do this. It is mormons who go in to do it themselves and if you don't believe in it, then you could just call us crazy wackos and ignore it. We don't steal records, we only have them given to us or we will take names that are out in the open and don't need to be stolen. 
There is a big misconception that I hope I just cleared up.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> Are people allowed to access that genealogy if they simply have an interest?
> 
> It is doubtful I will ever be a Latter Day Saint as I have difficulty even thinking of God in the same manner as most Western religions do even though I was raised in a Pentecostal church.  But I would love to be able to see if my family were in this book.
> 
> And BTW - Buddhists don't care if you baptize them after the body they currently inhabit dies.



Yes you may access your genealogy  very simply. I can't remember the website but every congregation has a family history expert who can show you how to do it without proselytizing or pressuring you at all. It shouldn't be hard to google it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I would think any non-Mormon would have been 'targeted' for baptism.



That is true, it is not about picking out Jews.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> I will do.
> 
> Is the genealogy available online as well?



It's not just in Salt Lake that it's free, I know for sure it is free at any church that has the program set up and definitely at any temple visitors center.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> Tell us the truth about the people on the moon.
> 
> I know a bunch of it, but I think it will come better from you.
> 
> It began, as I understand it, in a magazine article, in fact an LDS magazine entitled "The Young Woman's Journal," wherein there was an assertion that the Prophet told somebody that they would preach to the inhabitants of the moon.



I honestly have never heard of such an article. I don't know what to say.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> It bugs you, nonetheless.  Why is that?
> 
> GayMormon - Directory of Information on Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon)



It doesn't really bug me or surprise me, it just shows how uneducated they are about their professed religion. There are no teachings in our church to support their actions. That is why I say they don't know what they are talking about. They say they want reform in the church, but they don't understand the church doesn't reform and never has. It's policies are always revealed to the Prophet, not a vote of the people.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Your assertion is that whatever YOU believe is paramount and whatever other paths human beings follow is 'lesser' somehow.
> 
> You baptize the deceased whether they would have accepted the gospel or not.
> 
> Where is it you think the dead are when they are being 'baptized'?



Now there is an intelligent question about doctrine. I applaud you for this

Now you have put yourself in a position for me to inform you about our teachings.
Yes I do believe that our teachings are true. I don't have a problem with someone else claiming their beliefs are true, that is their right to freedom of religion. I will fight for others freedoms too and so will all of us. But just because I feel my churches teachings are correct does not mean that I am trying to put down others. I am sorry and apologize if I gave that impression. It was not my intent. But you ask a wonderful question as to the whereabouts of spirits when they pass on.
The body separates from the spirit but continues on in an existence right here among us in an unseen world not unlike the society we live in. People live their lives the way they want to, associate with influences they normally would while here. They maintain their personality traits and weakness and strengths. The same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there. The one guarantee is that eventually before the final judgment everyone whether in the spirit world or during the 1000 year period following Christs return where everyone will get their bodies back,  everyone will get a chance to hear the full uninterrupted gospel and accept or reject it for themselves.


----------



## no1tovote4

Truthspeaker said:


> You can do your own research on that, but only because of my covenants I will not talk about such details. What I will say is that it is not important to the discussion. There are rituals and and performances that go on in the temple to remind us to keep a steadfast faith in Christ and keep his commandments.
> And before you ask, there is no nudity.


I never suspected there was any nudity involved.  (BTW there is no nudity involved in any Freemasons Degree work).

I just wondered whether there were as many similarities as suggested. However such research is hampered by either apologists or theorists, actual knowledge is hard to come by, and if found may be unrecognized.


----------



## no1tovote4

Truthspeaker said:


> I like that you have a sense of humor.


Well thanks.


----------



## no1tovote4

Truthspeaker said:


> I honestly have never heard of such an article. I don't know what to say.


Really?  Awesome!  I came up with a question you haven't heard...

Well, I'll help to dispel that one as it is one that I hear to disparage LDS pretty consistently.

Here is the wording of the article I spoke of earlier in the thread:



> "Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do - that they live generally to near the age of a 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style. In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and - to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes. The first two promises have been fulfilled, and the latter may be verified. From the verification of two promises we may reasonably expect the third to be fulfilled also." &#8230; "The inspiration of God caused men to hunt for a new continent until Columbus discovered it. Men have lost millions of dollars and hundreds of lives to find a country beyond the north pole; and they will yet find that country - a warm, fruitful country, inhabited by the ten tribes of Israel, a country divided by a river, on one side of which lives the half tribe of Manasseh, which is more numerous than all the others. So said the Prophet.&#8221; (quoted in THE INHABITANTS OF THE MOON, O. B. Huntington&#8221; The Young Woman's Journal, vol. 3, pages 263, 264.).



Now there are several things inconsistent here with maintaining that it was his "prophecy".  It may seem strange to us now, but back at that time it was a common belief that the moon and the sun may be inhabited and speak as such in regular conversation, however in this case it is hearsay of a prophesy that we are getting.

I did a bit of research, because I tend to like to know about things like that when people start in on it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> This site has been created to provide a forum for gay men, lesbians and their families and friends to share their stories. The common denominator is Mormonism with the hope that those who are journeying therein will feel less alone after reading these stories.
> 
> 
> 
> At best, the Mormon Church has provided a less than hospitable environment for its gay and lesbian members, leaving most of us to find our own way out of the confusion, condemnation and guilt. It can be a pretty lonely road and sometimes just knowing that somebody else is going through the same things we are helps make the journey a little easier.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than going to battle with the Mormon Church over its beliefs and practices, this site focuses on the first-person narratives of those who are impacted by it all. Sometimes we get so caught up in the doctrine that we forget the human toll involved in a one-size-fits-all plan. Hopefully these stories will help put a more human face on the complex issues of religion and sexuality and generate a greater feeling of tolerance and understanding.
> Gay Mormon Stories - Family & Friends



I and we as a church have never taught hate toward homosexuals. They have been invited over and over to our meetings. We understand that people are tempted with things that not everyone is tempted with. We invite all to come to Christ and seek a personal relationship with him. We believe that those who truly do, eventually will be free of all temptations, whatever the sin may be. We don't act like any sin is more wrong than another, they are all equally wrong in the sight of God. Please don't misunderstand our intolerance for sin as an intolerance of you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> I never suspected there was any nudity involved.  (BTW there is no nudity involved in any Freemasons Degree work).
> 
> I just wondered whether there were as many similarities as suggested. However such research is hampered by either apologists or theorists, actual knowledge is hard to come by, and if found may be unrecognized.



I will not apologize. I do have the knowledge and so wish to give it to you. The masons are not far off I will say but there are a lot of similarities. A lot of people assume we have some whacked out practices in the temple but not so. They are very mild mannered and conservative and a reverence for deity permeates the very quiet atmosphere. It is very pleasant and peaceful to be there.


----------



## Truthspeaker

no1tovote4 said:


> Really?  Awesome!  I came up with a question you haven't heard...
> 
> Well, I'll help to dispel that one as it is one that I hear to disparage LDS pretty consistently.
> 
> Here is the wording of the article I spoke of earlier in the thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Now there are several things inconsistent here with maintaining that it was his "prophecy".  It may seem strange to us now, but back at that time it was a common belief that the moon and the sun may be inhabited and speak as such in regular conversation, however in this case it is hearsay of a prophesy that we are getting.
> 
> I did a bit of research, because I tend to like to know about things like that when people start in on it.



I am glad you brought this up because I need to clarify a couple of things.
1. The Young woman's Journal was put together as a compilation of writings on many individual journal entries.
2. The Journal is not put forth as official doctrine, but rather a record of people's personal experiences.
3. It is clear to me that this young woman was filled with some pretty wild delusions of grandeur as a result of a gross misinterpretation of the Prophet's word. I don't know what she heard to make her think that but it is not out of the question for young people to interpret things they want to hear from something said that means something entirely different. To me and other church historians it is dismissed as false doctrine. Especially since members are told explicitly not to discuss their private patriarchal blessings. If something amazing is promised in these blessings, then they are so sacred that they should only be pondered in your own mind and if they come true, others will see the proof of it by what you do, not what you fantasize about and broadcast to everyone.
I hope that helps.  
By the way Joseph Smith was shown the cosmos in visions and he wouldn't be so ignorant as to tell a young person in 1837 that they were going to preach on the moon.
The lost tribes of Israel were to remain lost until the time the Lord decided to reveal them. I don't doubt that Joseph may have been shown where they were but he wouldn't discuss them with a youth having been told not to reveal it from God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I think it's possible truthspeaker, that you are missing many posters points.



Exactly which points would I be missing? I have been pretty much on the ball here as far as responding to everyone.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Now there is an intelligent question about doctrine. I applaud you for this
> 
> Now you have put yourself in a position for me to inform you about our teachings.
> Yes I do believe that our teachings are true. I don't have a problem with someone else claiming their beliefs are true, that is their right to freedom of religion. I will fight for others freedoms too and so will all of us. But just because I feel my churches teachings are correct does not mean that I am trying to put down others. I am sorry and apologize if I gave that impression. It was not my intent. But you ask a wonderful question as to the whereabouts of spirits when they pass on.
> The body separates from the spirit but continues on in an existence right here among us in an unseen world not unlike the society we live in. People live their lives the way they want to, associate with influences they normally would while here. They maintain their personality traits and weakness and strengths. The same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there. The one guarantee is that eventually before the final judgment everyone whether in the spirit world or during the 1000 year period following Christs return where everyone will get their bodies back,  everyone will get a chance to hear the full uninterrupted gospel and accept or reject it for themselves.



Thank you for teaching me about your doctrine.   Do you have any interest in learning about other religions?

There are differences naturally in how Buddhists concieve of the bardo--the intermediate state after death and before the next lifetime.

You say that in your tradtion the personality continues into the next life.  That is different from how we see things in Buddhism.

We don't view the body as permanent--or something we would choose to come back to.  Who wants to re-enter a corpse?

Likewise, we don't see the personality as continuing.  We do think that within a continuity of consciousness; karmic imprints, habits and qualities do pass from lifetime to lifetime.


----------



## chloe

sky here is a link to helping LDS Homosexuals

Evergreen International-Helping Latter-Day Saints overcome same-sex attraction (homosexuality)


----------



## chloe

Truth will you explain, "celestial marriage" and whether a man can have more then one wife sealed to him.


----------



## sky dancer

chloe said:


> sky here is a link to helping LDS Homosexuals
> 
> Evergreen International-Helping Latter-Day Saints overcome same-sex attraction (homosexuality)



No offense, chloe.  IMO 'helping' LDS with homosexuality would be helping them love and accept themselves as they are, NOT 'helping' overcome the same-sex attraction.  It's like trying to 'help' a left handed person become right handed.  It's possible, but why bother?  It's as natural for a left handed person to use their left hand dominantly as it is for a right handed person to use their right hand.

Clearly, LDS does not love and accept gays and lesbians.  Church doctine interferes.  A person's _identity_ is not sinful.  Loving is not sinful.

What I will say about my personal experience with Mormons, is that over the years, I have had the most interesting discussions about spirituality with LDS members.  I find them generally well- educated, kind, sincere and passionate adherents of their faith.  I enjoy engaging with them in indepth discussions about issues of ethics.  There are even places where LDS and Buddhist beliefs dove tail.

I am happy to call Mormons my friends.  I am deeply aggrieved by the political actions of the LDS church in financing Proposition 8.  It hurts me to see them impose their LDS morality on *civil marriage equality law*s.  IMO, as an institution, LDS is disrespectful of other spiritual traditions who do not find homosexual and lesbian unions sinful, and it also implies that non-religious citizens who marry must accept their definition of marriage.

Frankly, if they want to promote marriage law that the rest of US citizenry can accept, they ought to clean up their own act, and get rid of plural marriage and child sexual exploitation and leave queerfolk alone to live in peace.


----------



## strollingbones

oddly enough it does seem all the answers to the negative part of lds is answered with the same answer..they are misguided etc


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Thank you for teaching me about your doctrine.   Do you have any interest in learning about other religions?
> 
> There are differences naturally in how Buddhists concieve of the bardo--the intermediate state after death and before the next lifetime.
> 
> You say that in your tradtion the personality continues into the next life.  That is different from how we see things in Buddhism.
> 
> We don't view the body as permanent--or something we would choose to come back to.  Who wants to re-enter a corpse?
> 
> Likewise, we don't see the personality as continuing.  We do think that within a continuity of consciousness; karmic imprints, habits and qualities do pass from lifetime to lifetime.




Interesting teaching, to be sure, though of course I would be skeptical. You made me laugh when you said who wants to re-enter a corpse?
When I talk of people being ressurected with their same bodies, I am not talking about Night of the Living Dead! That would be really gross.
We believe that your body will still look like you, but whatever imperfections it has will be restored to it's perfect frame never to perish. We will all be beautiful, glorious looking and fully functional humans.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Truth will you explain, "celestial marriage" and whether a man can have more then one wife sealed to him.



This is one of those touchy subjects which I will deal with only because there is a clear doctrine on this. About wives and the plurality thereof, I will first insist you all realize that no one is compelled to marry another. We have never believed in forcing marriages on anyone. It is between consenting adults.
Second I will refer to the common practice of polygamy in the Bible. It was common knowledge among historians, that the practice was around among the children of Israel even after the chronological period of the Bible. Notable prophets who engaged in the practice were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Nathan, David, Solomon and others. It was not questioned too much back in the day. However there was a reason that certain individuals were allowed to practice in those times. This reason was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith in Doctrine & Covenants which states that not everyone is ordained unto this level but select individuals whom the Lord has commanded to raise up seed unto the Lord. The primary purpose is for the continuation of the family. It was shown to him the fact that there are simply more female spirits in the universe than there are male. this is evident when you see that women outnumber men in this world nearly two to one and in some communities as much as 7 to 1. The practice has most of the time by the Lord been forbidden among his children as it is now. There was a time in the early history of our church where there were many men murdered and killed in the 1800s as a result of mob violence against us. This left many women and children without fathers and without protectors. The society of the day was far different from the independant female society that exists among us now. Women absolutely needed protection and providence from a man, either a father or brother or husband. they didn't have office jobs where they could make their own money, and they were not trained to go into the forest and hunt for food. Women were all homemakers and were in great peril without a man providing and protecting them. It was a very dangerous lifestyle back then without the comforts and conveniences we have today.

At the time of greatest oppression, the Lord commanded several prominent members of the church to take in these women as wives in order to help stabilize their community. The actual numbers of men who engaged in polygamy was between 2 and 5% of the population. Not widespread like the media will have you think.

Now I will refer to the Book of Mormon in Jacob Chapter 2. Where the prophet Jacob is chastising the Nephites for justifying themselves in practicing polygamy when it was not instructed of the Lord to do it. They said among themselves that because Abraham and David and Solomon had many wives, then it was ok for them to do it as well. Their practices were considered an abomination before Him. And the tender hearts of their children and wives had been broken as a result of their breaking the commandments of God and MISINTERPRETATION of God's writings. 
Those people are the same as the weird sectists who broke away from our church and misinterpreted the doctrine of plural wives.

So in a nutshell only those who are instructed of the Lord to have plural wives will have them sealed to them. The Lord knows all the personalities of his children and he knows which ones should be born in which time and which ones he knows he would not ask to participate. That is why we are all born in the times we are born in. 
The Lord is with the times as well as anyone. Which is why he knew that it was time to end polygamy in his church around the same time it became illegal in the U.S. Some people find that to be a convenient coincidence, but it doesn't matter.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> This site has been created to provide a forum for gay men, lesbians and their families and friends to share their stories. The common denominator is Mormonism with the hope that those who are journeying therein will feel less alone after reading these stories.
> 
> 
> 
> At best, the Mormon Church has provided a less than hospitable environment for its gay and lesbian members, leaving most of us to find our own way out of the confusion, condemnation and guilt. It can be a pretty lonely road and sometimes just knowing that somebody else is going through the same things we are helps make the journey a little easier.
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than going to battle with the Mormon Church over its beliefs and practices, this site focuses on the first-person narratives of those who are impacted by it all. Sometimes we get so caught up in the doctrine that we forget the human toll involved in a one-size-fits-all plan. Hopefully these stories will help put a more human face on the complex issues of religion and sexuality and generate a greater feeling of tolerance and understanding.
> Gay Mormon Stories - Family & Friends



I must disagree with you. US Message boards.com is not a sanctuary for gays and lesbians. It is a message board for discussion.
This thread I started is to clarify the truth about Mormons.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> No offense, chloe.  IMO 'helping' LDS with homosexuality would be helping them love and accept themselves as they are, NOT 'helping' overcome the same-sex attraction.  It's like trying to 'help' a left handed person become right handed.  It's possible, but why bother?  It's as natural for a left handed person to use their left hand dominantly as it is for a right handed person to use their right hand.
> 
> Clearly, LDS does not love and accept gays and lesbians.  Church doctine interferes.  A person's _identity_ is not sinful.  Loving is not sinful.
> 
> What I will say about my personal experience with Mormons, is that over the years, I have had the most interesting discussions about spirituality with LDS members.  I find them generally well- educated, kind, sincere and passionate adherents of their faith.  I enjoy engaging with them in indepth discussions about issues of ethics.  There are even places where LDS and Buddhist beliefs dove tail.
> 
> I am happy to call Mormons my friends.  I am deeply aggrieved by the political actions of the LDS church in financing Proposition 8.  It hurts me to see them impose their LDS morality on *civil marriage equality law*s.  IMO, as an institution, LDS is disrespectful of other spiritual traditions who do not find homosexual and lesbian unions sinful, and it also implies that non-religious citizens who marry must accept their definition of marriage.
> 
> Frankly, if they want to promote marriage law that the rest of US citizenry can accept, they ought to clean up their own act, and get rid of plural marriage and child sexual exploitation and leave queerfolk alone to live in peace.




Again herein lies one of those misconceptions about us. It is easy to confuse our discrimination against sin for discrimination against individuals. We do not believe that a person's identity revolves around their sexuality but instead revolves around what they do, believe, and stand for. Sexuality is not the primary reason we are alive. it is over emphasized in our society and people in general seem to be obsessed with it above all else.
We do believe God created them the way they are with male and female parts for the proper use thereof. We are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin.


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> oddly enough it does seem all the answers to the negative part of lds is answered with the same answer..they are misguided etc



Dude you have to pay better attention. "negative part of LDS"? Members who do things wrong are not acting according to the teachings of the church and are not supported by the church if they do so. As is a common saying among us, The teachings are perfect, but the people are not.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Wyhat does the LDS teach you about the Mountain Meadows Massacre?



The best and most accurate information I have found is the article from lds.org about it. here is a link LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Mountain Meadows Massacre


The article makes it clear that this act was done by members of the church who ignored the counsel of their leaders and in the heat of the moment committed terrible acts for which they were punished according to the laws of the land and the laws of the church.


----------



## chloe

sky dancer said:


> No offense, chloe.  IMO 'helping' LDS with homosexuality would be helping them love and accept themselves as they are, NOT 'helping' overcome the same-sex attraction.  It's like trying to 'help' a left handed person become right handed.  It's possible, but why bother?  It's as natural for a left handed person to use their left hand dominantly as it is for a right handed person to use their right hand.
> 
> Clearly, LDS does not love and accept gays and lesbians.  Church doctine interferes.  A person's _identity_ is not sinful.  Loving is not sinful.



I'm not offended Sky ! I only know about Evergreen because thats where my friend "Jeffree" was sent by his family when he returned from his mission and called off his wedding because he is Gay. You already know I support gay marriage because I have gay friends.


----------



## strollingbones

you just seem like anyone else who adheres strongly to any religious belief....everyone thinks they have the true belief


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> So in a nutshell only those who are instructed of the Lord to have plural wives will have them sealed to them. The Lord knows all the personalities of his children and he knows which ones should be born in which time and which ones he knows he would not ask to participate. That is why we are all born in the times we are born in.
> The Lord is with the times as well as anyone. Which is why he knew that it was time to end polygamy in his church around the same time it became illegal in the U.S. Some people find that to be a convenient coincidence, but it doesn't matter.




I support Polygamy. I think it should be legal now. Thanks for answering my question Truth.


----------



## Sunni Man

chloe said:


> sky here is a link to helping LDS Homosexuals
> 
> Evergreen International-Helping Latter-Day Saints overcome same-sex attraction (homosexuality)


This looks like a wonderful organization to help cure homos of their mental depravity and physical perversions.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> I support Polygamy. I think it should be legal now. Thanks for answering my question Truth.



I am glad you let me explain. However, I do not support polygamy now.


----------



## Dr Grump

I support polygamy..


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I must disagree with you. US Message boards.com is not a sanctuary for gays and lesbians. It is a message board for discussion.
> This thread I started is to clarify the truth about Mormons.



US Message Board includes gays and lesbians.  The truth about Mormons is that there are gay and lesbian Mormons too.  For that reason, I have posted a couple of links and so have other posters.

This is a message board for discussion.  As long as Mormons choose to interfere in the civil rights of other citizens--marriage equality for example, I will highlight that.

I'm sorry that seems to annoy you.


----------



## sky dancer

chloe said:


> I'm not offended Sky ! I only know about Evergreen because thats where my friend "Jeffree" was sent by his family when he returned from his mission and called off his wedding because he is Gay. You already know I support gay marriage because I have gay friends.



I'm glad you aren't offended.  

Did this resource work for your friend "Jeffree"?


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Interesting teaching, to be sure, though of course I would be skeptical. You made me laugh when you said who wants to re-enter a corpse?
> When I talk of people being ressurected with their same bodies, I am not talking about Night of the Living Dead! That would be really gross.
> *We believe that your body will still look like you, but whatever imperfections it has will be restored to it's perfect frame never to perish. We will all be beautiful, glorious looking and fully functional humans*.



That's a nice fairy tale with a wonderful happy ending, but as a spiritual teaching, I find it lacking in depth and wisdom.

Not surprising.  I'm in one path, you are in another.


----------



## Sunni Man

Step #1) For curing Jeffree of homosexuality. Start calling him Jeff!!!


----------



## eots

Sunni Man said:


> Step #1) For curing Jeffree of homosexuality. Start calling him Jeff!!!



lol...no kidding


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Ok, will give you that I forgot about DESERET NEWS. It's not like they push mormon propaganda anyway. Of course the church through it's teaching of individuals is going to have an effect on the community. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that. You are way out of line if you think that President Monson gets on the phone with government officials to dictate policy. Nope never happened except when it comes to what we consider to be a moral issue. Very rarely does that even happen except for recently with the gay marriage issue.
> Of course the population of the senate and other government officials is going to be represented by mainly mormons. What are they supposed to elect all non-mormons. Your argument misses the mark. Again you can't claim church involvement with individual or political decisions except moral ones.




You have your head in the sand if you don't think that the LDS church HEAVILY influences politics in the state of Utah.  But then, that doesn't surprise me in the least.  I generally know more about your faith then the average LDS prostelytizer I encounter on message boards.


----------



## catzmeow

sky dancer said:


> US Message Board includes gays and lesbians.  The truth about Mormons is that there are gay and lesbian Mormons too.  For that reason, I have posted a couple of links and so have other posters.
> 
> This is a message board for discussion.  As long as Mormons choose to interfere in the civil rights of other citizens--marriage equality for example, I will highlight that.
> 
> I'm sorry that seems to annoy you.



THe LDS Church has a long history of taking wrong-headed stances against civil rights.  For instance, for a long while, they taught that people who have dark skins were marked with dark skin for being less valiant in the pre-existence.  i.e., having dark skin was a sign that you once rebelled against God (when Lucifer and the angels who followed him fell and were ejected  from heaven), or at the least, were ambivalent.  Thus, the LDS church would not grant the priesthood to black members of the church until they suddenly had "new revelation" in the 1970s that blacks were now worthy to hold the priesthood.

Maybe, at some point, a hundred years from now, they will have new revelation that gays/lesbians are also beloved of God.


----------



## sky dancer

"The fact that Mormons are a small percentage of the voters in California is a large part of the concern regarding the LDS church&#8217;s involvement with Proposition 8. Despite a small population, Mormons were 80% to 90% of the early canvassers in election precincts. Funds for the Proposition 8 campaign are now estimated at $40 million, with Mormons from around the nation providing as much as $22 million in support of a California proposition&#8212;over half of the funds used in the campaign. By a narrow margin of 52%, Proposition 8 succeeded, now citizens are using their democratic rights of free speech and peaceful assembly to finally let their voices be heard.

Contributions of individual members were used to drown out those voices during the vote, but it is becoming clear that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints directly donated a significant amount to the Proposition 8 campaign. The LDS Church only reported a single contribution of between $2000 and $5000, while actively encouraging church members to donate and support. However, the church also organized phone banks, news releases, direct mailers, door-to-door canvassing, speakers, distribution of campaign materials, and transportation of leaders and representatives, in addition to producing at least 9 commercials, 4 broadcasts and 2 satellite simulcasts over 5 western states in support of Proposition 8. If any of this was used to contact non-members, it is considered a campaign contribution and must be reported under the Political Reform Act of 2007. A complaint regarding this has already been sent to the California Fair Political Practices Commission."
Die Wachen: The Tiresomely Offensive Martyr Stance of the Mormon Church


----------



## chloe

Sunni Man said:


> Step #1) For curing Jeffree of homosexuality. Start calling him Jeff!!!



His real name is not "jeffree" I don't use his real name on the message board silly. Jeffree is a singer he likes.


----------



## chloe

sky dancer said:


> I'm glad you aren't offended.
> 
> Did this resource work for your friend "Jeffree"?



No, he is real sad. Now he's an alcoholic, I got really worried about him and got him to check into rehab and he did good for a while but then he relapsed. Sometimes when hes drunk he sings mormon hymns to me and Im like...um ok...Jeffree heh. One day we spent the whole day looking at all his childhood pictures growing up mormon and his pictures from his mission and he cried more. He's just really emotional.


----------



## sky dancer

chloe said:


> No, he is real sad. Now he's an alcoholic, I got really worried about him and got him to check into rehab and he did good for a while but then he relapsed. Sometimes when hes drunk he sings mormon hymns to me and Im like...um ok...Jeffree heh. One day we spent the whole day looking at all his childhood pictures growing up mormon and his pictures from his mission and he cried more. He's just really emotional.



His heart is broken.  He sounds very sad.  He has to either let go of being Mormon, and find a way to be happy and spiritual as a gay man or be a celibate Mormon.   

He has choices.  There are other spiritual paths that do not condemn homosexuals.  If LDS is more important to him than his sexuality, he can go back to the Church as a single, celibate man.  I hope he doesn't ruin a woman's life by pretending to be straight and getting married.  Of course, in my case, if my father hadn't married my mother, I wouldn't be here to offer my silly advice to a stranger.

First, Jeff has to sober up.  None of these tasks are easy.  May he find peace and self-acceptance and freedom from addiction.


----------



## eots

most gay men suffer from depression and substance abuse..high rates of suicide are also part of the disorder


----------



## Sunni Man

sky dancer said:


> His heart is broken.  He sounds very sad.  He has to either let go of being Mormon, and find a way to be happy and spiritual as a gay man or be a celibate Mormon.


Or choice #3) get out of the sick homo lifestyle and become a normal man like God made him to be!!


----------



## sky dancer

That's true, Eots.  Except that homosexuality is no longer considered a 'disorder'.


----------



## sky dancer

Sunni Man said:


> Or choice #3) get out of the sick homo lifestyle and become a normal man like God made him to be!!



He tried that already.  God made him who he is.


----------



## Sunni Man

sky dancer said:


> He tried that already.  God made him who he is.


God doesn't make homos.   Being homo is a choice.


----------



## sky dancer

Are you on some kind of direct line to the Almighty?  In the case of 'Jeff', he clearly hasn't chosen to be gay.  He tried to change.


----------



## Sunni Man

sky dancer said:


> Are you on some kind of direct line to the Almighty?


Yes, Yes I am!!


----------



## eots

sky dancer said:


> That's true, Eots.  Except that homosexuality is no longer considered a 'disorder'.



due to aggressive lobbying from the homosexual community...a rose by any other name...but..ok..._lifestyle _then


----------



## sky dancer

Since 1973, homosexuality has not been considered a psychiatric disorder.  That's thirty five years now.....

How old are you eots?


----------



## eots

Sunni Man said:


> Yes, Yes I am!!



ok ..but don't  you think it would be liberating to hang up that phone and just wing it !..just throw that ol compass out and head on out to sea..full speed ahead,,just take your hands of the steering wheel ..close your eyes and just burn down the highway ...


----------



## sky dancer

Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff criminal penalties for sodomy, an umbrella term that encompassed a wide variety of sexual acts that were nonprocreative (including homosexual behavior), occurred outside of marriage (e.g., sex between a man and woman who were not married), or violated traditions (e.g., sex between husband and wife with the woman on top). The statutes often described such conduct only in Latin or with oblique phrases such as "wickedness not to be named"). In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976). 

By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989).


 In 1935, (73 years ago) Freud wrote: 
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too.... 

"If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786). 

Homosexuality and Mental Health


----------



## sky dancer

Sunni Man said:


> Yes, Yes I am!!



"Operator, information, get me Allah on the line........."


----------



## eots

sky dancer said:


> Since 1973, homosexuality has not been considered a psychiatric disorder.  That's thirty five years now.....
> 
> How old are you eots?



me..Im ageless and timeless..but regardless that was the manner in which that changed..its political ..if not with the list of other symptoms .and. behaviors  that accompany homosexuality...it would remain a disorder


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr Grump said:


> I support polygamy..



Why


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> US Message Board includes gays and lesbians.  The truth about Mormons is that there are gay and lesbian Mormons too.  For that reason, I have posted a couple of links and so have other posters.
> 
> This is a message board for discussion.  As long as Mormons choose to interfere in the civil rights of other citizens--marriage equality for example, I will highlight that.
> 
> I'm sorry that seems to annoy you.



I almost entirely agree with you, except the civil rights part. We are not messing with any rights, even though you think we are.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> That's a nice fairy tale with a wonderful happy ending, but as a spiritual teaching, I find it lacking in depth and wisdom.
> 
> Not surprising.  I'm in one path, you are in another.



It's ok if you think that, I like fairy tales any way because they make us all feel good. That is what God wants us to feel. He wants us to be hopeful about a glorious future, so yes it is interesting that we choose different paths.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> You have your head in the sand if you don't think that the LDS church HEAVILY influences politics in the state of Utah.  But then, that doesn't surprise me in the least.  I generally know more about your faith then the average LDS prostelytizer I encounter on message boards.



You have actually shown yourself to be nothing more than an angry anti-mormon who blames individual actions on the church as a whole. If Mormons were a race, wouldn't that be considered racism.
It's like getting mad at all blacks because you see blacks committing a lot of crimes on the news. Point delivered.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> THe LDS Church has a long history of taking wrong-headed stances against civil rights.  For instance, for a long while, they taught that people who have dark skins were marked with dark skin for being less valiant in the pre-existence.  i.e., having dark skin was a sign that you once rebelled against God (when Lucifer and the angels who followed him fell and were ejected  from heaven), or at the least, were ambivalent.  Thus, the LDS church would not grant the priesthood to black members of the church until they suddenly had "new revelation" in the 1970s that blacks were now worthy to hold the priesthood.
> 
> Maybe, at some point, a hundred years from now, they will have new revelation that gays/lesbians are also beloved of God.




I swear you really amaze me everytime you post a half truth about our church and I shut it down, you switch to something new because you are exposed as an uninformed anti-mormon. you can keep bringing all this stuff up but you are going to get shut down each time. 
I swear you don't think I read up on this stuff. Just because you can bully some teenage mormons or inactive members who haven't picked up a scripture in 10 years, you think you can stump me. But I will confound you again. No doubt you will keep coming up with some strange fact about the church you think I haven't heard of. That's fine eventually you will get tired of the beating.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> THe LDS Church has a long history of taking wrong-headed stances against civil rights.  For instance, for a long while, they taught that people who have dark skins were marked with dark skin for being less valiant in the pre-existence.  i.e., having dark skin was a sign that you once rebelled against God (when Lucifer and the angels who followed him fell and were ejected  from heaven), or at the least, were ambivalent.  Thus, the LDS church would not grant the priesthood to black members of the church until they suddenly had "new revelation" in the 1970s that blacks were now worthy to hold the priesthood.
> 
> Maybe, at some point, a hundred years from now, they will have new revelation that gays/lesbians are also beloved of God.




Ah yes I was praying for you to bring up the heavily misunderstood black issue. I almost don't blame you because most members don't study their doctrine enough to answer this question. I fortunately needed to know the answer to this question to be able to rest in peace about it. So I wouldn't stop researching the subject until I was satisfied. Pay close attention cuz I think you might be tempted to gloss over some details. I don't want to refer you to this again because it should be fully explained here.

I served my mission in South Africa, and so naturally would get this question often. In the book the Pearl of Great price, part of which is a translation from some ancient egyptian scrolls which came into the hands of Joseph Smith, there is a book called the book of Moses and the book of Abraham. In the book of Abraham, there was described the punishment of Cain for his crimes. he was cut off from the Lord and was cast into a land separate from the other children of Adam. It was then because of Cains transgression, the LAND in which he lived was cursed with much heat, which we now know to be the land of Africa. We do believe that original africans were descended from Cain but don't get twisted into a bundle just yet. Cain and his children then had a "mark" placed upon them to distinguish them from other children of Adam. this mark was described by Brigham Young as the dark skin and flat nose. Still not time to get riled up yet.
The curse was not to be confused with the mark. It is nowhere described that the descendants of Cain were cursed, only marked. In fact this marking was a huge blessing for a couple of reasons. The LAND being cursed with much heat was and still is a very inhospitable place because of the sun exposure. How on earth would they be expected to survive such conditions without God preparing them for their enviroment. As we all know, dark skin is a built in sunburn defense. and yes I know black people can sunburn too, but certainly not to a fried crisp like if I were to stand out there for 15 minutes. The flat nose was also a blessing. we all know that hunting in africa is difficult and requires lots of running and stamina if you are going to track and hunt prey in the african wilderness. hence as we all can see, most of the best and naturally gifted long distance runners and sprinters are africans, the nose shape playing a huge role in the amount of oxygen they are able to breath in and out of their nostrils to keep up such a pace. Can white people be trained   to run long distance. Of course, but they have to work a little harder to develop the same level of stamina because of the shape of the nose. Starting to make sense?
It gets better.The reason a lot of mormons and non-mormons alike confused the skin color of Cain's descendants with a curse is because of an UNRELATED  and temporary physical curse placed on the Lamanites to distinguish them from the Nephites and cause that they should not be enticing unto the nephites during much of the Book of Mormon years. The curse we read in 3rd Nephi was eventually taken away and had nothing to do with having a flat nose. It is easy to see how this can be misunderstood through lack of study.
No where is it written in our official doctrine that blacks were cursed with dark skin as a result of poor performance in the pre existence. That unfortunately has been misunderstood by too many members and apparently you too.
Next question please.


----------



## pegwinn

Well Hello.

I am married to an inactive Mormon woman. Her mom is still active. For a time, I allowed the missionaries to visit my home. That ended when one of them stated that my Grandmother would not be going to heaven because she was not Mormon. In a now world renowned act of self control I simply asked the young men to leave and to arrange it so there were no more visits. Considering that my grandmother had only passed on a few weeks earlier, I was quite proud of myself.

My wife and I married very young. I have noticed that while her former associates at the ward are cordial toward us, they have a long memory. Essentially, even after 25 years of marraige, there are those who still look down on her for being a pregnant teen and unwed when the pregnancy was discovered.

From an outsiders perspective I have more positives than negatives over the church. A years worth of food, help thy neighbor, don't pass the plate, etc. etc. I respect the almost military precision with which the church conducts its' business. No organization maintained by man is perfect in all regards. To chip away at imperfections is to ignore the good things. Happens all the time as we make analysis of the military or the government or even other religions. 

Now, to the questions since that was the original topic yeah?

Explain the multiple levels of heaven and hell please. The young missionary got it wrong. The older brother who politely asked if we could meet was extremely respectful of my grandmothers passing but his explanation was a bit vague.

I'll think of another question soon enough.

Welcome


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> THe LDS Church has a long history of taking wrong-headed stances against civil rights.  For instance, for a long while, they taught that people who have dark skins were marked with dark skin for being less valiant in the pre-existence.  i.e., having dark skin was a sign that you once rebelled against God (when Lucifer and the angels who followed him fell and were ejected  from heaven), or at the least, were ambivalent.  Thus, the LDS church would not grant the priesthood to black members of the church until they suddenly had "new revelation" in the 1970s that blacks were now worthy to hold the priesthood.
> 
> Maybe, at some point, a hundred years from now, they will have new revelation that gays/lesbians are also beloved of God.


 Oh I almost forgot to address the priesthood issue. My bad. yes Cains descendants were cursed as to the obtaining the authority of the Priesthood which would allow them to officiate in Church ordinances. This was done in part as a punishment to Cain, not his children, and in part to help fulfill the prophecy that the first should be last and the last should be first. meaning the first people to receive the priesthood and gospel(Jews) would be the last ones to fully accept it, and the last ones to receive the priesthood and gospel(seed of Cain) would be the first to accept and embrace it. That is why  1978 was so important. Joseph Smith foretold back in 1830 that blacks would eventually hold the priesthood before the coming of Christ. It wasn't because they were spiritually unworthy as it was to fulfill the word of the Lord. This is amazing that the huge numbers of blacks in Africa were pleading and praying daily to the leaders of our church to let them receive the missionaries in the 70's, because they knew the gospel was true and understood the prophecies. African membership now is the fastest growing portion of converts among all races. this is a story about a glorious triumph, not a lame argument about racism. They are reaping the glory of this with great happiness in Africa right now and it's only going to get bigger.
Also you might want to bear in mind the wisdom of God in his timing. We all know how racist the country was for a long time up until the civil rights movement. In the early days of the church in the 1830's, part of the hatred for mormons was that they were branded ****** lovers because they preached against slavery and invited blacks into their congregations. You didn't hear about that though because your anti mormon friends didn't tell you the whole truth. Only half truths. With general hostility towards blacks already an undercurrent of society at the time, It would have only brought more vicious attacks against us and church burnings and murders to have ordained black priests and bishops back then.
But if the Lord had given the revelation back then, Joseph Smith wouldn't have hesitated to ordain them. He grieved about the issue and actually pleaded with the Lord to restore them to the priesthood but was told they must wait for the due time of the Lord.

Not everyone gets everything at the same time. Which is why many people live their whole lives without ever even hearing the name of Jesus Christ. Is that the Lord just discriminating against his sons and daughters. NOOO! He knows when the time is right and knows that there is far more to it than just this earthly life. If not so, buddhists, hindus, muslims and all other non-christians, including babies who die before learning the gospel, must be condemned to hell. But good thing that is not the case, God is a little more loving and just than that......Whew!


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> His heart is broken.  He sounds very sad.  He has to either let go of being Mormon, and find a way to be happy and spiritual as a gay man or be a celibate Mormon.
> 
> He has choices.  There are other spiritual paths that do not condemn homosexuals.  If LDS is more important to him than his sexuality, he can go back to the Church as a single, celibate man.  I hope he doesn't ruin a woman's life by pretending to be straight and getting married.  Of course, in my case, if my father hadn't married my mother, I wouldn't be here to offer my silly advice to a stranger.
> 
> First, Jeff has to sober up.  None of these tasks are easy.  May he find peace and self-acceptance and freedom from addiction.



Freedom from his addiction to drugs and homosexuality.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff criminal penalties for sodomy, an umbrella term that encompassed a wide variety of sexual acts that were nonprocreative (including homosexual behavior), occurred outside of marriage (e.g., sex between a man and woman who were not married), or violated traditions (e.g., sex between husband and wife with the woman on top). The statutes often described such conduct only in Latin or with oblique phrases such as "wickedness not to be named"). In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976).
> 
> By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989).
> 
> 
> In 1935, (73 years ago) Freud wrote:
> "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....
> 
> "If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).
> 
> Homosexuality and Mental Health



Freud was one of the most confused men ever to have lived. He sure could speak though


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> "Operator, information, get me Allah on the line........."



It's actually just about that easy. You can pray in private and ask for those answers to god yourself. Just don't pray to some inanimate object or clown with 8 arms. Those don't answer back.


----------



## AllieBaba

Truthspeaker said:


> Freud was one of the most confused men ever to have lived. He sure could speak though



So could Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.


----------



## eots

sky dancer said:


> Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff criminal penalties for sodomy, an umbrella term that encompassed a wide variety of sexual acts that were nonprocreative (including homosexual behavior), occurred outside of marriage (e.g., sex between a man and woman who were not married), or violated traditions (e.g., sex between husband and wife with the woman on top). The statutes often described such conduct only in Latin or with oblique phrases such as "wickedness not to be named"). In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976).
> 
> By the end of the 19th century, medicine and psychiatry were effectively competing with religion and the law for jurisdiction over sexuality. As a consequence, discourse about homosexuality expanded from the realms of sin and crime to include that of pathology. This historical shift was generally considered progressive because a sick person was less blameful than a sinner or criminal (e.g., Chauncey, 1982/1983; D'Emilio & Freedman, 1988; Duberman, Vicinus, & Chauncey, 1989).
> 
> 
> In 1935, (73 years ago) Freud wrote:
> "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too....
> 
> "If [your son] is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed...." (reprinted in Jones, 1957, pp. 208-209, from the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786).
> 
> Homosexuality and Mental Health



well theres no arguing with Freud....



\Penis Envy: 
Penis envy is the female counterpart to Freuds concept of castration anxiety. In his theory of psychosexual development, Freud suggested that during the phallic stage (around ages 3-5) young girls distance themselves from their mothers and instead devote their affections to their fathers. According to Freud, this occurs when a girl realizes that she has no penis. Girls hold their mother responsible for their lack of a penis and do not forgive her for their being thus put at a disadvantage, 



. "Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own," he wrote in a 1925 paper 



Freud and Women - How Sigmund Freud Viewed Women


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> It's actually just about that easy. You can pray in private and ask for those answers to god yourself. *Just don't pray to some inanimate object or clown with 8 arms. *Those don't answer back.




Really?  This is an ignorant statement.  Clearly, you do not understand what a meditational deity is.  Meditational deities are not gods.  They are not 'clowns' either.  Arrogant 'religious' people who call other people's spiritual symbols 'clowns' are disrespectful.   Respect is a two way street.  IF you want us to respect LDS don't insult other peoples beliefs without making an attempt to understand an 8 armed meditational deity.

Some have four arms, some have two and some have 1000 arms.  The entire image is rich with symbolism and describes qualities like love, compassion, joy and equanimity (for the four armed version) and the eight fold path for the eight armed version and the 1000 armed one demonstrates an infinite capacity to be of benefit to others.

These are qualities that spiritual practice develops.  Meditation and prayer lead one to a non-conceptual experience.  Since human beings consceptualize what is non-conceptual and visualize while concieving, we have images that are used as an assist to evoke an non-conceptual experience.

Honestly, I am interested in your faith and I know you have studied your own.  But when you take to cheap insults of others peoples faith you demonstrate ignorance and arrogance, which are not spiritual qualities.

LDS prays.  Buddhists pray.  Hindus pray.  Muslims pray.  What may be different is who or what we pray to.

Buddhists pray to our own Buddha nature--which is nowhere outside ourselves, but is present in all sentient beings.  We pray to the lineage of enlightened masters, because our spiritual teachings come to us through a chain of highly realized meditators.  The three lineages are mind- to- mind, symbolic and oral.  We pray that just as in the past others took up the practice of meditation lifetime after lifetime and achieved the highest result, we too, may experience the wisdom and truth of the 'way things truly abide' and rest in the nature of 'that which cannot be imagined or described'.

Take care.  

You have given yourself the name 'truthspeaker'.  What this post reveals is not truth but ignorance.


----------



## sky dancer

eots said:


> well theres no arguing with Freud....
> 
> 
> 
> \Penis Envy:
> Penis envy is the female counterpart to Freud&#8217;s concept of castration anxiety. In his theory of psychosexual development, Freud suggested that during the phallic stage (around ages 3-5) young girls distance themselves from their mothers and instead devote their affections to their fathers. According to Freud, this occurs when a girl realizes that she has no penis. &#8220;Girls hold their mother responsible for their lack of a penis and do not forgive her for their being thus put at a disadvantage,&#8221;
> 
> 
> 
> . "Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own," he wrote in a 1925 paper
> 
> 
> 
> Freud and Women - How Sigmund Freud Viewed Women




I didn't say Freud was universally wise.  Rather than envy the sexual organ of a man, women envied the freedom men had.

Freud's 'penis envy' theory was and is silly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> Well Hello.
> 
> I am married to an inactive Mormon woman. Her mom is still active. For a time, I allowed the missionaries to visit my home. That ended when one of them stated that my Grandmother would not be going to heaven because she was not Mormon. In a now world renowned act of self control I simply asked the young men to leave and to arrange it so there were no more visits. Considering that my grandmother had only passed on a few weeks earlier, I was quite proud of myself.
> 
> My wife and I married very young. I have noticed that while her former associates at the ward are cordial toward us, they have a long memory. Essentially, even after 25 years of marraige, there are those who still look down on her for being a pregnant teen and unwed when the pregnancy was discovered.
> 
> From an outsiders perspective I have more positives than negatives over the church. A years worth of food, help thy neighbor, don't pass the plate, etc. etc. I respect the almost military precision with which the church conducts its' business. No organization maintained by man is perfect in all regards. To chip away at imperfections is to ignore the good things. Happens all the time as we make analysis of the military or the government or even other religions.
> 
> Now, to the questions since that was the original topic yeah?
> 
> Explain the multiple levels of
> politely asked if we could meet was extremely respectful of my grandmothers passing but his explanation was a bit vague.
> 
> I'll think of another question soon enough.
> 
> Welcome



I am mortified that you would hear such a thing from any member of the church. It is possible you may have misunderstood them but that is not the truth if they meant it. I am looking forward to getting back to you on this but I am at work and won't be able to until later today. Thanks for the great question.ttyl


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> It's actually just about that easy. You can pray in private and ask for those answers to god yourself. Just don't pray to some inanimate object or clown with 8 arms. Those don't answer back.



How does God answer back?  Thoughts arise in your mind, or a feeling, and/or something manifests or changes.

What makes you think others who pray outside of your narrow version of God and religion do not experience similar results?


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I almost entirely agree with you, except the civil rights part. We are not messing with any rights, even though you think we are.



Civil marriage comes with 1139 federal and state civil rights.  Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.
The truth about Mormons, is that they invested a ton of money in my state to reverse civil marriage equality law.

_"On May 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court affirmed that the state constitution, AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS STATE MORE THAN 150 YEARS PRIOR, provided official government recognition of all marriages between all couples, regardless of gender. 

On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 amended this constitution to explicitly deny this right to same-sex couples. Nowhere else in either California's constitution or the Federal Constitution are a specific class of rights restricted, to any minority group, for any reason. 

Why did this proposition pass? Was it because Californians genuinely believed that granting rights to a minority group undermine the fabric of society? No. 

Was it because Californians failed to recognize the similarity of Proposition 8 with the bans on interracial marriage last century, once considered "controversial" but now universally recognized as wrong? No. 

Was it because Californians no longer saw their constitution as a foundational document that is amended carefully, but a document as pliable as putty and subject to the whims of a narrow majority? No. 

How, then, did Proposition 8 become law? 

THE MORMON CHURCH.

"Mormons had alternative views of what family meant, and were excluded and marginalized from the political process. In their arguments against the majority, *Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote: 

Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. (Journal of Discourses, 11:268-9)* 

Much has improved for the Mormon people since then. Today, Mormons have powerful representation in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008. The Mormon story is possible because our country is a tolerant and forgiving place. 


_http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/


----------



## sky dancer

According to IRS law, 

Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, *no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.*


----------



## Sunni Man

sky dancer said:


> According to IRS law,
> 
> Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, *no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.*


And your point is?


----------



## sky dancer

Sunni Man said:


> And your point is?



Perhaps LDS ought to have its tax exempt status removed for violating the law.


----------



## Sunni Man

sky dancer said:


> Perhaps LDS ought to have its tax exempt status removed for violating the law.


Will never happen! 

The homos just have sour grapes because the people spoke and the sodomites lost!!


----------



## Skeptik

sky dancer said:


> Perhaps LDS ought to have its tax exempt status removed for violating the law.



If the church itself, not individual members, actually donated to the yes on 8 campaign, then its tax exempt status is in jeopardy. If it simply urged its members to donate, then it's still a tax exempt institution.  That is an important distinction.

We get it that you don't agree with Proposition 8.  What I don't get is why that particular question got so much attention during the election.  There were several propositions on the ballot, many of them involving billions of dollars, one of them (11) proposing a monumental change in the way political boundaries were to be drawn and potentially changing politics in the state, and yet all of the letters to the editor, all  of the controversy, seemed to center around Proposition 8, and we still are hearing about it. All it changed was one word, "marriage".  Gays can still have a "wedding", they can have a civil union, they can do all of the things a married couple can do, they just can't officially call their union a "marriage."  That' it.

Why all of the fuss? And by "fuss", I mean the adamant and polarizing opinions on both sides of the question, not just the reaction of gay activists.

And, regarding this thread, I've been reading a informative, and for the most part civil, exchange between Truthseeker and others, yet the question of homosexuality keeps coming up, over and over.  

The Mormon Church, like the Evangelical churches, considers homosexuality a sin.  You may or may not agree with that.  OK, now, let's talk of more important things, like shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings.

And, say, Sky Dancer, how about a thread about Buddhism?  Most of us are woefully ignorant about that religion, myself included.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Really?  This is an ignorant statement.  Clearly, you do not understand what a meditational deity is.  Meditational deities are not gods.  They are not 'clowns' either.  Arrogant 'religious' people who call other people's spiritual symbols 'clowns' are disrespectful.   Respect is a two way street.  IF you want us to respect LDS don't insult other peoples beliefs without making an attempt to understand an 8 armed meditational deity.
> 
> Some have four arms, some have two and some have 1000 arms.  The entire image is rich with symbolism and describes qualities like love, compassion, joy and equanimity (for the four armed version) and the eight fold path for the eight armed version and the 1000 armed one demonstrates an infinite capacity to be of benefit to others.
> 
> These are qualities that spiritual practice develops.  Meditation and prayer lead one to a non-conceptual experience.  Since human beings consceptualize what is non-conceptual and visualize while concieving, we have images that are used as an assist to evoke an non-conceptual experience.
> 
> Honestly, I am interested in your faith and I know you have studied your own.  But when you take to cheap insults of others peoples faith you demonstrate ignorance and arrogance, which are not spiritual qualities.
> 
> LDS prays.  Buddhists pray.  Hindus pray.  Muslims pray.  What may be different is who or what we pray to.
> 
> Buddhists pray to our own Buddha nature--which is nowhere outside ourselves, but is present in all sentient beings.  We pray to the lineage of enlightened masters, because our spiritual teachings come to us through a chain of highly realized meditators.  The three lineages are mind- to- mind, symbolic and oral.  We pray that just as in the past others took up the practice of meditation lifetime after lifetime and achieved the highest result, we too, may experience the wisdom and truth of the 'way things truly abide' and rest in the nature of 'that which cannot be imagined or described'.
> 
> Take care.
> 
> You have given yourself the name 'truthspeaker'.  What this post reveals is not truth but ignorance.




Well I can see I have managed to offend you. I didn't mean to but it's probably because I mentioned an 8 armed clown. I actually was not referring to any of the deities you speak of. I admit I am totally ignorant about Hinduism or Buddhism and I wasn't aiming that comment towards them or people of those faiths. I just conjured it out of sarcasm. 
I am certainly not too proud to apologize if I misspeak, but take it easy a little if I didn't mean it that way. 
Our Eleventh article of faith states:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I don't believe people get answers to prayers through any other source but God himself. But that is just my belief.


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> The reason that it may confuse some people is simply because they have not read the Book of Mormon, or understand what it is about. The Bible is a record of God's dealings with people of the fertile crescent area. The Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with his children in the new world. Both teach the divinity of Christ and the need for his Atonement. They firmly strengthen each other
> 
> by the way, some of my responses are included in your quotation above. I couldn't figure out how to get them out of the gray area.
> 
> I am talking about both the Book of Mormon and the Bible. The way we see it the Bible is in harmony with the "blue book" you disrespectfully refer to.



This is only in your own mind young man. I have read the book of mormon. You need to point that finger back at yourself. The quickening *spirit* of Jesus needs no other book than the Bible/Torah. Yet you as a person of the world are entitled to your own thoughts and beliefs though. 

With that said, I will say that I have met some very fine people that happened to be Mormon. Most recently one who was running for president. Fact is I personally would have voted for him for president although even I would have reservations concerning the politics of the church that he is a member of. 




Truthspeaker said:


> Well again I am going to challenge your thinking. Just because you have mentioned that individuals twist the meaning of mormonism to their own views does not mean the church itself does. People who are guilty of perverting the gospel will stand accountable for that one day. the problem is that the people you say have done these things, cast a bad name on the people following the official doctrine. The official doctrine is what I am trying to clarify. i can't help it if individuals screw around with the teachings. Those people, if discovered, are chastised and if they don't straighten out are disciplined.


 I was not speaking about just a few individuals. I speak of a multitude of leaders in your church group that even today have a residue of hatred for those who will oppose what they personally represent and use the entire church backing to support. They sure do not represent Jesus Christ when they abuse the authority that the Mormon Church has given to them.

When a church refuses to clean house that church has done damage to those within that church that do wish to serve God. That goes for any church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Civil marriage comes with 1139 federal and state civil rights.  Marriage equality is a civil rights issue.
> The truth about Mormons, is that they invested a ton of money in my state to reverse civil marriage equality law.
> 
> _"On May 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court affirmed that the state constitution, AS IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE FOUNDERS OF THIS STATE MORE THAN 150 YEARS PRIOR, provided official government recognition of all marriages between all couples, regardless of gender.
> 
> On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 amended this constitution to explicitly deny this right to same-sex couples. Nowhere else in either California's constitution or the Federal Constitution are a specific class of rights restricted, to any minority group, for any reason.
> 
> Why did this proposition pass? Was it because Californians genuinely believed that granting rights to a minority group undermine the fabric of society? No.
> 
> Was it because Californians failed to recognize the similarity of Proposition 8 with the bans on interracial marriage last century, once considered "controversial" but now universally recognized as wrong? No.
> 
> Was it because Californians no longer saw their constitution as a foundational document that is amended carefully, but a document as pliable as putty and subject to the whims of a narrow majority? No.
> 
> How, then, did Proposition 8 become law?
> 
> THE MORMON CHURCH.
> 
> "Mormons had alternative views of what family meant, and were excluded and marginalized from the political process. In their arguments against the majority, *Mormon Prophet Brigham Young wrote:
> 
> Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. (Journal of Discourses, 11:268-9)*
> 
> Much has improved for the Mormon people since then. Today, Mormons have powerful representation in the Senate, and ran a nationally viable candidate for the United States Presidency in 2008. The Mormon story is possible because our country is a tolerant and forgiving place.
> 
> 
> _Mormons Stole Our Rights: No Tax Exemption for Political Churches



Again, this isn't about rights, though you make a compelling argument. We took this stand because of an attack on the definition of marriage itself. By definition, there is no such thing as gay marriage, because marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Just because people call it marriage doesn't mean that it is. Only if redefined, which we proudly fought against. 
I am not here to apologize for our beliefs that marriage is what it is. 
And if you think we deserve all the credit for helping to protect the age-old definition, you are sorely misinformed. Money does not translate into votes, it can help inform people about the proposition on the ballot but I believe that most people these days are smart enough to think for themselves on this issue, and they did. That is the society we live in. It is highly irrational, regarless of money spent by mormon citizens, when an equivalent amount of money was spent by opposers of the bill, to think we are singlehandedly deserving of defeating gay "marriage". There was a VAST VAST majority of non mormons who are far more responsible for passing this. The fact that we were mostly unified as a body on this issue is a testament to the quality of the doctrine we preach, not to our dominance of politics, which we can all see the world would be immensely different if all our political leaders were members of the church in good standing. It is easy to see we are heavily outnumbered in almost everything we stand for, except gay marriage. This country is not ready to totally accept immorality into the fabric of our society. They have made a lot of concessions through the years but this one will take more time and more homosexual propaganda before they accept it.


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> Again, this isn't about rights, though you make a compelling argument. We took this stand because of an attack on the definition of marriage itself. By definition, there is no such thing as gay marriage, because marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Just because people call it marriage doesn't mean that it is. Only if redefined, which we proudly fought against.
> I am not here to apologize for our beliefs that marriage is what it is.
> And if you think we deserve all the credit for helping to protect the age-old definition, you are sorely misinformed. Money does not translate into votes, it can help inform people about the proposition on the ballot but I believe that most people these days are smart enough to think for themselves on this issue, and they did. That is the society we live in. It is highly irrational, regarless of money spent by mormon citizens, when an equivalent amount of money was spent by opposers of the bill, to think we are singlehandedly deserving of defeating gay "marriage". There was a VAST VAST majority of non mormons who are far more responsible for passing this. The fact that we were mostly unified as a body on this issue is a testament to the quality of the doctrine we preach, not to our dominance of politics, which we can all see the world would immensely different if all our political leaders were members of the church in good standing. It is easy to see we are heavily outnumbered in almost everything we stand for, except gay marriage. This country is not ready to totally accept immorality into the fabric of our society. They have made a lot of concessions through the years but this one will take more time and more homosexual propaganda before they accept it.


Many who drop out of Christians Churches that they cannot change get very angry about this subject because they think it's is just picking on them for their personal life choices. 

I for one am very glad that many of the Churches have finally started coming to their senses and are supporting issues of moral nature. Kudos to the Mornmon church for taking a stand.


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> Well Hello.
> 
> I am married to an inactive Mormon woman. Her mom is still active. For a time, I allowed the missionaries to visit my home. That ended when one of them stated that my Grandmother would not be going to heaven because she was not Mormon. In a now world renowned act of self control I simply asked the young men to leave and to arrange it so there were no more visits. Considering that my grandmother had only passed on a few weeks earlier, I was quite proud of myself.
> 
> My wife and I married very young. I have noticed that while her former associates at the ward are cordial toward us, they have a long memory. Essentially, even after 25 years of marraige, there are those who still look down on her for being a pregnant teen and unwed when the pregnancy was discovered.
> 
> From an outsiders perspective I have more positives than negatives over the church. A years worth of food, help thy neighbor, don't pass the plate, etc. etc. I respect the almost military precision with which the church conducts its' business. No organization maintained by man is perfect in all regards. To chip away at imperfections is to ignore the good things. Happens all the time as we make analysis of the military or the government or even other religions.
> 
> Now, to the questions since that was the original topic yeah?
> 
> Explain the multiple levels of heaven and hell please. The young missionary got it wrong. The older brother who politely asked if we could meet was extremely respectful of my grandmothers passing but his explanation was a bit vague.
> 
> I'll think of another question soon enough.
> 
> Welcome



As to the multiple levels of heaven, it sounds like a very weird concept from the surface and understandably so. The common perception has been that when we die we either go to heaven or hell which to me sounds so illogical that it boggles my mind. 
First we must realize that there is a loving, just and merciful God that is in control of all of this. Who judges each person according to their heart and actions. Not their words or knowledge. A man can know everything about the gospel, but if he doesn't excercise the faith and translate it into action, he is worthless and far worse than an ignorant sinner.
This being said we must understand what happens to us immediately after we die. The body separates from the spirit and the spirit is consigned to a state of happines and paradise among the righteous or among the ignorant and wicked. There is a lot going on in that world. Just like here there is learning and living very similar to what is going on here. Ignorant and wicked people will have the chance to hear the gospel here, not all but many, and those who accept the gospel will join the ranks of the righteous and happy.
This will go on until the Second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth. When he comes he will physically destroy the wicked on the earth at the time and lift up the righteous who are still alive to meet him in the clouds.
After this cleansing Christ will issue a new heavenly and flawless government, Satan will be bound and kept from tempting any of the children of God. This period of Utopia will last for about a thousand years, during which time people will be resurrected with their physical and perfected bodies and live life the same as we do now. The wicked who knowingly fought against god and rejected his gospel will not be on the earth during this thousand year period. they will go to a place of suffering to live with their guilt and suffer "even as I(Christ)have suffered".
At the end of the thousand year period God states that he will loose Satan again for a period of time, to try and tempt those who hadn't been tempted before, in order so that all of God's children will receive opposition in all things.There will be a final battle called the battle of Gog and Magog and after Satan is conquered again, then comes the Final Judgment.
So Final Judgment is quite a ways away. Everyone will have an equal chance to learn fully the gospel before they can be fully judged by God.
At the judgment bar, we will all answer for the wickedness or righteousness we have become. After the thousand years is over, then even those wicked people who suffered for a thousand years and paid for their crimes, those who at last accepted the gospel of Christ will still receive a degree of glory.So since we are all ressurected and immortal at this point, no one dies or is eliminated from existence. We are all placed in societies we belong in according to our righteousness. Some will be worthy to enter the prescence of God in the Celestial Kingdom(3rd heaven) and live with him and their families who were worthy as well. Others will receive an award and estate in various levels of the Telestial(2nd heaven), or Terrestrial Kingdoms(1st), inside which, there are many levels of glory and can be progressed from level to level within those kingdoms. However these are places of joy to live in forever, but there is no leaping from one kingdom to the next, except people from higher kingdoms can visit people from lower kingdoms by going theoretically down to visit them in their kingdoms. 

So it is a very complex answer but accurate to the T as for our church official doctrine. For as all do not have the same level of accomplishments all should not get the same rewards. As the same for criminals, not all are mass murderers, some are less deviant then others and their punishments not as severe.
I hope that clarifies it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> According to IRS law,
> 
> Section 501(c)(3) describes corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literacy, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, *no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in section (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.*



Proof has shown that mormon members individually contributed, not the church itself. In fact other christian ORGANIZATIONS contributed far more than our church organization. So your comment should be targeted at those organizations, or at our individual members.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RodISHI said:


> This is only in your own mind young man. I have read the book of mormon. You need to point that finger back at yourself. The quickening *spirit* of Jesus needs no other book than the Bible/Torah. Yet you as a person of the world are entitled to your own thoughts and beliefs though.
> 
> With that said, I will say that I have met some very fine people that happened to be Mormon. Most recently one who was running for president. Fact is I personally would have voted for him for president although even I would have reservations concerning the politics of the church that he is a member of.
> 
> 
> I was not speaking about just a few individuals. I speak of a multitude of leaders in your church group that even today have a residue of hatred for those who will oppose what they personally represent and use the entire church backing to support. They sure do not represent Jesus Christ when they abuse the authority that the Mormon Church has given to them.
> 
> When a church refuses to clean house that church has done damage to those within that church that do wish to serve God. That goes for any church.



I am not sure which specifics you are referring to but we do try to clean house when it comes to leaders who would teach questionable doctrines or practices. Or become hypocrites. If leaders are found engaging in sinful activities they are promptly removed from their position and sometimes expelled from the church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RodISHI said:


> This is only in your own mind young man. I have read the book of mormon. You need to point that finger back at yourself. The quickening *spirit* of Jesus needs no other book than the Bible/Torah. Yet you as a person of the world are entitled to your own thoughts and beliefs though.
> 
> With that said, I will say that I have met some very fine people that happened to be Mormon. Most recently one who was running for president. Fact is I personally would have voted for him for president although even I would have reservations concerning the politics of the church that he is a member of.
> 
> 
> I was not speaking about just a few individuals. I speak of a multitude of leaders in your church group that even today have a residue of hatred for those who will oppose what they personally represent and use the entire church backing to support. They sure do not represent Jesus Christ when they abuse the authority that the Mormon Church has given to them.
> 
> When a church refuses to clean house that church has done damage to those within that church that do wish to serve God. That goes for any church.



I don't believe you if you say you have read the Book of Mormon because the teachings are so "Pro Christ" that it makes no sense for you to say this. Please tell me what you have read that makes you think we do not represent Jesus.


----------



## Truthspeaker

next question please


----------



## RodISHI

Truthspeaker said:


> I am not sure which specifics you are referring to but we do try to clean house when it comes to leaders who would teach questionable doctrines or practices. Or become hypocrites. If leaders are found engaging in sinful activities they are promptly removed from their position and sometimes expelled from the church.


 The Church should make that a publicly known policy for those who come across these people who believe they have the right to rule over others in direct opposition to what the Master taught. The public education along with a true standard policy concerning abuses of power set by the Church would help everyone and better serve the Lord.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RodISHI said:


> The Church should make that a publicly known policy for those who come across these people who believe they have the right to rule over others in direct opposition to what the Master taught. The public education along with a true standard policy concerning abuses of power set by the Church would help everyone and better serve the Lord.



It is very well publicly known, if people look to the church and ask about it's church government policies. It is available through the official website on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Again, this isn't about rights, though you make a compelling argument. We took this stand because of an attack on the definition of marriage itself. By definition, there is no such thing as gay marriage, because marriage is defined as a man and a woman. Just because people call it marriage doesn't mean that it is. Only if redefined, which we proudly fought against.
> I am not here to apologize for our beliefs that marriage is what it is.
> And if you think we deserve all the credit for helping to protect the age-old definition, you are sorely misinformed. Money does not translate into votes, it can help inform people about the proposition on the ballot but I believe that most people these days are smart enough to think for themselves on this issue, and they did. That is the society we live in. It is highly irrational, regarless of money spent by mormon citizens, when an equivalent amount of money was spent by opposers of the bill, to think we are singlehandedly deserving of defeating gay "marriage". There was a VAST VAST majority of non mormons who are far more responsible for passing this. The fact that we were mostly unified as a body on this issue is a testament to the quality of the doctrine we preach, not to our dominance of politics, which we can all see the world would be immensely different if all our political leaders were members of the church in good standing. It is easy to see we are heavily outnumbered in almost everything we stand for, except gay marriage. This country is not ready to totally accept immorality into the fabric of our society. They have made a lot of concessions through the years but this one will take more time and more homosexual propaganda before they accept it.



truthspeaker--

Tell the truth about how the Mormons organized and paid to pass Proposition 8 in California.  Plural marriage is AOK but marriage equality is not?

Mormons have their own agenda--CONVERSION.  You folks go after us whether we are dead or alive.

Buddhists don't go on conversion missions.  You cannot convert someone to Buddhism, neither can you make someone gay or lesbian.  Being gay or lesbian is just what we are.

It takes enormous good fortune--18 specific freedoms and endowments for a precious human life-one which possesses all the necessary requirements for enlightenment.  
http://mormonsfor8.com/


----------



## sky dancer

1. Is it true that Joseph Smith put his face in a hat to interpret the Book of Mormon?  

2. Is it true that Joseph Smith looked through stones to tell people where treasure was buried before he discovered the Golden Bible (that no one was allowed to see) in the same way?

3. Is it true that Joseph Smith was so fascinated by Masonic beliefs, that he incorporated them into his "pure Mormon doctrine" and even put Masonic images on the temple of Nauvoo?

4. Is it true that Joseph Smith believed in polygamy and had 48 wives?


----------



## sky dancer

Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary 

by Loren Franck 

1.  We're not trying to convert you.
Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary | Mormonism Research Ministry


----------



## pegwinn

Truthspeaker said:


> As to the multiple levels of heaven, . . . <snipped>
> 
> So it is a very complex answer but accurate to the T as for our church official doctrine. For as all do not have the same level of accomplishments all should not get the same rewards. As the same for criminals, not all are mass murderers, some are less deviant then others and their punishments not as severe.
> I hope that clarifies it.



First, thank you for your answer. It is essentially the same as the second brother who arranged to meet with me (at a coffee shop of all places) when I asked the missionaries to leave.

My grandmother was the stereotype of the Christian, cookie making, boo boo kissing variety. I revere the times I spent with her and my Granddad. So, of course I was very displeased. The brother was trying to make peace and I respecxted that.

Now, about the multiple layers of hell.......?


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthspeaker said:


> The best and most accurate information I have found is the article from lds.org about it. here is a link LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Mountain Meadows Massacre
> 
> 
> The article makes it clear that this act was done by members of the church who ignored the counsel of their leaders and in the heat of the moment committed terrible acts for which they were punished according to the laws of the land and the laws of the church.




Is this what the average Morman is taught about the MMM incident?

Before I linked you to this link did you know much about the story?

I find any group that does not teach all their history (the good and the bad) is doing a disservice to their members. Accepting the failings as well as the strengths of ones beliefs is the compass that keeps it heading in the right direction.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> truthspeaker--
> 
> Tell the truth about how the Mormons organized and paid to pass Proposition 8 in California.  Plural marriage is AOK but marriage equality is not?
> 
> Mormons have their own agenda--CONVERSION.  You folks go after us whether we are dead or alive.
> 
> Buddhists don't go on conversion missions.  You cannot convert someone to Buddhism, neither can you make someone gay or lesbian.  Being gay or lesbian is just what we are.
> 
> It takes enormous good fortune--18 specific freedoms and endowments for a precious human life-one which possesses all the necessary requirements for enlightenment.
> Mormons For Proposition 8 Donors &#8212; Mormons for Proposition 8



I have tried, but am oviously not "enlightened" enough to understand your arguments. Apparently you aren't even reading my posts, because you still think we are aok with polygamy. You should start a thread about attacking mormons rather than entering one that clarifies confusion about mormons. Apparently that is what you are all about.


----------



## Sunni Man

I used to debate with Mormons all of the time.

The best source for literature debunking the LDS is by "Jerald and Sandra Tanner".

They have loads of well researched material concerning the Mormon hoax on their sites.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> 1. Is it true that Joseph Smith put his face in a hat to interpret the Book of Mormon?
> 
> 2. Is it true that Joseph Smith looked through stones to tell people where treasure was buried before he discovered the Golden Bible (that no one was allowed to see) in the same way?
> 
> 3. Is it true that Joseph Smith was so fascinated by Masonic beliefs, that he incorporated them into his "pure Mormon doctrine" and even put Masonic images on the temple of Nauvoo?
> 
> 4. Is it true that Joseph Smith believed in polygamy and had 48 wives?



Even though I know you are asking these questions for the wrong reason, which is to try and stump me, it's ok, it still gives me an opportunity to tell the truth, which I am grateful for. 
1. About the method Joseph Smith used to translate the "Golden Bible", an offensive term anti-Mormons use without understanding. Buried with the plates were seer stones called the Urim and Thummim. When he would look through the stones at the ancient language on the gold plates, words and correct spelling of names in English were shown to Him by the power of the Holy Ghost as a result of his faith in Christ.
2. About him looking into the stones to tell people where treasure would be found, that is false and weird. I know the whole story sounds weird to some anyway. But so does Moses parting the Red Sea.
3. I already posted about Joseph Smith and the Masons in detail earlier in the thread. I refer you to review them as I see you are glossing over my posts repeatedly.
4. I refer you to previously mentioned post about the plural wives question. As for how many wives he had. I don't know the exact number. But it should make sense when you read the posts. Please pay closer attention if you expect a decent discussion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> Is this what the average Morman is taught about the MMM incident?
> 
> Before I linked you to this link did you know much about the story?
> 
> I find any group that does not teach all their history (the good and the bad) is doing a disservice to their members. Accepting the failings as well as the strengths of ones beliefs is the compass that keeps it heading in the right direction.



Believe me I had heard of this one before. It troubled me and so I did my research. This article was my favorite explanation. But it is true that a lot of members don't even know it happened. I guess that's a good thing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary
> 
> by Loren Franck
> 
> 1.  We're not trying to convert you.
> Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary | Mormonism Research Ministry



This guy is perhaps one of the most devious people on the planet, but while he knows how to use the right words to creep people out about the church, he is embarrassingly misinformed about his ex-religion. He can't even remember all the "lies he told" of course not. Some of the statements he says we lie about are claims we actually make, some are clear half-truths to people like me who know our doctrine. which one would you like me to throw down first?


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> First, thank you for your answer. It is essentially the same as the second brother who arranged to meet with me (at a coffee shop of all places) when I asked the missionaries to leave.
> 
> My grandmother was the stereotype of the Christian, cookie making, boo boo kissing variety. I revere the times I spent with her and my Granddad. So, of course I was very displeased. The brother was trying to make peace and I respecxted that.
> 
> Now, about the multiple layers of hell.......?



Well there isn't too much doctrine about the layers of hell because we don't really need to learn about it other than it's not a place you want to end up.

But I will say this, there are very, very, very few people that will actually qualify to go there. You have to have suffered for the thousand years during the said millenium, and then come up filthy still because of your open rebellion against god, still denying him after you have seen him and felt his love, then betrayed him and fought against him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> Is this what the average Morman is taught about the MMM incident?
> 
> Before I linked you to this link did you know much about the story?
> 
> I find any group that does not teach all their history (the good and the bad) is doing a disservice to their members. Accepting the failings as well as the strengths of ones beliefs is the compass that keeps it heading in the right direction.



I agree that all the history needs to be taught. But technically this doesn't qualify as church history as much as plain history.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sunni Man said:


> I used to debate with Mormons all of the time.
> 
> The best source for literature debunking the LDS is by "Jerald and Sandra Tanner".
> 
> They have loads of well researched material concerning the Mormon hoax on their sites.



They aren't that smart. Let's keep it on friendly terms Sunni.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> This guy is perhaps one of the most devious people on the planet, but while he knows how to use the right words to creep people out about the church, he is embarrassingly misinformed about his ex-religion. He can't even remember all the "lies he told" of course not. Some of the statements he says we lie about are claims we actually make, some are clear half-truths to people like me who know our doctrine. which one would you like me to throw down first?



Tell me the truth.  You _aren't _trying to win converts to LDS?  

BTW prior to posting with you, I've enjoyed discussing religious topic with Mormons.  They were always well educated and interested in finding common ground with other people of faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Tell me the truth.  You _aren't _trying to win converts to LDS?
> 
> BTW prior to posting with you, I've enjoyed discussing religious topic with Mormons.  They were always well educated and interested in finding common ground with other people of faith.



By the way, I too have always enjoyed discussing religion and finding common ground as well. But I have to defend myself if attacked. I set up this thread to clarify misconceptions about our faith. If that is why you joined this thread, I can help you. I am firm in my faith and you in yours. I like finding common ground as well. the truth is that people don't convert other people. People convert themselves. It is a very private matter, one which I have no say in. Nor any other person. People can deliver messages, but they can't change others opinions. People are powerful, more powerful than they imagine. They can convince themselves of what is right. When you have done that inside of yourself you are supposed to stand up for it, no matter what anyone else thinks. Otherwise what are you worth? I am standing up for what I believe to be right and others will form their own opinion. But if they are going to disagree with me, I want them to know what exactly they disagree with and be educated as well.
The last thing I want to do is hurl insults back and forth. Nobody is perfect as you see we have both traded blows. My real intent is to spread the truth about mormons. like the thread reads. I have nothing personal against you


----------



## Truthspeaker

I am going back home now and I won't be on till later, but keep it coming.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> By the way, I too have always enjoyed discussing religion and finding common ground as well. But I have to defend myself if attacked. I set up this thread to clarify misconceptions about our faith. If that is why you joined this thread, I can help you. I am firm in my faith and you in yours. I like finding common ground as well. the truth is that people don't convert other people. People convert themselves. It is a very private matter, one which I have no say in. Nor any other person. People can deliver messages, but they can't change others opinions. People are powerful, more powerful than they imagine. They can convince themselves of what is right. When you have done that inside of yourself you are supposed to stand up for it, no matter what anyone else thinks. Otherwise what are you worth? I am standing up for what I believe to be right and others will form their own opinion. But if they are going to disagree with me, I want them to know what exactly they disagree with and be educated as well.
> The last thing I want to do is hurl insults back and forth. Nobody is perfect as you see we have both traded blows. *My real intent is to spread the truth about mormons.* like the thread reads. I have nothing personal against you




I will speak out about your disrespect and ignorance of other faiths--such as your comment about prayer and eight armed deities.  That comment was ignorant and uncalled for.  Show me in Mormon doctrine where ridiculing other people is a Church teaching.

I respect the Mormon faith for its _worldly_ accomplishments.   Your Church owns the state of Utah and has a great deal of power and influence and money--that buys you a nice way to oppress people who you don't approve of who don't live in Utah.

Spiritually, I don't find discrimination in marriage law based on your Church doctrine consistent with separation of church and state and I will passionately oppose it until the day I die.  I will do so in loving memory of my father.  I will live my life openly as a married lesbian.

Don't tell me that your missionaries are not interested in converts.  That is a lie.

*The majority of Mormon missionaries are proselyting missionaries. *
http://www.dearelder.com/index/inc_name/Mormon_Missionaries/

Here is an example:
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft15.htm


----------



## Dr Grump

Truthspeaker said:


> Why




Freedom of choice..


----------



## sky dancer

Sunni Man said:


> I used to debate with Mormons all of the time.
> 
> The best source for literature debunking the LDS is by "Jerald and Sandra Tanner".
> 
> They have loads of well researched material concerning the Mormon hoax on their sites.




Have you seen this site?
Mormonism Research Ministry


----------



## Sunni Man

sky dancer said:


> Have you seen this site?
> Mormonism Research Ministry


No I hadn't seen it before.

Looks like good stuff. Thanks!


----------



## sky dancer

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was baptized at birth and will most likely be baptized again one year after his death, not by his Roman Catholic Church but by a Mormon he never met. 

The Mormons, a U.S.-based denomination officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), encourage members to baptize the dead by proxy in the belief they are helping the deceased attain full access to heaven. 

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, King Herod, Al Capone and Mickey Mouse have all appeared for a short time in the International Genealogical Index for proxy baptisms, said Helen Radkey, a researcher specialized in the IGI. 

So Benedict looks set to join his predecessor John Paul and a centuries-long list of popes Mormons have baptized -- despite the fact that he, back when he was the Vatican's top doctrinal authority, ruled that Mormon baptisms were not even Christian. 

Pope Pius XII was baptized three times and also "sealed" in eternal marriage to a fictional Mrs Eugenio Pacelli. Saint Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order of priests, was also "sealed" to a bogus wife. Catholic clergy do not marry.
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDept...

VERY RESPECTFUL OF CATHOLICS ISN'T IT?


----------



## Sunni Man

I studied Mormonism many years ago.

In my opinion it is far more than a "cult".

It is "occult"


----------



## sky dancer

Sunni Man said:


> I studied Mormonism many years ago.
> 
> In my opinion it is far more than a "cult".
> 
> It is "occult"




Why do you say that?


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I will speak out about your disrespect and ignorance of other faiths--such as your comment about prayer and eight armed deities.  That comment was ignorant and uncalled for.  Show me in Mormon doctrine where ridiculing other people is a Church teaching.
> 
> I respect the Mormon faith for its _worldly_ accomplishments.   Your Church owns the state of Utah and has a great deal of power and influence and money--that buys you a nice way to oppress people who you don't approve of who don't live in Utah.
> 
> Spiritually, I don't find discrimination in marriage law based on your Church doctrine consistent with separation of church and state and I will passionately oppose it until the day I die.  I will do so in loving memory of my father.  I will live my life openly as a married lesbian.
> 
> Don't tell me that your missionaries are not interested in converts.  That is a lie.
> 
> *The majority of Mormon missionaries are proselyting missionaries. *
> Mormon Missionaries! -- All you ever wanted to know
> 
> Here is an example:
> A Recent Mormon Convert



After that last post, I have concluded you are not smart enough to debate because you don't read your debater's post. You have made the most unsubstantiated claims without evidence that we can't even talk. The church doesn't own the state, they make up a large population of it, I never said we weren't interested in converts, Why would we send out over 30,000 missionaries to teach the gospel? We love converts! But like I said, people can teach the gospel but individuals have to convert themselves. 
You have confused yourself beyond measure if you think we are oppressing anyone, you have no idea what real oppression is, you have no concept of a loving Father in heaven and you have no concept of reality. Are you on drugs?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr Grump said:


> Freedom of choice..



Ok I won't argue.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict was baptized at birth and will most likely be baptized again one year after his death, not by his Roman Catholic Church but by a Mormon he never met.
> 
> The Mormons, a U.S.-based denomination officially named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), encourage members to baptize the dead by proxy in the belief they are helping the deceased attain full access to heaven.
> 
> Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Zedong, King Herod, Al Capone and Mickey Mouse have all appeared for a short time in the International Genealogical Index for proxy baptisms, said Helen Radkey, a researcher specialized in the IGI.
> 
> So Benedict looks set to join his predecessor John Paul and a centuries-long list of popes Mormons have baptized -- despite the fact that he, back when he was the Vatican's top doctrinal authority, ruled that Mormon baptisms were not even Christian.
> 
> Pope Pius XII was baptized three times and also "sealed" in eternal marriage to a fictional Mrs Eugenio Pacelli. Saint Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuit order of priests, was also "sealed" to a bogus wife. Catholic clergy do not marry.
> http://www.reuters.com/article/inDept...
> 
> VERY RESPECTFUL OF CATHOLICS ISN'T IT?



Your signature is a joke. In losing yourself to love everyone else you have lost your mind. Are you done trying to throw mud? You are obviously not interested in discussion, I have answered every question and cleared up every misconception you have asked about. I never said people wouldn't be offended. You can't help it. Every religion has teachings that somebody doesn't like. You can say what you want but at this point your phony rage means nothing to me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sunni Man said:


> No I hadn't seen it before.
> 
> Looks like good stuff. Thanks!



What is your problem with Mormons specifically?


----------



## pegwinn

Nineteen pages, and in spite of a couple of very weak backslaps, TT has been polite and forthright in answering questions.

*The following is for those to whom the proverbial shoe fits:*

First: The thread is about questions. If you can only attack instead of asking questions then you are no longer learning. Look up the word stagnate in the dictionary.

Second: IF you don't like Mormons, then unsub from the thread and move on. No one is twisting your arm here. If you believe that you have enough knowledge to make an informed judgment of the religion, then do so in your own thread.

Finally, any religious discussion is bound to create friction as your core values collide with something you don't get. The trick is to overcome the friction by actually having a give and take over the questions and answers.

*So, anyhow, for TT*: If I read your explanation correctly essentially no one is consigned to hell unless they outright fight against God.... Am I right so far?

So, according to your church doctrine, is it possible that Hitler or Stalin will make it to Heaven? I ask this because all Christ based religions speak of forgiveness......


----------



## sky dancer

The thread topic is the Truth About Mormons.

From Truthspeakers mouth the following:

"Mormons are easy to hate."  I don't find that a true statement.

Buddhists have specific definitions for love.  "Love is the wish for someone else to be happy."

I want Mormons to be happy.  If they were happy, and confident in their faith, they would not feeled threatened by others of us, who are Buddhist or gay being happy.

We want to be able to civilly marry and have the same rights as married couples.  We want to be able to take care of our loved ones without legal obstacles.

My one and only beef with Mormons is that they have gone out of their way to make gay people unhappy.  I don't understand that as a spiritual value.

I don't understand why a Mormon finds it necessary to put down the beliefs of a Hindu or Buddhist.


----------



## pegwinn

Actually the Title of the thread is the truth about mormons.

The opening post clearly explained what the poster wanted to do, answer questions.


----------



## eots

> sky dancer...  May I learn to lose myself in love for every living being!



well if you can do that then surely you could find one with a penis to marry ?


----------



## sky dancer

pegwinn said:


> Actually the Title of the thread is the truth about mormons.
> 
> The opening post clearly explained what the poster wanted to do, answer questions.



My posts are full of questions.  I'm not leaving.


----------



## sky dancer

eots said:


> well if you can do that then surely you could find one with a penis to marry ?



I have been with my wife for almost 24 years.   How long have you been married?


----------



## eots

sky dancer said:


> I have been with my wife for almost 24 years.   How long have you been married?



you have been with the same woman for 24 years you mean...and your cali wedding doesn't count its only pretend kind


----------



## sky dancer

eots said:


> you have been with the same woman for 24 years you mean...and your cali wedding doesn't count its only pretend kind



It's not a 'pretend' marriage.  My marriage is still legal in the state of California inspite of Proposition 8.

How long have you been married?  Are you pretending to be married?


----------



## eots

my marriage ended after 12 years..I  am not married to my youngest child's mother
my oldest son and youngest son are 2O years apart..perhaps in 20 years I will  take a new bride and have one more ... as my swan song


----------



## sky dancer

In many ways you are correct.  My California marriage doesn't amount to much in terms of affording me the 1000plus rights that heterosexual American citizens enjoy.

If I travel out of state, the other states do not recognize my marriage.  This is a slow change.  It may not happen in my lifetime.  More than likely, when my wife or I die, we will not be able to take care of each other as easily as heterosexuals do.

It boggles the mind, how perfect strangers who don't know me or my wife, think its perfectly acceptable to place legal obstacles in the way of our long term happiness.


----------



## chloe

pegwinn said:


> *So, anyhow, for TT*: If I read your explanation correctly essentially no one is consigned to hell unless they outright fight against God.... Am I right so far?
> 
> So, according to your church doctrine, is it possible that Hitler or Stalin will make it to Heaven? I ask this because all Christ based religions speak of forgiveness......



 The Book of Mormon teaches that after death, the spirits of those who "chose evil works rather than good" in mortality will be "cast out into outer darkness". This is considered to be a condition of great torment, where there will be "weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth". In this sense, outer darkness and spirit paradise are the two possible destinations for individuals immediately after death. This place of torment in the spirit world is much more commonly referred to by modern Latter-day Saints as spirit prison.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> You have actually shown yourself to be nothing more than an angry anti-mormon who blames individual actions on the church as a whole. If Mormons were a race, wouldn't that be considered racism.
> It's like getting mad at all blacks because you see blacks committing a lot of crimes on the news. Point delivered.



I'm not angry.  I just think that protelytizing deserves a rebuking.  

You do understand the difference between people who are born with a specific skin color, and cannot change it, and people who knowingly make a decision to join an organization that, until the mid 1970s, was totally racist?

I also get mad at Christian Identity Skinheads.  Same diff.

For a mormon to call ANYONE a racist is absurd in the extreme given your scriptures positions on race.  "White and delightsome," anyone?


----------



## jillian

eots said:


> well if you can do that then surely you could find one with a penis to marry ?



probably as readily as you could find one with a penis to marry.

but it wouldn't turn you on much, would it?


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> I swear you really amaze me everytime you post a half truth about our church and I shut it down, you switch to something new because you are exposed as an uninformed anti-mormon. you can keep bringing all this stuff up but you are going to get shut down each time.
> I swear you don't think I read up on this stuff. Just because you can bully some teenage mormons or inactive members who haven't picked up a scripture in 10 years, you think you can stump me. But I will confound you again. No doubt you will keep coming up with some strange fact about the church you think I haven't heard of. That's fine eventually you will get tired of the beating.



And yet, you've failed to respond to this.  My information was accurate.  Do you want proof? 

Here is General Authority Mark S. Peterson's commentary on race.  It includes several quotes from Brigham Young.

Elder Mark S. Peterson
Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, 
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.


> God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....
> 
> The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. *If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders".... *





> I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, *it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage*. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....





> Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....
> 
> The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....





> Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.



This is the church you belong to.  Own it.

Bruce R. McConkie, *Mormon Doctrine*, 1967 version
p. 114


> In a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.) The whole house of Israel was chosen as a peculiar people, one set apart from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2); and they were forbidden to marry outside their own caste. (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-5.) In effect the Lamanites belonged to one caste and the Nephites to another, and a mark was put upon the Lamanites to keep the Nephites from intermixing with and marrying them. (Alma 3:6-11.) All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples. The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some persons are born in one race or caste and some in another. "However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord.


pp. 102. 


> Tough he was rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those sprits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born though his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan.



p. 343


> Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned....




SPENCER W. KIMBALL
General Conference Report, October, 1960. 
Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923. 


> I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
> 
> At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.



You belong to an organization that has a history of being EVERY BIT as racist as the KKK.  The fact that you don't know your own church's history does not make me an "anti-Mormon."  Don't come here spewing your nonsense until you are well-versed in all aspects of your faith, including the ugly ones.


----------



## midcan5

Truthspeaker said:


> It is not a matter of allegiance with me. It is a matter of conscience. Fortunately my conscience agrees with the church so far when the two disagree



Call it conscience or whatever, consider the following, given gays should have all the rights of others, what would give the Mormon church the right to interfere in the rights of another?

Sheldon Rampton: Mormon Homophobia


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthspeaker said:


> I agree that all the history needs to be taught. But technically this doesn't qualify as church history as much as plain history.




How can it not be considered Morman history when it was carried out by Mormans?


Please , Im not trying to be  harsh but I would like my original question answered which is what does the Morman church teach its members about this church history?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre_and_Mormon_public_relations


Why did Young and the church deny involvement at the time?


----------



## chloe

Mormonism does not tolerate gays and lesbians. Any Mormon member that confesses homosexuality is automatically forced to appear in front of Church Courts. These Courts then decide whether the homosexual transgressions merit either excommunication or dis-fellowshipping. Mormons who have practiced homosexual intercourse with the same sex are automatically excommunicated. 

The leaders of the Mormon Church teach that a man is a God-Embryo and therefore cannot be born gay. Mormon leaders teach that homosexuals choose their lifestyles. They teach that this choice came about from sinful parents, masturbation, or willful disobedience of the commandments of God. All blame for the sin of homosexuality is placed on the person causing depression, hopelessness and often - suicide. 

Mormon Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley stated on Larry King Live (December 2004), "We know they have a problem [homosexuals]. We want to help them solve that problem. ...... The fact is, they have a problem." 

During the 1970's the practice of electro-shock therapy was used at the LDS Church owned Brigham Young University. There, homosexuals were electrocuted in an attempt to stop homosexual tendencies. 

This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel&#8217;s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome."
*- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39*

Kimball said it is better to have never been born then to be a homosexual.

New Horizons for Homosexuals


----------



## Truthmatters

Black Mormons struggle for acceptance in church

There is also the question fo how they see black people.


----------



## catzmeow

Stop it, you evil anti-Mormons.  How dare you challenge Truthspeaker's faith!!???!!!


----------



## eots

[





> QUOTE=chloe;924262]Mormonism does not tolerate gays and lesbians. Any Mormon member that confesses homosexuality is automatically forced to appear in front of Church Courts. These Courts then decide whether the homosexual transgressions merit either excommunication or dis-fellowshipping. Mormons who have practiced homosexual intercourse with the same sex are automatically excommunicated.



sounds reasonable






> The leaders of the Mormon Church teach that a man is a God-Embryo and therefore cannot be born gay. Mormon leaders teach that homosexuals choose their lifestyles.



there is no proof to the contrary



> They teach that this choice came about from sinful parents, masturbation, or willful disobedience of the commandments of God. All blame for the sin of homosexuality is placed on the person causing depression, hopelessness and often - suicide.




homos kill themselves at a very high rate and it is most often not due to non acceptance..






> Mormon Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley stated on Larry King Live (December 2004), "We know they have a problem [homosexuals]. We want to help them solve that problem. ...... The fact is, they have a problem."



they most definitely have a problem and... deserve help






> During the 1970's the practice of electro-shock therapy was used at the LDS Church owned Brigham Young University. There, homosexuals were electrocuted in an attempt to stop homosexual tendencies.



they use it for depression and schizophrenia..how where the results ?







> This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel&#8217;s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome."



true enough and those  nasty disease hole bath house in frisco they had to order them shut to curb aids







> *- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39*
> 
> Kimball said it is better to have never been born then to be a homosexual.
> 
> New Horizons for Homosexuals


[/QUOTE]

there is always redemption cant agree with that one...


----------



## pegwinn

*For SkyD:* I am not asking you to leave. I am only noting that if you are only here to bring opposition to TT's faith, then maybe you should start your own thread. This one is for answering questions. Obviously (to anyone I'd think) he will answer per his doctrine. 

As an anology if you ask me about the Marines I will quote the regs without offering an opinion if possible. If you wish to challenge me on those regs I personally think a seperate dedicated thread would be in order. To be honest, I am interested in the topic simply to see if my personal experience as a married outsider to a member of his faith is accurate. I am not interested in wading thru XX number of pages of snide comments and "lookie here's" or a discussion on the merits of so-called gay rights. 

So, that wasn't an attack on anyone personally. It was a request from a fellow poster to stay on topic in this thread. Fair 'nuff?

Phil


----------



## catzmeow

pegwinn said:


> I am interested in the topic simply to see if my personal experience as a married outsider to a member of his faith is accurate.



Just curious, is your wife still active in her faith?


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> Nineteen pages, and in spite of a couple of very weak backslaps, TT has been polite and forthright in answering questions.
> 
> *The following is for those to whom the proverbial shoe fits:*
> 
> First: The thread is about questions. If you can only attack instead of asking questions then you are no longer learning. Look up the word stagnate in the dictionary.
> 
> Second: IF you don't like Mormons, then unsub from the thread and move on. No one is twisting your arm here. If you believe that you have enough knowledge to make an informed judgment of the religion, then do so in your own thread.
> 
> Finally, any religious discussion is bound to create friction as your core values collide with something you don't get. The trick is to overcome the friction by actually having a give and take over the questions and answers.
> 
> *So, anyhow, for TT*: If I read your explanation correctly essentially no one is consigned to hell unless they outright fight against God.... Am I right so far?
> 
> So, according to your church doctrine, is it possible that Hitler or Stalin will make it to Heaven? I ask this because all Christ based religions speak of forgiveness......




Great question, as for what my heart tells me, I don't think it is going to go over well with those guys. They will probably miss out on the millienium, but since I am not God, I can't say what their final state will be. He knows all the little details and circumstances that nobody knows. I just have to worry about my own salvation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> The thread topic is the Truth About Mormons.
> 
> From Truthspeakers mouth the following:
> 
> "Mormons are easy to hate."  I don't find that a true statement.
> 
> Buddhists have specific definitions for love.  "Love is the wish for someone else to be happy."
> 
> I want Mormons to be happy.  If they were happy, and confident in their faith, they would not feeled threatened by others of us, who are Buddhist or gay being happy.
> 
> We want to be able to civilly marry and have the same rights as married couples.  We want to be able to take care of our loved ones without legal obstacles.
> 
> My one and only beef with Mormons is that they have gone out of their way to make gay people unhappy.  I don't understand that as a spiritual value.
> 
> I don't understand why a Mormon finds it necessary to put down the beliefs of a Hindu or Buddhist.



As I mentioned before, it was not my intent to put down your religious beliefs, sometimes you can't always say the perfect thing. I actually respect your beliefs and your stand. I vehemently disagree with it but it doesn't mean we can't get along in this world. If prop 8 had not passed, I would still disagree with gay  marriages. It is not a personal attack on you or buddhists or muslims or even gays. It is us believing in our values which considers homosexuality an acquired sin. Not a born-with normality.
Can't we just agree to disagree on that. I don't want to talk about Prop 8 in this thread, I am already doing it in the correct forum for Prop 8.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Great question, as for what my heart tells me, I don't think it is going to go over well with those guys. They will probably miss out on the millienium, but since I am not God, I can't say what their final state will be. He knows all the little details and circumstances that nobody knows. I just have to worry about my own salvation.



Lame.  I thought you were here to provide doctrinal answers to those sorts of questions.  Instead, it appears you are playing dodgeball with the uncomfortable ones.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine



> When the wicked depart this life, they are 'cast out into outer darkness,' into hell, where 'they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord,' where they are spiritually dead. (Alma 40:13-14.) They remain spiritually dead in hell until the day of their resurrection (D. & C. 76:103-112), until 'death and hell' deliver up the dead which are in them, so that they may be judged according to their works" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 757).





> "The great majority of those who have suffered in hell will pass into the telestial kingdom; the balance, cursed as sons of perdition, will be consigned to partake of endless woe with the devil and his angels" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 350).


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> The Book of Mormon teaches that after death, the spirits of those who "chose evil works rather than good" in mortality will be "cast out into outer darkness". This is considered to be a condition of great torment, where there will be "weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth". In this sense, outer darkness and spirit paradise are the two possible destinations for individuals immediately after death. This place of torment in the spirit world is much more commonly referred to by modern Latter-day Saints as spirit prison.



Almost all the way right. However spirit prison is a much more desirable place than outer darkness. Spirit "prison" as it is called is more like an extension of the life one lives in ignorance. the "paradise" is more the enlightened state of happiness and knowledge of the gospel in the spirit world. You don't want to be in spirit prison because you still haven't accepted the gospel yet and can't have a fulness of joy. 
But outer darkness is the worst place in the universe to be. That's where people like mass murderers and rapists and the like will go for 1000years. A person with that type of temperment probably wouldn't accept the gospel in the spirit prison either, I am sure there may be 1 or two individual exceptions but who knows. Outer darkness is all bad.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> I'm not angry.  I just think that protelytizing deserves a rebuking.
> 
> You do understand the difference between people who are born with a specific skin color, and cannot change it, and people who knowingly make a decision to join an organization that, until the mid 1970s, was totally racist?
> 
> I also get mad at Christian Identity Skinheads.  Same diff.
> 
> For a mormon to call ANYONE a racist is absurd in the extreme given your scriptures positions on race.  "White and delightsome," anyone?



Yet again, I am glad you brought up another common point of misconception that is so easily twisted by people like you. Before I waste my breath, however, you need to read my post on blacks and the priesthood. go back and learn. Then you can attack again, unsuccessfully.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Yet again, I am glad you brought up another common point of misconception that is so easily twisted by people like you. Before I waste my breath, however, you need to read my post on blacks and the priesthood. go back and learn. Then you can attack again, unsuccessfully.



I'm already familiar with the LDS church's changing positions of blacks.  In fact, it appears from our posts that I'm more familiar with the subject and what your prophets have had to say on the matter, than you are.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> How can it not be considered Morman history when it was carried out by Mormans?
> 
> 
> Please , Im not trying to be  harsh but I would like my original question answered which is what does the Morman church teach its members about this church history?
> 
> 
> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Mountain Meadows massacre and Mormon public relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Why did Young and the church deny involvement at the time?




You didn't read the article I posted. Young denied involvement because he wasn't involved. It was 2 days before he got the message when it had already happened. It wasn't like he got an IM on his cell phone and could respond right away. Read the article. It is the correct history, it is on the church's official website, I don't know how you can say we don't teach about it.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> It is the correct history, it is on the church's official website.



Because, we know that these two things ALWAYS go hand in hand.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> And yet, you've failed to respond to this.  My information was accurate.  Do you want proof?
> 
> Here is General Authority Mark S. Peterson's commentary on race.  It includes several quotes from Brigham Young.
> 
> Elder Mark S. Peterson
> Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
> Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
> Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the church you belong to.  Own it.
> 
> Bruce R. McConkie, *Mormon Doctrine*, 1967 version
> p. 114
> 
> pp. 102.
> 
> 
> p. 343
> 
> 
> 
> SPENCER W. KIMBALL
> General Conference Report, October, 1960.
> Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923.
> 
> 
> You belong to an organization that has a history of being EVERY BIT as racist as the KKK.  The fact that you don't know your own church's history does not make me an "anti-Mormon."  Don't come here spewing your nonsense until you are well-versed in all aspects of your faith, including the ugly ones.



I hope everyone is paying very close attention........................
Listen carefully, I would like to first and again thank you for bringing up another issue which on the surface can make us look really bad until you do all the research. 
Interesting that you bring up the 1967 version of Mormon Doctrine which was actually published not by the Church itself but from the well versed and Brilliant Bruce R. McKonkie.  However, would we all agree that people as individuals are not perfect? I think we have established that clearly. These individuals were far less racist than most of their white counterparts who were not members of the church, that being said. I will show you now that the official doctrine of the church remains unscathed and perfect.

After the Revelation of 1978, many things were changed, the doctrines of Mark Peterson and Bruce R. McKonkie were declared false doctrine by none other than the prophet of his time Spencer W. Kimball, leading to a revised version of the book by Bruce McKonkie who revised it himself. President Kimball also retracted his words and stated that he was declaring his opinion at the time and not the word of the Lord. Prophets are people too. We all can make mistakes. It is clear that they did this because they forgot about the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith who prophesied that the Negro would eventually have the priesthood restored before the coming of Christ. Again, you really need to read my previous post. It will educate you and perhaps take away some of the bitterness you have.

Yet again, I have shown that I know my doctrine better than an angry ex-mormon who posts the lower half of some gothic teenage drug addict as his avatar and calls himself "naughty"


----------



## Truthspeaker

midcan5 said:


> Call it conscience or whatever, consider the following, given gays should have all the rights of others, what would give the Mormon church the right to interfere in the rights of another?
> 
> Sheldon Rampton: Mormon Homophobia



We don't see it the way you do. I respect your opinion and I feel you are trying to do the right thing. We voted as citizens for what we feel to be right because we don't believe homosexuality is approved by god. It is our teaching and we know it offends some people but we can't go back on it. We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Mormonism does not tolerate gays and lesbians. Any Mormon member that confesses homosexuality is automatically forced to appear in front of Church Courts. These Courts then decide whether the homosexual transgressions merit either excommunication or dis-fellowshipping. Mormons who have practiced homosexual intercourse with the same sex are automatically excommunicated.
> 
> The leaders of the Mormon Church teach that a man is a God-Embryo and therefore cannot be born gay. Mormon leaders teach that homosexuals choose their lifestyles. They teach that this choice came about from sinful parents, masturbation, or willful disobedience of the commandments of God. All blame for the sin of homosexuality is placed on the person causing depression, hopelessness and often - suicide.
> 
> Mormon Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley stated on Larry King Live (December 2004), "We know they have a problem [homosexuals]. We want to help them solve that problem. ...... The fact is, they have a problem."
> 
> During the 1970's the practice of electro-shock therapy was used at the LDS Church owned Brigham Young University. There, homosexuals were electrocuted in an attempt to stop homosexual tendencies.
> 
> This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israels wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome."
> *- Prophet Spencer W. Kimball, "President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality," LDS New Era, Nov. 1980, Page 39*
> 
> Kimball said it is better to have never been born then to be a homosexual.
> 
> New Horizons for Homosexuals



Most of that is true except forcing of people to appear before church court, they don't have to physically go, but by refusing to go rebel against the church and must not be numbered among us if they don't want to follow the principles of the gospel. As for the electro shock therapy experiment, it was an independant study with willing participants who were trying to find a way to cure themselves of their problem. You act like it was the electric chair when you said electrocute. They weren't tortured or anything.

Like I said earlier, this is not a Mormon apology thread. We believe what we believe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Stop it, you evil anti-Mormons.  How dare you challenge Truthspeaker's faith!!???!!!



Yet another ignoramus comment. I started the thread and opened up the forum for questions. I have invited all of your challenges. I just hope others can ask for the purpose of finding the truth about us rather than trying to prove me wrong. I have not tried to prove any other faith wrong. I am only carifying what I believe to be true. But you can't help yourself, thank God I know my doctrine or you would overwhelm some poor member who is new in the faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Just curious, is your wife still active in her faith?



Great, he wants to try and tear down her faith. He's a wolf in wolfs clothing. Not too sly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

eots said:


> [
> 
> sounds reasonable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no proof to the contrary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> homos kill themselves at a very high rate and it is most often not due to non acceptance..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they most definitely have a problem and... deserve help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they use it for depression and schizophrenia..how where the results ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true enough and those  nasty disease hole bath house in frisco they had to order them shut to curb aids



there is always redemption cant agree with that one...[/QUOTE]


President Kimball wasn't saying there wasn't redemption. There is always redemption according to our doctrine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Lame.  I thought you were here to provide doctrinal answers to those sorts of questions.  Instead, it appears you are playing dodgeball with the uncomfortable ones.
> 
> Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine



You are cunning, but not smart. Just because I didn't play the role of God and assume there will be no redemption for these people, you say I dodged the question. How stupid are you?
Maybe it's not stupid, you might be what the scriptures call, "drunken with anger" or some other substance like the chic on your avatar.

You don't read my posts about the afterlife and how complex it is because I don't think you can comprehend it, or you wouldn't have made such a statement. You posted that you gave your live to Jesus, but now he doesn't call any more. No wonder.
Next question please.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> I'm already familiar with the LDS church's changing positions of blacks.  In fact, it appears from our posts that I'm more familiar with the subject and what your prophets have had to say on the matter, than you are.



yet again you are wrong. It is time to bow down.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Because, we know that these two things ALWAYS go hand in hand.



Some of "us" apparently don't


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> Most of that is true except forcing of people to appear before church court, they don't have to physically go, but by refusing to go rebel against the church and must not be numbered among us if they don't want to follow the principles of the gospel. As for the electro shock therapy experiment, it was an independant study with willing participants who were trying to find a way to cure themselves of their problem. You act like it was the electric chair when you said electrocute. They weren't tortured or anything.
> 
> Like I said earlier, this is not a Mormon apology thread. We believe what we believe.



That was information that was documented in earlier times. I have not given my opinion on it. There is a documentary being made about it. Sorry for the confusion. I will look for the link if you like where it said that.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> That was information that was documented in earlier times. I have not given my opinion on it. There is a documentary being made about it. Sorry for the confusion. I will look for the link if you like where it said that.



No worries, it was close enough. I have enjoyed all of your posts because you are not a psychotic deviant like some I have encountered.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> I have invited all of your challenges.



And failed to answer most of them with any evidence at all.



> I just hope others can ask for the purpose of finding the truth about us rather than trying to prove me wrong.



Actually, I think you're more interested in representing the party line than in the truth.  

You know what they say, though.  The truth will set you free.  I hope you someday lay hands on it.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> No worries, it was close enough. I have enjoyed all of your posts because you are not a psychotic deviant like some I have encountered.



Gosh, does anyone think he's talking about me?


----------



## Truthspeaker

quite bloody likely


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> And failed to answer most of them with any evidence at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think you're more interested in representing the party line than in the truth.
> 
> You know what they say, though.  The truth will set you free.  I hope you someday lay hands on it.



you failed to read my answers


----------



## Truthspeaker

Good luck and get a life.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> you failed to read my answers



I did read your answers.  Did you notice that I substantiated my own claims with direct quotes, including sources, from your doctrine-makers?


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> I did read your answers.  Did you notice that I substantiated my own claims with direct quotes, including sources, from your doctrine-makers?



So what?


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> So what?



So, I win.  Neener, neener.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> So, I win.  Neener, neener.



Neener, neener? whatever, your opinion doesn't matter anymore. The argument is over. You think you won, but I don't care. Smart people can tell you are just a deviant.


----------



## Truthspeaker

the truth speaks for itself, you can ignore it or deny it. You are denying it.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> the truth speaks for itself, you can ignore it or deny it. You are denying it.



You are the one ignoring your own prophets.  Are blacks entitled to the priesthood, or not?  Were black people less valiant in the pre-existence, or not?  Is your church racist, or not?


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> You are the one ignoring your own prophets.  Are blacks entitled to the priesthood, or not?  Were black people less valiant in the pre-existence, or not?  Is your church racist, or not?



Every question you just asked me I posted somewhere between the 10th and 18th pages in detail on blacks and the priesthood, proof again, you haven't read my posts.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Every question you just asked me I posted somewhere between the 10th and 18th pages in detail on blacks and the priesthood, proof again, you haven't read my posts.



I've read your posts.  I know the official church stance on this issue:

Deny, deny, deny.


----------



## Truthspeaker

You didn't read the post


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> You didn't read the post



I read the post.  Durr.  I didn't fall off the turnip truck last week, wet-behind-the-ears.  You're parroting illogical church-speak that fails to recognize the fact that mormon doctrine was once as racist as the KKK.  Please read the quotes I've provided and respond to them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> I read the post.  Durr.  I didn't fall off the turnip truck last week, wet-behind-the-ears.  You're parroting illogical church-speak that fails to recognize the fact that mormon doctrine was once as racist as the KKK.  Please read the quotes I've provided and respond to them.




you didn't read my responses. I am not going to repeat myself. Start over and read the whole thread if you have to.


----------



## catzmeow

You state that these things were not taught  as Mormon Doctrine by your church hierarchy, BUT THEY WERE:

Here is General Authority Mark S. Peterson's commentary on race. It includes several quotes from Brigham Young.

Elder Mark S. Peterson
Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, 
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.



> Quote:
> God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....
> 
> The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....





> Quote:
> I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....





> Quote:
> Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....
> 
> The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....





> Quote:
> Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.


This is the church you belong to. Own it.

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1967 version
p. 114



> Quote:
> In a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.) The whole house of Israel was chosen as a peculiar people, one set apart from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2); and they were forbidden to marry outside their own caste. (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-5.) In effect the Lamanites belonged to one caste and the Nephites to another, and a mark was put upon the Lamanites to keep the Nephites from intermixing with and marrying them. (Alma 3:6-11.) All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples. The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some persons are born in one race or caste and some in another. "However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord.
> 
> pp. 102.





> Quote:
> Tough he was rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those sprits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born though his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan.
> 
> p. 343





> Quote:
> Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned....


SPENCER W. KIMBALL
General Conference Report, October, 1960. 
Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923. 



> Quote:
> I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.
> 
> At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl--sixteen--sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents--on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.


You belong to an organization that has a history of being EVERY BIT as racist as the KKK. The fact that you don't know your own church's history does not make me an "anti-Mormon." Don't come here spewing your nonsense until you are well-versed in all aspects of your faith, including the ugly ones.


----------



## KittenKoder

Catzmeow posted fact.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I read that. You didn't read my responses. This is a joke right. I am not going to repeat myself. go back and read my responses. Then we can talk. You didn't read my responses because you didn't answer them. You are crazy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Catzmeow posted fact.



I responded between the 15th and 18th pages but he or you didn't read them to check up that. I also responded again somewhere between the 21st and 22nd pages but you didn't read that either otherwise you would have quoted it in the gray area.


----------



## KittenKoder

LDS are just as much hypocrites as all other christians, another christian cult like Baptist, Catholic, etc..


----------



## Truthspeaker

This is an absurd statement


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> This is an absurd statement



Answer me this: Why do you think it is?


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> I responded between the 15th and 18th pages but he or you didn't read them to check up that. I also responded again somewhere between the 21st and 22nd pages but you didn't read that either otherwise you would have quoted it in the gray area.



Why would I quote it when it is patently false?  I rebutted you by providing actual evidence that your church leaders did in fact teach EXACTLY what you say they didn't teach.  Specifically, Brigham Young and Spencer Kimball, but Bruce R. McConkie is responsible for providing much of the doctrine of the church, as well, and is looked upon as an authority in that area.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Why would I quote it when it is patently false?  I rebutted you by providing actual evidence that your church leaders did in fact teach EXACTLY what you say they didn't teach.  Specifically, Brigham Young and Spencer Kimball, but Bruce R. McConkie is responsible for providing much of the doctrine of the church, as well, and is looked upon as an authority in that area.



Nice dodgeball move, I answered, you didn't read it so now you won't quote it because you don't know where it is. You are afraid or too lazy to go back and read my response to your lengthy discourse.


----------



## KittenKoder

Now I know why my grandfather didn't like converts, they find what they think is the greatest thing in the world and then spout off as if they are authorities without ever really knowing, much less understanding, the religion.

FakeSpeaker, you do remember what the doctrine teaches about the most persecuted correct, and yet you converts are persecuting the gay community.


----------



## Steerpike

KittenKoder said:


> Now I know why my grandfather didn't like converts, they find what they think is the greatest thing in the world and then spout off as if they are authorities without ever really knowing, much less understanding, the religion.
> 
> FakeSpeaker, you do remember what the doctrine teaches about the most persecuted correct, and yet you converts are persecuting the gay community.



If you are talking about California Prop 8, it is hard to say they are persecuting the gay community.  The Mormon population of California isn't sufficient in and of itself to have passed the Proposition.  Rather, it was more the black vote that did it.  But it isn't safe for the left to antagonize the black community, whereas the Mormon community is a fair target for them.


----------



## KittenKoder

Steerpike said:


> If you are talking about California Prop 8, it is hard to say they are persecuting the gay community.  The Mormon population of California isn't sufficient in and of itself to have passed the Proposition.  Rather, it was more the black vote that did it.  But it isn't safe for the left to antagonize the black community, whereas the Mormon community is a fair target for them.



Nothing to do with Prop 8 actually, though that is connected somehow but different thread. No, I was born and raised in the LDS church, from my mothers side all my family are *shudder* and the original teaching of all gay men and women was that they wouldn't be able to get into one of the higher kingdoms after death due to some requirement for being married to another of the opposite sex in order to get there. However as to if they are bad people, should laws be made to change their way of life, the teachings say no. Also marriage in the political sense has no meaning to the mormons other than the legal contract for rights and taxes, they have another ritual performed to complete the marriage which has nothing to do with law. The funny underwear thing that most people poke fun at. Regardless, the teachings state that the majority rules with high regards for the minority.

As for the persecuted, the most persecuted are the most blessed by their god.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Nothing to do with Prop 8 actually, though that is connected somehow but different thread. No, I was born and raised in the LDS church, from my mothers side all my family are *shudder* and the original teaching of all gay men and women was that they wouldn't be able to get into one of the higher kingdoms after death due to some requirement for being married to another of the opposite sex in order to get there. However as to if they are bad people, should laws be made to change their way of life, the teachings say no. Also marriage in the political sense has no meaning to the mormons other than the legal contract for rights and taxes, they have another ritual performed to complete the marriage which has nothing to do with law. The funny underwear thing that most people poke fun at. Regardless, the teachings state that the majority rules with high regards for the minority.
> 
> As for the persecuted, the most persecuted are the most blessed by their god.



Wow, you never cease to amaze me with how little you know about our faith.  Same goes for the cats meow. Is there a correlation with cat's and anti mormonism or something?


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Wow, you never cease to amaze me with how little you know about our faith.  Same goes for the cats meow. Is there a correlation with cat's and anti mormonism or something?



It's funny.  You make comments with no substantiation at all, and ignore the comments I made that are actual quotes from your prophets.

The programming is strong with you, young mormon.


----------



## chloe

catzmeow said:


> Gosh, does anyone think he's talking about me?



I like you


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Wow, you never cease to amaze me with how little you know about our faith.  Same goes for the cats meow. Is there a correlation with cat's and anti mormonism or something?



Here's something from the net, read it:
Article on Mormon Celestial Marriage

And again convert, learn your religion before you try to defend stupid ideals with it.


----------



## KittenKoder

catzmeow said:


> It's funny.  You make comments with no substantiation at all, and ignore the comments I made that are actual quotes from your prophets.
> 
> The programming is strong with you, young mormon.



If only that was programming, no, the programming the church he goes to does hasn't effected him yet. He is an arrogant (a REALLY bad sin) convert.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> No worries, it was close enough. I have enjoyed all of your posts because you are not a psychotic deviant like some I have encountered.



It was sloppy of me not to include the link. Anyway of course you know I support gay marriage. (because of my friend jeffree the ex mormon) I don't think any religion supports gay marriage except unitarian and religious science and other new age religions. I am not positive about that though.


----------



## catzmeow

chloe said:


> I like you



I like you, too!  Group hug!


----------



## chloe

catzmeow said:


> I like you, too!  Group hug!




you sig always makes me laugh


----------



## catzmeow

chloe said:


> you sig always makes me laugh



Awww!  your avatar always makes me laugh!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well you guys just amaze me. Since you refuse to go back and read my statements, I will yet again do your research for you. I will go back to the 17th and 20th pages or whater and copy and paste what you didn't read. If you don't read it this time, I don't know what to say other than you are blind.


----------



## KittenKoder

Oooh ... this brings back long memories:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7p5silgAfw&feature=related]YouTube - Inside Mormon Temples MUST SEE! Most comprehensive![/ame]

Though not the best chapters in my life, but it's the only childhood I have.

Oh, for those who don't know, the pool with the Oxen is where the baptisms for the dead are held. I was guilty of being involved in a few of those and regret forcing it on about 12 poor souls.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Well you guys just amaze me. Since you refuse to go back and read my statements, I will yet again do your research for you. I will go back to the 17th and 20th pages or whater and copy and paste what you didn't read. If you don't read it this time, I don't know what to say other than you are blind.



Sweetie.  It's not that we didn't read them.  It's that they weren't very accurate.    Not everyone is as ignorant of your faith's history as you are.  The first time I read the BOM, it still included the words "white and delightsome," though I understand those are no longer in the book.    I think it's gone through a few revisions since my day to get to the sanitized version you currently cling to.

But, I'll tell you what.  Google the phrase "white and delightsome," and see what you come up with.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthspeaker said:


> Ah yes I was praying for you to bring up the heavily misunderstood black issue. I almost don't blame you because most members don't study their doctrine enough to answer this question. I fortunately needed to know the answer to this question to be able to rest in peace about it. So I wouldn't stop researching the subject until I was satisfied. Pay close attention cuz I think you might be tempted to gloss over some details. I don't want to refer you to this again because it should be fully explained here.
> 
> I served my mission in South Africa, and so naturally would get this question often. In the book the Pearl of Great price, part of which is a translation from some ancient egyptian scrolls which came into the hands of Joseph Smith, there is a book called the book of Moses and the book of Abraham. In the book of Abraham, there was described the punishment of Cain for his crimes. he was cut off from the Lord and was cast into a land separate from the other children of Adam. It was then because of Cains transgression, the LAND in which he lived was cursed with much heat, which we now know to be the land of Africa. We do believe that original africans were descended from Cain but don't get twisted into a bundle just yet. Cain and his children then had a "mark" placed upon them to distinguish them from other children of Adam. this mark was described by Brigham Young as the dark skin and flat nose. Still not time to get riled up yet.
> The curse was not to be confused with the mark. It is nowhere described that the descendants of Cain were cursed, only marked. In fact this marking was a huge blessing for a couple of reasons. The LAND being cursed with much heat was and still is a very inhospitable place because of the sun exposure. How on earth would they be expected to survive such conditions without God preparing them for their enviroment. As we all know, dark skin is a built in sunburn defense. and yes I know black people can sunburn too, but certainly not to a fried crisp like if I were to stand out there for 15 minutes. The flat nose was also a blessing. we all know that hunting in africa is difficult and requires lots of running and stamina if you are going to track and hunt prey in the african wilderness. hence as we all can see, most of the best and naturally gifted long distance runners and sprinters are africans, the nose shape playing a huge role in the amount of oxygen they are able to breath in and out of their nostrils to keep up such a pace. Can white people be trained   to run long distance. Of course, but they have to work a little harder to develop the same level of stamina because of the shape of the nose. Starting to make sense?
> It gets better.The reason a lot of mormons and non-mormons alike confused the skin color of Cain's descendants with a curse is because of an UNRELATED  and temporary physical curse placed on the Lamanites to distinguish them from the Nephites and cause that they should not be enticing unto the nephites during much of the Book of Mormon years. The curse we read in 3rd Nephi was eventually taken away and had nothing to do with having a flat nose. It is easy to see how this can be misunderstood through lack of study.
> No where is it written in our official doctrine that blacks were cursed with dark skin as a result of poor performance in the pre existence. That unfortunately has been misunderstood by too many members and apparently you too.
> Next question please.



here it is. since you didn't think I wrote it. here comes another


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthspeaker said:


> Oh I almost forgot to address the priesthood issue. My bad. yes Cains descendants were cursed as to the obtaining the authority of the Priesthood which would allow them to officiate in Church ordinances. This was done in part as a punishment to Cain, not his children, and in part to help fulfill the prophecy that the first should be last and the last should be first. meaning the first people to receive the priesthood and gospel(Jews) would be the last ones to fully accept it, and the last ones to receive the priesthood and gospel(seed of Cain) would be the first to accept and embrace it. That is why  1978 was so important. Joseph Smith foretold back in 1830 that blacks would eventually hold the priesthood before the coming of Christ. It wasn't because they were spiritually unworthy as it was to fulfill the word of the Lord. This is amazing that the huge numbers of blacks in Africa were pleading and praying daily to the leaders of our church to let them receive the missionaries in the 70's, because they knew the gospel was true and understood the prophecies. African membership now is the fastest growing portion of converts among all races. this is a story about a glorious triumph, not a lame argument about racism. They are reaping the glory of this with great happiness in Africa right now and it's only going to get bigger.
> Also you might want to bear in mind the wisdom of God in his timing. We all know how racist the country was for a long time up until the civil rights movement. In the early days of the church in the 1830's, part of the hatred for mormons was that they were branded ****** lovers because they preached against slavery and invited blacks into their congregations. You didn't hear about that though because your anti mormon friends didn't tell you the whole truth. Only half truths. With general hostility towards blacks already an undercurrent of society at the time, It would have only brought more vicious attacks against us and church burnings and murders to have ordained black priests and bishops back then.
> But if the Lord had given the revelation back then, Joseph Smith wouldn't have hesitated to ordain them. He grieved about the issue and actually pleaded with the Lord to restore them to the priesthood but was told they must wait for the due time of the Lord.
> 
> Not everyone gets everything at the same time. Which is why many people live their whole lives without ever even hearing the name of Jesus Christ. Is that the Lord just discriminating against his sons and daughters. NOOO! He knows when the time is right and knows that there is far more to it than just this earthly life. If not so, buddhists, hindus, muslims and all other non-christians, including babies who die before learning the gospel, must be condemned to hell. But good thing that is not the case, God is a little more loving and just than that......Whew!



Here comes another one


----------



## catzmeow

KittenKoder said:


> Oooh ... this brings back long memories:
> 
> YouTube - Inside Mormon Temples MUST SEE! Most comprehensive!
> 
> Though not the best chapters in my life, but it's the only childhood I have.
> 
> Oh, for those who don't know, the pool with the Oxen is where the baptisms for the dead are held. I was guilty of being involved in a few of those and regret forcing it on about 12 poor souls.



Were you ever endowed?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthspeaker said:


> I hope everyone is paying very close attention........................
> Listen carefully, I would like to first and again thank you for bringing up another issue which on the surface can make us look really bad until you do all the research.
> Interesting that you bring up the 1967 version of Mormon Doctrine which was actually published not by the Church itself but from the well versed and Brilliant Bruce R. McKonkie.  However, would we all agree that people as individuals are not perfect? I think we have established that clearly. These individuals were far less racist than most of their white counterparts who were not members of the church, that being said. I will show you now that the official doctrine of the church remains unscathed and perfect.
> 
> After the Revelation of 1978, many things were changed, the doctrines of Mark Peterson and Bruce R. McKonkie were declared false doctrine by none other than the prophet of his time Spencer W. Kimball, leading to a revised version of the book by Bruce McKonkie who revised it himself. President Kimball also retracted his words and stated that he was declaring his opinion at the time and not the word of the Lord. Prophets are people too. We all can make mistakes. It is clear that they did this because they forgot about the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith who prophesied that the Negro would eventually have the priesthood restored before the coming of Christ. Again, you really need to read my previous post. It will educate you and perhaps take away some of the bitterness you have.
> 
> Yet again, I have shown that I know my doctrine better than an angry ex-mormon who posts the lower half of some gothic teenage drug addict as his avatar and calls himself "naughty"


----------



## KittenKoder

catzmeow said:


> Were you ever endowed?



No, luckily. A LOT of converts also believe their women should basically be servants even though they never say it that way, they use the old "a woman's place" crap.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Yet again, I have shown that I know my doctrine better than an angry ex-mormon who posts the lower half of some gothic teenage drug addict as his avatar and calls himself "naughty"



Actually, those are my legs.    But I think that I will decide to take that as a compliment.  Do they really look "teenaged" and drug addicted?  HEH!


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Sweetie.  It's not that we didn't read them.  It's that they weren't very accurate.    Not everyone is as ignorant of your faith's history as you are.  The first time I read the BOM, it still included the words "white and delightsome," though I understand those are no longer in the book.    I think it's gone through a few revisions since my day to get to the sanitized version you currently cling to.
> 
> But, I'll tell you what.  Google the phrase "white and delightsome," and see what you come up with.



Nope darling you are wrong yet again. phrase white and delightsome is still in the book. now would you like to know the correct interpretation of it? nope you already have your mind made up.


----------



## KittenKoder

catzmeow said:


> Actually, those are my legs.



Sounds like he's jealous to me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> No, luckily. A LOT of converts also believe their women should basically be servants even though they never say it that way, they use the old "a woman's place" crap.



wrong again. Hello kitty thinks that I am a convert, but doesn't know I was raised mormon. It doesn't really matter, knowledge matters. You are both lacking lots. You cats better get your facts straight before embarrassing yourself fighting against me


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Nope darling you are wrong yet again. phrase white and delightsome is still in the book. now would you like to know the correct interpretation of it? nope you already have your mind made up.



Converts .... so sad you are. Interpretation is taught in the church to be something personal and that no interpretation is wrong or right. We use to sit around in church classes discussing how many ways to interpret something, hours, that was actually kind of fun, a peaceful debate of sorts.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> wrong again. Hello kitty thinks that I am a convert, but doesn't know I was raised mormon. It doesn't really matter, knowledge matters. You are both lacking lots. You cats better get your facts straight before embarrassing yourself fighting against me



Mkay ... neo mormon then, probably no more than 18 or REALLY ignorant. So, is it as blissful as they claim?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Sounds like he's jealous to me.



My legs are much nicer
I didn't know I was dealing with a little girl though. I thought it was some perverted middle aged guy who looks at this stuff on the internet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Converts .... so sad you are. Interpretation is taught in the church to be something personal and that no interpretation is wrong or right. We use to sit around in church classes discussing how many ways to interpret something, hours, that was actually kind of fun, a peaceful debate of sorts.



I don't know what kind of cumbaya that was, but there is one one correct interpretation of scripture. the Prophet's. misinterpretation happens all the time, but if it doesn't agree with the Prophet's it ain't valid.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> My legs are much nicer
> I didn't know I was dealing with a little girl though. I thought it was some perverted middle aged guy who looks at this stuff on the internet.



So then Catzmeow can rest assured you are no longer attracted to her?


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't know what kind of cumbaya that was, but there is one one correct interpretation of scripture. the Prophet's. misinterpretation happens all the time, but if it doesn't agree with the Prophet's it ain't valid.



Okay ... now I know you are full of shit. Everyone, Truthspeaker is NOT a mormon, he is a deluded MORON.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Mkay ... neo mormon then, probably no more than 18 or REALLY ignorant. So, is it as blissful as they claim?



your ability to show your judgmentalism is more and more evident. I am soon to be 28, married with a 4 year old and another on the way, sorry catz, I know you are jealous.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Okay ... now I know you are full of shit. Everyone, Truthspeaker is NOT a mormon, he is a deluded MORON.



Back to my original point. This thread is about clarifying misconceptions about our church, not attacking it because you don't like our teachings.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> So then Catzmeow can rest assured you are no longer attracted to her?



That's a good, one, since now you have outed me as a closet queer. You got me pegged.


----------



## KittenKoder

Read more oh Deluded one, start with Josephs history, the story we all memorized as kids:

Joseph Smith - Who Was Joseph Smith?
Prophets - Organization of the LDS Church and its Prophets
What Do LDS Mormon Prophet&#039;s Teach?
Mormon/LDS Answers: Questions about LDS Prophets and the Mormons
Mormon.org - Home


----------



## Truthspeaker

I wonder where she is by the way. Oh wait.... I get it. She is now taking the time to read my posts for the very first time. Proof is in tha puddin tootz.

Let's see what excuse she has this time. maybe "I already had read it dipshit. I just had to finish my bong hit."


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Back to my original point. This thread is about clarifying misconceptions about our church, not attacking it because you don't like our teachings.



Aaah .. and there is your greatest sin against your own. I never said the teachings were bad in any way, actually the old teaching I grew up with were good. I left because idiots like you filled the ranks and ruined them, turning them into poison to use in order to spread your vile ideals. No, the original teachings are nothing like what you are claiming, and I know that the prophets of the church would excommunicate you from the priesthood if they heard you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

So I see you are concluding the last argument and moving on to another. I'll take that little vicory and move on to the next one. I do have a life outside this thread and must get back to work. Keep it comin as strong as you can even though I don't think it gets any stronger than misconceptions about the masons, blacks and priesthood and a few mispoken words by some leaders who later apologized and retracted their statements. Through all of this the official church doctrine remains iron clad and squeaky clean. I'll respond tomorrow to anything else. And on a closing note... Let's keep on topic.


----------



## pegwinn

catzmeow said:


> Just curious, is your wife still active in her faith?



No. When she got pregnant as a teen we got married. But, so far as the locals were concerned, she'd been tainted. That sort of ticked us off. 25 years later we are still happily married. But there are still some old timers there that have long memories.

Her mom would notify the church each time we moved so missionaries could come see us. That lasted a few years until the incident over my grandmothers death. Mom was asked to stop the madness since the missionaries were no longer welcome.

Edited to add:



Truthspeaker said:


> Great, he wants to try and tear down her faith. He's a wolf in wolfs clothing. Not too sly.



Assertions without evidence. And, if by chance you are correct it's OK. We have our own faith and are secure in it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> No. When she got pregnant as a teen we got married. But, so far as the locals were concerned, she'd been tainted. That sort of ticked us off. 25 years later we are still happily married. But there are still some old timers there that have long memories.
> 
> Her mom would notify the church each time we moved so missionaries could come see us. That lasted a few years until the incident over my grandmothers death. Mom was asked to stop the madness since the missionaries were no longer welcome.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> 
> Assertions without evidence. And, if by chance you are correct it's OK. We have our own faith and are secure in it.



That's not what I meant, I just think he was going to try and come up with something to attack her because she is a member of the Church. I really wish you hadn't come accross such members because as far as I am concerned, they are not living their religion.


----------



## sky dancer

midcan5 said:


> Call it conscience or whatever, consider the following, given gays should have all the rights of others, what would give the Mormon church the right to interfere in the rights of another?
> 
> Sheldon Rampton: Mormon Homophobia




You raise a good question.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> Okay ... now I know you are full of shit. Everyone, Truthspeaker is NOT a mormon, he is a deluded MORON.



I'll second that.  Add ignorant and arrogant.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> My legs are much nicer
> I didn't know I was dealing with a little girl though. I thought it was some perverted middle aged guy who looks at this stuff on the internet.



No.  You're dealing with a perverted middle aged woman with nice legs.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> your ability to show your judgmentalism is more and more evident. I am soon to be 28, married with a 4 year old and another on the way, sorry catz, I know you are jealous.



No offense, but 20-something guys aren't interesting to me.


----------



## catzmeow

pegwinn said:


> No. When she got pregnant as a teen we got married. But, so far as the locals were concerned, she'd been tainted. That sort of ticked us off. 25 years later we are still happily married. But there are still some old timers there that have long memories.



Those situations definitely aren't easy.  that's one of the reasons we moved out of Utah, I wanted my kids to be able to date without having to deal with the Mormon thing.


----------



## pegwinn

Truthspeaker said:


> That's not what I meant, I just think he was going to try and come up with something to attack her because she is a member of the Church. I really wish you hadn't come accross such members because as far as I am concerned, they are not living their religion.



Thanks for the concern. Folks not living their religion are not limited to any sect, cult, denomination, spirit friends, or other deity social network. So it really is no biggie. As to attacking my wife, again, thanks for the concern. If it were to happen I would deal with it.

*Next Question:* Why the prohibition on Alcohol, Tobacco, & Caffeinated drinks? I get the T&A aspect. Back in the day there were abolitionists for every vice. But, caffeine wasn't exactly well researched. Soda Pop wasn't known as a sinners drink. Is this a relatively new thing?


----------



## KittenKoder

pegwinn said:


> Thanks for the concern. Folks not living their religion are not limited to any sect, cult, denomination, spirit friends, or other deity social network. So it really is no biggie. As to attacking my wife, again, thanks for the concern. If it were to happen I would deal with it.
> 
> *Next Question:* Why the prohibition on Alcohol, Tobacco, & Caffeinated drinks? I get the T&A aspect. Back in the day there were abolitionists for every vice. But, caffeine wasn't exactly well researched. Soda Pop wasn't known as a sinners drink. Is this a relatively new thing?



Caffeine is a drug, that is why.


----------



## chloe

yeah and when grandma's visiting teachers came over she slyly pretended she has to drink coffee because the doctor said it thins her blood ha ha but then made me lie to the visiting teachers saying she doesnt drink it so she could get her recommend.


----------



## KittenKoder

chloe said:


> yeah and when grandma's visiting teachers came over she slyly pretended she has to drink coffee because the doctor said it thins her blood ha ha but then made me lie to the visiting teachers saying she doesnt drink it so she could get her recommend.



In spite of how stupid people say that all drugs are bad, some have their good uses some are just abused. The drinking of caffeine for all people is technically abusing it, though I personally don't see the problem since it's mild enough. It's about the same level as Nicotine, dangerous are very high concentrations but can be effective to help with everyday issues at low dosages.


----------



## chloe

yeah when i got married she gave me her wedding ring that she was married in the temple in downtown salt lake city in 1940. She was a widow and never remarried. I married her first grandson and me & her were best friends until she died. she even lived with us. but then after my husband divorced me I gave the ring back because grandma would have wanted ti that way. I still miss her, she was my favorite mormon because she was just the right amount of naughty....hehe she was 87 when she died.


----------



## KittenKoder

chloe said:


> yeah when i got married she gave me her wedding ring that she was married in the temple in downtown salt lake city in 1940. She was a widow and never remarried. I married her first grandson and me & her were best friends until she died. she even lived with us. but then after my husband divorced me I gave the ring back because grandma would have wanted ti that way. I still miss her, she was my favorite mormon because she was just the right amount of naughty....hehe she was 87 when she died.



My mothers father was like that, a pretty awesome mormon. He was just enough in the real world to make him really cool, yet still an old school mormon. He even said it was okay when he found out I started smoking, said it was a better vice than most mormons my age had now.


----------



## chloe

yeah one time we bought grandma a new tv and I showed her how to use the remote, and the next day she goes, "dear, I watched a movie on that movie channel (it was HBO) and it was called sister, dear sister, but oh dear they weren't sisters" and she wrinkled her nose up, I couldnt stop laughing,  I said "why didnt you turn it off grandma?" and she said "well dear I wanted to know how it ended".....ha ha what a character!


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> Thanks for the concern. Folks not living their religion are not limited to any sect, cult, denomination, spirit friends, or other deity social network. So it really is no biggie. As to attacking my wife, again, thanks for the concern. If it were to happen I would deal with it.
> 
> *Next Question:* Why the prohibition on Alcohol, Tobacco, & Caffeinated drinks? I get the T&A aspect. Back in the day there were abolitionists for every vice. But, caffeine wasn't exactly well researched. Soda Pop wasn't known as a sinners drink. Is this a relatively new thing?



Great question. Caffeine is not  officially banned. Caffeine is one thing that people can make their own decisions about. A lot of Mormons decide not to drink it but do so on their own. The church has not taken a stand on Caffeinated drinks. The reason people decide not to drink caffeine is because they believe it to be an addictive substance, which we know it can be when found in large amounts such as coffee and tea. I don't really like soda that much but occasionally I like to have my Dr. Pepper. I think caffeine definitely needs to be moderated. Because like so many things, if you have too much, something can go wrong. 
As for Alcohol, Tobacco, Coffee, Tea and harmful drugs, They are specifically told to abstain from. Number one reason why, is because of obedience, nothing else really matters after that but we can all see the negative effects of these substances on our bodies. We believe the body to be sacred and so anything that makes us lose control of or sustain damage to our bodies is against the will of God. The same goes for poor diet. A lot of people are not living the word of wisdom just because they abstain from those substances. There is an entire code of health that is involved with the revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 88. It is a very interesting chapter.


----------



## sky dancer

Too bad your teachings don't advise on the sanctity of all life and how to treat others.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> yeah and when grandma's visiting teachers came over she slyly pretended she has to drink coffee because the doctor said it thins her blood ha ha but then made me lie to the visiting teachers saying she doesnt drink it so she could get her recommend.



Wow


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sky dancer said:


> Too bad your teachings don't advise on the sanctity of all life and how to treat others.



Mormon teachings do in fact do just that.


----------



## sky dancer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mormon teachings do in fact do just that.



I haven't seen evidence of that in this thread.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> yeah when i got married she gave me her wedding ring that she was married in the temple in downtown salt lake city in 1940. She was a widow and never remarried. I married her first grandson and me & her were best friends until she died. she even lived with us. but then after my husband divorced me I gave the ring back because grandma would have wanted ti that way. I still miss her, she was my favorite mormon because she was just the right amount of naughty....hehe she was 87 when she died.



Sounds like a nice lady.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I haven't seen evidence of that in this thread.



Just because we don't approve of homosexuality doesn't mean we don't think of everyone as children of God.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Just because we don't approve of homosexuality doesn't mean we don't think of everyone as children of God.



Homosexuality aside, that crack about people praying to an eight armed deity was ignorant and arrogant.

The truth about Mormons is that your Church has a history of intolerance toward others.  Your comment about the Hindu or Buddhist deity with the eight arms is an example of an attitude that leads to intolerance. Now your Church has a great deal of money and power and you use it to bully others.

The entire state of Utah doesn't do squat without the nod of LDS.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Homosexuality aside, that crack about people praying to an eight armed deity was ignorant and arrogant.
> 
> The truth about Mormons is that your Church has a history of intolerance toward others.  Now you have a great deal of money and power and you use it to bully others.



I thought you read my previous post. I am totally ignorant about buddhism and other Asiatic religions in general. I don't know about multi armed gods, I just conjured the idea of an eight armed clown out of thin air and wasn't trying to make fun of your faith. I already apologized for that comment. I don't think you saw it though. I hope you understand where I am coming from.Please forgive me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Homosexuality aside, that crack about people praying to an eight armed deity was ignorant and arrogant.
> 
> The truth about Mormons is that your Church has a history of intolerance toward others.  Your comment about the Hindu or Buddhist deity with the eight arms is an example of an attitude that leads to intolerance. Now your Church has a great deal of money and power and you use it to bully others.
> 
> The entire state of Utah doesn't do squat without the nod of LDS.



We will have to agree to disagree on the concept of the giant vampire monster with drooling fangs that you make the church out to be.


----------



## sky dancer

Thank you for the apology.  If you want to have a respectful and interesting discussion about religion it helps to start out by respecting the beliefs of others--even when those beliefs seems unfamiliar and strange.

Always a good thing to ask questions and show some interest in people who are not Mormons if you want to win friends and influence people.  You catch more flies with honey.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> We will have to agree to disagree on the concept of the giant vampire monster with drooling fangs that you make the church out to be.



Truthspeaker--It would help if you want to debate me that you tell the truth.  I have never stated that LDS Church is a vampire.  Be honest about the influence LDS has in UTAH and national politics.

Non-Mormons do not get a fair shake in Utah.  Even their health is affected, there are studies that prove it.

The state of Utah is close to being a theocracy.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_4_33/ai_73828219

What about Margaret Toscano--ex-communicated from LDS for daring to question the Church's treatment of women?
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/toscano.html


----------



## sky dancer

The LDS Church is heavy into mind control.  Here is a story about a man who dared to oppose a call by Mormon leaders to support a proposed constitutional amendment in California to ban same-sex marriage.

He's being threatened with ex-communication.
Mormon Says Church threatens excommunication for supporting gay marriage | 365 Gay News


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Thank you for the apology.  If you want to have a respectful and interesting discussion about religion it helps to start out by respecting the beliefs of others--even when those beliefs seems unfamiliar and strange.
> 
> Always a good thing to ask questions and show some interest in people who are not Mormons if you want to win friends and influence people.  You catch more flies with honey.



You can catch just about as many as with a pile o poo too.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I am at work right now but I will address those when I get a chance.


----------



## Valerie

Truthspeaker said:


> You can catch just about as many as with a pile o poo too.



You have expertise in that regard?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Valerie said:


> You have expertise in that regard?



Not quite sure how to answer that. But I know many on this thread are experts.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Valerie said:


> You have expertise in that regard?



Ah. A new face. Welcome to my thread. What can I do for you?


----------



## KittenKoder

FalseSpeaker, I recommend you first look into the LDS church much more than you have, clearly you have not learned as much or been exposed to it as much as you believe. How many times have you even been to the Utah temple? Or the one up here in Washington (almost as famous as the Utah one)? Do you remember the scripture game? How often did you go to morning seminary when you were young? It seems to me that you are just another lip servicer and not a true Mormon, and one of the people who made me choose to leave that religion because of your messed up ideals. Until I see otherwise I will continue to post real info to counter your false views on the church, though I cannot fix all of you convert-likes and converts I may be able to reach just one.


----------



## Skeptik

KittenKoder said:


> FalseSpeaker, I recommend you first look into the LDS church much more than you have, clearly you have not learned as much or been exposed to it as much as you believe. How many times have you even been to the Utah temple? Or the one up here in Washington (almost as famous as the Utah one)? Do you remember the scripture game? How often did you go to morning seminary when you were young? It seems to me that you are just another lip servicer and not a true Mormon, and one of the people who made me choose to leave that religion because of your messed up ideals. Until I see otherwise I will continue to post real info to counter your false views on the church, though I cannot fix all of you convert-likes and converts I may be able to reach just one.



Having read through the posts, and having a more than average knowledge of the subject at hand, I can tell you two things:

Truthspeaker hasn't said anything about Mormon doctrine that isn't true.  If anyone wants to check it out, google "LDS + Articles of Faith", and see if he is telling the truth or not.  

And, furthermore, he is not trying to debate anyone, just give information.  You can believe or not believe Mormon doctrine, of course, and there is no way to prove or disprove it, but the church's dogma is what it is.  

I also read through Sky Dancer's post on Bhuddism, and I can honestly say I don't know any more about that religion than I did before, which wasn't much.


----------



## KittenKoder

Skeptik said:


> Having read through the posts, and having a more than average knowledge of the subject at hand, I can tell you two things:
> 
> Truthspeaker hasn't said anything about Mormon doctrine that isn't true.  If anyone wants to check it out, google "LDS + Articles of Faith", and see if he is telling the truth or not.
> 
> And, furthermore, he is not trying to debate anyone, just give information.  You can believe or not believe Mormon doctrine, of course, and there is no way to prove or disprove it, but the church's dogma is what it is.
> 
> I also read through Sky Dancer's post on Bhuddism, and I can honestly say I don't know any more about that religion than I did before, which wasn't much.



It is not what he said that is what has proven he knows little about it, it's what he denied when several of us who left the religion for various reasons added to the info. Denying truth is the same as lying. Also, it can be proven through experience, whether you believe or not is moot, but having lived it from birth can make one very educated in the matter. My mother was an extremist (Mormon extremists tend to be worse than other christians) but still, even she would be laughing at FalseSpeakers denials.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> FalseSpeaker, I recommend you first look into the LDS church much more than you have, clearly you have not learned as much or been exposed to it as much as you believe. How many times have you even been to the Utah temple? Or the one up here in Washington (almost as famous as the Utah one)? Do you remember the scripture game? How often did you go to morning seminary when you were young? It seems to me that you are just another lip servicer and not a true Mormon, and one of the people who made me choose to leave that religion because of your messed up ideals. Until I see otherwise I will continue to post real info to counter your false views on the church, though I cannot fix all of you convert-likes and converts I may be able to reach just one.



Thank you for your moving speach. I am sure you will be able to reach more than one with your inspirational message. Perhaps because there are more than one uninformed and unstudious pupils out there as yourself. Your statements are full of bitterness and empty of knowledge. I have been immersed in this gospel from birth, I know the temple dialogue by heart, I have over a thousand scriptures memorized, I went to seminary every morning at 6am, Actually, the sad thing is most mormons, active and inactive, do not study as much as they ought to. Therein lies your mistake of taking the word of unauthoritative members rather than from the horses mouth of leaders and informed members who only preach official church doctrine. We are humans too and when mistakes are made, we have been chastised and corrected. But the doctrine holds sound, "tight like unto a dish". Because we believe it came from a perfect God, who is trying to help imperfect people.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> It is not what he said that is what has proven he knows little about it, it's what he denied when several of us who left the religion for various reasons added to the info. Denying truth is the same as lying. Also, it can be proven through experience, whether you believe or not is moot, but having lived it from birth can make one very educated in the matter. My mother was an extremist (Mormon extremists tend to be worse than other christians) but still, even she would be laughing at FalseSpeakers denials.



You never lived the gospel.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't really like soda that much but occasionally I like to have my Dr. Pepper.



Don't worry Axl is working relentlessly on getting you a free 20 oz Dr Pepper .


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> You never lived the gospel.



Willingly ... no, by force ... yes. I lived it, but I was never offered the choice until my father (a very wise convert, rare) finally told my mother that I was allowed to choose for myself. He lived it out of love for my mother, until she showed the darkness that festered in her. But again, you still deny facts so you show you are still not as studied in the religion.

As the old saying goes: Please read the bible, we need more atheists.

It works even for this topic, just replace bible with Book of Mormon. It's not the book itself but the way people practice the teachings that push us out and away from it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know FalseLiar, after reading what you've posted on here, I can only come to one conclusion.......

You're an arrogant prick who thinks that because you've memorized some of the dogma that you hold dear, you are better than others.  Telling someone they've never lived the Gospel?  Well......maybe not YOUR version of it, but I'm pretty sure that there are quite a few others around who do not agree with your version of spirituality, but that doesn't make them any less right.  Ever hear of His Holiness the Dali Lama?  He doesn't agree with your version either, I'm sure, but does your religion condemn everyone else because they don't believe in the Moron Mormon angel Moroni?  

What makes you better than anyone else dude?  Because of your beliefs (which you think is right), or because of your actions?

I'm guessing the former, but hoping for the latter.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> Wow



Don't judge Grandma she was my BEST friend, and maybe she didn't live up to all your expectations but she LOVED the Church that's why she lied to the visiting teachers, she wanted a recommend and didn't want to be judged about the coffee. Geez


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Don't worry Axl is working relentlessly on getting you a free 20 oz Dr Pepper .



Yay Dr. Pepper


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> FalseSpeaker, I recommend you first look into the LDS church much more than you have, clearly you have not learned as much or been exposed to it as much as you believe. How many times have you even been to the Utah temple? Or the one up here in Washington (almost as famous as the Utah one)? Do you remember the scripture game? How often did you go to morning seminary when you were young? It seems to me that you are just another lip servicer and not a true Mormon, and one of the people who made me choose to leave that religion because of your messed up ideals. Until I see otherwise I will continue to post real info to counter your false views on the church, though I cannot fix all of you convert-likes and converts I may be able to reach just one.



Also in your signature you have quoted Bill Maher(fountain of knowledge and wisdom) and some other irreligious person. Since you admire these people and are irreligious yourself, I find it hard to believe that you do any real studying on religion yourself, therefore your credibility is more than lacking.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Also in your signature you have quoted Bill Maher(fountain of knowledge and wisdom) and some other irreligious person. Since you admire these people and are irreligious yourself, I find it hard to believe that you do any real studying on religion yourself, therefore your credibility is more than lacking.



Oh yeah, that's a really good excuse to ignore someone's knowledge. *eye roll* I also admire Ramses who is VERY religious. Just because someone says something that is good you judge what they say by what they believe, that just shows you are not a thinker, instead you are a robot parroting everything you think you hear from people you think are better. I instead look at the content and meaning of each message, if it's good I keep it, if not I discard it. That's like those morons who think comedians can't be intelligent.


----------



## Skeptik

KittenKoder said:


> It is not what he said that is what has proven he knows little about it, it's what he denied when several of us who left the religion for various reasons added to the info. Denying truth is the same as lying. Also, it can be proven through experience, whether you believe or not is moot, but having lived it from birth can make one very educated in the matter. My mother was an extremist (Mormon extremists tend to be worse than other christians) but still, even she would be laughing at FalseSpeakers denials.



But denying what someone has posted is not the same as denying truth.  

I'm not really a believer myself, but what has been said about the dogma is accurate.


----------



## KittenKoder

Skeptik said:


> But denying what someone has posted is not the same as denying truth.
> 
> I'm not really a believer myself, but what has been said about the dogma is accurate.



However we have even posted links to credible and even current sources that prove he is wrong, therefore he is lying about knowing or is lying to protect his ideology. Either way it's still a lie.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Oh yeah, that's a really good excuse to ignore someone's knowledge. *eye roll* I also admire Ramses who is VERY religious. Just because someone says something that is good you judge what they say by what they believe, that just shows you are not a thinker, instead you are a robot parroting everything you think you hear from people you think are better. I instead look at the content and meaning of each message, if it's good I keep it, if not I discard it. That's like those morons who think comedians can't be intelligent.



On the contrary, comedians are some of the smartest individuals in the world, because they are able to think on their feet, but not all who are witty are truly intelligent, for example Bill Maher, who when discussing politics, doesn't let his opposition speak, but cuts them off and rolls his eyes and pokes fun at the guy before he can get a word in edgewise as the idiot audience laughs.

Also on the contrary, you think deeply about the content and meaning of the subject and if it is good you discard it, and if it is bad, you keep it. Which would mean you consciously choose evil rather than good.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> However we have even posted links to credible and even current sources that prove he is wrong, therefore he is lying about knowing or is lying to protect his ideology. Either way it's still a lie.



You are not reading my responses, as I have shown numerous times. I have refuted each statement you present. PLEASE ENLIGTHEN ME, which ones did I miss. The burden of proof is on you now. I have done my due diligence to answer each and every concern or question or attempt to smear our doctrine.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> On the contrary, comedians are some of the smartest individuals in the world, because they are able to think on their feet, but not all who are witty are truly intelligent, for example Bill Maher, who when discussing politics, doesn't let his opposition speak, but cuts them off and rolls his eyes and pokes fun at the guy before he can get a word in edgewise as the idiot audience laughs.
> 
> Also on the contrary, you think deeply about the content and meaning of the subject and if it is good you discard it, and if it is bad, you keep it. Which would mean you consciously choose evil rather than good.



Now that is funny. Many I know would completely disagree with you, while some do agree. Most who disagree I know IRL (something that is more important anyway). Also I was using that as an example, by condeming something someone says outright, just because you disagree with them, does not make you a good person, instead it makes you narrow minded. Even Adolf *spit* had some good sayings and many of his speech giving techniques are used today, most preachers use them all the time. But he was an evil man and any who disagree are deluded. Also many love Gahndis words, though in reality he was a whore-monger and racist, even a pedophile. But that doesn't change the value of the words he spoke. You discard a wise saying just because you disagree with the person you are closing your mind to most of the wisdom offered by most people. Even I take many of the christians christs words as being good, and I don't believe he was even real, but none the less, wisdom can come from even your worst enemy.

Added: THAT is what your biggest problem is and why you cannot see the truth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> But denying what someone has posted is not the same as denying truth.
> 
> I'm not really a believer myself, but what has been said about the dogma is accurate.



She isn't reading the posts man. If I denied something it has been a clear lie or mistake on their part. When I respond to something they ignore it and move on to the next subject because they couldn't "expose" me and later in the thread they will say they posted "facts" that I didn't dispute. This is foreign to me. 
By the way, nobody likes the word dogma, but just like the word cult, both are true about us by way of definition. These words typically are not interpreted to be what they really are because of their negative connotation. odd I must say.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Now that is funny. Many I know would completely disagree with you, while some do agree. Most who disagree I know IRL (something that is more important anyway). Also I was using that as an example, by condeming something someone says outright, just because you disagree with them, does not make you a good person, instead it makes you narrow minded. Even Adolf *spit* had some good sayings and many of his speech giving techniques are used today, most preachers use them all the time. But he was an evil man and any who disagree are deluded. Also many love Gahndis words, though in reality he was a whore-monger and racist, even a pedophile. But that doesn't change the value of the words he spoke. You discard a wise saying just because you disagree with the person you are closing your mind to most of the wisdom offered by most people. Even I take many of the christians christs words as being good, and I don't believe he was even real, but none the less, wisdom can come from even your worst enemy.
> 
> Added: THAT is what your biggest problem is and why you cannot see the truth.



To be honest, you type about as well as a kitten trying to type, so I honestly couldn't quite understand your last message because it was so jumbled.  Come again please?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Now that is funny. Many I know would completely disagree with you, while some do agree. Most who disagree I know IRL (something that is more important anyway). Also I was using that as an example, by condeming something someone says outright, just because you disagree with them, does not make you a good person, instead it makes you narrow minded. Even Adolf *spit* had some good sayings and many of his speech giving techniques are used today, most preachers use them all the time. But he was an evil man and any who disagree are deluded. Also many love Gahndis words, though in reality he was a whore-monger and racist, even a pedophile. But that doesn't change the value of the words he spoke. You discard a wise saying just because you disagree with the person you are closing your mind to most of the wisdom offered by most people. Even I take many of the christians christs words as being good, and I don't believe he was even real, but none the less, wisdom can come from even your worst enemy.
> 
> Added: THAT is what your biggest problem is and why you cannot see the truth.



As far as worst enemies go, I would say knowledge is yours.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> To be honest, you type about as well as a kitten trying to type, so I honestly couldn't quite understand your last message because it was so jumbled.  Come again please?



quit flirting


----------



## KittenKoder

chloe said:


> quit flirting



LOL, too bad I wouldn't touch someone so unintelligent with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker has apparently decided he prefers dishing out insults to addressing real issues concerning the Mormon Church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> quit flirting



I gotta admit, you caught me off guard with that one. Bunny's are more my type than cats. Bunnys are much nicer


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I gotta admit, you caught me off guard with that one. Bunny's are more my type than cats. Bunnys are much nicer




Trolling for another wife?  Try this Mormon calendar.
http://www.mormonsexposed.com/


----------



## Truthspeaker

QUOTE=sky dancer;926654]Trolling for another wife?  Try this Mormon calendar.
Mormons Exposed[/QUOTE]

Not even gonna look at that. I can barely handle the one I have already got.


----------



## sky dancer

The ultimate goal of the church, as stated publicly by its early leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (but not mentioned so publicly by more recent Mormon leaders), is to establish the Mormon Kingdom of God in America,and to govern the world as God's appointed representatives. The church is already influential in the making of secular policy, as was proven not so long ago when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated with decisive help from the Mormon church. 
Why I Left the Mormon Church


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Not even gonna look at that. I can barely handle the one I have already got.



I believe it. 

So far, three women posters have called you on your flirting.  What's up with that?


----------



## chloe

sky dancer said:


> Trolling for another wife?  Try this Mormon calendar.
> Mormons Exposed



I do support polygamy ......but he's too young for me....he he


----------



## sky dancer

Both U.S. Senators, all three U.S. House representatives, and the Governor are Mormon. Somewhere near 80% of the elected officials in Utah are Mormon. Moreover, in the recent election, there were only five counties in Utah that gave Bush 60% or less of the vote, all of which were one of the only six counties in the state to have LDS populations less than 55%. Similarly, of the seven Utah counties with an LDS population of 75% and up, Bush won by more than 85% in six of them. The state functions within the parameters laid out by the LDS leadership and any deviation from LDS norms is harshly criticized by the huge number of active church members. When 62.4% of the population have the same general opinion on an issue and claim to know that it is God&#8217;s will, the opposition can either go with the flow, which many do, or keep a low profile and bow out of politics altogether.
CampusProgress.org | Leaving Utah


----------



## sky dancer

The 10 rules for non-Mormons to succeed in Utah &#8212; as developed by a native Italian-Irish Catholic Democrat Utahn

Deseret News | Non-Mormon guide to success in Utah


----------



## KittenKoder

On the lighter side, but it shows a lot, like why us 'non-believers' have problems with both the BoM AND the bible, though it only mentions one it's the same concept. Also it shows the truly good part of the Mormon religion, the part that id being ruined by many of the newest members and narrow minded ones like FalseSpeaker.

All about the Mormons? - 712 - Watch - South Park Zone


----------



## chloe

KittenKoder said:


> On the lighter side, but it shows a lot, like why us 'non-believers' have problems with both the BoM AND the bible, though it only mentions one it's the same concept. Also it shows the truly good part of the Mormon religion, the part that id being ruined by many of the newest members and narrow minded ones like FalseSpeaker.
> 
> All about the Mormons? - 712 - Watch - South Park Zone



(Warning thread hijack, the bishop said it was ok but just this once) go look at your present from me on the give someone from this board a present thread


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I believe it.
> 
> So far, three women posters have called you on your flirting.  What's up with that?



This is hilarious. I swear that anytime a guy is talking to a woman, he is in danger of being considered a flirt or a sexual harrassment case waiting to happen. My avatar has me smiling, maybe they think I am smiling at them. Plus, 2 of the candidates are animals, not my type if you have listned to any of my bestiality comments, so those aren't turn ons. the other is a pair of legs, with no face attached and named after a cat.
Next you'll probably think I am flirting with you. Talk about the odd couple.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> The ultimate goal of the church, as stated publicly by its early leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (but not mentioned so publicly by more recent Mormon leaders), is to establish the Mormon Kingdom of God in America,and to govern the world as God's appointed representatives. The church is already influential in the making of secular policy, as was proven not so long ago when the Equal Rights Amendment was defeated with decisive help from the Mormon church.
> Why I Left the Mormon Church



Ahah! you have finally spoken a truth about our teachings. However, you have slightly, and I do seriously mean slightly, misunderstood the meaning of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is the church of God, and all followers are subjects to the King of Heaven. We have talked about this pretty much every sunday in church. To grow the Kingdom of God is to grow the membership of the Church. 
However, Christ will not take over the physical government of the whole world until the 1000 year period called the Millenium following Christs return. It's not like we were planning a government take over. At least not until Christ comes back and burns the earth with fire.... That is one of our "wild and crazy" doctrines. But I believe it whole heartedly.


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthspeaker said:


> You didn't read the article I posted. Young denied involvement because he wasn't involved. It was 2 days before he got the message when it had already happened. It wasn't like he got an IM on his cell phone and could respond right away. Read the article. It is the correct history, it is on the church's official website, I don't know how you can say we don't teach about it.




Please dont read into my questions to you.

I never said they dont teach about it.

I asked you what they teach the average Morman about this history.
I have run into many who know nothing about the history.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre#Investigations_and_prosecutions

Investigations and prosecutions
Main article: Investigations and prosecutions relating to the Mountain Meadows massacre
Historians still question the role that local Cedar City Mormon church officials played in ordering the massacre and Young's concealment of evidence in its aftermath.[37]Young's use of inflammatory and violent language[38] in response to the Federal expedition added to the tense atmosphere at the time of the attack. After the massacre, Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Fancher party. [39] It is unclear whether Young held this view because he believed that this specific group posed an actual threat to colonists or because he believed that the group was directly responsible for past crimes against Mormons. According to historian MacKinnon, "After the [Utah] war, U.S. President James Buchanan implied that face-to-face communications with Brigham Young might have averted the conflict, and Young argued that a north-south telegraph line in Utah could have prevented the Mountain Meadows Massacre."[40] MacKinnon suggests that hostilities could have been avoided if Young had traveled east to Washington D.C. to resolve governmental problems instead of taking a five week trip north on the eve of the Utah War for church related reasons.[41]


----------



## KittenKoder

A great Mormon Prophet once said: Always question authority.

Let's see if anyone can find that one.


----------



## KittenKoder

ALL religions are, even my own. What the, the post I was responding to vanished.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Ahah! you have finally spoken a truth about our teachings. However, you have slightly, and I do seriously mean slightly, misunderstood the meaning of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is the church of God, and all followers are subjects to the King of Heaven. We have talked about this pretty much every sunday in church. To grow the Kingdom of God is to grow the membership of the Church.
> However, Christ will not take over the physical government of the whole world until the 1000 year period called the Millenium following Christs return. It's not like we were planning a government take over. At least not until Christ comes back and burns the earth with fire.... *That is one of our "wild and crazy" doctrines. But I believe it whole heartedly*.



I'm sure you do.  You post on this forum with a proselytizing agenda.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> I'm sure you do.  You post on this forum with a proselytizing agenda.



And yet he will not realize that this is what makes him lose all credibility.


----------



## sky dancer

The Mormon Church owns a for-profit corporate empire worth at least $11 billion. One of the church&#8217;s highest-profile companies is a broadcast network that includes mainstream radio stations in eight markets, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., Seattle, Phoenix, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City. The church also owns the NBC television affiliate in Salt Lake City, KSL, Channel 5.
In its campaign against gay marriage, the Mormon Church, through its members, donated up to 70 percent of the funding for California&#8217;s Proposition 8, which passed last Tuesday by 52 percent to 48 percent. 

The top beef ranch in the world is not the King Ranch in Texas. It is the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. It covers 312,000 acres; its value as real estate alone is estimated at $858 million. It is owned entirely by the Mormons. The largest producer of nuts in America, AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City, is Mormon-owned. So are the Bonneville International Corp., the country&#8217;s 14th largest radio chain, and the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion&#8230;

All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the church&#8217;s nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million.

Pensito Review » Mormon Church Owns Mainstream Radio Stations in 8 Top Markets

In Seattle, the Mormon Church owns the right wing talk radio station, which it has branded &#8220;The Truth.&#8221; That just about says it all, doesn&#8217;t it?


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> And yet he will not realize that this is what makes him lose all credibility.



I agree.  Proselytizing makes him lose credibility as well as his continuous insults of other posters and his refusal to address any of the questions we have raised.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> The Mormon Church owns a for-profit corporate empire worth at least $11 billion. One of the churchs highest-profile companies is a broadcast network that includes mainstream radio stations in eight markets, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., Seattle, Phoenix, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City. The church also owns the NBC television affiliate in Salt Lake City, KSL, Channel 5.
> In its campaign against gay marriage, the Mormon Church, through its members, donated up to 70 percent of the funding for Californias Proposition 8, which passed last Tuesday by 52 percent to 48 percent.
> 
> The top beef ranch in the world is not the King Ranch in Texas. It is the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. It covers 312,000 acres; its value as real estate alone is estimated at $858 million. It is owned entirely by the Mormons. The largest producer of nuts in America, AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City, is Mormon-owned. So are the Bonneville International Corp., the countrys 14th largest radio chain, and the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion
> 
> All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the churchs nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million.
> 
> Pensito Review » Mormon Church Owns Mainstream Radio Stations in 8 Top Markets
> 
> In Seattle, the Mormon Church owns the right wing talk radio station, which it has branded The Truth. That just about says it all, doesnt it?



A little side note related to this particular post:

The LDS church owns Burger King.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Both U.S. Senators, all three U.S. House representatives, and the Governor are Mormon. Somewhere near 80% of the elected officials in Utah are Mormon. Moreover, in the recent election, there were only five counties in Utah that gave Bush 60% or less of the vote, all of which were one of the only six counties in the state to have LDS populations less than 55%. Similarly, of the seven Utah counties with an LDS population of 75% and up, Bush won by more than 85% in six of them. The state functions within the parameters laid out by the LDS leadership and any deviation from LDS norms is harshly criticized by the huge number of active church members. When 62.4% of the population have the same general opinion on an issue and claim to know that it is Gods will, the opposition can either go with the flow, which many do, or keep a low profile and bow out of politics altogether.
> CampusProgress.org | Leaving Utah



I don't know what is so wrong with that. That's politics. Try debating politics with people in Iraq, or San Francisco and having an opinion that disagrees with the norm. Same thing.By the way


----------



## pegwinn

Truthspeaker said:


> <snip> Number one reason why, is because of obedience, nothing else really matters after that but we can all see the negative effects of these substances on our bodies.



Obediance to whom? God, the current President, a specific commandment? Please elaborate.



Truthspeaker said:


> We believe the body to be sacred and so anything that makes us lose control of or sustain damage to our bodies is against the will of God. The same goes for poor diet. A lot of people are not living the word of wisdom just because they abstain from those substances. There is an entire code of health that is involved with the revelation found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 88. It is a very interesting chapter.



Interesting. Does this mean that the obese (due to lifestyle as opposed to medical reasons) are in violation of doctrine?


----------



## KittenKoder

pegwinn said:


> Obediance to whom? God, the current President, a specific commandment? Please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Does this mean that the obese (due to lifestyle as opposed to medical reasons) are in violation of doctrine?



Thus one of the many hypocracies that made me leave the church.

As a matter of fact the answer is yes. The prophets of the church do not agree with this but most of the followers now do not discern the difference between what is needed or uncontrollable and what is truly a sin.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> Please dont read into my questions to you.
> 
> I never said they dont teach about it.
> 
> I asked you what they teach the average Morman about this history.
> I have run into many who know nothing about the history.
> 
> 
> 
> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Investigations and prosecutions
> Main article: Investigations and prosecutions relating to the Mountain Meadows massacre
> Historians still question the role that local Cedar City Mormon church officials played in ordering the massacre and Young's concealment of evidence in its aftermath.[37]Young's use of inflammatory and violent language[38] in response to the Federal expedition added to the tense atmosphere at the time of the attack. After the massacre, Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Fancher party. [39] It is unclear whether Young held this view because he believed that this specific group posed an actual threat to colonists or because he believed that the group was directly responsible for past crimes against Mormons. According to historian MacKinnon, "After the [Utah] war, U.S. President James Buchanan implied that face-to-face communications with Brigham Young might have averted the conflict, and Young argued that a north-south telegraph line in Utah could have prevented the Mountain Meadows Massacre."[40] MacKinnon suggests that hostilities could have been avoided if Young had traveled east to Washington D.C. to resolve governmental problems instead of taking a five week trip north on the eve of the Utah War for church related reasons.[41]




The article I posted is what I believe happened. Anything past this information is a he said she said.


----------



## sky dancer

A survey of ex-Mormons by Mister Poll asked participants to "Please indicate up to 7 main reasons why you finally decided to leave the church." The most common results, sorted by percentages, were:

General disbelief of Joseph Smith as a chosen prophet (6%) 
General disbelief of the Book of Mormon (5%) 
Emphasis on blind faith / Obedience to church leaders (5%) 
Found more peace outside the religion (4%) 
General mindset of the fanatics of the LDS religion (4%) 
LDS/religious logical fallacies/manipulations (3%) 
Cult-like temple ceremonies (3%) 
Book of Abraham (3%) 
Character of Joseph Smith (3%) 
Desire to uphold personal ethics (3%) 
LDS stand vs. intellectuals (2%) 
Brigham Young's teachings (i.e. blood atonement, race, etc) (2%) 
Polygamy (2%) 
LDS vs. feminist views (2%) 
Book of Mormon archaeology (2%) 
LDS stand on gay issues (2%) 
Fatigue/ depression (2%) 
Racial issues (2%) 
Unanswered prayers about LDS "truth" (2%) 
General dissatisfaction with apologetic (church scholars) answers (2%). 1 
Reasons Ex-Mormons give for leaving the LDS Church


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> A great Mormon Prophet once said: Always question authority.
> 
> Let's see if anyone can find that one.



 but true. Just about all of us have been told to question authority by all of our prophets.Your point?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> ALL religions are, even my own. What the, the post I was responding to vanished.



I don't think you have a religion. If so, what would that be?


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> The article I posted is what I believe happened. Anything past this information is a he said she said.



The article you posted is "he said she said" as well, only those who are not directly involved in an incident and have no stake in one side or the other can give a truly accurate accounting. I would trust the police on a matter long before anyone else.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> A little side note related to this particular post:
> 
> The LDS church owns Burger King.



Well, that's one business it won't be hard for me to boycott.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yours are wrong.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I'm sure you do.  You post on this forum with a proselytizing agenda.



If people decide to join our church because of the information I give them, that is great, but not the point of my thread. They don't have to believe what i am saying.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> but true. Just about all of us have been told to question authority by all of our prophets.Your point?



First, it's right on topic, The Truth About Mormons, you should be happy I am trying to steer it back instead of continuing the line of insult throwing that you also seem to wish to continue.

Second, the point is that makes all your statements about NOT questioning the authority of the church completely FALSE, and therefore a lie. It is a strategy to defend ones religion that the church does NOT condone, but so many of you neo-mormons keep using it, saying that the prophets say it's like this so it is, well, the prophets also told everyone to question even them.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> If people decide to join our church because of the information I give them, that is great, but not the point of my thread. They don't have to believe what i am saying.



That's a lie.  For what its worth, you have every right to proselytize.  Just be honest enough to admit that's what you're doing.

Tell the truth.  You bragged about proselytizing for two years in South Africa in your OP.  Mormons are into proselytizing.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't think you have a religion. If so, what would that be?



Bah! Do you ever retain more than fragments? I have said it many times, and a couple in this thread as well. I HATE repeating myself almost as much as I HATE liars.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> That's a lie.  For what its worth, you have every right to proselytize.  Just be honest enough to admit that's what you're doing.
> 
> Tell the truth.  You bragged about proselytizing for two years in South Africa in your OP.  Mormons are into proselytizing.



All youth are suppose to become missionaries, and those missionaries do nothing but preach. It is the foundation of fooling people into the church.


----------



## sky dancer

Right Kitten--

And Mr 'Truthspeaker' isn't even honest enough to admit his agenda.  I belong to a couple other forums.  On one in particular, I am friends with a Mormon.  I have great respect for him, and he respects me.  We share information about our spiritual paths with an eye for finding common ground.

He is a more mature poster than 'truthspeaker'.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> And yet he will not realize that this is what makes him lose all credibility.



Why do you think I am proselytizing? Because I am educating people about our religion? Are you starting to become convinced? When did I start asking for names and birthdays and tithing slips? Did I pass around a plate? Did I ask anyone to get baptized?
I just want to spread knowledge about us so people can have the right information to make up their own mind. I know some of the stuff we believe in is hard to believe, but I am not here to debate or apologize for it. It's great if someone decides to join as a result of correct information about us, but I really care about truth. You haven't pointed out one instance where I lied and irrefutably threw down your attack. I didn't come here to fight though. I only came here to discuss. But if you are constantly drawing your sword, I have to defend myself with the sword of Truth, and it cuts, and oh how deep, because if it didn't, you would have dismissed me as a wacko and left by now. But you give me credibility by fighting me, for as Joseph Smith said about anti-Mormons in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Those who leave the teachings of Christ are consigned and feel compelled to fight against it, because of the power that Satan hath got over them, to blind their eyes and close their minds, because they WILL not see."

Thank you for fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> Right Kitten--
> 
> And Mr 'Truthspeaker' isn't even honest enough to admit his agenda.  I belong to a couple other forums.  On one in particular, I am friends with a Mormon.  I have great respect for him, and he respects me.  We share information about our spiritual paths with an eye for finding common ground.
> 
> He is a more mature poster than 'truthspeaker'.



One of the greatest teachings that are taught to youth in Sunday school is that even the Mormons are not certain theirs is the one true religion and that no one of other religious beliefs should ever be attacked or excluded for those beliefs. Though lately this has changed because of the self hating members like Truthspeaker, they let their selfish and arrogant need to belong control their ideals instead of their ideals controlling the arrogance and selfishness like we were taught. They actually told their children that you should learn all you can about all religions before choosing, but that you had to honor your parents wishes until your were of the age of consent for your culture.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> The Mormon Church owns a for-profit corporate empire worth at least $11 billion. One of the churchs highest-profile companies is a broadcast network that includes mainstream radio stations in eight markets, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., Seattle, Phoenix, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Salt Lake City. The church also owns the NBC television affiliate in Salt Lake City, KSL, Channel 5.
> In its campaign against gay marriage, the Mormon Church, through its members, donated up to 70 percent of the funding for Californias Proposition 8, which passed last Tuesday by 52 percent to 48 percent.
> 
> The top beef ranch in the world is not the King Ranch in Texas. It is the Deseret Cattle & Citrus Ranch outside Orlando, Fla. It covers 312,000 acres; its value as real estate alone is estimated at $858 million. It is owned entirely by the Mormons. The largest producer of nuts in America, AgReserves, Inc., in Salt Lake City, is Mormon-owned. So are the Bonneville International Corp., the countrys 14th largest radio chain, and the Beneficial Life Insurance Co., with assets of $1.6 billion
> 
> All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the churchs nontithe income from its investments exceeds $600 million.
> 
> Pensito Review » Mormon Church Owns Mainstream Radio Stations in 8 Top Markets
> 
> In Seattle, the Mormon Church owns the right wing talk radio station, which it has branded The Truth. That just about says it all, doesnt it?



Fantastic Post, all of that is great news! What are you joining our side now?


----------



## sky dancer

Mormons are into proselytizing.  Admit it.  It's an obvious truth. 

You're a Mormon who want to establish himself as 'Mr Mormon' at this forum.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Why do you think I am proselytizing? Because I am educating people about our religion? Are you starting to become convinced? When did I start asking for names and birthdays and tithing slips? Did I pass around a plate? Did I ask anyone to get baptized?
> I just want to spread knowledge about us so people can have the right information to make up their own mind. I know some of the stuff we believe in is hard to believe, but I am not here to debate or apologize for it. It's great if someone decides to join as a result of correct information about us, but I really care about truth. You haven't pointed out one instance where I lied and irrefutably threw down your attack. I didn't come here to fight though. I only came here to discuss. But if you are constantly drawing your sword, I have to defend myself with the sword of Truth, and it cuts, and oh how deep, because if it didn't, you would have dismissed me as a wacko and left by now. But you give me credibility by fighting me, for as Joseph Smith said about anti-Mormons in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, "Those who leave the teachings of Christ are consigned and feel compelled to fight against it, because of the power that Satan hath got over them, to blind their eyes and close their minds, because they WILL not see."
> 
> Thank you for fulfilling prophecy.



Oh yeah, assumptions now, you actually think I am ANTI-mormon just because I correct YOU? That's really funny. That only betrays your arrogance.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> One of the greatest teachings that are taught to youth in Sunday school is that even the Mormons are not certain theirs is the one true religion and that no one of other religious beliefs should ever be attacked or excluded for those beliefs. Though lately this has changed because of the self hating members like Truthspeaker, they let their selfish and arrogant need to belong control their ideals instead of their ideals controlling the arrogance and selfishness like we were taught. They actually told their children that you should learn all you can about all religions before choosing, but that you had to honor your parents wishes until your were of the age of consent for your culture.



That's certainly a different tale then 'truth' speaker tells.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Fantastic Post, all of that is great news! What are you joining our side now?




I wasn't aware we were on opposite sides.  I have respect for Mormon worldly achievements.  I have respect for some Mormons, because they demonstrate positive qualities and are good citizens.

The teachings spiritually don't offer much.   I have met a few Mormons who I love debating with.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> That's a lie.  For what its worth, you have every right to proselytize.  Just be honest enough to admit that's what you're doing.
> 
> Tell the truth.  You bragged about proselytizing for two years in South Africa in your OP.  Mormons are into proselytizing.



You are right about one thing and wrong about another. See definition of Proselytize: to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
I have twisted no arms, forced my religion on others, at times defended my religion and certainly have not recruited anyone as you can see.

You are wrong about that

You are right that we love proselytizing, we have over 30,000 missionaries who serve full time, of which I was one as you correctly ascertained. When I proselytized, I knocked on doors, talked to strangers in the street, and asked for referrals from members 24 hours a day for 2 years. I know proselytizing, and this ain't it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Bah! Do you ever retain more than fragments? I have said it many times, and a couple in this thread as well. I HATE repeating myself almost as much as I HATE liars.



forgive me if I forgot. Jeez, you are entirely incapable of having a friendly discussion aren't you?


----------



## sky dancer

Now here's a real Truthspeaker!

_Lateef the Truthspeaker (born Lateef Daumont in Oakland, California) also known as The Truthspeaker or simply Lateef, is a hip-hop artist who is part of the groups Latyrx (with Lyrics Born) and Maroons AKA Lateef and the Chief (with Blackalicious' Chief Xcel). He was one of the founding members of the Solesides collective, which became Quannum Projects.[1]

He was raised in East Oakland, where his father was security detail for the Black Panthers. His mother was a Panther medic, who was a roommate and political associate of Angela Davis. [1]_
Lateef - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## KittenKoder

sky Dancer said:


> now Here's A Real Truthspeaker!
> 
> _lateef The Truthspeaker (born Lateef Daumont In Oakland, California) Also Known As The Truthspeaker Or Simply Lateef, Is A Hip-hop Artist Who Is Part Of The Groups Latyrx (with Lyrics Born) And Maroons Aka Lateef And The Chief (with Blackalicious' Chief Xcel). He Was One Of The Founding Members Of The Solesides Collective, Which Became Quannum Projects.[1]
> 
> He Was Raised In East Oakland, Where His Father Was Security Detail For The Black Panthers. His Mother Was A Panther Medic, Who Was A Roommate And Political Associate Of Angela Davis. [1]_
> lateef - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia



Lol


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> One of the greatest teachings that are taught to youth in Sunday school is that even the Mormons are not certain theirs is the one true religion and that no one of other religious beliefs should ever be attacked or excluded for those beliefs. Though lately this has changed because of the self hating members like Truthspeaker, they let their selfish and arrogant need to belong control their ideals instead of their ideals controlling the arrogance and selfishness like we were taught. They actually told their children that you should learn all you can about all religions before choosing, but that you had to honor your parents wishes until your were of the age of consent for your culture.



Truly you have a dizzying intellect. Actually, I go to church every Sunday, and we do claim that we have the full, restored Gospel of Christ. We do teach respect for all religions and never to hate others but to study all we can to find truth in every religion and focus on the good in people and religions, not the bad. We don't launch smear campaigns against other faiths like you have launched against me. I could, but I refuse, as it is un-Christlike.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> A little side note related to this particular post:
> 
> The LDS church owns Burger King.



It wouldn't be a big deal if we did own burger king but either you are  about that or ignorant, which do you prefer?
Burger King: Where's The Beef?


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> You are right about one thing and wrong about another. See definition of Proselytize: to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.
> I have twisted no arms, forced my religion on others, at times defended my religion and certainly have not recruited anyone as you can see.
> 
> You are wrong about that
> 
> *You are right that we love proselytizing*, we have over 30,000 missionaries who serve full time, of which I was one as you correctly ascertained. When I proselytized, I knocked on doors, talked to strangers in the street, and asked for referrals from members 24 hours a day for 2 years. I know proselytizing, and this ain't it.



The Truth About Mormons--

That's the topic here.  The truth is that you became a member and introduced yourself as 'The Mormon Guy"  and gave yourself the exalted title of "Truth Speaker".

You have done nothing but push Mormonism since your first post.


----------



## sky dancer

Mormonism and the Question of Truth
by Latayne C. Scott

from the Christian Research Journal, Summer 1992, page 24. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller. 

Summary 

The Mormon concept of, and approach to, the subject of truth is radically different from that of the Bible in at least nine ways. A Mormon sees truth as (1) constantly changing, (2) as going, in culture and practice, far beyond written doctrine, (3) as determined by subjective feelings, and (4) as often divorced from its history. (5) The Mormon approach to truth is compromised by a heritage of deception as practiced by leaders from founder Joseph Smith to today's Elder Paul Dunn. In addition, (6) truth to a Mormon is "layered" in the way that it is presented to prospective converts. And (7) the Church itself routinely edits both its own history and doctrine to make it seem consistent and palatable. In practice, therefore, (8) truth often yields to what the Church views as expedient. In the final analysis, (9) the Mormon concept of truth depends upon the character of its god, who as defined by LDS doctrine is constantly changing and himself ultimately human in nature. 

The most basic Mormon statement of faith, known as "bearing your testimony," is taught to young children to repeat from their first chance to speak in a "fast and testimony meeting" until their dying day. It consists of a very simple yet psychologically potent affirmation: "I know the Church is true." 

CRI Journal - CRJ0110A


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> That's certainly a different tale then 'truth' speaker tells.



As I said, many have fallen from the true path of what the church stood for, but some still hold true to it, most live in Utah still but there are a few in other places. My grandfather on my mothers side is in AZ, and he will always be one of the best Mormons I have known, a Bishop as well, retired after many years of dealing with morons who think it's "their way or the highway" and grew tired of seeing the so many in the church fail so badly. So now he only attends the major gatherings and goes to the temple in Utah, but that is actually a good thing to the churches teachings. One of the prophets once spoke to our congregation when I was young and still going, he said one thing that convinced me there was too much wrong with most of the members, "A church is not a building, it is not a town, or a city, god made his church in the forest." Taken from the Joseph Smith legend but still very hard hitting. A building he said is made by the hands of man, and therefore not a true church. While their god may visit, he lives in his own world, the trees and forests of the land he created himself. I loved that part a lot and even remember that one speech well.

When I was young I became a speaker, often speaking in front of the congregation because most really loved my interpretations of the scriptures. I had a way with words and stories to make even the most tragic events seem pretty. I am still very poetic but not so much a people person, I hate large crowds now. I am also long winded as shown by this post. Always have an opinion and insight that many do not see until faced with it. My grandfather hoped I would one day lead many back into the true gospels, but I just couldn't see the reason. Let them fail on their own, they only have themselves to blame. I found a new path in more ancient texts, older scriptures that even the Mormons recognize as being saintly in origin, odd for a christian cult but then they are ... well were, more open to knowledge and wisdom when I was young than they are today.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> It wouldn't be a big deal if we did own burger king but either you are  about that or ignorant, which do you prefer?
> Burger King: Where's The Beef?



Um ... and so now you are putting words in my mouth? Such arrogance from someone so naive.


----------



## sky dancer

Now that is a great post, Kitten.


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> Obediance to whom? God, the current President, a specific commandment? Please elaborate.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Does this mean that the obese (due to lifestyle as opposed to medical reasons) are in violation of doctrine?



First, obedience to God is my answer.

2nd, it could be yes or no, depending on if the person knows they are damaging their body or not. If someone knows about the word of wisdom and fights against it by destroying their body and becoming addicted to fast foods or any substance then they are giving up their control and not excercising the body which God gave them. If this is the case. Then yes. If they are ignorant of health and the word of wisdom, they are not sinning, an ignorant transgression that is not punishable.


----------



## sky dancer

You cannot believe a word 'truthspeaker' says.  Not one word.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> A survey of ex-Mormons by Mister Poll asked participants to "Please indicate up to 7 main reasons why you finally decided to leave the church." The most common results, sorted by percentages, were:
> 
> General disbelief of Joseph Smith as a chosen prophet (6%)
> General disbelief of the Book of Mormon (5%)
> Emphasis on blind faith / Obedience to church leaders (5%)
> Found more peace outside the religion (4%)
> General mindset of the fanatics of the LDS religion (4%)
> LDS/religious logical fallacies/manipulations (3%)
> Cult-like temple ceremonies (3%)
> Book of Abraham (3%)
> Character of Joseph Smith (3%)
> Desire to uphold personal ethics (3%)
> LDS stand vs. intellectuals (2%)
> Brigham Young's teachings (i.e. blood atonement, race, etc) (2%)
> Polygamy (2%)
> LDS vs. feminist views (2%)
> Book of Mormon archaeology (2%)
> LDS stand on gay issues (2%)
> Fatigue/ depression (2%)
> Racial issues (2%)
> Unanswered prayers about LDS "truth" (2%)
> General dissatisfaction with apologetic (church scholars) answers (2%). 1
> Reasons Ex-Mormons give for leaving the LDS Church



Actually I sincerely applaud you for this post. Now you are getting at the real reasons people leave the church. Interpretation of the issues is now a strong reason for why I believe IN the church. People JOIN for the exact same reasons in the reciprocal response.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> First, obedience to God is my answer.
> 
> 2nd, it could be yes or no, depending on if the person knows they are damaging their body or not. If someone knows about the word of wisdom and fights against it by destroying their body and becoming addicted to fast foods or any substance then they are giving up their control and not excercising the body which God gave them. If this is the case. Then yes. If they are ignorant of health and the word of wisdom, they are not sinning, an ignorant transgression that is not punishable.



Now, time for old school Mormon logic to take it's front seat. THAT is why the Mormon church has never done ANYTHING against gay men and women, because they are ignorant of the transgression. Of course the modern ones don't remember that unless it's convenient, such as defending their own lies or attacks on others. Though I know it's off topic, but it is the reason all the Mormons who are trying to lie about the gay marriages are completely WRONG and breaking their own laws. They WILL be punished for their own sins though, but this is the most current and probably best example of such folly.


----------



## sky dancer

You believe in the Church because you've been indoctrinated.  Clearly, your posts do not indicate that your demonstrate much ability to self-reflect or to have independent thinking.

What spiritual qualities do you think you have Truthspeaker?

The Church is not the truth.  The truth is the truth.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> You believe because you've been indoctrinated.  Clearly, your posts do not indicate that your demonstrate much ability to self-reflect or to have independent thinking.
> 
> What spiritual qualities do you think you have Truthspeaker?



Better: Ask him what his priesthood blessing said he has.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Mormons are into proselytizing.  Admit it.  It's an obvious truth.
> 
> You're a Mormon who want to establish himself as 'Mr Mormon' at this forum.



I came out immediately and said in the introduction forum "Hey, I'm the Mormon Guy" I don't know what's more "Mr. Mormon" than that. Guilty as charged

Apparently, you aren't reading my posts again. Here I will copy and paste my previous response:
Why do you think I am proselytizing? Because I am educating people about our religion? Are you starting to become convinced? When did I start asking for names and birthdays and tithing slips? Did I pass around a plate? Did I ask anyone to get baptized?
I just want to spread knowledge about us so people can have the right information to make up their own mind. I know some of the stuff we believe in is hard to believe, but I am not here to debate or apologize for it. It's great if someone decides to join as a result of correct information about us, but I really care about truth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Oh yeah, assumptions now, you actually think I am ANTI-mormon just because I correct YOU? That's really funny. That only betrays your arrogance.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> I came out immediately and said in the introduction forum "Hey, I'm the Mormon Guy" I don't know what's more "Mr. Mormon" than that. Guilty as charged
> 
> Apparently, you aren't reading my posts again. Here I will copy and paste my previous response:
> Why do you think I am proselytizing? Because I am educating people about our religion? Are you starting to become convinced? When did I start asking for names and birthdays and tithing slips? Did I pass around a plate? Did I ask anyone to get baptized?
> I just want to spread knowledge about us so people can have the right information to make up their own mind. I know some of the stuff we believe in is hard to believe, but I am not here to debate or apologize for it. It's great if someone decides to join as a result of correct information about us, but I really care about truth.



You are still not giving the full story though, like so many you are picking and choosing what to tell so you don't look bad. ALL religions have dark sides, the best are those who accept that, air it for all to see, and then move on, but instead you choose to bury it and pretend it does not exist. That is dishonest, and a sin for all religions.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I came out immediately and said in the introduction forum "Hey, I'm the Mormon Guy" I don't know what's more "Mr. Mormon" than that. Guilty as charged
> 
> Apparently, you aren't reading my posts again. Here I will copy and paste my previous response:
> Why do you think I am proselytizing? Because I am educating people about our religion? Are you starting to become convinced? When did I start asking for names and birthdays and tithing slips? Did I pass around a plate? Did I ask anyone to get baptized?
> *I just want to spread knowledge about us so people can have the right information to make up their own mind.* I know some of the stuff we believe in is hard to believe, but I am not here to debate or apologize for it. *It's great if someone decides to join as a result of correct information about us, but I really care about truth*.



What makes you think anyone here is interested in joining you on your mission?

Your motivation is obvious in your own words.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I wasn't aware we were on opposite sides.  I have respect for Mormon worldly achievements.  I have respect for some Mormons, because they demonstrate positive qualities and are good citizens.
> 
> The teachings spiritually don't offer much.   I have met a few Mormons who I love debating with.



You were't aware, so all this time you weren't trying to tear down my religion?.... And all this time I thought you were. Silly me

Perhaps this is a step in the right direction for us one day to have a civil discussion


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> You are still not giving the full story though, like so many you are picking and choosing what to tell so you don't look bad. ALL religions have dark sides, the best are those who accept that, air it for all to see, and then move on, but instead you choose to bury it and pretend it does not exist. That is dishonest, and a sin for all religions.



The best spiritual practitioners are the ones who examine thier minds and hearts and who acknowledge flaws and work to overcome them.

Pride and ignorance are difficult to overcome.

Truthspeaker is a one way communicator.  He thinks everyone else ought to be bowing at his feet because he has so much to offer.

He doesn't think the rest of us may have something to teach him about himself.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


>



*smirks* See, you are arrogant. I have not once said anything negative about the gospel of the Mormons, nor that the church is wrong for being the way it is, I only said bad things about you because you are being dishonest and misrepresenting the church. THAT is wrong, and pisses me off to no extent. I hate liars, and withholding the truth just to avoid looking bad is lying.

I love the pure gospel, the one before scum like you changed it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Now here's a real Truthspeaker!
> 
> _Lateef the Truthspeaker (born Lateef Daumont in Oakland, California) also known as The Truthspeaker or simply Lateef, is a hip-hop artist who is part of the groups Latyrx (with Lyrics Born) and Maroons AKA Lateef and the Chief (with Blackalicious' Chief Xcel). He was one of the founding members of the Solesides collective, which became Quannum Projects.[1]
> 
> He was raised in East Oakland, where his father was security detail for the Black Panthers. His mother was a Panther medic, who was a roommate and political associate of Angela Davis. [1]_
> Lateef - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's nice


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> You are still not giving the full story though, like so many you are picking and choosing what to tell so you don't look bad. ALL religions have dark sides, the best are those who accept that, air it for all to see, and then move on, but instead you choose to bury it and pretend it does not exist. That is dishonest, and a sin for all religions.



I am out in the open again, armed only with truth but the sharks still steer clear of me.  What questions exactly am I dodging? Bring it up again and I will copy and paste the answer I already gave.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> You were't aware, so all this time you weren't trying to tear down my religion?.... And all this time I thought you were. Silly me
> 
> Perhaps this is a step in the right direction for us one day to have a civil discussion



I'm trying to knock some sense into you so that we can have a decent conversation about faith.  I oppose the Mormon stance on homosexuality--in particular, the Proposition 8 debacle.  That's it.

I am not 'at war with' or an enemy of LDS.

If there is anything I am trying to tear down is the walls you have built around yourself that do not allow other people to get through.

You are disrespectful of other posters with different faiths, and you think the conversation should be all one sided--with you as the ultimate authority and everyone else as your chela.

A number of posters see your arrogance, you do not.

I understand.  It's difficult to see your own flaws.  Arrogance is what stands in your way of being an effective communicator for LDS.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> What makes you think anyone here is interested in joining you on your mission?
> 
> Your motivation is obvious in your own words.



I agree. It is obvious.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I agree. It is obvious.



Your arrogance is obvious to everyone else but you.  Too bad.  I think Mormonism is fascinating.  You don't do it justice.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Now, time for old school Mormon logic to take it's front seat. THAT is why the Mormon church has never done ANYTHING against gay men and women, because they are ignorant of the transgression. Of course the modern ones don't remember that unless it's convenient, such as defending their own lies or attacks on others. Though I know it's off topic, but it is the reason all the Mormons who are trying to lie about the gay marriages are completely WRONG and breaking their own laws. They WILL be punished for their own sins though, but this is the most current and probably best example of such folly.



Again your logic is not. Homosexuality has always been preached against. However since God loves all of them, and knows all the circumstances that caused them to be the way they are, in many cases they transgress ignorantly and the predators who convert them to this lifestyle will be punished instead. In many cases the scriptures point out that the sins of some will be answered upon the heads of others, who are more responsible.  a sin is always punishable upon the knowledgeable head and not the ignorant one. That may have been way over your head.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> I'm trying to knock some sense into you so that we can have a decent conversation about faith.  I oppose the Mormon stance on homosexuality--in particular, the Proposition 8 debacle.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> I am not 'at war with' or an enemy of LDS.
> 
> If there is anything I am trying to tear down is the walls you have built around yourself that do not allow other people to get through.
> 
> You are disrespectful of other posters with different faiths, and you think the conversation should be all one sided--with you as the ultimate authority and everyone else as your chela.



The sad thing is that all the Mormons who opposed gay marriage are anti-Mormon. They are not true mormons because going against a minority group is the same as saying that their own struggle during the founding was pointless and that they should have been exterminated as those who attacked them wanted. Also it is a sin, claiming to know the will of their god is a very BIG sin, and one that is not forgiven. By assuming that their god doesn't want gay men and women to legally marry they condemed themselves to damnation. Also by blaming those ignorant of what they see as a sin they also broke another law in the gospel. No, those who claim to be mormon that oppose gay marriage are not and never will be Mormon, and as far as their own god is concerned they are no longer alive. Also, the Mormon marriage is different, the legal documents for the marriage are NOT that valuable to them except in divorces, taxes, and visitation rights in the hospital. To them only marriage in their temple counts, so logically allowing gays the legal right to marriage doesn't even effect them, and those who think otherwise are just arrogant again, and again it's a big sin to be arrogant.


----------



## sky dancer

Too bad for you Truthspeaker.  KittenKoder is much smarter and knows more about LDS than you do.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Again your logic is not. Homosexuality has always been preached against. However since God loves all of them, and knows all the circumstances that caused them to be the way they are, in many cases they transgress ignorantly and the predators who convert them to this lifestyle will be punished instead. In many cases the scriptures point out that the sins of some will be answered upon the heads of others, who are more responsible.  a sin is always punishable upon the knowledgeable head and not the ignorant one. That may have been way over your head.



This is where you are lying, though I suspect you are lying to yourself and in more ways than belief.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> Too bad for you Truthspeaker.  KittenKoder is much smarter and knows more about LDS than you do.



I suspect he was one of them and is trying to justify his breaking the gospels law hoping that maybe he can use the ignorance of the sin rule as an excuse. But his god won't allow that, those who he and others like him have wronged will have their day in the afterlife. It is said that those wronged by a person who has not repented to them personally will have to pay ten fold in the afterlife, according to the gospel. I believe it's threefold myself, but meh.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> The sad thing is that all the Mormons who opposed gay marriage are anti-Mormon. They are not true mormons because going against a minority group is the same as saying that their own struggle during the founding was pointless and that they should have been exterminated as those who attacked them wanted. *Also it is a sin, claiming to know the will of their god is a very BIG sin*, and one that is not forgiven. By assuming that their god doesn't want gay men and women to legally marry they condemed themselves to damnation. *Also by blaming those ignorant of what they see as a sin they also broke another law in the gospel.* No, those who claim to be mormon that oppose gay marriage are not and never will be Mormon, and as far as their own god is concerned they are no longer alive. Also, the Mormon marriage is different, the legal documents for the marriage are NOT that valuable to them except in divorces, taxes, and visitation rights in the hospital. To them only marriage in their temple counts, so logically allowing gays the legal right to marriage doesn't even effect them, and those who think otherwise are just arrogant again, and again *it's a big sin to be arrogant*.



Fascinating.  Your post rings true.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> *smirks* See, you are arrogant. I have not once said anything negative about the gospel of the Mormons, nor that the church is wrong for being the way it is, I only said bad things about you because you are being dishonest and misrepresenting the church. THAT is wrong, and pisses me off to no extent. I hate liars, and withholding the truth just to avoid looking bad is lying.
> 
> I love the pure gospel, the one before scum like you changed it.



Arrogant is as arrogant does. You mean to say you didn't say one negative thing about the Mormons. You have done it at least a hundred times, two times by default in  your signature which insults all religions. Where are your specifics. What am I lying about. It's been about 3 pages since anyone brought up specific questions or attacks that I answered. Since then it has been empty accusations of me lying or being arrogant. Where is your substance?


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Arrogant is as arrogant does. You mean to say you didn't say one negative thing about the Mormons. You have done it at least a hundred times, two times by default in  your signature which insults all religions. Where are your specifics. What am I lying about. It's been about 3 pages since anyone brought up specific questions or attacks that I answered. Since then it has been empty accusations of me lying or being arrogant. Where is your substance?


Kitten Koder hit the nail on the head.  You are lying to yourself.  You don't know yourself very well, and you do not demonstrate spiritual qualities.  It is clear to anyone reading this thread that you appear arrogant and ambitious.  You are only interested in one way conversation.

A dialogue is what the rest of us are interested in, *not being preached to or converted.*


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Arrogant is as arrogant does. You mean to say you didn't say one negative thing about the Mormons. You have done it at least a hundred times, two times by default in  your signature which insults all religions. Where are your specifics. What am I lying about. It's been about 3 pages since anyone brought up specific questions or attacks that I answered. Since then it has been empty accusations of me lying or being arrogant. Where is your substance?



Admitting your sin is the first step to repentance. Now continue the path. My substance is the pure Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If any bishop or prophet saw what you posted here you would have been excommunicated a looong time ago. I am the prodigal, even my own mother begs me to return to teaching, but I say this to them, and I shall say it to you: Not until you repent for your arrogance.


----------



## KittenKoder

Thing is Truthspeaker, while you and many like you have already committed one of the unforgivable sins there is still a place for you in the lower kingdom, if you repent for the rest of your vile sins.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I'm trying to knock some sense into you so that we can have a decent conversation about faith.  I oppose the Mormon stance on homosexuality--in particular, the Proposition 8 debacle.  That's it.
> 
> I am not 'at war with' or an enemy of LDS.
> 
> If there is anything I am trying to tear down is the walls you have built around yourself that do not allow other people to get through.
> 
> You are disrespectful of other posters with different faiths, and you think the conversation should be all one sided--with you as the ultimate authority and everyone else as your chela.
> 
> A number of posters see your arrogance, you do not.
> 
> I understand.  It's difficult to see your own flaws.  Arrogance is what stands in your way of being an effective communicator for LDS.



Well then let's be civil like you are trying to. My purpose in authoring this thread is clear. I would be happy to join a thread about The Truth about Buddhism. We can talk about that and I can ask you questions why you believe what you believe. I may disagree but will not try and tear down your faith. I feel I have been attacked constantly in this thread and so you must forgive me giving it back as good as I get it. Calm people have interjected from time to time and said that for the most part I am civil and informative. Maybe they are right. I certainly never claimed to be perfect. But what I do claim is that I can and have repeatedly declared the truth about mormons.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> Admitting your sin is the first step to repentance. Now continue the path. My substance is the pure Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If any bishop or prophet saw what you posted here you would have been excommunicated a looong time ago. I am the prodigal, even my own mother begs me to return to teaching, but I say this to them, and I shall say it to you: Not until you repent for your arrogance.




Thank you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Your arrogance is obvious to everyone else but you.  Too bad.  I think Mormonism is fascinating.  You don't do it justice.



What fascinates you about Mormonism?


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Well then let's be civil like you are trying to. My purpose in authoring this thread is clear. I would be happy to join a thread about The Truth about Buddhism. We can talk about that and I can ask you questions why you believe what you believe. I may disagree but will not try and tear down your faith.* I feel I have been attacked *constantly in this thread and so you must forgive me giving it back as good as I get it. Calm people have interjected from time to time and said that for the most part I am civil and informative. Maybe they are right. I certainly never claimed to be perfect. But what I do claim is that I can and have repeatedly declared the truth about mormons.




Now, you whine like a victim?  The truth about Mormons is that they are not generally as arrogant and condescending as you are.

Like it or not, I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> Now, you whine like a victim?  The truth about Mormons is that they are not generally as arrogant and condescending as you are.
> 
> Like it or not, I'm not going anywhere.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> What fascinates you about Mormonism?



I'm not having this conversation with you until you 'get it' about yourself.  With other Mormons I have had numerous conversations where we share teachings about Buddhism and LDS teachings and find common ground.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> The sad thing is that all the Mormons who opposed gay marriage are anti-Mormon. They are not true mormons because going against a minority group is the same as saying that their own struggle during the founding was pointless and that they should have been exterminated as those who attacked them wanted. Also it is a sin, claiming to know the will of their god is a very BIG sin, and one that is not forgiven. By assuming that their god doesn't want gay men and women to legally marry they condemed themselves to damnation. Also by blaming those ignorant of what they see as a sin they also broke another law in the gospel. No, those who claim to be mormon that oppose gay marriage are not and never will be Mormon, and as far as their own god is concerned they are no longer alive. Also, the Mormon marriage is different, the legal documents for the marriage are NOT that valuable to them except in divorces, taxes, and visitation rights in the hospital. To them only marriage in their temple counts, so logically allowing gays the legal right to marriage doesn't even effect them, and those who think otherwise are just arrogant again, and again it's a big sin to be arrogant.



that is all false doctrine and nowhere cannot be found in any of our scriptures.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> The sad thing is that all the Mormons who opposed gay marriage are anti-Mormon. They are not true mormons because going against a minority group is the same as saying that their own struggle during the founding was pointless and that they should have been exterminated as those who attacked them wanted. Also it is a sin, claiming to know the will of their god is a very BIG sin, and one that is not forgiven. By assuming that their god doesn't want gay men and women to legally marry they condemed themselves to damnation. Also by blaming those ignorant of what they see as a sin they also broke another law in the gospel. No, those who claim to be mormon that oppose gay marriage are not and never will be Mormon, and as far as their own god is concerned they are no longer alive. Also, the Mormon marriage is different, the legal documents for the marriage are NOT that valuable to them except in divorces, taxes, and visitation rights in the hospital. To them only marriage in their temple counts, so logically allowing gays the legal right to marriage doesn't even effect them, and those who think otherwise are just arrogant again, and again it's a big sin to be arrogant.



that is all false doctrine and nowhere can or will be found in any of our scriptures.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> that is all false doctrine and nowhere can or will be found in any of our scriptures.




What does LDS have to say about arrogance and pride?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> This is where you are lying, though I suspect you are lying to yourself and in more ways than belief.



To someone listening to your argument from a neutral perspective, they would ask where is your substance. All you do is say I lie but when you bring up a specific, I show you the truth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> I suspect he was one of them and is trying to justify his breaking the gospels law hoping that maybe he can use the ignorance of the sin rule as an excuse. But his god won't allow that, those who he and others like him have wronged will have their day in the afterlife. It is said that those wronged by a person who has not repented to them personally will have to pay ten fold in the afterlife, according to the gospel. I believe it's threefold myself, but meh.



that statement is written nowhere in our doctrine. False doctrine. You are scrambling for a weapon everytime but you are bringing silly putty to a gunfight.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> To someone listening to your argument from a neutral perspective, they would ask where is your substance. All you do is say I lie but when you bring up a specific, *I show you the truth*.



This is a perfect example of your arrogance.  I don't think you even read anyone elses posts.  Talking to you is like talking to the wall.

You don't get it.  Have fun talking to yourself in the mirror.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Admitting your sin is the first step to repentance. Now continue the path. My substance is the pure Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If any bishop or prophet saw what you posted here you would have been excommunicated a looong time ago. I am the prodigal, even my own mother begs me to return to teaching, but I say this to them, and I shall say it to you: Not until you repent for your arrogance.



Way to ignore my questions.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Thing is Truthspeaker, while you and many like you have already committed one of the unforgivable sins there is still a place for you in the lower kingdom, if you repent for the rest of your vile sins.



Ok God, way to put yourself into the judgment seat. Way to preach oh holier then thou when you don't even go to church or believe in religion. This is really weird now


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Way to ignore my questions.



Ignore your own arrogance at your peril.  You are the worst example of a Mormon missionary I have ever met.

Here's a reference for you:
http://www.reallyweirdstuff.com/howtobesuccessfulcultleader.htm


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> that is all false doctrine and nowhere cannot be found in any of our scriptures.



I recommend you reread it then, the BoM is full of such commands and many examples that support it.

Though I think the only pure BoM is no longer being printed since all the online references have been heavily modified by psychos like you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Now, you whine like a victim?  The truth about Mormons is that they are not generally as arrogant and condescending as you are.
> 
> Like it or not, I'm not going anywhere.



Great, maybe the longer you stay, we may be able to get somewhere. As for the victim bit. My skin is certainly thick enough.


----------



## KittenKoder

Try this one: Matthew 7


----------



## KittenKoder

HERE is my favorite, the one so many of you break so often now: Luke 6


----------



## KittenKoder

Oh, and if you want to use the word gay, this one is cool: James 2


----------



## KittenKoder

Oh, and nothing about homosexuality at ALL!


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I'm not having this conversation with you until you 'get it' about yourself.  With other Mormons I have had numerous conversations where we share teachings about Buddhism and LDS teachings and find common ground.



Let's establish peace then, let's talk about common ground.


----------



## sky dancer

What do Mormons have to say about pride and arrogance?  This is huge for Buddhists.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> What does LDS have to say about arrogance and pride?



Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. At the great and last day, the proud shall be burned as stubble, and the great man shall be laid low.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Great, maybe the longer you stay, we may be able to get somewhere. As for the victim bit. My skin is certainly thick enough.



Get off your high horse and talk to the rest of us citizens.  YOU may even learn something!


----------



## KittenKoder

2 Nephi 28 A personal favorite about pride.
1 Samuel 2 This one is arrogance.

only two examples because finding online references is a pain.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> This is a perfect example of your arrogance.  I don't think you even read anyone elses posts.  Talking to you is like talking to the wall.
> 
> You don't get it.  Have fun talking to yourself in the mirror.



The truth about our religion is written in our official doctrine. I have quoted it. That is the truth I am talking about.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> I recommend you reread it then, the BoM is full of such commands and many examples that support it.
> 
> Though I think the only pure BoM is no longer being printed since all the online references have been heavily modified by psychos like you.



Where is it written then, since you must know where it is.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> The truth about our religion is written in our official doctrine. I have quoted it. That is the truth I am talking about.



Hmm ... stupidity I hope is not hereditary in your case. You really don't get the whole doctrine thing at all. "Official", that's just funny.

Read THIS before even responding: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/13/46#46


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Try this one: Matthew 7



I just read Matthew 7 again. Thanks for the brush up. but there is nothing in there to support your false doctrine.


----------



## KittenKoder

This is one of many doctrines used, and as more ancient texts are uncovered they actually seek out more to add. There is NO official doctrine.

Mormon Pearl of Great Price


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> HERE is my favorite, the one so many of you break so often now: Luke 6



I just read Luke 6 but nowhere does this scripture remotely justify your interpretation of it.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> I just read Matthew 7 again. Thanks for the brush up. but there is nothing in there to support your false doctrine.



The first two words, the majority of it just explains these.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Oh, and nothing about homosexuality at ALL!



Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind, it is an abomination.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> I just read Luke 6 but nowhere does this scripture remotely justify your interpretation of it.



Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: 

YOU judeged, YOU condemned, YOU did not forgive.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as womankind, it is an abomination.



So, you cannot sleep in the same bed, still nothing about sexual acts, which is what homosexuality is unless you are really admitting that you have to interpret things and that it still mentions nothing about love or marriage.


----------



## KittenKoder

"Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."

Preventing someone from having love and being able to protect those they do love is certainly NOT merciful.


----------



## KittenKoder

To continue, this is how you are to treat evil:

"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and blend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> 2 Nephi 28 A personal favorite about pride.
> 1 Samuel 2 This one is arrogance.
> 
> only two examples because finding online references is a pain.



Let me help you. Verse 20"and the gentiles are lifted up, in the pride of their eyes and have stumbled.and because of the greatness of their stumbling block that they have built up many churches, nevertheless they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind against the face of the poor" verse 21 and there are many churches built up which cause envyings and strifes and malice."

this is a prophecy of the last day which we believe has been fulfilled. Please don't quote a book you have already said you don't believe in.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> This is one of many doctrines used, and as more ancient texts are uncovered they actually seek out more to add. There is NO official doctrine.
> 
> Mormon Pearl of Great Price



This book is part of our official doctrine, I invite you to read it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
> 
> YOU judeged, YOU condemned, YOU did not forgive.



Where did I do any of this. I may have quoted a scripture of God judging what is going to happen to people but numerous times already I have said, i can't judge who is going where. You just plain don't listen.


----------



## KittenKoder

Here is one that I REALLY love in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the latter gospels which the church has even accepted, notice the plural endings:
Abraham 4


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> The first two words, the majority of it just explains these.



specifics again please?


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Where did I do any of this. I may have quoted a scripture of God judging what is going to happen to people but numerous times already I have said, i can't judge who is going where. You just plain don't listen.



Your anti-gay marriage crap. It's wrong, it's why the fall of the Mormon church started, the pride before the fall as it was. This is just a HUGE step in the fall that will cinch the damnation of all the followers because of the arrogant scum like you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> So, you cannot sleep in the same bed, still nothing about sexual acts, which is what homosexuality is unless you are really admitting that you have to interpret things and that it still mentions nothing about love or marriage.



The Hebrew word for sex is to lie with someone for example when Pharaohs daughter told joseph, lie with me, and he fled from her prescence, it is clear that lie means have sex with. C'mon stop quoting books you said you don't believe?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful."
> 
> Preventing someone from having love and being able to protect those they do love is certainly NOT merciful.



Leviticus 18:22


----------



## KittenKoder

Alright, it is clear the Truthspeaker is baiting in hopes of denying his own sins to himself.

In all beliefs, the only true evil are those who do not live by their own laws chosen by their religious ideals or those of the land, and Truthspeaker has broken his own laws and the guilt of his heart will prevent him from moving on, Anpu shall not allow it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> To continue, this is how you are to treat evil:
> 
> "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and blend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."



I agree, we have always preached this.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Your anti-gay marriage crap. It's wrong, it's why the fall of the Mormon church started, the pride before the fall as it was. This is just a HUGE step in the fall that will cinch the damnation of all the followers because of the arrogant scum like you.



Leviticus 18:22 shows we are on the Lords side for the gay marriage issue.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> The Hebrew word for sex is to lie with someone for example when Pharaohs daughter told joseph, lie with me, and he fled from her prescence, it is clear that lie means have sex with. C'mon stop quoting books you said you don't believe?



However the Hebrew word for sleep ALSO means sleep. Ancient Hebrew had a very fluent vocabulary that allowed for many words to intermingle and be interpreted in a large number of ways. Such as the mythical 666, which is actually just three lines, but also represents a few word meanings. Thus is why they use to focus on interpretation so much in Sunday school, but you instead of yeilding to the teachings of those much wiser than you, you prefer to enforce one meaning to things which have so many. That is your arrogance and your biggest flaw, as well as your worst sin.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Alright, it is clear the Truthspeaker is baiting in hopes of denying his own sins to himself.
> 
> In all beliefs, the only true evil are those who do not live by their own laws chosen by their religious ideals or those of the land, and Truthspeaker has broken his own laws and the guilt of his heart will prevent him from moving on, Anpu shall not allow it.



Who is Anpu? this is just weirder and weirder.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Leviticus 18:22 shows we are on the Lords side for the gay marriage issue.



No, it just says not to lie with another the same as a woman. However the English word lie has two meanings, so perhaps you were justified in lying to your wife so long as you don't lie to another man. *smirks*


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> However the Hebrew word for sleep ALSO means sleep. Ancient Hebrew had a very fluent vocabulary that allowed for many words to intermingle and be interpreted in a large number of ways. Such as the mythical 666, which is actually just three lines, but also represents a few word meanings. Thus is why they use to focus on interpretation so much in Sunday school, but you instead of yeilding to the teachings of those much wiser than you, you prefer to enforce one meaning to things which have so many. That is your arrogance and your biggest flaw, as well as your worst sin.



For someone who doesn't believe the bible, you sure are an expert at interpreting it?


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> Who is Anpu? this is just weirder and weirder.



One of the gods that Moses was told of, one who helped Ptah (the supreme god) build the earth, he guards the gate to the after life. These are the Ancient Egyptian names only, they are known by many names, even the Mormons have names for them, can you recite those?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> No, it just says not to lie with another the same as a woman. However the English word lie has two meanings, so perhaps you were justified in lying to your wife so long as you don't lie to another man. *smirks*



The next verse goes on to read in verse 23, thou shalt not lie with any beast, nor shal a woman lie down thereto before a beast, thou shalt stone the woman and slay the beast. 
Still any doubt as to the meaning of the word lie. Stop Lie-ing


----------



## KittenKoder

Here's a hint: The god Imhotep is named Jesus.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> The next verse goes on to read in verse 23, thou shalt not lie with any beast, nor shal a woman lie down thereto before a beast, thou shalt stone the woman and slay the beast.
> Still any doubt as to the meaning of the word lie. Stop Lie-ing



You do realize that beasts are considered messengers as well, so to tell them a lie (or "lie before them") would be the same as lying to god. So yeah, the interpretation is still not 100% one way or another.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> One of the gods that Moses was told of, one who helped Ptah (the supreme god) build the earth, he guards the gate to the after life. These are the Ancient Egyptian names only, they are known by many names, even the Mormons have names for them, can you recite those?



No becaue I don't believe in them or study them. But i do believe in official mormon doctrine. So do you believe in ancient egyptian religion? You said Anpu will not allow it but apparently he did.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ok all..... it's been great, it's been fun... but it hasn't been great fun. I am leaving to go home from work now. God bless.


----------



## KittenKoder

Truthspeaker said:


> No becaue I don't believe in them or study them. But i do believe in official mormon doctrine. So do you believe in ancient egyptian religion? You said Anpu will not allow it but apparently he did.



Um, you do realize you are citing ancient texts translated into modern English, the ancient culture had a huge influence in the meanings as well as the symbolism. And no, I said Anpu would not allow you to enter the afterlife with that heavy heart you have. Also you keep saying 'official' and yet the church itself says they change the doctrine based on ancient records and findings, so the word 'official' has no meaning here. You just don't see more than you want, that's all.


----------



## KittenKoder

That also reminds me of another teaching a prophet told us so many years ago, the books shall not be worshiped for they themselves condemn idolitry and to place their word above god himself is to break one of his highest commandments. Just to remind you.


----------



## sky dancer

Thanks Kitten Koder for the scriptures about pride.  I notice Pridespeaker is nowhere to be found.  He contributed nothing to the topic.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> The truth about our religion is written in our official doctrine. I have quoted it. That is the truth I am talking about.




The truth I speak, is as plain as the nose on your face, but you cannot see it.  Do you practice the religious teachings you have recieved on pride?  I'm trying to find common ground here.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> Thanks Kitten Koder for the scriptures about pride.  I notice Pridespeaker is nowhere to be found.  He contributed nothing to the topic.



You are welcome. His own denial of his flaws will be his greatest sin in the eyes of his own god so meh, let him fester more. As I said, I was called a teacher, and I was only 10 when I earned that title, by many in different congregations in Washington, Oregon, and even one in Utah.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> You are welcome. His own denial of his flaws will be his greatest sin in the eyes of his own god so meh, let him fester more. As I said, I was called a teacher, and I was only 10 when I earned that title, by many in different congregations in Washington, Oregon, and even one in Utah.



You earned that title.

There are many topics I'd be interested in discussing that I think we have common ground in.  Topics that interest me are ritual, meditation, secrecy.

Even the Mormon underwear has a similar Buddhist counterpart--(although it does not involve underwear).    There are four means of liberation--methods of freeing the mind in Buddhism--one of them is liberation by touch--or wearing.


----------



## chloe

I am careful not to make truthspeaker too mad, because I still live UTAH girls & cats, and you know what that means (Im scared).....TruthSpeaker might put the Mormon Mafia on me.

DANITES:
The Mormon's official stand is that the Danites do not exist! They are only a legend, invented by those bent on Mormon bashing. And, as a result, the average, every day Mormon probably has never heard of them. Or, if they have, they view such information as a lie from the Devil! 

However, the historical record is very clear on this (even among Mormon historians). Joseph Smith's teachings (and bedroom activities?) seemed to always stir up trouble for his band of followers. So, in self-defense(?) he formed a body guard, known as the Danites, to protect his person, and other notables among their utopian community. However, despite these precautions, he was still killed in a mob riot against Mormonism. 

As a result, when Brigham Young moved the main band out to Utah, he reorganized the Danites, made them stronger, and formed them into more of an organized militia like organization--ready to fight with modern military weapons and using standard army tactics. The records tend to show that this small band was hightly trained, very skilled at warfare, and mobile enough to strike at any point in the Deseret Empire (which at that time, they considered to be all of Western America, from the Mississippi on to the Pacific.) Moreover, the historical records list hundreds upon hundreds of Mormon men, who were proud to serve in their Nation's Armed Services, in this manner. 

THE KOLOB TRANSFORMATION 
Then, we come to the 1880s. We have already noted the strange events and occurances that seemed to go on at this time, that transformed Mormon society a lot. So, it should not be surprizing that this transition time also had a dramatic impact on the Danites, as well. For one thing, they began to fade away as Public Armed Forces, and go underground, with more and more clandestined activities. And more and more SECRET AGENTS (Wild, Wild West!)! Moreover, rather than attacking in standard military formation in the daylight, they took to more and more guerilla style raids, in the middle of the night (Gestopo like tactics). 

Well, perhaps the growing presence of the U.S. Military had something to do with this? However, other evidence points to the arrival of Kolob at about this time, and the establishment of the growing RANI presence among the Mormon colony. So, it seems more likely that this was a result of Kolob strategy and training. Even as they employed in Germany, developing there a very highly effecient Secret Service for the German Intelligence Arm, which later became ABWEHR and the dreaded Gestopo. And they all seem to share similar strategy and tactics--indicating a common school of thought (from Kolob). 

THE VANISHING VAPOR: 
Thus, it is not surprizing that the historical records become slim here, considering the change to covert operations and resultant secrecy. After all, once Deseret joined the Union, if would not be wise to let it be known that the Mormons still maintained their own private army! However, they did. 
And we get a few peeks through the cracks at what that may have been like. The famous TV Program WILD, WILD WEST, has caused many to speculate that this was the way it was, with James West working not for the President of the U.S. (as most assumed in watching the TV show), but rather he was actually working for the President of the Mormon Church! (The producers of the later movie wisely changed this viewpoint--but for some reason, the movie is just not a popular as the original T.V. Show!!!) 

THE MORMON MAFIA EMERGES... 
And in control of America's Secret Services!!! 
The next major event that comes to light concering the Danites is about mid-way through the Cold War. As America was having difficulties fighting communism, various government agents began showing up at Congress, complaining that the Mormon Mafia was in control of both the CIA and the FBI! And that these Organizations were only promoting Mormons to supervisory positions. (Dozens of cases can be brought forth to show this a common complaint!) 
The Mormon Church countered, claiming that their returning Missionaries were only naturals for the jobs of these special agents. For, the missionaries (sent oversees by the Mormon Church as youths) had desirable overseas experiences, which most of the other applicants did not! It gave them an edge on placement--or was it bias? 

However, the officials failed to address the issues of divided loyalties of such agents (for Deseret or for US?), and why the major recuriting offices for both CIA and FBI were at Brigham Young University (separation of church and state?), and even worse, why such trained agents seemed to become disillusioned and leave the US Intelligence Organizations in record numbers--only to join the Mormon SECURITY FORCE??? (We appeared to be training the Danites!) Moreover, western folklore is filled with legends and tall tales of cowboy style AVENGING ANGELS, riding the range, and slitting the throats of those Mormons who became heretical and broke their oath! (Not to mention relocating various undesirables as a subtle ethnic cleansing program, to keep Deseret territories pure.) And, this vigilanti style justice is still all too admired in Mormon communities, today!

AXIS POWERS - Radical Anti-Semitism 
The Mormon attitude to do away with all the traditional churches matches the typical RAS attitude of wiping out everything of Hebrew origin. (And since the churches developed from Judaism, then they must be done away with, too.) Which is to say nothing of their common, nasty attitudes towards Jews (their radical replacement theology holds that they are the only true Jews--the rest are all fakes and frauds)! 
ECONOMIC WARFARE - Relocation Policies 
Since the open killing of undesireables might raise international attention and cries of Human Rights violations, the Danites tend to rely more on economic hardships to drive their targets out of Deseret territory. Which has earned them the reputation of being the Mormon Maifa ("ya eider woirk fo da boss, or yas dona woirk at all"). 
Their Economic Warfare operations often consists of: 


A. Theft of business and trade secrets (noted, bove). 

B. Subsidising competion against non-Danite businesses. 

C. The old immediate success, over-expansion, and collapse of business routine (often including B, above). 

D. Economic sabotage--mysterious or bizarre accidents; amazingly hard luck (businesses burning down), etc. (and often presented as God's curse upon the non-Mormon for not joining the LDS) 

E. Inordinate Competition--corruption, bribery, black mail, etc. (see Organized Crime, below) 

Thus, without a means of livelihood, the undesirables will tend to move away (or are basically run out of the country)! Keeping Deseret CLEAN!!! (Yes, a very subtle Ethnic Cleansing Program.) 
GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION - The Maze of Taxation Scams 
Well, someone once said, that the best way to go into busines is to USE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY! Consequently, the Danites have many elaborate Tax Scams, where the citizen thinks he is supporting and paying for one thing (for public good), but actually ends up financing Danite Operations! 
This appears to be what is going on with the Dark Projects. The money is being appropriated by taxation, but somehow disappears down the rabbit hole with Alice, so who knows what it is eventually used for. And try to get a GAO audit of a Dark Project? Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas--it is easier for that fat man to squeeze into a house without a chimney! 

Moreover, this was one of our big run ins early on with Mormons! Working in a Public School, I saw some things that looked like funny money to me, so I reported it to the State Authorities. But, rather than an investigation, I got RAS harassment dumped on me and run out of the school district! And, I was warned by a Danite representative that they were going to lay such an economic hardship on me, that I'd never work in this State again! And, I was unemployed for a long time. (Consequently, I started poking my own nose about, to see what all was really up, and began to turn up more and more on the Morman Mafia--until I arrived at Kolob, and its Axis Alliance!) 

 SOCIAL DISEASE - Organized Crime and Mafia Matters 
Well, some years back, the Iran-Contra scam blew up and hit the news. There, CIA agents were selling dope and drugs to raise the money to pay for their covert operations. Talk about corruption! (And, just what were they doing with our tax dollars that were appropriated for their operations?) 
In this regard, the Danites really do deserve their common name of Mormon Mafia. And their list of criminal activites include: 

A. Real Estate Cons and Land Scams; 

B. Estate Robbery and Inheritance Theivery (above); 

C. Prostitution and White Slavery; 

D. Dope and Drugs (noted here); 

E. Gambling and crooked games; 

F. Extortion and Blackmail (esp. statutory rape scams); 

The Rising Power of Deseret Under the Danites!!! 
Well, are you still laughing? Yeah, once you get a good look at the extensive Danite Organization and its wide-spread Operations, there is no doubt in your mind that they are more than capable of carrying off their avowed goal of overthrowing the sovereignty of the U.S. federal government over its own soil. For, that is basically what they have already done, while we were sleeping. And, now, the job is nearly complete! 

Kolob Secret Service


----------



## sky dancer

Fascinating Chloe.  I've never heard of the Danites.

I'm sorry to hear that you live in fear in Utah.  (although you may just be joking )

Utah is part of America, someone should tell LDS.


----------



## chloe

STRANGE CONNECTIONS

by Karen Allen

In the ongoing matter of the seven US Attorneys being fired for political reasons, its interesting to look at the threads and knots beneath the tapestry.  As an example, let's take a look at Kyle Sampson, who recently resigned his title as Chief of Staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  Sampson didn't quit, he just gave up his title. Today, he is still drawing his full salary at the Department of Justice.


Two of Sampsons, and relatedly Gonzales', most staunch supporters in the media have been Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The relationships of these men and others who are outspoken for Sampson run deep and mysteriously.

Sheldon Bradshaw, a former Bush deputy US Attorney General and now Counsel in the Food and Drug Administration, says Sampson has "an outstanding legal mind." Bradshaw is said to have slowed down the prosecution of tobacco companies by the FDA. Bradshaw also is first counselor to Kyle Sampson, in the same ward (district) where Sampson is the bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City. Sheldon graduated from Brigham Young University.

Corrine Larsen Bradshaw worked for Senator Orrin Hatch. Mrs. Bradshaw is the wife of the above Sheldon Bradshaw. She also was legislative director for Utah Senator Robert Bennett.

Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, is a good friend of Sampsons and was a classmate of his in law school. It was Elizabeth who is said to have put a word in with her father to get Sampson a top job in the Bush administration. Hatch was also instrumental.

Sampson practiced law in Salt Lake City until 1999, when he then began working in the office of Senator Orrin Hatch.

Brad Berenson was an associate counsel to Bush in the first term. He states Sampson has "a shrewd political talent."  Berenson is now Sampsons lawyer in the US Attorney matter now under Congressional scrutiny.

An email released in the document dump this past Thursday suggests Sampson as early as 2005 may have tried to push US Attorney for Utah Paul Warner out of his job so Sampson could then be appointed US Attorney. Warner did leave his position in 2006 to become a federal magistrate.

DownWithTyranny!: IS THERE A MORMON MAFIA BEHIND KYLE SAMPSON? OR JUST A NETWORK OF FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS?


----------



## chloe

Mormon Mafia Removed by 9th Circuit
By Christopher Hansen

This is so exciting I am reporting it before I have all the details. I will soon have the entire Court order and will post it.

Judge Jones, who in this reporter humble opinion, was working in conjunction with Deputy Attorney General Damm and a Mormon IRS agent stepped far past the avoid the appearance of impropriety standard that public servants should meet. But then again this is Tax Law SO SHUT UP AND PAY is the only law these criminals follow.

To be very clear: Greg Damm is a Mormon. The lead IRS agent in this case is also a Mormon. I am LDS, by the way, so this is not an exposé on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but an exposé on members of this faith that have abused their authority, violated their oath of office and committed acts, which to me, can only be considered felonious and even treasonous.

As I previously posted back in February before this site was stricly a news site:

On February 11, 2008, at approximately 3:15 P.M., Bobby Kahres attorney, William A. Cohan met with Assistant U. S. Attorney (AUSA) J. Gregory Damm, Department of Justice Tax Division Attorney (DOJ-TDA) Jared Dwyer, IRS Special Agents Ryan Rickey and Jared Halper; and Defense Counsel Michael Kennedy and Joel Hansen (Yes he is my brother).

At this meeting Greg Damm exposed his true feelings about this case telling this entire group: Bill, you threatened my job and my pension.

Mr. Cohan responded: I have never threatened you, nor could I; I have no power to do that; I have only prosecuted claims in court on behalf of my client.

Greg Damms voice rose as he said: Bill, its personal. You threatened my job and my pension.

ITS PERSONAL? 

Maybe this Mormon Mafioso Damm forgot that if it is personal the proper thing to do is to step down. But Damm was not worried because Mormon Mafioso Judge Jones was there to protect him (as he did IMHO). Well not any more.

The Ninth Circuit Court removed Mormon Mafioso Judge Jones from this case. The exact reasons will be reported on as soon as I can get my hands on the Ruling and write the article.

There is an interesting verse in Mormon Scripture:

Hel. 6: 38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up (the Mafia of the day) and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.

Does this ever fit these mafia IRS loving criminals. It also fits the Bush Administration and the Democrats that partake in evil spoils, and to join with evil men in their secret murders and combinations

Independent American News » Blog Archive » One of the Mormon Mafia Removed by 9th Circuit


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> Fascinating Chloe.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you live in fear in Utah.  (although you may just be joking )
> 
> Utah is part of America, someone should tell LDS.



The worst ones are actually those who hold very low positions in the church, the commoners. The higher ups are actually pretty cool people, for the most part, but they are few compared to the number of members. Almost all members these days do nothing but pay lip service and spout off about how they are right. But they forget one fact of the history of the church, Mormons were a persecuted minority when they were first founded, and in having gone through that they value minorities more, though the followers rarely admit that the minorities hold the keys to the kingdoms, not them. "It is the weakest, meekest, and few that shall hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven, for how you treat them is how you treat me." The followers who have turned on others and persecuted anyone (gay, other religions, even hookers) are the evil empire that is growing from the once pure bush.


----------



## chloe

sky dancer said:


> Fascinating Chloe.  I've never heard of the Danites.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you live in fear in Utah.  (although you may just be joking )
> 
> Utah is part of America, someone should tell LDS.



yeah and Im sure the mormon mafia is behind the scenes to take away the gay equal rights.


----------



## KittenKoder

chloe said:


> yeah and Im sure the mormon mafia is behind the scenes to take away the gay equal rights.



Would not doubt it at all.


----------



## KittenKoder

Here's a little fun fact about the afterlife according to Mormon beliefs:
Three Kingdoms of Glory - Heaven and Hell
Took me awhile to get around to finding it online with all the annoyances of you know who.


----------



## KittenKoder

The great thing about the kingdoms, is that even non-believers can get in without converting, you still have a place in the second kingdom based only on how you lived by what you know.


----------



## chloe

I know thats why I haven't joined any religion ( gotta keep my options open and almost all of them give me a chance when I am dead)


----------



## KittenKoder

chloe said:


> I know thats why I haven't joined any religion ( gotta keep my options open and almost all of them give me a chance when I am dead)



The most logical argument for not picking one over the other that I have heard in a looong time. I chose Ancient Egyptian because most others are based on theirs anyway so why not get to the root of it all and avoid the preachers.


----------



## KittenKoder

Good Mormon joke on the Simpsons:

Preacher: "So Mr. Simpson, how many wives will you be marrying today?"

Bart: "Just one."

Preacher: "Pssh, what are you, gay?"


----------



## sky dancer

Buddhists have six realms of existence that a dying person may be reborn in:

Human, animal, hell, hungry ghost, god realm, and deva.  These are all temporary.

Human realm is considered the most fortunate because only humans are able to realize enlightenment.


----------



## chloe

Yeah your alot more intelligent then me Kitty you seem to understand things really good, the other reason I haven't joined any is because I don't really understand all the rules and regulations each religion has and sometimes the belief too, it gets all confusing to me and frustrating and then I get anxiety that if I break a rule I might be doomed. Im better off not joining anything and just praying to God myself.


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> Buddhists have six realms of existence that a dying person may be reborn in:
> 
> Human, animal, hell, hungry ghost, god realm, and deva.



Ancient Egyptians just called it all the underworld and never bothered with the details, they didn't like claiming to know too much. Though they did have one belief that I liked, it explains a lot about reincarnation and other such beliefs. They have the Ba and Ka of the person, the Ba is your spirit and goes to the underworld (if Anpu allows you to based on how guilty you are) and the Ka moves on to enlighten another spirit with your wisdom and knowledge. Kind of a cool reason why humans kept getting smarter each generation.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> The worst ones are actually those who hold very low positions in the church, the commoners. The higher ups are actually pretty cool people, for the most part, but they are few compared to the number of members. Almost all members these days do nothing but pay lip service and spout off about how they are right. But they forget one fact of the history of the church, Mormons were a persecuted minority when they were first founded, and in having gone through that they value minorities more, though the followers rarely admit that the minorities hold the keys to the kingdoms, not them. "It is the weakest, meekest, and few that shall hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven, for how you treat them is how you treat me." The followers who have turned on others and persecuted anyone (gay, other religions, even hookers) are the evil empire that is growing from the *once pure bush*.




Sorry, that one phrase just jumped out at me.


----------



## chloe

sky dancer said:


> Buddhists have six realms of existence that a dying person may be reborn in:
> 
> Human, animal, hell, hungry ghost, god realm, and deva.  These are all temporary.
> 
> Human realm is considered the most fortunate because only humans are able to realize enlightenment.



whats the hungry ghost? you can answer me in the Buddhist thread .


----------



## chloe

By Christopher Hansen


I am writing this article as a news reporter for Channel 62 Pahrump, Nevada and not as the Chairman of the Independent American Party. I am writing this article because the actions alleged in this article are nothing less than domestic terrorism within the Federal government and need to be exposed so that every law abiding, Patriotic American can know about it and stand up and do something about or endure the tyranny they allow.

I have been following, with great interest, the case against a local contractor, Bobby Kahre, and a friend of mine, Alex Loglia, since before they were indicted on numerous charges involving tax evasion. I was following it because Alex Loglia has been a long time member of The First Christian Fellowship of Eternal Sovereignty (so am I) and we have discussed the gold and silver issues and their importance to the liberty many times.

So when Alex was indicted for tax evasion I took an even closer look. For those of you that do not know, Bobby Kahre&#8217;s office was raided a few years ago by the government. In that raid they violated the rights of Bobby Kahre (also a member of the same Fellowship) and many of the staff. These actions were caught on security cameras and the agents involved lied about their actions, but the video did not lie. Bobby Kahre then sued these Domestic Terrorists including the lead Department of (in) Justice Attorney, Greg Damm.

Greg Damm is a Mormon. The lead IRS agent in this case is also a Mormon. So am I, by the way, so this is not an exposé on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but an exposé on members of this faith that have abused their authority, violated their oath of office and committed acts, which to me, can only be considered felonious.

THE PLOT THICKENS

Greg Damm filed for a motion to dismiss claiming prosecutorial immunity but the District Court denied it as there was too much video tape and other evidence that he had indeed violated the law. The court stripped Damm of immunity and let the case move forward. Damm and others appealed to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals (spelling intentional). But it appears the government was nervous about setting precedent in the case about so many government agents and decided to let the lower courts case stand. TWO WEEKS LATER Bobby Kahre was indicted. The prosecuting attorney was Greg Damm.

This case went to trial and the majority of the jury refused to convict either Bobby Kahre or Alex Loglia. This case was Good as Gold for liberty. But Greg Damm could not let it go. After all these men were going to expose him for the criminal he appeared to be. So they decided to go to trail AGAIN even though the majority of the Jury voted for acquittal.

If this alone does not reek of abuse of power and a personal vendetta then hang on to socks boys its time for an overhaul.

The Mormon Mafia? Damm them all to Hell - by Christopher Hansen Wednesday 20th February 2008 | Love for Life


----------



## KittenKoder

sky dancer said:


> Sorry, that one phrase just jumped out at me.



Now that you mention it there are sooooo many ways that is funny. But I hope you get my message from it as well. LOL


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> Ancient Egyptians just called it all the underworld and never bothered with the details, they didn't like claiming to know too much. Though they did have one belief that I liked, it explains a lot about reincarnation and other such beliefs. They have the Ba and Ka of the person, the Ba is your spirit and goes to the underworld (if Anpu allows you to based on how guilty you are) and the Ka moves on to enlighten another spirit with your wisdom and knowledge. Kind of a cool reason why humans kept getting smarter each generation.



What's different about the teachings on the six realms is that there are two ways of viewing them.

On one level, there is the idea that the realms are 'real' 'places' to which one 'goes to'.  That's called the teaching as 'skillful means'.  It is skillful if it motivates you to work on your mind and heart and uproot the five poisons.

Then there is the wisdom level of the teaching of the realms, which is more subtle.  These are not held to exist, except in a dreamlike way--including human existence.


----------



## Skeptik

chloe said:


> I know thats why I haven't joined any religion ( gotta keep my options open and almost all of them give me a chance when I am dead)



What if the Christian fundies are right?  According to them, you have to believe as they do, or go to hell.

I don't think they're right, BTW, but just in case, shouldn't you try to believe their dogma?


----------



## sky dancer

Dogma, now that's a great name for a poster here.


----------



## chloe

Skeptik said:


> What if the Christian fundies are right?  According to them, you have to believe as they do, or go to hell.
> 
> I don't think they're right, BTW, but just in case, shouldn't you try to believe their dogma?



hmm, well I suppose I would be out of any kind of saving luck. The odds are better for me to wait it out since alot of religions are willing to give you help afterlife. If there was a religion that touched me deep within my spirit, that my mind, my heart & soul said YES throughout my being and I just felt it resonate so surely, then I would join it. But that hasnt happened. Of course I haven't had a lot of exposure to other major religions. There are only two religions I know more then average about and both have been considered cults by the mainstream society. So thats why I don't join a religion. I just pray to God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Here is one that I REALLY love in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the latter gospels which the church has even accepted, notice the plural endings:
> Abraham 4



That scripture is what we believe to be certain.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> You do realize that beasts are considered messengers as well, so to tell them a lie (or "lie before them") would be the same as lying to god. So yeah, the interpretation is still not 100% one way or another.



it's pretty clear. I don't have to defend that interpretation. 1000 out of 1000 people would be able to see that. Except you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> That also reminds me of another teaching a prophet told us so many years ago, the books shall not be worshiped for they themselves condemn idolitry and to place their word above god himself is to break one of his highest commandments. Just to remind you.



Since your interpretations are so wild even when you do quote an exact scripture, who knows how bad the interpretation would be of a scripture you can't even prove exists.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> The truth I speak, is as plain as the nose on your face, but you cannot see it.  Do you practice the religious teachings you have recieved on pride?  I'm trying to find common ground here.



Just because I use firmness with you doesn't mean that I am enveloped with Pride.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> You are welcome. His own denial of his flaws will be his greatest sin in the eyes of his own god so meh, let him fester more. As I said, I was called a teacher, and I was only 10 when I earned that title, by many in different congregations in Washington, Oregon, and even one in Utah.



I think we have established that you have a different interpretation of the scriptures than other LDS members. No for anyone who is following. Which account would you believe is our true doctrine, the person who is not only anti-Mormon but anti religious with less than acceptable knowledge of scripture or the person who lives and studies his religion daily?


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> I am careful not to make truthspeaker too mad, because I still live UTAH girls & cats, and you know what that means (Im scared).....TruthSpeaker might put the Mormon Mafia on me.
> 
> DANITES:
> The Mormon's official stand is that the Danites do not exist! They are only a legend, invented by those bent on Mormon bashing. And, as a result, the average, every day Mormon probably has never heard of them. Or, if they have, they view such information as a lie from the Devil!
> 
> However, the historical record is very clear on this (even among Mormon historians). Joseph Smith's teachings (and bedroom activities?) seemed to always stir up trouble for his band of followers. So, in self-defense(?) he formed a body guard, known as the Danites, to protect his person, and other notables among their utopian community. However, despite these precautions, he was still killed in a mob riot against Mormonism.
> 
> As a result, when Brigham Young moved the main band out to Utah, he reorganized the Danites, made them stronger, and formed them into more of an organized militia like organization--ready to fight with modern military weapons and using standard army tactics. The records tend to show that this small band was hightly trained, very skilled at warfare, and mobile enough to strike at any point in the Deseret Empire (which at that time, they considered to be all of Western America, from the Mississippi on to the Pacific.) Moreover, the historical records list hundreds upon hundreds of Mormon men, who were proud to serve in their Nation's Armed Services, in this manner.
> 
> THE KOLOB TRANSFORMATION
> Then, we come to the 1880s. We have already noted the strange events and occurances that seemed to go on at this time, that transformed Mormon society a lot. So, it should not be surprizing that this transition time also had a dramatic impact on the Danites, as well. For one thing, they began to fade away as Public Armed Forces, and go underground, with more and more clandestined activities. And more and more SECRET AGENTS (Wild, Wild West!)! Moreover, rather than attacking in standard military formation in the daylight, they took to more and more guerilla style raids, in the middle of the night (Gestopo like tactics).
> 
> Well, perhaps the growing presence of the U.S. Military had something to do with this? However, other evidence points to the arrival of Kolob at about this time, and the establishment of the growing RANI presence among the Mormon colony. So, it seems more likely that this was a result of Kolob strategy and training. Even as they employed in Germany, developing there a very highly effecient Secret Service for the German Intelligence Arm, which later became ABWEHR and the dreaded Gestopo. And they all seem to share similar strategy and tactics--indicating a common school of thought (from Kolob).
> 
> THE VANISHING VAPOR:
> Thus, it is not surprizing that the historical records become slim here, considering the change to covert operations and resultant secrecy. After all, once Deseret joined the Union, if would not be wise to let it be known that the Mormons still maintained their own private army! However, they did.
> And we get a few peeks through the cracks at what that may have been like. The famous TV Program WILD, WILD WEST, has caused many to speculate that this was the way it was, with James West working not for the President of the U.S. (as most assumed in watching the TV show), but rather he was actually working for the President of the Mormon Church! (The producers of the later movie wisely changed this viewpoint--but for some reason, the movie is just not a popular as the original T.V. Show!!!)
> 
> THE MORMON MAFIA EMERGES...
> And in control of America's Secret Services!!!
> The next major event that comes to light concering the Danites is about mid-way through the Cold War. As America was having difficulties fighting communism, various government agents began showing up at Congress, complaining that the Mormon Mafia was in control of both the CIA and the FBI! And that these Organizations were only promoting Mormons to supervisory positions. (Dozens of cases can be brought forth to show this a common complaint!)
> The Mormon Church countered, claiming that their returning Missionaries were only naturals for the jobs of these special agents. For, the missionaries (sent oversees by the Mormon Church as youths) had desirable overseas experiences, which most of the other applicants did not! It gave them an edge on placement--or was it bias?
> 
> However, the officials failed to address the issues of divided loyalties of such agents (for Deseret or for US?), and why the major recuriting offices for both CIA and FBI were at Brigham Young University (separation of church and state?), and even worse, why such trained agents seemed to become disillusioned and leave the US Intelligence Organizations in record numbers--only to join the Mormon SECURITY FORCE??? (We appeared to be training the Danites!) Moreover, western folklore is filled with legends and tall tales of cowboy style AVENGING ANGELS, riding the range, and slitting the throats of those Mormons who became heretical and broke their oath! (Not to mention relocating various undesirables as a subtle ethnic cleansing program, to keep Deseret territories pure.) And, this vigilanti style justice is still all too admired in Mormon communities, today!
> 
> AXIS POWERS - Radical Anti-Semitism
> The Mormon attitude to do away with all the traditional churches matches the typical RAS attitude of wiping out everything of Hebrew origin. (And since the churches developed from Judaism, then they must be done away with, too.) Which is to say nothing of their common, nasty attitudes towards Jews (their radical replacement theology holds that they are the only true Jews--the rest are all fakes and frauds)!
> ECONOMIC WARFARE - Relocation Policies
> Since the open killing of undesireables might raise international attention and cries of Human Rights violations, the Danites tend to rely more on economic hardships to drive their targets out of Deseret territory. Which has earned them the reputation of being the Mormon Maifa ("ya eider woirk fo da boss, or yas dona woirk at all").
> Their Economic Warfare operations often consists of:
> 
> 
> A. Theft of business and trade secrets (noted, bove).
> 
> B. Subsidising competion against non-Danite businesses.
> 
> C. The old immediate success, over-expansion, and collapse of business routine (often including B, above).
> 
> D. Economic sabotage--mysterious or bizarre accidents; amazingly hard luck (businesses burning down), etc. (and often presented as God's curse upon the non-Mormon for not joining the LDS)
> 
> E. Inordinate Competition--corruption, bribery, black mail, etc. (see Organized Crime, below)
> 
> Thus, without a means of livelihood, the undesirables will tend to move away (or are basically run out of the country)! Keeping Deseret CLEAN!!! (Yes, a very subtle Ethnic Cleansing Program.)
> GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION - The Maze of Taxation Scams
> Well, someone once said, that the best way to go into busines is to USE SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY! Consequently, the Danites have many elaborate Tax Scams, where the citizen thinks he is supporting and paying for one thing (for public good), but actually ends up financing Danite Operations!
> This appears to be what is going on with the Dark Projects. The money is being appropriated by taxation, but somehow disappears down the rabbit hole with Alice, so who knows what it is eventually used for. And try to get a GAO audit of a Dark Project? Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas--it is easier for that fat man to squeeze into a house without a chimney!
> 
> Moreover, this was one of our big run ins early on with Mormons! Working in a Public School, I saw some things that looked like funny money to me, so I reported it to the State Authorities. But, rather than an investigation, I got RAS harassment dumped on me and run out of the school district! And, I was warned by a Danite representative that they were going to lay such an economic hardship on me, that I'd never work in this State again! And, I was unemployed for a long time. (Consequently, I started poking my own nose about, to see what all was really up, and began to turn up more and more on the Morman Mafia--until I arrived at Kolob, and its Axis Alliance!)
> 
> SOCIAL DISEASE - Organized Crime and Mafia Matters
> Well, some years back, the Iran-Contra scam blew up and hit the news. There, CIA agents were selling dope and drugs to raise the money to pay for their covert operations. Talk about corruption! (And, just what were they doing with our tax dollars that were appropriated for their operations?)
> In this regard, the Danites really do deserve their common name of Mormon Mafia. And their list of criminal activites include:
> 
> A. Real Estate Cons and Land Scams;
> 
> B. Estate Robbery and Inheritance Theivery (above);
> 
> C. Prostitution and White Slavery;
> 
> D. Dope and Drugs (noted here);
> 
> E. Gambling and crooked games;
> 
> F. Extortion and Blackmail (esp. statutory rape scams);
> 
> The Rising Power of Deseret Under the Danites!!!
> Well, are you still laughing? Yeah, once you get a good look at the extensive Danite Organization and its wide-spread Operations, there is no doubt in your mind that they are more than capable of carrying off their avowed goal of overthrowing the sovereignty of the U.S. federal government over its own soil. For, that is basically what they have already done, while we were sleeping. And, now, the job is nearly complete!
> 
> Kolob Secret Service




Wow, that was amazing. I guess you were saving that one for a while. This I will say about the Danites and the rest I will easily dismiss as wild folklore. The site you copied and pasted from is absolutely bonkers as they site one credible source, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, then immediately launch a smear campaign of hysterical proportions without any other sources to back up their proposterous and comical claims. 
Yes Joseph did institute a private body guard. No big deal since people were constantly trying to kill him for his boldness of speech and prophecies which came true. The rest is so absurd it would be a waste of breath to talk more about it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> STRANGE CONNECTIONS
> 
> by Karen Allen
> 
> In the ongoing matter of the seven US Attorneys being fired for political reasons, its interesting to look at the threads and knots beneath the tapestry.  As an example, let's take a look at Kyle Sampson, who recently resigned his title as Chief of Staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.  Sampson didn't quit, he just gave up his title. Today, he is still drawing his full salary at the Department of Justice.
> 
> 
> Two of Sampsons, and relatedly Gonzales', most staunch supporters in the media have been Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). The relationships of these men and others who are outspoken for Sampson run deep and mysteriously.
> 
> Sheldon Bradshaw, a former Bush deputy US Attorney General and now Counsel in the Food and Drug Administration, says Sampson has "an outstanding legal mind." Bradshaw is said to have slowed down the prosecution of tobacco companies by the FDA. Bradshaw also is first counselor to Kyle Sampson, in the same ward (district) where Sampson is the bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City. Sheldon graduated from Brigham Young University.
> 
> Corrine Larsen Bradshaw worked for Senator Orrin Hatch. Mrs. Bradshaw is the wife of the above Sheldon Bradshaw. She also was legislative director for Utah Senator Robert Bennett.
> 
> Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, is a good friend of Sampsons and was a classmate of his in law school. It was Elizabeth who is said to have put a word in with her father to get Sampson a top job in the Bush administration. Hatch was also instrumental.
> 
> Sampson practiced law in Salt Lake City until 1999, when he then began working in the office of Senator Orrin Hatch.
> 
> Brad Berenson was an associate counsel to Bush in the first term. He states Sampson has "a shrewd political talent."  Berenson is now Sampsons lawyer in the US Attorney matter now under Congressional scrutiny.
> 
> An email released in the document dump this past Thursday suggests Sampson as early as 2005 may have tried to push US Attorney for Utah Paul Warner out of his job so Sampson could then be appointed US Attorney. Warner did leave his position in 2006 to become a federal magistrate.
> 
> DownWithTyranny!: IS THERE A MORMON MAFIA BEHIND KYLE SAMPSON? OR JUST A NETWORK OF FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS?



I don't see the big complaint or worry about Mafia here? What happened so terribly wrong. Nothing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Mormon Mafia Removed by 9th Circuit
> By Christopher Hansen
> 
> This is so exciting I am reporting it before I have all the details. I will soon have the entire Court order and will post it.
> 
> Judge Jones, who in this reporter humble opinion, was working in conjunction with Deputy Attorney General Damm and a Mormon IRS agent stepped far past the avoid the appearance of impropriety standard that public servants should meet. But then again this is Tax Law SO SHUT UP AND PAY is the only law these criminals follow.
> 
> To be very clear: Greg Damm is a Mormon. The lead IRS agent in this case is also a Mormon. I am LDS, by the way, so this is not an exposé on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but an exposé on members of this faith that have abused their authority, violated their oath of office and committed acts, which to me, can only be considered felonious and even treasonous.
> 
> As I previously posted back in February before this site was stricly a news site:
> 
> On February 11, 2008, at approximately 3:15 P.M., Bobby Kahres attorney, William A. Cohan met with Assistant U. S. Attorney (AUSA) J. Gregory Damm, Department of Justice Tax Division Attorney (DOJ-TDA) Jared Dwyer, IRS Special Agents Ryan Rickey and Jared Halper; and Defense Counsel Michael Kennedy and Joel Hansen (Yes he is my brother).
> 
> At this meeting Greg Damm exposed his true feelings about this case telling this entire group: Bill, you threatened my job and my pension.
> 
> Mr. Cohan responded: I have never threatened you, nor could I; I have no power to do that; I have only prosecuted claims in court on behalf of my client.
> 
> Greg Damms voice rose as he said: Bill, its personal. You threatened my job and my pension.
> 
> ITS PERSONAL?
> 
> Maybe this Mormon Mafioso Damm forgot that if it is personal the proper thing to do is to step down. But Damm was not worried because Mormon Mafioso Judge Jones was there to protect him (as he did IMHO). Well not any more.
> 
> The Ninth Circuit Court removed Mormon Mafioso Judge Jones from this case. The exact reasons will be reported on as soon as I can get my hands on the Ruling and write the article.
> 
> There is an interesting verse in Mormon Scripture:
> 
> Hel. 6: 38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up (the Mafia of the day) and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.
> 
> Does this ever fit these mafia IRS loving criminals. It also fits the Bush Administration and the Democrats that partake in evil spoils, and to join with evil men in their secret murders and combinations
> 
> Independent American News » Blog Archive » One of the Mormon Mafia Removed by 9th Circuit



If this is true, then it goes back to my earlier point, that there are wicked and  corrupt members of the church who act on their own as pointed out in Helaman and the church was fighting against these mafia members called secret combinations. 
Joseph Smith had something to say about people like this in the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith "Do not betray Jesus Christ, do not betray the doctrine, do not betray the brethren by forming yourselves with wicked men, for nothing is worse than to know the gospel of Christ and not live it's teachings. That man is worse than an infadel."

Although an interesting post it was off topic as to the truth about Mormons and our official doctrine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> The worst ones are actually those who hold very low positions in the church, the commoners. The higher ups are actually pretty cool people, for the most part, but they are few compared to the number of members. Almost all members these days do nothing but pay lip service and spout off about how they are right. But they forget one fact of the history of the church, Mormons were a persecuted minority when they were first founded, and in having gone through that they value minorities more, though the followers rarely admit that the minorities hold the keys to the kingdoms, not them. "It is the weakest, meekest, and few that shall hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven, for how you treat them is how you treat me." The followers who have turned on others and persecuted anyone (gay, other religions, even hookers) are the evil empire that is growing from the once pure bush.



In the words of God to Job and his friends in chapter 40:  "Who is this that darkeneth my counsel by words without knowledge."
I already long long ago brought up our history as  a persecuted minority and already stated my position on the blessed state of blacks in the church( which you guys immediately dropped the issue and switched subjects) I already showed scripture about the meek who shall inherit the earth. We are not persecuting anyone. You have no knowledge of what persecution is. we don't gay bash, violate , act violently or afflict anyone and you have not shown any evidence of us doing so and have made more a fool out of yourself with each post. And when I expose your false doctrines all you can do is jump back and revert to calling me a liar liar pants on fire with nothing to back it up. You are a fraud of the 3rd degree because you aren't even good at lying or you would be a fraud of the 1st degree. 
Learn knowledge. Get a life.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Here's a little fun fact about the afterlife according to Mormon beliefs:
> Three Kingdoms of Glory - Heaven and Hell
> Took me awhile to get around to finding it online with all the annoyances of you know who.



wouldn't have taken you so long to find it if you were reading my posts. about 10 pages ago. Shows again that you are not reading my posts and are exposed again.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> The most logical argument for not picking one over the other that I have heard in a looong time. I chose Ancient Egyptian because most others are based on theirs anyway so why not get to the root of it all and avoid the preachers.



wow.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> hmm, well I suppose I would be out of any kind of saving luck. The odds are better for me to wait it out since alot of religions are willing to give you help afterlife. If there was a religion that touched me deep within my spirit, that my mind, my heart & soul said YES throughout my being and I just felt it resonate so surely, then I would join it. But that hasnt happened. Of course I haven't had a lot of exposure to other major religions. There are only two religions I know more then average about and both have been considered cults by the mainstream society. So thats why I don't join a religion. I just pray to God.



If you really believe in God and pray to him believing you will receive an answer he will show you which way to go.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well I guess I have answered all questions and await any more for people who would really like to know what we believe and I will give actual sources from our official cannon of scripture and literature. I honestly would join you guys in a buddism thread and I would ask genuine questions to gain knowledge of your religion and not try to tear it down. Let's keep on topic if we can please. Good night.


----------



## pegwinn

KittenKoder said:


> The sad thing is that all the Mormons who opposed gay marriage are anti-Mormon. They are not true mormons because going against a minority group is the same as saying that their own struggle during the founding was pointless and that they should have been exterminated as those who attacked them wanted. I'm sorry, but your logic here is wrong. Of course one minority can be against another without nullifying their own struggle. Speak to any native Hawaiian who dislikes blacks for a real world example.
> 
> Also it is a sin, claiming to know the will of their god is a very BIG sin, and one that is not forgiven. By assuming that their god doesn't want gay men and women to legally marry they condemed themselves to damnation. Now I realise that I am not a Mormon. I am in fact a religion of one. Meaning my relationship with God is literally one-to-one. However, I have read a small bit and can readily discern the "will of God" in my readings. Nowhere that I have read makes it a sin to do so. And, unless times have changed, the only unforgivable sin is repudiation.
> 
> Also by blaming those ignorant of what they see as a sin they also broke another law in the gospel. No, those who claim to be mormon that oppose gay marriage are not and never will be Mormon, and as far as their own god is concerned they are no longer alive. Also, the Mormon marriage is different, the legal documents for the marriage are NOT that valuable to them except in divorces, taxes, and visitation rights in the hospital. To them only marriage in their temple counts, so logically allowing gays the legal right to marriage doesn't even effect them, and those who think otherwise are just arrogant again, and again it's a big sin to be arrogant. FWIIW I actually agree with that. I believe that there should be nothing in the .gov to do with marraige in any form. None, nada, zippo. No tax breaks, no alimony, no divorce, no nohting. Marraige is a religious issue only. For the other stuff, draw up a domestic partnership contract. Call it me-n-you LLC.



This thread is rapidly degenerating into yet another cat fight (pardon the pun) over "gay rights" disguised as a religious discussion.

Perhaps a new thread is in order?

*Final Question:* If you are excommunicated, what happens when you die? Apparently you don't rate a second chance since you obviously heard and understood the gospels. Does being cast out of the church mean that you are denied entry to one of the three kingdoms that you explained waaaaaaaay back in the day?


----------



## Truthspeaker

pegwinn said:


> This thread is rapidly degenerating into yet another cat fight (pardon the pun) over "gay rights" disguised as a religious discussion.
> 
> Perhaps a new thread is in order?
> 
> *Final Question:* If you are excommunicated, what happens when you die? Apparently you don't rate a second chance since you obviously heard and understood the gospels. Does being cast out of the church mean that you are denied entry to one of the three kingdoms that you explained waaaaaaaay back in the day?



Thanks for being voice of reason and staying on topic. I haven't had too many good questions to answer lately because once I answered all the anti mormons questions and fended off all their attacks, they result to neener neeners and liar liar pants on fire. I only respond because I can't let them take over the thread and change subjects every second. 
Just because someone is excommunicated doesn't mean that final judgment has been passed. Each of the three witnesses were ex communicated as well, but found their way back to church, well, two of them. None denied their witness of the Book of Mormon. To answer your question, I don't know what their state will exactly be, since I don't know every person's circumstances, but it takes a whole heck of a lot of work to get ex ed. I don't think a lot of those people will be around for the millenium. 
A little firsthand experience is my Grandparents. They were both excommunicated for cheating on eachother while they had nine kids already. Wow, I know, weird for anyone especially a mormon. But excommunication for them was more of a wakeup call and took it as a step in their repentance process rather than leave the church and never come back. They had all their privileges stripped away including priesthood and temple recommends. They repented and eventually were restored to their status. It took a long time, but they did it.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Just because I use firmness with you doesn't mean that I am enveloped with Pride.


I know the difference.  You are full of yourself.

I've offered several possible topics to discuss to find common ground and you haven't responded to a single one.

Why?  My guess is that you know you can't convert me, so you have no interest in discussing theology or religion of any kind unless you can proselytize LDS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sky dancer said:


> I know the difference.  You are full of yourself.
> 
> I've offered several possible topics to discuss to find common ground and you haven't responded to a single one.
> 
> Why?  My guess is that you know you can't convert me, so you have no interest in discussing theology or religion of any kind unless you can proselytize LDS.



Last I checked this thread was ABOUT talking about the LDS. Perhaps you should learn to read thread titles and read opening statements? You want another discussion, invite him to a thread YOU make about that topic.

Although from what I have read your more into attacking the church then getting answers to any question.


----------



## ABikerSailor

sky dancer said:


> I know the difference.  You are full of yourself.
> 
> I've offered several possible topics to discuss to find common ground and you haven't responded to a single one.
> 
> Why?  My guess is that you know you can't convert me, so you have no interest in discussing theology or religion of any kind unless you can proselytize LDS.



Personally Sky Dancer, I think this dirtbag has taken the door-to-door evangelizing and has moved it on to here.

It sounds like he's evangelizing for the 21st century.  I for one am a hell of a lot stronger minded than to be sucked in by this cult religion.


----------



## sky dancer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Last I checked this thread was ABOUT talking about the LDS. Perhaps you should learn to read thread titles and read opening statements? You want another discussion, invite him to a thread YOU make about that topic.
> 
> Although from what I have read your more into attacking the church then getting answers to any question.



I have suggested several topics relevant to LDS and anyone else who practices a spiritual path.

Teachings on pride, the role of ritual, why are some things secret and the general topic secrecy, prayer and meditation etc.

Are you saying this thread is ONLY for LDS or LDS wannabees?  Why not make the thread inclusive so that everyone will feel comfortable asking questions and sharing.


----------



## sky dancer

ABikerSailor said:


> Personally Sky Dancer, I think this dirtbag has taken the door-to-door evangelizing and has moved it on to here.
> 
> It sounds like he's evangelizing for the 21st century.  I for one am a hell of a lot stronger minded than to be sucked in by this cult religion.


The truth is that many people are interested in LDS and ARE NOT INTERESTED IN CONVERTING.

Some of us like discussing spiritual and religious topics of interest to all.

I have previously discussed some topics with LDS members and completely enjoyed it.  I can't seem to get the OP fellow to have an actual discussion.  He's got his own agenda.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sky dancer said:


> I have suggested several topics relevant to LDS and anyone else who practices a spiritual path.
> 
> Teachings on pride, the role of ritual, why are some things secret and the general topic secrecy, prayer and meditation etc.
> 
> Are you saying this thread is ONLY for LDS or LDS wannabees?  Why not make the thread inclusive so that everyone will feel comfortable asking questions and sharing.



Once again YOU want to discuss those other things? Start a thread on them and ask him to participate. Complaining that he tried to keep this thread on topic is hilarious. And as you can see from others response just leads to ignorant hate filled posts like the one Biker just posted.


----------



## sky dancer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again YOU want to discuss those other things? Start a thread on them and ask him to participate. Complaining that he tried to keep this thread on topic is hilarious. And as you can see from others response just leads to ignorant hate filled posts like the one Biker just posted.



I have asked about what does LDS teach about pride.  Mr Answer has not responded to this topic.

I have asked about the reason for secrecy.  Again no response.

I have asked 'truthspeaker' whether he has an interest i finding common ground with others who are not Mormon rather than just proselytizing.  Fair question IMO.

I have stated I wanted to discuss prayer and meditation.  Do LDS members meditate?  I know they pray.  I want to find common ground.

Is that a personal problem for you--Sarge?


----------



## sky dancer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again YOU want to discuss those other things? Start a thread on them and ask him to participate. Complaining that he tried to keep this thread on topic is hilarious. And as you can see from others response just leads to ignorant hate filled posts like the one Biker just posted.


I'm not going anywhere.  This is a public forum.  If Truthspeaker wants to start his own blog for potential converts, he is free to do so.

Take responsibility for your own irritation.  If my posts bother you, put me on ignore.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sky dancer said:


> I have asked about what does LDS teach about pride.  Mr Answer has not responded to this topic.
> 
> I have asked about the reason for secrecy.  Again no response.
> 
> I have asked 'truthspeaker' whether he has an interest i finding common ground with others who are not Mormon rather than just proselytizing.  Fair question IMO.
> 
> I have stated I wanted to discuss prayer and meditation.  Do LDS members meditate?  I know they pray.  I want to find common ground.
> 
> Is that a personal problem for you--Sarge?



Prayer and meditation are one and the same. No, Mormons to my knowledge do not meditate like some Eastern religion  might use the word, but in normal useage prayer and meditate mean the same thing.

As for secrecy he does not appear to be a high member of the leadership of the church so what secrets do you think he knows that he has not provided?

The Church teaches from the same Bible, it just adds a second record of Jesus and God. One associated with the North American Continent. Pride is the same for the Church as any Christian church.

That you think Mormons are somehow more "prideful" then others is interesting and belays a certain mind set. That you think Prayer and meditation are some how separate things further defines a certain mind set.

Members of the Church are asked to pray and ask for God's guidance on certain things, if that is not meditation, I do not know what it is.


----------



## sky dancer

Sarge--

You're kind of hostile.  I never said Mormons were more prideful than others.   Usually, I have found them to be open to others--not in the case of 'truthspeaker'.

I asked TS to tell me about how LDS teaches on pride.  Pride is very difficult to work with.  

Prayer and meditation are different things for me because I am a Buddhist.  Is this thread not open to Buddhists with questions?

The Mormon Church is secretive.  Non-Mormons are not allowed in.  There is some secrecy in Vajrayana Buddhism and I know the reasons for it.  What is the reason in LDS?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sky dancer said:


> Sarge--
> 
> You're kind of hostile.  I never said Mormons were more prideful than others.   Usually, I have found them to be open to others--not in the case of 'truthspeaker'.
> 
> I asked TS to tell me about how LDS teaches on pride.  Pride is very difficult to work with.
> 
> Prayer and meditation are different things for me because I am a Buddhist.  Is this thread not open to Buddhists with questions?
> 
> The Mormon Church is secretive.  Non-Mormons are not allowed in.  There is some secrecy in Vajrayana Buddhism and I know the reasons for it.  What is the reason in LDS?



Hostile? Did I not answer your questions? As for secrecy there is none that is important. One does not know about things that happen in temple exactly unless they have met the requirements to go there. Just as a Roman Catholic does not know all the things that go in inside each Dioces or the Vatican.

Those are things earned.

There are not "secrets" Mormons keep from non Mormons. not in the sense you seem to mean. It would defeat the entire concept of our Christian duty if we kept such secrets.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> If you really believe in God and pray to him believing you will receive an answer he will show you which way to go.



Thank you for the benefit of the doubt (of course I believe in God), I can accept that I have probably angered you a bit with those last few posts. Since RetiredGysrgnt pointed out that your thread is for questions about the Mormon beliefs and not really commentaries, all I can say is because of being married into a mormon family and living here I have had both good & bad experiences. The bottom line is this, You have answered my questions on topics when I asked them so thanks for that. I still find Utah specifically to play by different rules when it comes to government and church. We will have to disagree on that since you dont see it that way. I am used to mormons not seeing how that effects non mormons here and that is a HUGE reason I would never even consider joining the church. The church may indeed be loving and giving and they are! But there is wicked in the church members who get in power and use that church guilt to force things there way against non mormons. This really bothers me. It bothers me that nobody in the church addresses it. They seem to not notice or look the other way like they really dont care about non mormons. Those posts about corruption do really bother me because the church says such wonderful things about love family togetherness helping brothers & sisters. but then isolates all the non mormons here unless they obey what the church wants. It makes me feel really bad. I have prayed about it and honestly I dont think Mormons are bad people at all but I think the church has a BIG problem in corruption that they are either ignorant or unwilling to look at. Im sorry to bring it up again because you did give your opinion and answer on it. But I live here and its really awful on that end. I have had remarkable loving experiences within the church on a spiritual level. I could give a testimony on some miracles I have witnessed. But I find that in other religions too, because when I pray to God and I am earnest God answers my prayers. It may be answered through a person, a kind word or by not giving me what I think I want. So I don't really need a religion. Thanks for your time .


----------



## sky dancer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hostile? Did I not answer your questions? As for secrecy there is none that is important. One does not know about things that happen in temple exactly unless they have met the requirements to go there. Just as a Roman Catholic does not know all the things that go in inside each Dioces or the Vatican.
> 
> Those are things earned.
> 
> There are not "secrets" Mormons keep from non Mormons. not in the sense you seem to mean. It would defeat the entire concept of our Christian duty if we kept such secrets.



Are you Mormon?  It sounds like you are.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

chloe said:


> Thank you for the benefit of the doubt (of course I believe in God), I can accept that I have probably angered you a bit with those last few posts. Since RetiredGysrgnt pointed out that your thread is for questions about the Mormon beliefs and not really commentaries, all I can say is because of being married into a mormon family and living here I have had both good & bad experiences. The bottom line is this, You have answered my questions on topics when I asked them so thanks for that. I still find Utah specifically to play by different rules when it comes to government and church. We will have to disagree on that since you dont see it that way. I am used to mormons not seeing how that effects non mormons here and that is a HUGE reason I would never even consider joining the church. The church may indeed be loving and giving and they are! But there is wicked in the church members who get in power and use that church guilt to force things there way against non mormons. This really bothers me. It bothers me that nobody in the church addresses it. They seem to not notice or look the other way like they really dont care about non mormons. Those posts about corruption do really bother me because the church says such wonderful things about love family togetherness helping brothers & sisters. but then isolates all the non mormons here unless they obey what the church wants. It makes me feel really bad. I have prayed about it and honestly I dont think Mormons are bad people at all but I think the church has a BIG problem in corruption that they are either ignorant or unwilling to look at. Im sorry to bring it up again because you did give your opinion and answer on it. But I live here and its really awful on that end. I have had remarkable loving experiences within the church on a spiritual level. I could give a testimony on some miracles I have witnessed. But I find that in other religions too, because when I pray to God and I am earnest God answers my prayers. It may be answered through a person, a kind word or by not giving me what I think I want. So I don't really need a religion. Thanks for your time .



I personally do not believe one MUST belong to organized religion. BUT I do belief one must be taught in some manner about the Bible at least and must learn of God and Jesus and the plan.

It is my experience that any organization of man can be corrupted in one way or another. Not the teachings or beliefs but how one may or may not serve. Power truly does corrupt those that are mere mortals. Not all but enough.


----------



## sky dancer

Obviously, the Bible does not work for everyone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

sky dancer said:


> Are you Mormon?  It sounds like you are.



I belong to the church but have not studied the Book of Mormon like the author of this thread has. I also failed in my duty and never reached the upper priesthood. I do though still believe the Church is the Restored Church and that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God.


----------



## sky dancer

It's possible that your humble practice Sarge, is completely sincere and will take you where you want to go.

May all your excellent aspirations be fulfilled.

If you find Truthspeaker a role model, I will respect you and not interfere.  I'm willing to no longer post on this thread if it helps you.


----------



## chloe

RetiredGySgt said:


> I personally do not believe one MUST belong to organized religion. BUT I do belief one must be taught in some manner about the Bible at least and must learn of God and Jesus and the plan.
> 
> It is my experience that any organization of man can be corrupted in one way or another. Not the teachings or beliefs but how one may or may not serve. Power truly does corrupt those that are mere mortals. Not all but enough.



Thanks RetiredgySgt, (sorry for mispelling you screen name before) Yes everyone has corruption issues to deal with. But you have no idea what its like for non mormons here. Like my kids have been told by other kids there parents wont let them hang out with my kids becuase we arent members of the church. My kids dont take seminary in school and so all the kids know we arent mormon and treat them like outcasts. In fact its so big here sometimes we make appearances in church or they go to young womens out of the fact that if they dont they will be ostracized at school. Now tell me how can you join a religion that makes you feel that way? I would never. I have to feel LOVE and true Spiritual understanding. All I feel is intimidated by those things. Dont get me wrong sir there have been nice people and they do good things, I am not blaming ALL mormons, Im just saying they wont even look at those issues here in utah and so they wont fix them. My Best friend in the world (my ex husband Grandma) Grandma was Mormon here entire life. I am not bashing Mormons but I wish the church would put something out there to make mormons nicer towards non mormons in utah.  It is unfair to only give perks in business to other mormons, it is not nice to isolate kids because they arent mormon. The church has a big problem in Utah even if the Church Doctrines are loving and most members are trying to be loving. Different Universe here in Utah. Thanks Sarge.


----------



## pegwinn

Well my curiosity is satisfied. TT, I appreciate the time you took to answer questions. I will unsub now so that the fighting can continue unabated. Y'all have fun now y'hear


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Thanks RetiredgySgt, (sorry for mispelling you screen name before) Yes everyone has corruption issues to deal with. But you have no idea what its like for non mormons here. Like my kids have been told by other kids there parents wont let them hang out with my kids becuase we arent members of the church. My kids dont take seminary in school and so all the kids know we arent mormon and treat them like outcasts. In fact its so big here sometimes we make appearances in church or they go to young womens out of the fact that if they dont they will be ostracized at school. Now tell me how can you join a religion that makes you feel that way? I would never. I have to feel LOVE and true Spiritual understanding. All I feel is intimidated by those things. Dont get me wrong sir there have been nice people and they do good things, I am not blaming ALL mormons, Im just saying they wont even look at those issues here in utah and so they wont fix them. My Best friend in the world (my ex husband Grandma) Grandma was Mormon here entire life. I am not bashing Mormons but I wish the church would put something out there to make mormons nicer towards non mormons in utah.  It is unfair to only give perks in business to other mormons, it is not nice to isolate kids because they arent mormon. The church has a big problem in Utah even if the Church Doctrines are loving and most members are trying to be loving. Different Universe here in Utah. Thanks Sarge.



You will find my copy and paste of this talk from Elder Russel M. Ballard in October General Conference 2 years ago. I can't believe I didn't think of it sooner. Herein he addresses exactly your concern.

If we are truly disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will reach out with love and understanding to all of our neighbors at all times.
Image

It may very well have been a beautiful, crisp autumn day like this. The Savior was sitting, teaching some of His disciples, when a man identified only as a certain lawyer stood and asked Him, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

Jesus knew the mans heart and understood the question was a thinly veiled attempt to get Him to say something contrary to the law of Moses.

The Savior responded to the question with two questions of His own: What is written in the law? how readest thou?

As you might expect, the lawyer was able to recite the law: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Thou hast answered right, the Savior said. This do, and thou shalt live.

But the lawyer wasnt satisfied with that. Knowing that there were strict rules and beliefs among the Jews regarding association with those not of the faith, he pressed the Lord for more information, hoping to trap Him in controversy: And who is my neighbour? he asked.

It was time, once again, to teach. Jesus drew upon one of His favorite and most effective teaching techniques: a parable, perhaps one of the most-beloved and well-known parables in all of Christendom.

You know the parable, how a man from Jerusalem was on his way to Jericho and fell among thieves and was left half dead. A certain priest passed by on the other side; neither did a Levite stop to help. Then Jesus taught:

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Then Jesus asked the lawyer one more question: Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among thieves?

And the lawyer replied: He that shewed mercy on him.

Then Jesus delivered His final instruction to the lawyerand to all who have read the parable of the good Samaritan: Go, and do thou likewise (see Luke 10:2537).

Every time I read this parable I am impressed with its power and its simplicity. But have you ever wondered why the Savior chose to make the hero of this story a Samaritan? There was considerable antipathy between the Jews and the Samaritans at the time of Christ. Under normal circumstances, these two groups avoided association with each other. It would still be a good, instructive parable if the man who fell among thieves had been rescued by a brother Jew.

His deliberate use of Jews and Samaritans clearly teaches that we are all neighbors and that we should love, esteem, respect, and serve one another despite our deepest differencesincluding religious, political, and cultural differences.

That instruction continues today to be part of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In enumerating the key doctrines of the restored Church, Joseph Smith said, while we claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, we also allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may (A of F 1:11).

Thankfully, many of our members understand this doctrine and live it during the course of their daily lives. I recently read a news account of a tragic death in a community here in Utah. A grieving young widow was quoted: Weve been overwhelmed by support. Were not Mormon, but the local ward here has been all over us with meals and help and words of comfort. Its been a total outpouring of love, and we appreciate it (quoted in Dick Harmon, Former Utes Death Leaves Wife Coping, Wondering, Daily Herald [Provo, Utah], 11 Aug. 2001, A3).

Thats just as it should be. If we are truly disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, we will reach out with love and understanding to all of our neighbors at all times, particularly in times of need. A recent Church News carried a story of two women who are dear friends, a Jewish physician from New York and [a] stay-at-home [Latter-day Saint] mom of six from Utah, both a long way from home in Dallas [Texas].

Our member reported: If our friendship had been put through a computer matching service, I doubt we would have made it past the first hurdle. 

 A woman with a busy medical practice, I assumed, would have little desire to discuss the color of the hospitality napkins for PTA.

Funny thing about assumptionsthey can cut away the very roots of something that could flourish and grow if given a chance. I am forever grateful that assumptions were cast aside (Shauna Erickson, Unlikely Friends Sharing a Lifetime, Church News, 18 Aug. 2001, 10).

Perceptions and assumptions can be very dangerous and unfair. There are some of our members who may fail to reach out with friendly smiles, warm handshakes, and loving service to all of their neighbors. At the same time, there may be those who move into our neighborhoods who are not of our faith who come with negative preconceptions about the Church and its members. Surely good neighbors should put forth every effort to understand each other and to be kind to one another regardless of religion, nationality, race, or culture.

Occasionally I hear of members offending those of other faiths by overlooking them and leaving them out. This can occur especially in communities where our members are the majority. I have heard about narrow-minded parents who tell children that they cannot play with a particular child in the neighborhood simply because his or her family does not belong to our Church. This kind of behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot comprehend why any member of our Church would allow these kinds of things to happen. I have been a member of this Church my entire life. I have been a full-time missionary, twice a bishop, a mission president, a Seventy, and now an Apostle. I have never taughtnor have I ever heard taughta doctrine of exclusion. I have never heard the members of this Church urged to be anything but loving, kind, tolerant, and benevolent to our friends and neighbors of other faiths.

The Lord expects a great deal from us. Parents, please teach your children and practice yourselves the principle of inclusion of others and not exclusion because of religious, political, or cultural differences.

While it is true we declare to the world that the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith and we urge our members to share their faith and testimonies with others, it has never been the policy of the Church that those who choose not to listen or to accept our message should be shunned or ignored. Indeed, the opposite is true. President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly reminded us of this special obligation that we have as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. I quote just one:

Each of us is an individual. Each of us is different. There must be respect for those differences. 

 We must work harder to build mutual respect, an attitude of forbearance, with tolerance one for another regardless of the doctrines and philosophies which we may espouse. Concerning these you and I may disagree. But we can do so with respect and civility (Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley [1997], 661, 665).

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we understand that we are perceived by some to be a peculiar people (1 Pet. 2:9). Our doctrines and beliefs are important to us. We embrace them and cherish them. I am not suggesting for a moment that we shouldnt. On the contrary, our peculiarity and the uniqueness of the message of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are indispensable elements in offering the people of the world a clear choice. Neither am I suggesting that we should associate in any relationship that would place us or our families at spiritual risk. We must understand, however, that not everyone is going to accept our doctrine of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For the most part, our neighbors not of our faith are good, honorable peopleevery bit as good and honorable as we strive to be. They care about their families, just like we do. They want to make the world a better place, just like we do. They are kind and loving and generous and faithful, just like we seek to be. Nearly 25 years ago, the First Presidency declared: Our message  is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father (First Presidency statement, 15 Feb. 1978).

That is our doctrinea doctrine of inclusion. That is what we believe. That is what we have been taught. Of all people on this earth, we should be the most loving, the kindest, and the most tolerant because of that doctrine.

May I suggest three simple things we can do to avoid making others in our neighborhoods feel excluded?

First, get to know your neighbors. Learn about their families, their work, their views. Get together with them, if they are willing, and do so without being pushy and without any ulterior motives. Friendship should never be offered as a means to an end; it can and should be an end unto itself. I received a letter from a woman who recently moved to Utah, a small part of which I quote: I must tell you, Elder Ballard, that when I greet my neighbors, or if I wave to them, they do not acknowledge my greeting. If I pass them while taking my morning or evening walk, my salutation is not returned. Other people of color consistently express similar negative responses to friendly gestures. If members of the Church are among her neighbors, surely they must know that this should not happen. Let us cultivate meaningful relationships of mutual trust and understanding with people from different backgrounds and beliefs.

Second, I believe it would be good if we eliminated a couple of phrases from our vocabulary: nonmember and non-Mormon. Such phrases can be demeaning and even belittling. Personally, I dont consider myself to be a non-Catholic or a non-Jew. I am a Christian. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is how I prefer to be identifiedfor who and what I am, as opposed to being identified for what I am not. Let us extend that same courtesy to those who live among us. If a collective description is needed, then neighbors seems to work well in most cases.

And third, if neighbors become testy or frustrated because of some disagreement with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or with some law we support for moral reasons, please dont suggest to themeven in a humorous waythat they consider moving someplace else. I cannot comprehend how any member of our Church can even think such a thing! Our pioneer ancestors were driven from place to place by uninformed and intolerant neighbors. They experienced extraordinary hardship and persecution because they thought, acted, and believed differently from others. If our history teaches us nothing else, it should teach us to respect the rights of all people to peacefully coexist with one another.

I now speak to all those who are not of our faith. If there are issues of concern, let us talk about them. We want to be helpful. Please understand, however, that our doctrines and teachings are set by the Lord, so sometimes we will have to agree to disagree with you, but we can do so without being disagreeable. In our communities we can and must work together in an atmosphere of courtesy, respect, and civility. Here in Utah, a group of concerned citizens formed the Alliance for Unity. This effort has been endorsed by our Church as well as other churches and organizations. One of its purposes is to seek to build a community where differing viewpoints are acknowledged and valued. Perhaps there has never been a more important time for neighbors all around the world to stand together for the common good of one another.

Just hours before He began the painful physical and spiritual processes of the Atonement, the Savior met with His Apostles to partake of the Feast of the PassoverHis Last Supperand to give them the final instructions He would give them in mortality. Among these teachings is the stirring, life-changing declaration: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another (John 13:3435).

That is what Jesus taught His disciplesincluding a certain lawyerthrough the parable of the good Samaritan. And that is what He is teaching us today through living prophets and apostles. Love one another. Be kind to one another despite our deepest differences. Treat one another with respect and civility. I know and testify that Jesus is the Christ, our Savior and Redeemer, and I know that He expects all of us to follow His admonition to be better neighbors, to which I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.


----------



## KittenKoder

Does someone need their baba now?


----------



## chloe

They must have been out of town during general conference, its too bad they don't follow the churches suggestion and be nice.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> They must have been out of town during general conference, its too bad they don't follow the churches suggestion and be nice.



I am sure more heeded the advice, than otherwise. That is quite a blanket statement to say no one was there. I am sure he would have stopped talking if everyone got up and left. But I am glad you read it, so now you know the churches official stance on the issue of the doctrine of inclusion.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> "I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s. There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas. I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II". Quite interesting."
> 
> It's too bad that you are hearing a one sided point of view from some bitter ex-members that want to portray half-truths. I would like to know what was so interesting.



It's difficult to come to a commons ground with a Mormon interpretation of the bible when they are taught that the present day bible is corrupted, and thus dear old Joseph Smith Jr. had to pull a new bible literally out of his hat with a seers stone via an ange called Moroni.

First of all the "Jesus" of the Mormons is not the "Jesus" of the bible.  Plain and simple.  The Aaronic Priesthood is so unbiblical too.  The Temple secrets taught or given to Temple Mormons is totally out of Freemason or Masonic teaching and is occultic.

Mormons do not accept salvation by "grace" but by "works".  The Christian bible teaches that faith comes first and salvation and then works are a resultant of that new, God given faith called, "Being Born Again" or "Born From Above" as Jesus clearly taught Nicodemus the Pharisee.

Joseph Smith Jr. was not martyr'd either.  He was jailed in Illinois for breaking into a local newspaper office and damaging or attempting to damage the printing press.  Why?  Cause the paper printed anti-Mormon articles.  A crowd had come to take him out of jail and noose him or give him an uncomfortable ride out of town along with his followers, and he/Smith Jr. got possession of a pistol and got in a shoot-out with the locals and died.  The Church rewrote history for their followers making Smith Jr. a martyr for his faith.  He was a treasure hunter, along with Smith Sr., his dad in New York, before coming up with this great idea of starting a new religion.

Teddy Roosevelt even demanded that the American Flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as their religion was "persona non grata" with the U.S. government.  It hadn't been that many years earlier that the terrible "Mountain Meadows Massacre" had been committed by Brigham Young and his followers, disguised as American Indians.

Burning Boosum:  This is the catch-all of Morminism.  The friendly, smilely, young men at your door step will prey on nominal Christians that don't know the bible and it's cautions within to believers and will take up the challenge to "Pray" to God and see if Mormonism is real.  

So many people have had weird supernatural experiences that conveniently seem to convey the message that Mormonis is the truth.  Many of their converted have had dreams where a long departed relative spoke to them and told them that Mormonism is the truth.

The bible infatically says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word(Scripture) of God"!  Namely, the bible is God's communication to mankind of the truths of His nature, His desires for mankind, and His mapwork of salvation of our fallen race through the death, burial, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ.

I'll have to give old Joseph Smith Jr. credit.  He was a con man in New York, and a very intelligent one at that. He's conned millions up to the present 

The Mormon church classifies him as a prophet, but the definition of a prophet according to the bible is a man who is a spokesman/woman of God, does not false prophesy(which Joseph Smith Jr false prophesied many times), one time.  I.E..  A true prophet of God has a 100% batting average when in comes to prophesying.  One false prophesy, and that prophet is or was killed.  A Prophets position was too important.

The Book of Mormon has gone through so many word/sentence changes since it's 1830's authorship by Smith, that it will make your head spin.

The 2,000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls validate the present day bible as still accurate and dependable.  The nearly complete Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll is word for word a match to the viable, and accepted translations nowadays....Which Incluce, the King James, NASB, NIV, etc.

Do not include the Book of Mormon nor the Jehovah's Witnesses's New World Translation bible in this mix.

The JW's, have conveniently changed N.T. wordage in strategic areas to change the nature or diety of Jesus Christ to one of a created being, that validates their false premise that Jesus was the Arch Angel Michael, and thus was a created being.  So the scripture where Jesus said to the crowd, "Before Abraham I AM", which meant, I am God, is rebuked by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Their founder was taken to court back at the turn of the 19th century, and challenged with his claims to know ancient greek and was a translater, and was thoroughly proven to be totally illiterate in Greek.  Their founder just took the present day bible of his time and changed certain wordage to support his alleged, personal revelation of "truth" about God.

The greatest test to tell if a religion is trully Christian, is how do they deal with the biblical Jesus Christ.  His He God incarnate in the flesh, ever present, in the past, ever present in the future, or is He merely a created being, and less that God the Father in stature/importance.

The islamic religion gives Jesus creedance as a prophet, but claims that he didn't really die on the cross, but swooned, and was revived after being removed, or a substitute was crucified in his place.  J.W.'s claim Jesus was crucified on a stake, and was not God's Son, incarnate.

Mormons claim that Jesus's brother in heaven was Lucifer, and that a great meeting was held to decide who would go to earth and become the Saviour.  Jesus got picked, and Lucifer rebelled cause he wanted to be the Saviour.

Also, Mormon works, reveals itself doctrinally in that a good Mormon man can some day be the first Adam of his own planet.  He also holds the power to ressurect his wife from the dead.

You may not know this but the great geneological interest that the Mormons have is to do with baptising the dead for salvatioon.  Mormons believe that one can be baptised after death and have salvation, yet a literal "hell" isn't really in Mormon doctrine.  It's more or less degrees of goodness that are accepted.

Interestingly, Hubbards, Scientology has some similarities to Mormonism in the area of planets and races of people.  Hubbard taught in Scientology that our human race came from another planet, called "Nob".  Yes, my friend, John Travolt, and Tom Cruise buy into that.  I respect them as actors, but I sure don't accept their religious leanings at all.  They are absolutely weird.

The finger prints of cults and the occult, always centers on how Jesus of the bible is defined by them.  In every case, he will be diminished in diety to "a god"(J.W.'s NWT), or in the case of Mormonism, just one of many Jesus's or Adams of planets.


----------



## chloe

Eightball said:


> So many people have had weird supernatural experiences that conveniently seem to convey the message that Mormonis is the truth.  Many of their converted have had dreams where a long departed relative spoke to them and told them that Mormonism is the truth.
> 
> Mormons claim that Jesus's brother in heaven was Lucifer, and that a great meeting was held to decide who would go to earth and become the Saviour.  Jesus got picked, and Lucifer rebelled cause he wanted to be the Saviour.
> 
> Also, Mormon works, reveals itself doctrinally in that a good Mormon man can some day be the first Adam of his own planet.  He also holds the power to ressurect his wife from the dead.
> 
> The finger prints of cults and the occult, always centers on how Jesus of the bible is defined by them.  In every case, he will be diminished in diety to "a god"(J.W.'s NWT), or in the case of Mormonism, just one of many Jesus's or Adams of planets.




I have had vivid dreams involving the mormon religion, I didn't know what the dreams meant. Are you saying they make those dreams happen through some sort of hoodoo-voodoo?


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> It's difficult to come to a commons ground with a Mormon interpretation of the bible when they are taught that the present day bible is corrupted, and thus dear old Joseph Smith Jr. had to pull a new bible literally out of his hat with a seers stone via an ange called Moroni.
> 
> First of all the "Jesus" of the Mormons is not the "Jesus" of the bible.  Plain and simple.  The Aaronic Priesthood is so unbiblical too.  The Temple secrets taught or given to Temple Mormons is totally out of Freemason or Masonic teaching and is occultic.
> 
> Mormons do not accept salvation by "grace" but by "works".  The Christian bible teaches that faith comes first and salvation and then works are a resultant of that new, God given faith called, "Being Born Again" or "Born From Above" as Jesus clearly taught Nicodemus the Pharisee.
> 
> Joseph Smith Jr. was not martyr'd either.  He was jailed in Illinois for breaking into a local newspaper office and damaging or attempting to damage the printing press.  Why?  Cause the paper printed anti-Mormon articles.  A crowd had come to take him out of jail and noose him or give him an uncomfortable ride out of town along with his followers, and he/Smith Jr. got possession of a pistol and got in a shoot-out with the locals and died.  The Church rewrote history for their followers making Smith Jr. a martyr for his faith.  He was a treasure hunter, along with Smith Sr., his dad in New York, before coming up with this great idea of starting a new religion.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt even demanded that the American Flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as their religion was "persona non grata" with the U.S. government.  It hadn't been that many years earlier that the terrible "Mountain Meadows Massacre" had been committed by Brigham Young and his followers, disguised as American Indians.
> 
> Burning Boosum:  This is the catch-all of Morminism.  The friendly, smilely, young men at your door step will prey on nominal Christians that don't know the bible and it's cautions within to believers and will take up the challenge to "Pray" to God and see if Mormonism is real.
> 
> So many people have had weird supernatural experiences that conveniently seem to convey the message that Mormonis is the truth.  Many of their converted have had dreams where a long departed relative spoke to them and told them that Mormonism is the truth.
> 
> The bible infatically says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word(Scripture) of God"!  Namely, the bible is God's communication to mankind of the truths of His nature, His desires for mankind, and His mapwork of salvation of our fallen race through the death, burial, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> I'll have to give old Joseph Smith Jr. credit.  He was a con man in New York, and a very intelligent one at that. He's conned millions up to the present
> 
> The Mormon church classifies him as a prophet, but the definition of a prophet according to the bible is a man who is a spokesman/woman of God, does not false prophesy(which Joseph Smith Jr false prophesied many times), one time.  I.E..  A true prophet of God has a 100% batting average when in comes to prophesying.  One false prophesy, and that prophet is or was killed.  A Prophets position was too important.
> 
> The Book of Mormon has gone through so many word/sentence changes since it's 1830's authorship by Smith, that it will make your head spin.
> 
> The 2,000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls validate the present day bible as still accurate and dependable.  The nearly complete Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll is word for word a match to the viable, and accepted translations nowadays....Which Incluce, the King James, NASB, NIV, etc.
> 
> Do not include the Book of Mormon nor the Jehovah's Witnesses's New World Translation bible in this mix.
> 
> The JW's, have conveniently changed N.T. wordage in strategic areas to change the nature or diety of Jesus Christ to one of a created being, that validates their false premise that Jesus was the Arch Angel Michael, and thus was a created being.  So the scripture where Jesus said to the crowd, "Before Abraham I AM", which meant, I am God, is rebuked by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Their founder was taken to court back at the turn of the 19th century, and challenged with his claims to know ancient greek and was a translater, and was thoroughly proven to be totally illiterate in Greek.  Their founder just took the present day bible of his time and changed certain wordage to support his alleged, personal revelation of "truth" about God.
> 
> The greatest test to tell if a religion is trully Christian, is how do they deal with the biblical Jesus Christ.  His He God incarnate in the flesh, ever present, in the past, ever present in the future, or is He merely a created being, and less that God the Father in stature/importance.
> 
> The islamic religion gives Jesus creedance as a prophet, but claims that he didn't really die on the cross, but swooned, and was revived after being removed, or a substitute was crucified in his place.  J.W.'s claim Jesus was crucified on a stake, and was not God's Son, incarnate.
> 
> Mormons claim that Jesus's brother in heaven was Lucifer, and that a great meeting was held to decide who would go to earth and become the Saviour.  Jesus got picked, and Lucifer rebelled cause he wanted to be the Saviour.
> 
> Also, Mormon works, reveals itself doctrinally in that a good Mormon man can some day be the first Adam of his own planet.  He also holds the power to ressurect his wife from the dead.
> 
> You may not know this but the great geneological interest that the Mormons have is to do with baptising the dead for salvatioon.  Mormons believe that one can be baptised after death and have salvation, yet a literal "hell" isn't really in Mormon doctrine.  It's more or less degrees of goodness that are accepted.
> 
> Interestingly, Hubbards, Scientology has some similarities to Mormonism in the area of planets and races of people.  Hubbard taught in Scientology that our human race came from another planet, called "Nob".  Yes, my friend, John Travolt, and Tom Cruise buy into that.  I respect them as actors, but I sure don't accept their religious leanings at all.  They are absolutely weird.
> 
> The finger prints of cults and the occult, always centers on how Jesus of the bible is defined by them.  In every case, he will be diminished in diety to "a god"(J.W.'s NWT), or in the case of Mormonism, just one of many Jesus's or Adams of planets.



The above post is so full of truths, half truths, and outright falsehoods that it's hard to know where to begin.

Let's start with all of those revisions of the Book of Mormon.  That simply isn't true.

A good Mormon man can someday become the Adam of his own planet?  Where on Earth did that one come from?

Mormons do teach that God, the Father has many worlds, the Earth is just one of them.  They teach that we, his children, are potential gods of other worlds.  

Don't all children want to grow up to be like their parents?

That is one of the interesting points of doctrine that differs from mainstream Christianity, to be sure. In a sense, Mormon doctrine is polytheistic, but only one god is recognized for this world.

As for the Bible being totally accurate, how anyone can believe that the Bible is literally true is beyond me.  Such a belief takes a whole lot of faith, and not a little ignoring of fact and logic, not to mention Christian history.

As I said before, I'm not really a believer in any of it, but I'll stick to this statement:  If Christianity is true, then Mormonism is also true.  The original church was lost, and the only way to restore it is through modern prophecy.  Does any other church believe in modern prophecy?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> It's difficult to come to a commons ground with a Mormon interpretation of the bible when they are taught that the present day bible is corrupted, and thus dear old Joseph Smith Jr. had to pull a new bible literally out of his hat with a seers stone via an ange called Moroni.
> 
> First of all the "Jesus" of the Mormons is not the "Jesus" of the bible.  Plain and simple.  The Aaronic Priesthood is so unbiblical too.  The Temple secrets taught or given to Temple Mormons is totally out of Freemason or Masonic teaching and is occultic.
> 
> Mormons do not accept salvation by "grace" but by "works".  The Christian bible teaches that faith comes first and salvation and then works are a resultant of that new, God given faith called, "Being Born Again" or "Born From Above" as Jesus clearly taught Nicodemus the Pharisee.
> 
> Joseph Smith Jr. was not martyr'd either.  He was jailed in Illinois for breaking into a local newspaper office and damaging or attempting to damage the printing press.  Why?  Cause the paper printed anti-Mormon articles.  A crowd had come to take him out of jail and noose him or give him an uncomfortable ride out of town along with his followers, and he/Smith Jr. got possession of a pistol and got in a shoot-out with the locals and died.  The Church rewrote history for their followers making Smith Jr. a martyr for his faith.  He was a treasure hunter, along with Smith Sr., his dad in New York, before coming up with this great idea of starting a new religion.
> 
> Teddy Roosevelt even demanded that the American Flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, as their religion was "persona non grata" with the U.S. government.  It hadn't been that many years earlier that the terrible "Mountain Meadows Massacre" had been committed by Brigham Young and his followers, disguised as American Indians.
> 
> Burning Boosum:  This is the catch-all of Morminism.  The friendly, smilely, young men at your door step will prey on nominal Christians that don't know the bible and it's cautions within to believers and will take up the challenge to "Pray" to God and see if Mormonism is real.
> 
> So many people have had weird supernatural experiences that conveniently seem to convey the message that Mormonis is the truth.  Many of their converted have had dreams where a long departed relative spoke to them and told them that Mormonism is the truth.
> 
> The bible infatically says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word(Scripture) of God"!  Namely, the bible is God's communication to mankind of the truths of His nature, His desires for mankind, and His mapwork of salvation of our fallen race through the death, burial, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> I'll have to give old Joseph Smith Jr. credit.  He was a con man in New York, and a very intelligent one at that. He's conned millions up to the present
> 
> The Mormon church classifies him as a prophet, but the definition of a prophet according to the bible is a man who is a spokesman/woman of God, does not false prophesy(which Joseph Smith Jr false prophesied many times), one time.  I.E..  A true prophet of God has a 100% batting average when in comes to prophesying.  One false prophesy, and that prophet is or was killed.  A Prophets position was too important.
> 
> The Book of Mormon has gone through so many word/sentence changes since it's 1830's authorship by Smith, that it will make your head spin.
> 
> The 2,000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls validate the present day bible as still accurate and dependable.  The nearly complete Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll is word for word a match to the viable, and accepted translations nowadays....Which Incluce, the King James, NASB, NIV, etc.
> 
> Do not include the Book of Mormon nor the Jehovah's Witnesses's New World Translation bible in this mix.
> 
> The JW's, have conveniently changed N.T. wordage in strategic areas to change the nature or diety of Jesus Christ to one of a created being, that validates their false premise that Jesus was the Arch Angel Michael, and thus was a created being.  So the scripture where Jesus said to the crowd, "Before Abraham I AM", which meant, I am God, is rebuked by the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Their founder was taken to court back at the turn of the 19th century, and challenged with his claims to know ancient greek and was a translater, and was thoroughly proven to be totally illiterate in Greek.  Their founder just took the present day bible of his time and changed certain wordage to support his alleged, personal revelation of "truth" about God.
> 
> The greatest test to tell if a religion is trully Christian, is how do they deal with the biblical Jesus Christ.  His He God incarnate in the flesh, ever present, in the past, ever present in the future, or is He merely a created being, and less that God the Father in stature/importance.
> 
> The islamic religion gives Jesus creedance as a prophet, but claims that he didn't really die on the cross, but swooned, and was revived after being removed, or a substitute was crucified in his place.  J.W.'s claim Jesus was crucified on a stake, and was not God's Son, incarnate.
> 
> Mormons claim that Jesus's brother in heaven was Lucifer, and that a great meeting was held to decide who would go to earth and become the Saviour.  Jesus got picked, and Lucifer rebelled cause he wanted to be the Saviour.
> 
> Also, Mormon works, reveals itself doctrinally in that a good Mormon man can some day be the first Adam of his own planet.  He also holds the power to ressurect his wife from the dead.
> 
> You may not know this but the great geneological interest that the Mormons have is to do with baptising the dead for salvatioon.  Mormons believe that one can be baptised after death and have salvation, yet a literal "hell" isn't really in Mormon doctrine.  It's more or less degrees of goodness that are accepted.
> 
> Interestingly, Hubbards, Scientology has some similarities to Mormonism in the area of planets and races of people.  Hubbard taught in Scientology that our human race came from another planet, called "Nob".  Yes, my friend, John Travolt, and Tom Cruise buy into that.  I respect them as actors, but I sure don't accept their religious leanings at all.  They are absolutely weird.
> 
> The finger prints of cults and the occult, always centers on how Jesus of the bible is defined by them.  In every case, he will be diminished in diety to "a god"(J.W.'s NWT), or in the case of Mormonism, just one of many Jesus's or Adams of planets.



I will assume that you are not trying to attack us and spread further confusion about the history of our church and the Prophet Joseph Smith because I realize you have not studied your history and have been fed a line by some anti Mormon preachers that you have chosen to believe. 
I also will give you a break because I know you have not read through this whole thread which addresses several misconceptions you have brought up. It is also apparent that your understanding of Mormon doctrine and our interpretations are more than sketchy. We actually DO believe in the Jesus of the Bible and state so more than numerous times. We will have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of the Bible doctrines as this thread is not about proving which side is right but about clarifying the truth about what we believe and teach.
As for your gross misunderstanding about the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the "fake" martyrdom of Joseph Smith, I will refer you to an entirely neutral historical account published here about the actual cause of Joseph Smiths death. Also note what happened after Smith was slain how a man who tried to cut off Smith's head with a sword, was struck dead immediately with no wounds when he lifted his arm to decapitate Smiths head. The mob fled as thunder and lighting scared them away and they shouted, "the mormons are coming" although it has been confirmed there was no such force coming. 
Death of Joseph Smith, Jr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


----------



## sky dancer

Still awaiting all those questions you have about Buddhism, 'truthspeaker' lol.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I just asked one. Sorry about the delay.


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> The above post is so full of truths, half truths, and outright falsehoods that it's hard to know where to begin.
> 
> Let's start with all of those revisions of the Book of Mormon.  That simply isn't true.
> 
> A good Mormon man can someday become the Adam of his own planet?  Where on Earth did that one come from?
> 
> Mormons do teach that God, the Father has many worlds, the Earth is just one of them.  They teach that we, his children, are potential gods of other worlds.
> 
> Don't all children want to grow up to be like their parents?
> 
> That is one of the interesting points of doctrine that differs from mainstream Christianity, to be sure. In a sense, Mormon doctrine is polytheistic, but only one god is recognized for this world.
> 
> As for the Bible being totally accurate, how anyone can believe that the Bible is literally true is beyond me.  Such a belief takes a whole lot of faith, and not a little ignoring of fact and logic, not to mention Christian history.
> 
> As I said before, I'm not really a believer in any of it, but I'll stick to this statement:  If Christianity is true, then Mormonism is also true.  The original church was lost, and the only way to restore it is through modern prophecy.  Does any other church believe in modern prophecy?



A little research and you'd find that the Book of Mormon has been revised many times since it's inception in the 1830's.  You can say, "no", but that's just hopeful thinking.

If you really research J. Smith Jr.'s true background, it isn't pretty.  The church has propagandized Smith's life with so many lies/untruths it'll make one's head spin.

People just can't believe that millions of people can adhere or belong to this religion and not be aware, but they are for the most part.  

Most Mormons are not Temple Mormons, and are not revealed the strange, skewed, rituals, that are totally occultic, in the vein of Masonic occultic rituals.

Also, non-Mormons are not allowed in the Temple to attend a Mormon friend's wedding.

True Christian marriage is not a secretive ceremony nor something that must be sealed in a strange secretive building.
******
Someone mentioned "Magic Underware".  This is not a joke, totally committed Mormons, both men and women where this strange underware with little occultic symbols.

Truth speaks........can call me a screwball, or a "hater", but is totally wrong.  The Mormon church cannot refute what I posted, without lieing.

Their Jesus is not the Bible Jesus, and they know it.

Also they trully believe that the bible that Christians adhere to, for God's truth is corrupt, thus Mr. New York Con man, Smith Jr., offered the world his version, the book of Mormon, that is just filled with a mishmash of fairytale stories and plagerism from the bible's scripture.

Archeolology, to date has not been able to validate one historical statement concerning North America.

The Indigenous American Indians have been DNA studied and do "NOT" have any lost tribe/Jewish connections, but are Asiatic in origin.

The Book of Mormon claims that metalurgy was developed by these lost civilizations in N. America, but to date, not one piece of iron, copper, or bronze has been found in pre-Anglo North or South America.

The Mormon religion is a total manifestation of Joseph Smith Jr..  The Mormon church is a monolith not only of false religion, but is a monsterious business enterprise.....Marriot's just being one segment......

As a Christian, I don't dislike or hate Mormons, and infact enjoy and look forward to dialoguing with their missionaries at my doorstep.  

In fact my hear goes out to them, as they are very, very, lost according to what the Lord Jesus Christ emphatically says in the bible.  

They have the changed the biblical Jesus into a mere man who received divinity.  The have even skewed the immaculate conception, into a strange sexual connection between their Father God, and the Virgin Mary.

Most Mormons don't know about these teachings, and therefore refute it.  Some will take a change and do some research, and discover that they have been hoodwinked into a counterfeit, Christian cult.  There are many ex-Mormons who have painfully broken away from Mormonism, but have been ostracized by family members, friends, and business associates that have remained true to their religion.

When a person is initially entered into Mormonism, they are gradually massaged into the Mormon doctrine as they would easily "bolt" from the church if they realized how bazaar and unbiblical the core doctrine of Mormonism is.

Also, Mormons aren't supposed to do independent bible study, but are required or strongly encouraged to follow their church elder's direction and also interpretation of the King James bible that they will use at times when trying to convert biblical or nominal Christians.

The biblical statement, "The truth shall make you free", is the last statement that a novice Mormon will be encouraged with, as they are told that Mormonism "Is the truth", and the Christian church is totally misleading the masses, as the bible is no longer accurate.  

Why?  Cause the Mormons teach that the continual re-translating of the bible over the last nearly 2,000 years has just multiplied human error in translating.

Of course this totally goes against the very important Character of God.........."Omnipotent"..........Which translates to "All Powerful".  In other words, God is omnipotent, and has "Protected" His word or communication to mankind from the time of it's inception.

God doesn't need J. Smith Jr. to "fix"/"correct" His truth/bible to make it right and correct for mankind.  God doesn't need a con artist-gone religious who has experienced alleged visitations of angels of questional origin to protect His Word.

Every true Christian knows that God is not weak nor non-involved in the plight of man.  Nor does any true Christian beleive that God just made man and let him loose to wander aimlessly on planet earth to try and discover the truth of life, and meaning, by mere chance.

Again, the whole premise of Mormonism being the True Church, is based on God's ineptitude to protect His Word throughout the centuries.

And again for those that believe the 1830's Book of Mormon is word for word identical to the one they read today, they are very, very, mis-informed.

The discovery of the nearly 2,000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls that includes a nearly complete copy of the O.T. book of Isaiah, confirmed without a doubt that God is trully omnipotent, and has protected His truth/written communication, to man in the subsequent centuries up to the 21st or present time.

Mormons are encouraged to avoid independent bible study, without the overseeing of an elder = suspicious.

Mormons are to avoid contact with ex-members.= Why?  Might they find out something that doesn't bode well for their system of belief?

Christians are encourged to study both independently, pray independently, and also to join in bible studies with other believers, as a way of discovering God's direction for their lives through the revelations of the scripture.

Christians are taught to question all in their church, who bring news of "Thus sayeth the Lord".  In fact the Apostle Paul of the N.T. encouraged the Christian church of Berea or the Bereans to even question himself/Paul when he brought teaching to them!  The bereans were were studious and would indeed go the the scriptures to make sure that Paul or an other messengers of the churches brought them news or teaching that agreed with God's word, or the scriptures.

Another tell-tale sign of many Christian and non-Christian cults is "works" to earn salvation or special "brownie points" with God.

No where in the bible does it teach that one must, "do things", in order to please God.  Just as a parent of a child is most pleased with their child for who he/she is, whether he or she acts a certain way or not, God has accepted those that have placed their trust/life upon God's Son, Jesus Christ, as their Saviour, and Lord of their lives.  Why?  Because Jesus was the one the did the "works" that brought them salvation, and new life.  There is nothing withing mortal man that can earn him or her salvation.  God is the one who "saves" and He accepts all who come to Him in humbleness, a contrite/broken heart, with full knowledge that they are mere, fallible dust, and He/God, is the only answer to forgiveness and life.  God offered the ultimate Passover Lamb, through His Son Jesus, once and for all.

There are no other planets and future Adam and Eves to populate them, according to Smith Jr, and Brigham Young.

These are all teachings spawned by the Prince of this World, namely Lucifer/Satan.  Smith Jr. nor any of the alleged prophets of Mormonism that followed Smith were repentant men, nor did they adhere to biblical beliefs.  

It was only a few years ago, that the Mormon church gave up it's doctrine that Caine's generation are the Negroid race, and were not allowed to enter into the Mormon, Aaronic Priesthood.

Because of public scrutiny, and criticism of this racial discrimination, the Prophet of Morminism had a convenient "revelation" that God had changed the rules, and now people of the black/negroid race were now welcome to the Aaronic Priesthood.

God doesn't work that way...............Never has the bible discriminated against races, based on skin color.....etc.

Jesus said, "Go out into the world and bring all into the fold".  Paul said that all who are true Christians are a "royal priesthood", i.e. the O.T. veil that kept the common man from the Holy of Holies and the ark of the covenant was Rent or torn apart the day that Jesus said, "It is finished!" on Calvary's cross.  Jesus became mankind's intercessor and high priest, and bridge to have a relationship with man's Maker through His broken/sacrificed life.  No Aaronic priesthood needed.  No secretive temple rites........Jesus rent or ripped the veil, or fence between God and mankind.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.......I was talking to my roomie yesterday, and we were talking about Mormons.

We both came to the same conclusion.......

Mormonism is an 1800's version of Scientology.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> A little research and you'd find that the Book of Mormon has been revised many times since it's inception in the 1830's.  You can say, "no", but that's just hopeful thinking.
> 
> If you really research J. Smith Jr.'s true background, it isn't pretty.  The church has propagandized Smith's life with so many lies/untruths it'll make one's head spin.
> 
> People just can't believe that millions of people can adhere or belong to this religion and not be aware, but they are for the most part.
> 
> Most Mormons are not Temple Mormons, and are not revealed the strange, skewed, rituals, that are totally occultic, in the vein of Masonic occultic rituals.
> 
> Also, non-Mormons are not allowed in the Temple to attend a Mormon friend's wedding.
> 
> True Christian marriage is not a secretive ceremony nor something that must be sealed in a strange secretive building.
> ******
> Someone mentioned "Magic Underware".  This is not a joke, totally committed Mormons, both men and women where this strange underware with little occultic symbols.
> 
> Truth speaks........can call me a screwball, or a "hater", but is totally wrong.  The Mormon church cannot refute what I posted, without lieing.
> 
> Their Jesus is not the Bible Jesus, and they know it.
> 
> Also they trully believe that the bible that Christians adhere to, for God's truth is corrupt, thus Mr. New York Con man, Smith Jr., offered the world his version, the book of Mormon, that is just filled with a mishmash of fairytale stories and plagerism from the bible's scripture.
> 
> Archeolology, to date has not been able to validate one historical statement concerning North America.
> 
> The Indigenous American Indians have been DNA studied and do "NOT" have any lost tribe/Jewish connections, but are Asiatic in origin.
> 
> The Book of Mormon claims that metalurgy was developed by these lost civilizations in N. America, but to date, not one piece of iron, copper, or bronze has been found in pre-Anglo North or South America.
> 
> The Mormon religion is a total manifestation of Joseph Smith Jr..  The Mormon church is a monolith not only of false religion, but is a monsterious business enterprise.....Marriot's just being one segment......
> 
> As a Christian, I don't dislike or hate Mormons, and infact enjoy and look forward to dialoguing with their missionaries at my doorstep.
> 
> In fact my hear goes out to them, as they are very, very, lost according to what the Lord Jesus Christ emphatically says in the bible.
> 
> They have the changed the biblical Jesus into a mere man who received divinity.  The have even skewed the immaculate conception, into a strange sexual connection between their Father God, and the Virgin Mary.
> 
> Most Mormons don't know about these teachings, and therefore refute it.  Some will take a change and do some research, and discover that they have been hoodwinked into a counterfeit, Christian cult.  There are many ex-Mormons who have painfully broken away from Mormonism, but have been ostracized by family members, friends, and business associates that have remained true to their religion.
> 
> When a person is initially entered into Mormonism, they are gradually massaged into the Mormon doctrine as they would easily "bolt" from the church if they realized how bazaar and unbiblical the core doctrine of Mormonism is.
> 
> Also, Mormons aren't supposed to do independent bible study, but are required or strongly encouraged to follow their church elder's direction and also interpretation of the King James bible that they will use at times when trying to convert biblical or nominal Christians.
> 
> The biblical statement, "The truth shall make you free", is the last statement that a novice Mormon will be encouraged with, as they are told that Mormonism "Is the truth", and the Christian church is totally misleading the masses, as the bible is no longer accurate.
> 
> Why?  Cause the Mormons teach that the continual re-translating of the bible over the last nearly 2,000 years has just multiplied human error in translating.
> 
> Of course this totally goes against the very important Character of God.........."Omnipotent"..........Which translates to "All Powerful".  In other words, God is omnipotent, and has "Protected" His word or communication to mankind from the time of it's inception.
> 
> God doesn't need J. Smith Jr. to "fix"/"correct" His truth/bible to make it right and correct for mankind.  God doesn't need a con artist-gone religious who has experienced alleged visitations of angels of questional origin to protect His Word.
> 
> Every true Christian knows that God is not weak nor non-involved in the plight of man.  Nor does any true Christian beleive that God just made man and let him loose to wander aimlessly on planet earth to try and discover the truth of life, and meaning, by mere chance.
> 
> Again, the whole premise of Mormonism being the True Church, is based on God's ineptitude to protect His Word throughout the centuries.
> 
> And again for those that believe the 1830's Book of Mormon is word for word identical to the one they read today, they are very, very, mis-informed.
> 
> The discovery of the nearly 2,000 year old Dead Sea Scrolls that includes a nearly complete copy of the O.T. book of Isaiah, confirmed without a doubt that God is trully omnipotent, and has protected His truth/written communication, to man in the subsequent centuries up to the 21st or present time.
> 
> Mormons are encouraged to avoid independent bible study, without the overseeing of an elder = suspicious.
> 
> Mormons are to avoid contact with ex-members.= Why?  Might they find out something that doesn't bode well for their system of belief?
> 
> Christians are encourged to study both independently, pray independently, and also to join in bible studies with other believers, as a way of discovering God's direction for their lives through the revelations of the scripture.
> 
> Christians are taught to question all in their church, who bring news of "Thus sayeth the Lord".  In fact the Apostle Paul of the N.T. encouraged the Christian church of Berea or the Bereans to even question himself/Paul when he brought teaching to them!  The bereans were were studious and would indeed go the the scriptures to make sure that Paul or an other messengers of the churches brought them news or teaching that agreed with God's word, or the scriptures.
> 
> Another tell-tale sign of many Christian and non-Christian cults is "works" to earn salvation or special "brownie points" with God.
> 
> No where in the bible does it teach that one must, "do things", in order to please God.  Just as a parent of a child is most pleased with their child for who he/she is, whether he or she acts a certain way or not, God has accepted those that have placed their trust/life upon God's Son, Jesus Christ, as their Saviour, and Lord of their lives.  Why?  Because Jesus was the one the did the "works" that brought them salvation, and new life.  There is nothing withing mortal man that can earn him or her salvation.  God is the one who "saves" and He accepts all who come to Him in humbleness, a contrite/broken heart, with full knowledge that they are mere, fallible dust, and He/God, is the only answer to forgiveness and life.  God offered the ultimate Passover Lamb, through His Son Jesus, once and for all.
> 
> There are no other planets and future Adam and Eves to populate them, according to Smith Jr, and Brigham Young.
> 
> These are all teachings spawned by the Prince of this World, namely Lucifer/Satan.  Smith Jr. nor any of the alleged prophets of Mormonism that followed Smith were repentant men, nor did they adhere to biblical beliefs.
> 
> It was only a few years ago, that the Mormon church gave up it's doctrine that Caine's generation are the Negroid race, and were not allowed to enter into the Mormon, Aaronic Priesthood.
> 
> Because of public scrutiny, and criticism of this racial discrimination, the Prophet of Morminism had a convenient "revelation" that God had changed the rules, and now people of the black/negroid race were now welcome to the Aaronic Priesthood.
> 
> God doesn't work that way...............Never has the bible discriminated against races, based on skin color.....etc.
> 
> Jesus said, "Go out into the world and bring all into the fold".  Paul said that all who are true Christians are a "royal priesthood", i.e. the O.T. veil that kept the common man from the Holy of Holies and the ark of the covenant was Rent or torn apart the day that Jesus said, "It is finished!" on Calvary's cross.  Jesus became mankind's intercessor and high priest, and bridge to have a relationship with man's Maker through His broken/sacrificed life.  No Aaronic priesthood needed.  No secretive temple rites........Jesus rent or ripped the veil, or fence between God and mankind.




Thank you for that most recent post as I will clarify the truth of your statements. I also see that you have conceded your error on the history of Joseph's death. Moving on.
There absolutely were changes made. There were many grammatical errors made in the original translation of the Book of Mormon. The changes made were simply to correct those. I have read virtually all of the changes and none of them change the meaning or translation of the book. There were also gramatical errors in writing by several of the different Nephite prophets who wrote in the book, which is actually a strong stamp of authenticity since some prophets were better writers than others. Just the same way that not everyone is as good at spelling and grammar as others. If one person had written the book, it would have been consistent whereas the Book of Mormon includes different styles of speech and sentencing. Yes there have been changes, but not like what you are making it seem to be.
Yes it is true that only temple worthy people are allowed to attend the short temple marriage ceremony. But everyone is invited to the reception and ring ceremony outside the Temple. It has not been a major concern for most people as the wedding itself is short, and leads immediately to a public reception in most cases.
As for the "secrecy" of the Temple, we have addressed this issue earlier in the messageboard. It is not meant to keep people out. We invite everyone to meet the standards to enter and find out for themselves what it's all about. But even if you were allowed inside you wouldn't find it so dramatic. It is a very conservative atmosphere and a quiet pleasant place. There is nothing extreme going on inside and surely people can respect our desire to have an exclusive place for worship and meditation where we can escape the pressures and lifestyle of the world for a few moments.
Also since you did not read the section about the Masons and Joseph Smith, it is understandable that you are misinformed about it. 
Joseph Smith was indeed curious about the Masons and for a time joined with them to see what they were all about. The symbols and tokens used were a topic of concern that he inquired of the Lord about. He was told that the symbols had lost their true meaning and was revealed the proper use and purpose of them in the temple. They are slightly different from the ones the Masons use and mostly have a different meaning. I am actually very glad he clarified the issue for us. I don't see what the big deal is for people when they hear Joseph Smith was a Mason for a time. No big deal.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.......I was talking to my roomie yesterday, and we were talking about Mormons.
> 
> We both came to the same conclusion.......
> 
> Mormonism is an 1800's version of Scientology.



I don't know much about Scientology, so you might be right. What are the similiarities of the two?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Also for 8-ball. You say that the personal history of Joseph Smith is not pretty, I have done extensive research on the man I consider to be a prophet and major part of my faith in Christ and would consider myself an idiot if I didn't research it. You will be hard pressed to find someone who knows more about the less known facts of his history than me.
Just what is it that you find so ugly about his past?


----------



## Luissa

I don't agree with LDS but you have a right to your religion but I do have a problem with how some of the men treat their wives or women in general. Part of my family is mormon living outside of Salt Lake and the men treat women like they are inferior and just belong home with the kids and being their servants. I also worked with this lady who was mormon and she had to ask her husband for permission to pretty much go to the bathroom. Can you tell me where it says women are your servants in the book of mormon?


----------



## Luissa

Truthspeaker said:


> Also for 8-ball. You say that the personal history of Joseph Smith is not pretty, I have done extensive research on the man I consider to be a prophet and major part of my faith in Christ and would consider myself an idiot if I didn't research it. You will be hard pressed to find someone who knows more about the less known facts of his history than me.
> Just what is it that you find so ugly about his past?


I was taught he was kicked out of the colonies for religious and money reasons and that is when he went to Utah.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Luissa27 said:


> I don't agree with LDS but you have a right to your religion but I do have a problem with how some of the men treat their wives or women in general. Part of my family is mormon living outside of Salt Lake and the men treat women like they are inferior and just belong home with the kids and being their servants. I also worked with this lady who was mormon and she had to ask her husband for permission to pretty much go to the bathroom. Can you tell me where it says women are your servants in the book of mormon?



The Book of Mormon itself rebukes people like you have described in Jacob Chapter 2 and the Doctrine and Covenants says that men like this have excercised unrighteous dominion and are "worse than the heathen" and "amen to that man's priesthood."
Men like you have described have no scriptural or doctrinal base to stand on and are some of the vilest of sinners according to us.


----------



## sky dancer

The Book of Mormon comes from one guy; Joseph Smith.  Either you think he was a real prophet or you don't.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't know much about Scientology, so you might be right. What are the similiarities of the two?



The similarities are that they are both made up stories.

Ron Hubbard used science fiction, Mormons use a bastardized version of the Bible.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Also for 8-ball. You say that the personal history of Joseph Smith is not pretty, I have done extensive research on the man I consider to be a prophet and major part of my faith in Christ and would consider myself an idiot if I didn't research it. You will be hard pressed to find someone who knows more about the less known facts of his history than me.
> Just what is it that you find so ugly about his past?



Unfortunately, in order to be a prophet, you've gotta be one or the other, a Jew, or a B'nei Noach (Son of Noah).

Joseph Smith was neither.

Ever notice his name is "Joe Smith"?  He's a nobody.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> The similarities are that they are both made up stories.
> 
> Ron Hubbard used science fiction, Mormons use a bastardized version of the Bible.



For a second there, I thought we could have a discussion but true to form you have not disappointed by layin the leather on us. Well we believe it is a true story and you don't, so where were we again?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> For a second there, I thought we could have a discussion but true to form you have not disappointed by layin the leather on us. Well we believe it is a true story and you don't, so where were we again?



Well, there are several reasons why I say this.  First, Joseph Smith was looking for something to use as a way to get his 15 min of fame.  He started reading (probably), and came across some form of enlightenment (although, I kinda think he was influenced by a demon.  They're quite attractive (most) you know.  But, that's only because in the world, the more beautiful something is, generally the more dangerous it is.  Example would be a badger or a wolverine.......both are beautiful to watch from a distance, but, get close and.......

I also think he'd been studying Jewish texts also, because there are quite a few similarities between some of the Mormon tenents, and they look like they were lifted from the Hebrews.

Ron Hubbard did the same thing incidentally......he'd started to fade as a sci fi writer, so, in order to keep his fame alive (and make a buck or two in the process), he started Scientology.

Interestingly enough, if one is smart enough to look for the similarities and avoid the differences, they can tell the true from the false in any situation.  Me?  I hold 3 theologies close, Tao, Christianity, and Judaism.  All 3 are similar enough in their viewpoint and presentation to be taken as true.

Now.....your religion, while it claims to be inclusive, is not.  They don't want you unless you think exactly like they do.  Militant Islam is also similar in this respect.

And......one way to tell a true religion that belongs to God from one that doesn't?  Just ask one question, and answer it honestly.......Does it foster creation in all it's varieties or not?  If not, it's a false religion.

Tell ya what.....check out a program on History Channel sometime (it's on today) called "Children of Abraham".  You may find out some really interesting stuff.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Well, there are several reasons why I say this.  First, Joseph Smith was looking for something to use as a way to get his 15 min of fame.  He started reading (probably), and came across some form of enlightenment (although, I kinda think he was influenced by a demon.  They're quite attractive (most) you know.  But, that's only because in the world, the more beautiful something is, generally the more dangerous it is.  Example would be a badger or a wolverine.......both are beautiful to watch from a distance, but, get close and.......
> 
> I also think he'd been studying Jewish texts also, because there are quite a few similarities between some of the Mormon tenents, and they look like they were lifted from the Hebrews.
> 
> Ron Hubbard did the same thing incidentally......he'd started to fade as a sci fi writer, so, in order to keep his fame alive (and make a buck or two in the process), he started Scientology.
> 
> Interestingly enough, if one is smart enough to look for the similarities and avoid the differences, they can tell the true from the false in any situation.  Me?  I hold 3 theologies close, Tao, Christianity, and Judaism.  All 3 are similar enough in their viewpoint and presentation to be taken as true.
> 
> Now.....your religion, while it claims to be inclusive, is not.  They don't want you unless you think exactly like they do.  Militant Islam is also similar in this respect.
> 
> And......one way to tell a true religion that belongs to God from one that doesn't?  Just ask one question, and answer it honestly.......Does it foster creation in all it's varieties or not?  If not, it's a false religion.
> 
> Tell ya what.....check out a program on History Channel sometime (it's on today) called "Children of Abraham".  You may find out some really interesting stuff.



Your theory that three different religions are all true is interesting. Don't they all have fundamental differences? If there are such differences how can they all be true?
The experience Joseph Smith had was a result of his confusion as to which church to join. He read James chapter 1 verse 5 which says"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, which giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him."
He went to the forest and prayed and actually had two different forces pulling at him. The first force actually choked him and caused everything to go black all around him and cause him to think he was going to die. Then before he gave himself away to destruction a pillar of light shone down on him and released him from the power which had overcome him.
God and Jesus appeared and told him not to join any of the churches.
Judging from the two forces which attacked him. I would assume the more powerful force to be God's. With 2 conflicting forces that overcame him it is easy to see which one was of god and which was of the devil.
The one trying to kill him would not be of god. the one rescuing him was God himself.
I gather that you think Joseph did this to make a buck. Well if that's the case he didn't do very well and lived at best a modest lifestyle without many riches.

About our religion being inclusive, the Book of Mormon states in 2 Nephi Chapter 28: "Wherefore all are alike unto God, both male and female, bond and free, black and white, and he remembereth the heathen and Jew and Gentile and he inviteth all to come unto him that all may be made partakers of salvation."

Some people think that we are not inclusive because we follow the teachings of scriptures. Discrimination against sin is not discrimination against people. All are invited to repent of their sins and "come unto him."


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Your theory that three different religions are all true is interesting. Don't they all have fundamental differences? If there are such differences how can they all be true?
> The experience Joseph Smith had was a result of his confusion as to which church to join. He read James chapter 1 verse 5 which says"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, which giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him."
> He went to the forest and prayed and actually had two different forces pulling at him. The first force actually choked him and caused everything to go black all around him and cause him to think he was going to die. Then before he gave himself away to destruction a pillar of light shone down on him and released him from the power which had overcome him.
> God and Jesus appeared and told him not to join any of the churches.
> Judging from the two forces which attacked him. I would assume the more powerful force to be God's. With 2 conflicting forces that overcame him it is easy to see which one was of god and which was of the devil.
> The one trying to kill him would not be of god. the one rescuing him was God himself.
> I gather that you think Joseph did this to make a buck. Well if that's the case he didn't do very well and lived at best a modest lifestyle without many riches.
> 
> About our religion being inclusive, the Book of Mormon states in 2 Nephi Chapter 28: "Wherefore all are alike unto God, both male and female, bond and free, black and white, and he remembereth the heathen and Jew and Gentile and he inviteth all to come unto him that all may be made partakers of salvation."
> 
> Some people think that we are not inclusive because we follow the teachings of scriptures. Discrimination against sin is not discrimination against people. All are invited to repent of their sins and "come unto him."



The main tripping point, and carefully overlooked by Mormons such as yourself, is, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word(scripture/bible0 of God.".

The whole Mormon salvation basis is premised on "praying" and if you get some kind of a sign or communication that Mormonism is valid, then it is.

Well, there is a very wicked, and fallen Seraphim, knows as Lucifer, that just jumps for joy when a human being made in God's image trusts his or her's dreams, feelings/emotions, or some weird happenings, to justify a system of belief.

This is why an Omnipotent God left us with a very uncorrupted, and reliable foundation or compass; known as the bible.

Why the bible, cause the enemy of our souls will do any and everything to lead us astray from the Truth of God's character, and attributes, as he/Lucifer is for a time, the Prince of this world.  Mormons, as well as JW's, Unitarians, and so many so-called Christian sects, are all blinded by the Master of disguise, Lucifer himself.  He has access to your dreams, he can manifest euphoric feelings in one's body, he can create what seems to be very lucid validations that contradict God's Word.

True Christians can be tempted as well, but I believe that scripture assures that they cannot lose their salvation.  As Paul succinctly said, "We are new creatures/creations in Christ Jesus".   When we received the Holy Spirit upon believing/accepting by our wills that Christ is the end-all answer to shedding our sinful Adamic natures and leaving them in the grave, we live "anew", in Christ.  Yet, we still can be deceived, or tempted, as we still live in our earthly flesh that still gives Lucifer and the power of sin access to harass, and thwart God's plans being worked-out in our lives, if possible.

The new life of Christ in us, the Hope and Glory of the world, is our new foundation as new Creations in Christ.  Paul refers to each true believer as a Royal Ambassador and a Royal Priest.

Mormonism is bogged-down in ritualistic mimicking of O.T. tops such as the Aaronic Priesthood, that just creates a prideful division between fellow Mormon believers.  These Aaronic Priests are entrusted with secrets that the non-Temple Mormons lack, and are looked on as though they have "arrived".

With God, the playing field is level.  Billy Graham or the Pope doesn't get a better mansion in heaven than the lowliest beggar who believes and is saved by Christ.  

Christianity is not a secretive organization or organism.  In fact biblical Christianity is so transparent, and it's adherents are supposed to be, as they have no bragging rights about being a Christian.  They were saved by "grace" or what would be termed unmerited favor, not because they were "goodie two shoes", and didn't drink coffee, booze, commit adultry, cuss, etc....  It isn't our actions of life that make us sinners, its the very heart and core of our humanity that is sinful from birth.  Romans 3:23 clearly says that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.".  Being an Aaronic Priest doesn't cleanse one from have a sinful nature.  It's just manmade works or religiosity in it's plainest form.

Also, the average Mormon convert is taught that they are basically, "Victims" of this unbelieving world, and that the average Protestant, or bible pastor is their foe, and teaching corrupted teachings about God.

Mormons fill the total profile of "Cult Member".  They are supposed to keep themselves isolated from any teachings that disagree with their doctrine;  they are not suppose to do independent bible study, and discover on their own what God has to say to them, but must rely on their elder's recommendations and direction.  This is all anti-biblical, as Paul, and Jesus said that when one become a true Christian, they possess within themselves the Spirit of Christ/Holy Spirit/The Comforter/Enabler/Counselor to help them understand the scriptures.  

This flies in the face of Mormon doctrine that is scared to the core to let their followers discover the bible's nuggets of truth for them from God.  If independent study were allowed, you'd see the greatest exodus from the LDS church in recent history.

As for Joseph Smith Jr. dabbling in Freemasonry, would you call being a 33 degree Mason, dabbling?

Also would you be willing to look at the actual newspaper archives in Illinois where Joseph Smith was killed to see if he really died a martyr's death?

Here's the whole account of J.S. Jr.'s stay in the Carthage Jail.  It ain't heroic folks, and it isn't befitting of a prophet in anyway.  You will read actually accounts and see pictures of the jail where he was incarcerated.

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/josephsmithsdeath.htm#Joseph%20Kills%20Two
The LDS church has to answer for a myriad of false prophesies, a myriad of terrible deeds done by their early founders...........and so many skewed and unfounded statements in their Doctrine of Covenants as well as the BOM.

The very golden plates that Moroni the angel gave to Joseph Smith Jr. were specifically described in dimension.  The dimensions indicate that these golden plates were extremely heavy for just one man to carry alone, yet J.S. Jr. ran with these plates for a great distance.  J.S. Jr. must have possessed superman strength and stamina.

Ask yourself, why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand the the American flag be taken down from the Salt Lake City Temple?

Check out the actual dimensions of the plates, and figure in the weight of pure gold, and you'll see such discrepencies, your head will spin!

Also a sample of the alleged new or revised Egyptian Heiroglyphics was sent to a renown Egyptologist at a respected university in New York, and he came to the conclusion that the supposed heiroglyphics were so poorly written, and basically a mess of incoherent symbols.

Also, ever wonder how these golden plates just conveniently disappeared?  There were no Phillistines in those days to raid and pilfer away the Mormon's plates, as they did the Ark of the Covenant back in David's time.

Also, lets have an answer for the total absence of any archeological validation of the BOM both in N. and S. America?

Also, lets have an answer for the DNA roots of the American indigenous Indian not having Middle Eastern/Hebrew roots?

There is no need for latter day prophets, as we have God's Word, the indwelling H.S. to guide us, and Pastor/teachers/elders to teach, encourage, us .

We also have direct intercession with God through Christ, our mediator, and Saviour.

These old men that sit in high offices in Salt Lake are no more prophets than Belzabub.  They are mere humans.  The time of prophets is over.  Christ or the Messiah fulfilled and is fullfilling scripture.  His second coming is at hand. 

I trully pray for those who have followed this false gospel of Joseph Smith's imaginations.  In a sense he's a type of Anti-Christ, as Jesus said many would come before His 2nd advent.  

Again, bottom line, the way to discern false teaching or a cult is:  How do the deal with Jesus?  Is He God incarnate, or is He just a created being, bestowed with some divinity, or just a prophet among prophets?

Only God can forgive sins, and Jesus was nearly stoned to death on many occassion for doing just that.  He also said, "Before Abraham I AM".  The Jews took up stones to kill Him.  He asked why do you take up stones to kill Me?  They said, "Because you claim to be God!".

Either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, a charlatan, or He was who He said He was and still is.

Who are you going to believe?  Joseph Smith Jr. or Jesus of the bible?


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> This is why an Omnipotent God left us with a very uncorrupted, and reliable foundation or compass; known as the bible.



Are you serious?  Have you read this "reliable foundation or compass?"  

Specifically, have you read through Leviticus?

If so, then I have some questions for you:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? 

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? 

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well done, well done. Nice try but again I will give you a break because these grand ideas you have about what we believe have mostly been answered throughout the discussion board. I will forgive you of that and assume you are only trying your best to promote the word of God. now where were we.....hmmmm. oh yes,
Thank you for fulfilling the prophecy about Joseph Smith that said that his name should be had throughout all the world for good and for evil. 
Next point.which one should I deal with first. forgive me if I miss a few from your wordy post and you can bring it back up and I will surely deal with it. 
Ok we'll start with OUR TRUE TEACHINGS about JESUS CHRIST. you will be happy to know that we believe the same thing in that Jesus is the Great I AM. The Jehovah of the Old Testament. Please don't lump us in with other religions who don't claim the divinity of Christ. Just because Jehovah has a Father doesn't mean Jesus didn't create the world. He is the Master of all and by him, thru him and of him can man be saved. We also believe we are saved by grace, after all we can do. No one can save themselves by themselves. Christ must have made the atonement to make up for our inability to perfect ourselves in this life. Works are important to salvation however because Jesus taught that we must do many times throughout the beatitudes and examples of the rich young man, who was told to sell all he had and follow him. All the beatitudes are descriptions of actions we are supposed to excercise. In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus asked the lawyer, which of the three men who passed by the wounded man was friend unto him. The lawyer answered, he that nourished him and performed acts of kindness(the samaritan). Jesus answered him and said "Go, and DO thou likewise."

Don't hate on us just because we believe in doing good works. It doesn't mean we undervalue grace. We have all learned this teaching through individual Bible study by the way. 

It is a false claim that you state our leaders teach us not to read the Bible. You just were fed some line by a preacher who told you that. We also don't consider people or preachers of other faiths to be our enemies. In fact we are taught to be tolerant of others beliefs and strive to be more Christlike in our actions toward others at all times. 

In the Book of Mormon it states "We talk of Christ we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies that our children may know to whom they may look for a remission of their sins."
Not Christian enough for you?

Any half-wit knows that the Bible was not written by the fingers of God. It was not written as one book originally as well. Any half knowledgeable person realizes they are not in chronological order and the compilation of these writings, EVERYONE knows was assembled together by scholars and not prophets or leaders of God's church. EVERYONE knows that the Bible original manuscripts are also nowhere to be found like the original Book of Mormon. EVERYONE knows that the Bible was entirely in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church for hundreds of years and many plain and precious truths have been lost in translation or taken out of the Bible completely. This is fact. It is a stubborn thing. It cannot be refuted.
That being said, we need to know how to correctly interpret the Bible. Who has authority to do this. Only a prophet or apostle of God. Thus the need for a prophet. Amos chapter 3 verse 7 states clearly. 'Surely the Lord God will do nothing except he reveal it to his servants the Prophets."

I never said Joseph Smith dabbled in Free Masonry. He learned it through and through. So what? I already explained why he did it if you care to read a few posts up. 

The heiroglyphics found on the plates were found to be true characters by professor Charles Anthon. however the Book of Mormon prophets wrote that the characters were written in "reformed Egyptian". 
ANYONE knows that after 1000 years languages can be changed completely even with written history of them. Want an example you say? Go try and understand a single word from the archaic English Beowulf. Good luck shakespeare.

Of course an egyptologist living in today's modern world wouldn't be able to understand it? Ancient Egyptian is still a language that cannot be spoken anymore. only read.

None of us are taught vicitmization. Only history of what happened to our early members in the persecutions of Missouri who ordered and extermination of all mormons from the state.

yes there were false prophets spoken of that would come in the last day in Matthew chapter 7. Christ said, "By their fruits shall ye know them."

How about Josephs fruits then. 
In the 1830's joseph Smith prophesied the Civil war and who would fire the first shots and where in the state of South Carolina. He said it would "probably arise over the slave question" and that the southern states would be divided against the northern states and the southern states would call upon the nation of Great Britain for aid.
Every single detail happened. Oh.... didn't know that the redcoats sent supplies and sold weapons to the south did you? Didn't know that the first shots were fired at fort sumter South Carolina did you. This was a very detailed prophesy that was predicted over 40 years in advance. There is no way around that. do you need more?

The Jehovah witness guy prophesied the coming of Jesus Christ in 1914. There is an example of a false prophecy my friend. Better do your research.

oh yeah, you wanted validation for dna roots of native americans. The first inhabitants of the people of this continent came from Asia. they were the Jaredites and later mixed in with nephites lamanites and mulekites. Because of this origin and the passing of thousands of years of mixing dna, you aren't going to find an exact jewish dna match. You gotta do your research.

Oh yes of course. the dreams aspect. there are good angels and bad angels. inspired visions and false visions. The good ones will persuade people to believe in Jesus Christ and to pray continually to him. As were the ones Joseph encountered. The bad ones will never tell you to pray. They will always lead people away from the teachings of Christ. 

I DEMAND YOU TO TELL ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE THE BOOK OF MORMON TEACHES AGAINST CHRIST.

there is no such passage. You have been fed a line that you have rehearsed and done no research of your own.

I noticed you conceded the point on the changes to the Book of Mormon.

I am glad you have moved on.

Oh yes.... Archaelogical evidenc of the Book of Mormon. Be careful about opening this link because you might not have the guts to try and refute it after seeing the clear evidence.Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility


As to the death of the prophet. I think an angry mob of anti mormons who storm a jail and kill the leader of a religious organization qualifies as a martyrs death. Not really much of a leg for you to stand on.

Oh. yes just because joseph fired a pistol and injured three people as a result of defending himself makes him no less a martyr. I know they didn't die right away, but if some of them died later as a result, then good for Joseph.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Well done, well done. Nice try but again I will give you a break because these grand ideas you have about what we believe have mostly been answered throughout the discussion board. I will forgive you of that and assume you are only trying your best to promote the word of God. now where were we.....hmmmm. oh yes,
> Thank you for fulfilling the prophecy about Joseph Smith that said that his name should be had throughout all the world for good and for evil.
> Next point.which one should I deal with first. forgive me if I miss a few from your wordy post and you can bring it back up and I will surely deal with it.
> Ok we'll start with OUR TRUE TEACHINGS about JESUS CHRIST. you will be happy to know that we believe the same thing in that Jesus is the Great I AM. The Jehovah of the Old Testament. Please don't lump us in with other religions who don't claim the divinity of Christ. Just because Jehovah has a Father doesn't mean Jesus didn't create the world. He is the Master of all and by him, thru him and of him can man be saved. We also believe we are saved by grace, after all we can do. No one can save themselves by themselves. Christ must have made the atonement to make up for our inability to perfect ourselves in this life. Works are important to salvation however because Jesus taught that we must do many times throughout the beatitudes and examples of the rich young man, who was told to sell all he had and follow him. All the beatitudes are descriptions of actions we are supposed to excercise. In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus asked the lawyer, which of the three men who passed by the wounded man was friend unto him. The lawyer answered, he that nourished him and performed acts of kindness(the samaritan). Jesus answered him and said "Go, and DO thou likewise."
> 
> Don't hate on us just because we believe in doing good works. It doesn't mean we undervalue grace. We have all learned this teaching through individual Bible study by the way.
> 
> It is a false claim that you state our leaders teach us not to read the Bible. You just were fed some line by a preacher who told you that. We also don't consider people or preachers of other faiths to be our enemies. In fact we are taught to be tolerant of others beliefs and strive to be more Christlike in our actions toward others at all times.
> 
> In the Book of Mormon it states "We talk of Christ we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies that our children may know to whom they may look for a remission of their sins."
> Not Christian enough for you?
> 
> Any half-wit knows that the Bible was not written by the fingers of God. It was not written as one book originally as well. Any half knowledgeable person realizes they are not in chronological order and the compilation of these writings, EVERYONE knows was assembled together by scholars and not prophets or leaders of God's church. EVERYONE knows that the Bible original manuscripts are also nowhere to be found like the original Book of Mormon. EVERYONE knows that the Bible was entirely in the possession of the Roman Catholic Church for hundreds of years and many plain and precious truths have been lost in translation or taken out of the Bible completely. This is fact. It is a stubborn thing. It cannot be refuted.
> That being said, we need to know how to correctly interpret the Bible. Who has authority to do this. Only a prophet or apostle of God. Thus the need for a prophet. Amos chapter 3 verse 7 states clearly. 'Surely the Lord God will do nothing except he reveal it to his servants the Prophets."
> 
> I never said Joseph Smith dabbled in Free Masonry. He learned it through and through. So what? I already explained why he did it if you care to read a few posts up.
> 
> The heiroglyphics found on the plates were found to be true characters by professor Charles Anthon. however the Book of Mormon prophets wrote that the characters were written in "reformed Egyptian".
> ANYONE knows that after 1000 years languages can be changed completely even with written history of them. Want an example you say? Go try and understand a single word from the archaic English Beowulf. Good luck shakespeare.
> 
> Of course an egyptologist living in today's modern world wouldn't be able to understand it? Ancient Egyptian is still a language that cannot be spoken anymore. only read.
> 
> None of us are taught vicitmization. Only history of what happened to our early members in the persecutions of Missouri who ordered and extermination of all mormons from the state.
> 
> yes there were false prophets spoken of that would come in the last day in Matthew chapter 7. Christ said, "By their fruits shall ye know them."
> 
> How about Josephs fruits then.
> In the 1830's joseph Smith prophesied the Civil war and who would fire the first shots and where in the state of South Carolina. He said it would "probably arise over the slave question" and that the southern states would be divided against the northern states and the southern states would call upon the nation of Great Britain for aid.
> Every single detail happened. Oh.... didn't know that the redcoats sent supplies and sold weapons to the south did you? Didn't know that the first shots were fired at fort sumter South Carolina did you. This was a very detailed prophesy that was predicted over 40 years in advance. There is no way around that. do you need more?
> 
> The Jehovah witness guy prophesied the coming of Jesus Christ in 1914. There is an example of a false prophecy my friend. Better do your research.
> 
> oh yeah, you wanted validation for dna roots of native americans. The first inhabitants of the people of this continent came from Asia. they were the Jaredites and later mixed in with nephites lamanites and mulekites. Because of this origin and the passing of thousands of years of mixing dna, you aren't going to find an exact jewish dna match. You gotta do your research.
> 
> Oh yes of course. the dreams aspect. there are good angels and bad angels. inspired visions and false visions. The good ones will persuade people to believe in Jesus Christ and to pray continually to him. As were the ones Joseph encountered. The bad ones will never tell you to pray. They will always lead people away from the teachings of Christ.
> 
> I DEMAND YOU TO TELL ME ONE INSTANCE WHERE THE BOOK OF MORMON TEACHES AGAINST CHRIST.
> 
> there is no such passage. You have been fed a line that you have rehearsed and done no research of your own.
> 
> I noticed you conceded the point on the changes to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> I am glad you have moved on.
> 
> Oh yes.... Archaelogical evidenc of the Book of Mormon. Be careful about opening this link because you might not have the guts to try and refute it after seeing the clear evidence.Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility
> 
> 
> As to the death of the prophet. I think an angry mob of anti mormons who storm a jail and kill the leader of a religious organization qualifies as a martyrs death. Not really much of a leg for you to stand on.



You failed to notice that your Prophet was given a gun and killed two people in the crowd.  He was hardly a lamb gone to slaugher.  Hardly a martyr.  Also, why was the crowed enflamed against him?  He did break into a newspaper shop.  He was a criminal.  That's your church founder. 

It(Mormon doctrine) teaches against Christ, because it defines Christ according to Joseph Smith Jr.'s definition of Christ, not the bible's.

Two different Christs.  You believe in the Mormon christ, I accept the biblical Christ.  They are distinctly different.  Your Jesus is a merely a glorified man, who was spawned from sexual relations between your Mormon god, and Mary.  The biblical Jesus is and was and will always be God incarnate, born of a Virgin (Mary).


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> You failed to notice that your Prophet was given a gun and killed two people in the crowd.  He was hardly a lamb gone to slaugher.  Hardly a martyr.  Also, why was the crowed enflamed against him?  He did break into a newspaper shop.  He was a criminal.  That's your church founder.
> 
> It(Mormon doctrine) teaches against Christ, because it defines Christ according to Joseph Smith Jr.'s definition of Christ, not the bible's.
> 
> Two different Christs.  You believe in the Mormon christ, I accept the biblical Christ.  They are distinctly different.  Your Jesus is a merely a glorified man, who was spawned from sexual relations between your Mormon god, and Mary.  The biblical Jesus is and was and will always be God incarnate, born of a Virgin (Mary).



I see you conceded most points I brought up. Nowhere in our doctrine does it state that god had sex with MARY. She wouldn't be a virgin then would she. we don't teach that. The Bible states Jesus was born of the virgin mary and was impregnated by the power of the Holy Ghost. Not Zeus coming down and having sex with a woman to create Hercules. where do you get this stuff?
You don't even read my posts. I already addressed joseph shooting three men. Good for him. The phrase lamb to the slaughter was a metaphor. He knew he would die and he did. Not prophetic enough for you? You apparently don't want to acknowledge that the man who tried to cut off his head was struck dead without injury when he lifted his sword. don't brush that under the rug. You had better read up on your history and my posts before you come again.

Joseph did order the destruction of a printing press in the which the building was unharmed and the printing material was destroyed because they were inciting riot and violence against mormons. the press was violating freedom of the press by inciting violence and calling them to arms to raid mormon villages and rape their wives. Read up. It's true. 
Joseph was incarcerated illegally again and would have again been found innocent as he had been found in his previous 4 charges. 

Even if he had individually and unlawfully broken into a press, would that merit a death sentence. And look at the character of the men who read that press and painted themselves black to avoid identification. They were responding to the call of the press to opress Mormonism. 
Martyrs death. Period.


----------



## ABikerSailor

> Your theory that three different religions are all true is interesting. Don't they all have fundamental differences? If there are such differences how can they all be true?



A truck and a sports car are 2 fundamentally different things, but, they both work on the same principles, so therefore, how can both be true?  See what I'm saying?

If you are astute enough to know that in some cases, even though the people are looking at the same thing, but from two different viewpoints, both are fundamentally correct.

Watch the Universal Torah Network on the web sometime concerning the schools of Hilel and Shemai.  Both are correct, just different interpretations of what should be done.  But then again, God is like that.  He can bridge gaps between people.

Like I said......watch the show "The Children of Abraham" on History Channel.


----------



## chloe

Luissa27 said:


> I don't agree with LDS but you have a right to your religion but I do have a problem with how some of the men treat their wives or women in general. Part of my family is mormon living outside of Salt Lake and the men treat women like they are inferior and just belong home with the kids and being their servants. I also worked with this lady who was mormon and she had to ask her husband for permission to pretty much go to the bathroom. Can you tell me where it says women are your servants in the book of mormon?



My Mormon husband wasn't abusive like that, usually the mormoms would like the woman to stay home and do domestic duties and raise the kids, if it's ideal and the finances permit it. The official church anyway, however in some of the polygamist communities you may see some abuse take place on the kids or wives.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> A truck and a sports car are 2 fundamentally different things, but, they both work on the same principles, so therefore, how can both be true?  See what I'm saying?
> 
> If you are astute enough to know that in some cases, even though the people are looking at the same thing, but from two different viewpoints, both are fundamentally correct.
> 
> Watch the Universal Torah Network on the web sometime concerning the schools of Hilel and Shemai.  Both are correct, just different interpretations of what should be done.  But then again, God is like that.  He can bridge gaps between people.
> 
> Like I said......watch the show "The Children of Abraham" on History Channel.



i would have to disagree with you. A truck and a sports car are both vehicles that can take you where you want to go. I don't know much about Tao, but Christianity believes Christ is the way to salvation and faith in him will allow you to overcome your sins and go to heaven. Judaism deep down in their doctrine fundamentally believes Christ was a false prophet. That is the kind of difference that I am talking about. Both contain great teachings but their methods for achieving salvation are totally different. Only one can be true, and that is what people must find out for themselves.
I would like to watch the show if I can find time for it by the way. I promise to get around to it.


----------



## Luissa

ABikerSailor said:


> Unfortunately, in order to be a prophet, you've gotta be one or the other, a Jew, or a B'nei Noach (Son of Noah).
> 
> Joseph Smith was neither.
> 
> Ever notice his name is "Joe Smith"?  He's a nobody.


I don't agree with the mormon religion but if he wants to believe Joseph Smith was a prophet he has every right to believe he is. And to call someone else's bible bastardized is just wrong. You guys don't like it when we question your beliefs and then you go and question someone else's.


----------



## KittenKoder

Thing is, the original Mormon teachings before the perversion was that no one religion can claim to be the one true one.


----------



## Luissa

Truthspeaker said:


> The Book of Mormon itself rebukes people like you have described in Jacob Chapter 2 and the Doctrine and Covenants says that men like this have excercised unrighteous dominion and are "worse than the heathen" and "amen to that man's priesthood."
> Men like you have described have no scriptural or doctrinal base to stand on and are some of the vilest of sinners according to us.


Thank you are a straight answer! I just see many mormon men treating their wives this way having grown up with many mormons and have relatives who are. And it isn't just in your religion either.


----------



## Eightball

Luissa27 said:


> Thank you are a straight answer! I just see many mormon men treating their wives this way having grown up with many mormons and have relatives who are. And it isn't just in your religion either.



It goes much deeper than the way the treat their wives here on earth.  The Mormon men also hold the power to ressurrect their wives from the grave.  So be a good, obedient Mormon wife, or you might be in for some eternal peril.

Try and find that in the bible, never the less it sure presents the appearance of inequality between husband and wife.  He doesn't spiritually lead in the marriage biblically, but also rules in Mormon doctrine.


----------



## sky dancer

KittenKoder said:


> Thing is, the original Mormon teachings before the perversion was that no one religion can claim to be the one true one.



I lost you.  What are you calling the perversion?  What do you base your claim that the Mormons have stated that no one religion can claim to be the true one.

Funny that, nearly ALL religions claim to be the true one.

This may be off-topic but it would be interesting to discuss what we all think truth is.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Thing is, the original Mormon teachings before the perversion was that no one religion can claim to be the one true one.



False


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> False




For the benefit of those of us who don't know much about LDS, what do you think Kitten is talking about and what are your counter claims.

I'm willing to read whatever history or doctrine backs your assertion.  It's an important point.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Luissa27 said:


> Thank you are a straight answer! I just see many mormon men treating their wives this way having grown up with many mormons and have relatives who are. And it isn't just in your religion either.



We pretty much address this issue in most every General Conference we have about treating our wives with respect and honor. They are the greatest of all God's creations. we do believe that they have different roles and special abilities that men in general do not have. But they are absolutely equals to men.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> It goes much deeper than the way the treat their wives here on earth.  The Mormon men also hold the power to ressurrect their wives from the grave.  So be a good, obedient Mormon wife, or you might be in for some eternal peril.
> 
> Try and find that in the bible, never the less it sure presents the appearance of inequality between husband and wife.  He doesn't spiritually lead in the marriage biblically, but also rules in Mormon doctrine.



To clarify our official doctrine, the only person with power to raise anyone from the dead is Christ. To think we raise our wives is false doctrine. 
In fact the Bible needs to be interpreted or could otherwise seem quite harsh on women and demeaning towards them. For example in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 it states:1&#65279;1 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. &#65279;12&#65279; And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.

Or another example is  1 Corinthians 14:34-37 which reads, 34&#65279; Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. &#65279;35&#65279; And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

&#65279;There needs to be proper interpretation of such things. No where in the Book of Mormon will you find such statements.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I lost you.  What are you calling the perversion?  What do you base your claim that the Mormons have stated that no one religion can claim to be the true one.
> 
> Funny that, nearly ALL religions claim to be the true one.
> 
> This may be off-topic but it would be interesting to discuss what we all think truth is.



it is off topic but I take the dictionary definition: Conformity to fact or actuality. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> For the benefit of those of us who don't know much about LDS, what do you think Kitten is talking about and what are your counter claims.
> 
> I'm willing to read whatever history or doctrine backs your assertion.  It's an important point.



Kitten is going on some word of mouth story she heard. Here is the first thing God said to Joseph when the church was founded on April 6th 1830. The entire chapter can be found in the book of Doctrine and Covenants Section 1 verse 30 which reads...
  And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually&#8212;

She may have confused it with our teaching that many people who are not members of our church in this life will still eventually be saved in the highest heaven because of the goodness of their hearts and willingness to follow Gods commandments in the next life.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> it is off topic but I take the dictionary definition: Conformity to fact or actuality. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.




I had a deeper idea of a discussion on truth han a dictionary meaning.  Truth is a big topic in Buddhism.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I had a deeper idea of a discussion on truth han a dictionary meaning.  Truth is a big topic in Buddhism.



With all due respect, I don't think I want to debate the meaning of truth. Truth is what someone knows to the point of being willing to risk their lives for it. that person could be wrong but all truth will not be revealed until the next life anyway. So what is important is that everyone lives their life according to what they believe to be true.


----------



## chloe

why is the church against polygamy?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> With all due respect, I don't think I want to debate the meaning of truth. Truth is what someone knows to the point of being willing to risk their lives for it. that person could be wrong but all truth will not be revealed until the next life anyway. So what is important is that everyone lives their life according to what they believe to be true.



Actually, that is the definition of belief, not truth.

Truth is unshakable, belief isn't.


----------



## chloe

the truth is abikersailor is hot


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> With all due respect, I don't think I want to debate the meaning of truth. Truth is what someone knows to the point of being willing to risk their lives for it. that person could be wrong but all truth will not be revealed until the next life anyway. So what is important is that everyone lives their life according to what they believe to be true.



You call yourself truthspeaker, yet you are not willing to examine the meaning of truth?


----------



## sky dancer

chloe said:


> the truth is abikersailor is hot



Yes.  He is.


----------



## eots

sky dancer said:


> You call yourself truthspeaker, yet you are not willing to examine the meaning of truth?



you mean the Buddhist peel the onion layers type..until at the end there is nothing left..


----------



## sky dancer

eots said:


> you mean the Buddhist peel the onion layers type..until at the end there is nothing left..



Not exactly.  But that's a cute response.


----------



## ABikerSailor

eots said:


> you mean the Buddhist peel the onion layers type..until at the end there is nothing left..



No.......those types aren't of the peel the onion variety.....

They're peeled balloons.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, that is the definition of belief, not truth.
> 
> Truth is unshakable, belief isn't.



You are right. But in this forum the dictionary definition is the most diplomatic. Truth is 1 thing all the time. But perception of truth changes as a result of humans being imperfect. That is why faith is so important.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> why is the church against polygamy?



Because our doctrine teaches that polygamy is only to be practiced when commanded by the Lord. See Jacob chapter 2 "If I the Lord, will raise up seed unto me then I will command my people. Otherwise they shall not do that which is abominable."


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> the truth is abikersailor is hot



I thought you were giving me a hard time because you thought I was flirting. Tisk tisk!!


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> You call yourself truthspeaker, yet you are not willing to examine the meaning of truth?



As I mentioned to the sailor, Truth is constant, perception is the great unknown throughout the world. I say I know the truth, but others think they know it. Some issues can be proven with iron clad facts, but things of a spiritual nature will have to be proven to some after their lives are over. Hence our agreeing to disagree. One is right but will not be able to convince the other of the truth in many cases.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sailor, congratulations on being hotter than I.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> You are right. But in this forum the dictionary definition is the most diplomatic. Truth is 1 thing all the time. But perception of truth changes as a result of humans being imperfect. That is why faith is so important.



See dude.......that's where the demons get ya.

They sew you up in words, and use your own perceptions against you.

By the way.....demons are generally people who let their animal nature get the better of their Torah learning.

They don't lie.....you lie to yourself.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> Because our doctrine teaches that polygamy is only to be practiced when commanded by the Lord. See Jacob chapter 2 "If I the Lord, will raise up seed unto me then I will command my people. Otherwise they shall not do that which is abominable."



Id that in the book of mormon because I have a copy. how come joseph smith and brigham young were polygamists?


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> I thought you were giving me a hard time because you thought I was flirting. Tisk tisk!!



I was flirting abikersailor is HOT thats the truth


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Id that in the book of mormon because I have a copy. how come joseph smith and brigham young were polygamists?



It is found in the Book of Mormon and you better believe that Joseph was the one who translated that account originally. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were commanded of the Lord just like Ancient Prophets in the Bible were. The command was to raise up seed unto the Lord and populate the children of Israel in the new world. Not everyone was commanded to do this but it was commanded for a few during the early days of the church and when the time was no longer necessary it was discontinued. 
Another part of the reason was that there were and extreme amount of widows who's husbands or fathers and brothers were killed and needed protection from a man. It was a different age and different social structure as well and nobody knew that better than God himself. That's why he had us all born in different times because we are all different in our preferences.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.....I look at Allah and Moroni in the same way.......

They're fallen angels.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.....I look at Allah and Moroni in the same way.......

They're fallen angels.


----------



## Shogun

allah *is* the god of abraham.  


Allah (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#8206;, All&#257;h, IPA: [&#660;al&#740;&#720;&#593;&#720;h] pronunciation (help·info)) is the standard Arabic word for 'God.'[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God".[2][1][3] The term was also used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[4]
Allah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shogun

allah *is* the god of abraham.  


Allah (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#8206;, All&#257;h, IPA: [&#660;al&#740;&#720;&#593;&#720;h] pronunciation (help·info)) is the standard Arabic word for 'God.'[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God".[2][1][3] The term was also used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[4]
Allah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.....I look at Allah and Moroni in the same way.......
> 
> They're fallen angels.



That is a weird statement, so you believe Moroni was a real angel then if you assume he is fallen?
Allah is the Arabic word for God. So I don't believe Allah is fallen at all.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Shogun said:


> allah *is* the god of abraham.
> 
> 
> Allah (Arabic: &#1575;&#1604;&#1604;&#1607;&#8206;, All&#257;h, IPA: [&#660;al&#740;&#720;&#593;&#720;h] pronunciation (help·info)) is the standard Arabic word for 'God.'[1] While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, in reference to "God".[2][1][3] The term was also used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[4]
> Allah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Here's why I say that.......

When Ishmael and his mother were kicked out of the tribe of Abraham, she wandered over and ended up in the area of Mecca.  Near death, needing water and food, she prayed, and an entity (I personally think a demon) appeared to her.  He then told her that God had sent him to save her and Ishmael, struck the ground and the Zam-Zam well appeared.

Nope......that "angel" was actually a demon, and I think that the name of it is Allah.  Too much evidence in the Quaran for me to think otherwise........it's all mixed up and has a great deal of mysticism in it.  Kinda like a book (which weighs in at 165 lbs) that is known as the Devil's Bible.  If ya get a chance, watch it on Nat Geo.  

And......since the Islamic religion is based on domination and death, with no room for original or free thought, it is restrictive of creation (which is also reflected in their subjugation of their women), so therefore it is a false religion.

Mormons subjugate their women also....they've got a really strange Bible.....

Which is why I think Mormonism is a false religion also.


----------



## Shogun

i'll say it one more time.  The word "Allah" means "god".  Say what you will about islam but when Habib the Muslim says "Allah" he is speaking of the same god that you do when you think of jesus christ sr.


And, to be honest, your OT takes the wind out of your sails when talking shit on the koran.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Shogun said:


> i'll say it one more time.  The word "Allah" means "god".  Say what you will about islam but when Habib the Muslim says "Allah" he is speaking of the same god that you do when you think of jesus christ sr.
> 
> 
> And, to be honest, your OT takes the wind out of your sails when talking shit on the koran.



Yeah......and the phrase "ef kedi stoh" means thank you in Greek.  I don't care that they called something God, I care what their philosophy and theology is based on.  I want to know why.  Another example.....Bush kept telling us that the economy was "fundamentally strong" and there was no recession this summer.  Come to find out, we've been in one for a year.  Just because you call something a name, does NOT necessarily mean that name you hung on it is the truth.

Another interesting point.......during the time of Abraham, there was only One True God, but also a LOT of posers.  Some were actual deities, some were just cunning people posing as deities, which is why when Abraham started talking with God, God put him through some pretty intense tests.

Like I said......I think Moroni and Allah are false deities, and their religions are F.U.B.A.R.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Here's why I say that.......
> 
> When Ishmael and his mother were kicked out of the tribe of Abraham, she wandered over and ended up in the area of Mecca.  Near death, needing water and food, she prayed, and an entity (I personally think a demon) appeared to her.  He then told her that God had sent him to save her and Ishmael, struck the ground and the Zam-Zam well appeared.
> 
> Nope......that "angel" was actually a demon, and I think that the name of it is Allah.  Too much evidence in the Quaran for me to think otherwise........it's all mixed up and has a great deal of mysticism in it.  Kinda like a book (which weighs in at 165 lbs) that is known as the Devil's Bible.  If ya get a chance, watch it on Nat Geo.
> 
> And......since the Islamic religion is based on domination and death, with no room for original or free thought, it is restrictive of creation (which is also reflected in their subjugation of their women), so therefore it is a false religion.
> 
> Mormons subjugate their women also....they've got a really strange Bible.....
> 
> Which is why I think Mormonism is a false religion also.


I'll have to let you keep your opinion but I disagree with your idea of us subjugating our women. They are allowed to do as they please without fear of dominating husbands. Men who excercise unrighteous dominion overthem are considered worse than an infadel.


----------



## Truthspeaker

And we don't worship Moroni.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> I'll have to let you keep your opinion but I disagree with your idea of us subjugating our women. They are allowed to do as they please without fear of dominating husbands. Men who excercise unrighteous dominion overthem are considered worse than an infadel.



Really?  Explain Warren Jeffs and his little cult of Mormonism.  How about the YFZ Ranch?  They claimed to be Mormons also.

And......raising women like cattle, while pushing out the men you don't want is subjugation of women.  There isn't really all that much said about it either dude.......I'm originally from the Pacific Northwest.  Montana to be exact.  Don't try to bullshit me.

Besides.......my next door neighbors in Missoula Mt. were Mormons.  I lived next to them for 2 or 3 years.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Really?  Explain Warren Jeffs and his little cult of Mormonism.  How about the YFZ Ranch?  They claimed to be Mormons also.
> 
> And......raising women like cattle, while pushing out the men you don't want is subjugation of women.  There isn't really all that much said about it either dude.......I'm originally from the Pacific Northwest.  Montana to be exact.  Don't try to bullshit me.
> 
> Besides.......my next door neighbors in Missoula Mt. were Mormons.  I lived next to them for 2 or 3 years.



I know there are break off groups of wackos that do their own thing. But they are not recognized by us. They are not members of our church and we condemn their practices. That is what you don't seem to get. They are not us. 
I hope I can clarify our official stance on this issue.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> I know there are break off groups of wackos that do their own thing. But they are not recognized by us. They are not members of our church and we condemn their practices. That is what you don't seem to get. They are not us.
> I hope I can clarify our official stance on this issue.



Hey, just like there are different varieties of Christians that use the Bible, you all have different varieties of Mormons that use your book.  But......because you all use the same book, you are all culpable of those who use your book wrong.

Nope.......not gonna budge on this one.  Your religion is a cult.

But......to be fair......somewhat of a decent cult for certain groups.


----------



## Shogun

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah......and the phrase "ef kedi stoh" means thank you in Greek.  I don't care that they called something God, I care what their philosophy and theology is based on.  I want to know why.  Another example.....Bush kept telling us that the economy was "fundamentally strong" and there was no recession this summer.  Come to find out, we've been in one for a year.  Just because you call something a name, does NOT necessarily mean that name you hung on it is the truth.
> 
> Another interesting point.......during the time of Abraham, there was only One True God, but also a LOT of posers.  Some were actual deities, some were just cunning people posing as deities, which is why when Abraham started talking with God, God put him through some pretty intense tests.
> 
> Like I said......I think Moroni and Allah are false deities, and their religions are F.U.B.A.R.





opinions and assholes, buddy.  we all have em.  What bush says about the economy doesn't negate the fACT that when a muslim is praying to Allah they are, in fact, praying to the same god of abraham that you do.  Your opinon about what constitutes the REAL faith means two things: jack and shit.  If a man named jesus can spring up from out of nowhere and claim to be the son of god and create a religion from whence your faith owes its roots then who are you to say that god can't do the same thing with the founders of mormonism?


----------



## Shogun

ABikerSailor said:


> Really?  Explain Warren Jeffs and his little cult of Mormonism.  How about the YFZ Ranch?  They claimed to be Mormons also.
> 
> And......raising women like cattle, while pushing out the men you don't want is subjugation of women.  There isn't really all that much said about it either dude.......I'm originally from the Pacific Northwest.  Montana to be exact.  Don't try to bullshit me.
> 
> Besides.......my next door neighbors in Missoula Mt. were Mormons.  I lived next to them for 2 or 3 years.



If you want someone to explain warren jeffs then why don't you take a minute or two to explain FRED PHELPS..


----------



## ABikerSailor

Shogun said:


> opinions and assholes, buddy.  we all have em.  What bush says about the economy doesn't negate the fACT that when a muslim is praying to Allah they are, in fact, praying to the same god of abraham that you do.  Your opinon about what constitutes the REAL faith means two things: jack and shit.  If a man named jesus can spring up from out of nowhere and claim to be the son of god and create a religion from whence your faith owes its roots then who are you to say that god can't do the same thing with the founders of mormonism?



Do you know what "pissed" means in England?  Drunk.  Here, it means angry.  No, words can be manipulated, and that is why I've bounced quite a bit of the Muslim faith and the Q'aran against the Torah and the Bible.  Nope.....Allah is NOT God.  If Allah was God, then why is it He told the Hebrews "thou shalt not bear false witness", and then told the Muslims that it's okay to lie to your enemies?

Kinda contradictory, don't ya think?

As far as Fred Phelps?  He's one of those christian nutjob fanatics who is cherry picking out of the Bible.  Kinda like I"m sure that Warren Jeffs did with the book of Mormon.  Are Christians responsible for his behavior?  Yep, and as a Christian, I denounce him.  However.......doesn't change the fact that any religion can be bastardized, even Jewish, because all one has to do is look at the reason why Jesus came to earth.

Oh yeah.......Always Babbling and Ass Chucker do the same thing.


----------



## Shogun

ABikerSailor said:


> Do you know what "pissed" means in England?  Drunk.  Here, it means angry.  No, words can be manipulated, and that is why I've bounced quite a bit of the Muslim faith and the Q'aran against the Torah and the Bible.  Nope.....Allah is NOT God.  If Allah was God, then why is it He told the Hebrews "thou shalt not bear false witness", and then told the Muslims that it's okay to lie to your enemies?
> 
> Kinda contradictory, don't ya think?
> 
> As far as Fred Phelps?  He's one of those christian nutjob fanatics who is cherry picking out of the Bible.  Kinda like I"m sure that Warren Jeffs did with the book of Mormon.  Are Christians responsible for his behavior?  Yep, and as a Christian, I denounce him.  However.......doesn't change the fact that any religion can be bastardized, even Jewish, because all one has to do is look at the reason why Jesus came to earth.
> 
> Oh yeah.......Always Babbling and Ass Chucker do the same thing.


*
Drunk OR pissed, we are still talking about an inebriation caused by the consumption of alcohol*.  Likewise,  the very same god of abraham that you wrap up in your jesus myth IS the same entity that muslims scream Allah at..  You can be stubborn and disbelieve if you want to; hell, i'd expect nothing less from faith mongers.  But, it's still a fact that christians, muslims and jews ALL worship the same entity.  Allah wasn't a demon unless you are calling YOUR god a demon.  


oh, and I guess you answered your own question about the polygamist guy in relation to the churn of mormon in your answer regarding phelps.  thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## AllieBaba

I love it when a biblical retard sets himself up as some sort of authority.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well, there are some interesting points in Torah about that.

Check out the Universal Torah Network, and check the series "The Way of God".


----------



## chloe

ABikerSailor said:


> Really?  Explain Warren Jeffs and his little cult of Mormonism.  How about the YFZ Ranch?  They claimed to be Mormons also.
> 
> And......raising women like cattle, while pushing out the men you don't want is subjugation of women.  There isn't really all that much said about it either dude.......I'm originally from the Pacific Northwest.  Montana to be exact.  Don't try to bullshit me.
> 
> Besides.......my next door neighbors in Missoula Mt. were Mormons.  I lived next to them for 2 or 3 years.



Warren Jeffs is not part of the Official Church, who knows if they use the book of mormon, some of the offshoots do but they practice the way Joseph Smith did back when women were widows. But Warren Jeffs is just a pedaphile I doubt he even reads the book of mormon. He even admitted in jail he is not the Prophet and felt stressed the obligation put on him.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> And we don't worship Moroni.



Just Heavenly Father?


----------



## Truthspeaker

That's correct. And Jesus Christ.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well......then tell me why you guys post up Moron-i like Christians post up Jesus?

WTF?


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey, just like there are different varieties of Christians that use the Bible, you all have different varieties of Mormons that use your book.  But......because you all use the same book, you are all culpable of those who use your book wrong.
> 
> Nope.......not gonna budge on this one.  Your religion is a cult.
> 
> But......to be fair......somewhat of a decent cult for certain groups.



Definition of Cult again: a specific set of religious beliefs or practices. 

Fine by me. 

But also, we are not culpable for errors that others make. We are the authority on our doctrine not those who are not members of our church but use an unrecognized interpretation of our book.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Well......then tell me why you guys post up Moron-i like Christians post up Jesus?
> 
> WTF?



Just because we put up his symbol to admire it doesn't mean we worship the dang thing. That would be idol worship. 

Symbols mean a lot to us as a reminder to keep the faith in Christ. The statue of Moroni on the top of temples is a reminder that the angels(not just moroni but all angels) trumpets will sound at the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ in glory. The statue always faces East because that is the direction he will appear in our views.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well, with the way your church handles him, it looks suspiciously like idolatry, which, as you know (hopefully), is against what God said in the 10 Commandments, which in turn, makes it a false religion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

If you read my last post it is quite clear we don't worship it. I even mentioned that that would be idol worship. Yeah, I know it's bad to do that.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Well then, explain the special treatment accorded Moron-i only, while all the other angels are second to him?

Like I said, in your religion, he's accorded the same status given to Jesus by Christians.

Don't you silly believers understand that there's a heirarchy, and Moron-i ain't in it.

It goes.......

HaShem
Yeshua
the World


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> I love it when a biblical retard sets himself up as some sort of authority.



You're quite the Biblical retard yourself, considering that you still haven't replied to my textual criticism of differences between the Gospels of Mark and John, as well as my noting that several passages in the Bible were added by later scribes.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Well then, explain the special treatment accorded Moron-i only, while all the other angels are second to him?
> 
> Like I said, in your religion, he's accorded the same status given to Jesus by Christians.
> 
> Don't you silly believers understand that there's a heirarchy, and Moron-i ain't in it.
> 
> It goes.......
> 
> HaShem
> Yeshua
> the World



I don't know where you are getting these ideas about Moroni getting special treatment. We hold him in regards equal with other prophets of the Bible and Book of Mormon. In fact he was quite a remarkable man. After the Nephite nation was destroyed by the Lamanites, his father Mormon being one of the last to die, Moroni was the very last of the true Christians in the pre-Columbian Americas. He wandered in the wilderness for 36 years trying to avoid christian hunters who would execute him if they found him. They were also on a mission to destroy all spiritual writings they could find. 
Moroni said "for they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ, and I Moroni will not deny the Christ. Wherefore I wander, whithersoever I can, for the safety of mine own life."
In his old age, he had wandered to what is now known as present day upstate New York. Buried the sacred gold plates and wrote many wonderful things on them before he hid them. He taught us a lot about having faith in Christ and receiving answers to our prayers by the power of the Holy Ghost.

As a resurrected messenger of God, he appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision and instructed him on where to find the plates and what to do in order to prepare himself for a work that the Lord was to have him do. he showed Joseph the location on the same day for four straight years at the age of 20. He told Joseph that he would not be allowed to touch the plates until he was 24 years old. He actually once tried to take the plates out of the box ahead of time but was shocked by God and then reprimanded. Joseph repented of his sin and was eventually prepared properly for the work he was then commanded to do. 
That is the teaching we receive concerning Moroni. He was anything but a Moron as you have disrespectfully referred to him.


----------



## AllieBaba

Agnapostate said:


> You're quite the Biblical retard yourself, considering that you still haven't replied to my textual criticism of differences between the Gospels of Mark and John, as well as my noting that several passages in the Bible were added by later scribes.



I didn't respond to them because it takes too much time. People try to draw believers into these ridiculous "high minded" discussions all the time. They're without exception ignorant and based on nothing but vague possibilities and suppositions.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> I didn't respond to them because it takes too much time. People try to draw believers into these ridiculous "high minded" discussions all the time. They're without exception ignorant and based on nothing but vague possibilities and suppositions.



No, you failed to reply because you couldn't think of any explanation for the clearly documented proof that we don't possess an "infallible" version of the Bible. Are you not _"prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you to give an account of the hope that is in you"_? (1 Peter 3:15)

As I mentioned previously, the Gospel of Mark, (which was likely the first Gospel written), recounts that the Passover had started before Jesus was killed, (Mark 14:12 & 15:25), and that the "first day of unleavened bread" (Nisan 14) had occurred, whereas the Gospel of John claims that Jesus had been crucified prior to the consumption of the Passover meal. (John 19:14). In addition, in Mark 15:25, Mark claims that Jesus was crucified in "the third hour," whereas John claims in John 19:14 that it was "about the sixth hour." Even if we were to assume that John used the Roman method of reckoning time rather than the Jewish method, this still presents a chronological difficulty in that Mark's "third hour" would have been about 9:00 AM, whereas John's "sixth hour" would have been about 6:00 AM.

What is your explanation of this inconsistency?


----------



## AllieBaba

Agnapostate said:


> No, you failed to reply because you couldn't think of any explanation for the clearly documented proof that we don't possess an "infallible" version of the Bible. Are you not _"prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you to give an account of the hope that is in you"_? (1 Peter 3:15)
> 
> As I mentioned previously, the Gospel of Mark, (which was likely the first Gospel written), recounts that the Passover had started before Jesus was killed, (Mark 14:12 & 15:25), and that the "first day of unleavened bread" (Nisan 14) had occurred, whereas the Gospel of John claims that Jesus had been crucified prior to the consumption of the Passover meal. (John 19:14). In addition, in Mark 15:25, Mark claims that Jesus was crucified in "the third hour," whereas John claims in John 19:14 that it was "about the sixth hour." Even if we were to assume that John used the Roman method of reckoning time rather than the Jewish method, this still presents a chronological difficulty in that Mark's "third hour" would have been about 9:00 AM, whereas John's "sixth hour" would have been about 6:00 AM.
> 
> What is your explanation of this inconsistency?



And as I pointed out, a discrepency of 3 hours isn't worth addressing.


----------



## sky dancer

Moroni is a 'real' angel?  What gives an angel it's 'reality'?


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> And as I pointed out, a discrepency of 3 hours isn't worth addressing.



That's a discrepancy of *one to two days*, not 3 hours. Read the part about the Passover again.


----------



## AllieBaba

If that's the best you've got, as I said, there's no point in wasting time on it.


----------



## ABikerSailor

And she calls me a Bible retard.


----------



## AllieBaba

You are a bible retard.
My refusal to be baited into a ridiculous circular argument about discrepancies of time has nothing to do with the fact that you make huge, bumbling, and obvious mistakes all the time while attempting to appear a bible scholar.

When you do it it's funny, I can't help ribbing you.

When someone like Agno does it, it's just a waste of time.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> If that's the best you've got, as I said, there's no point in wasting time on it.



So a one-to-two day discrepancy in a "divinely inspired" text regarding an event that many Christians consider to be the most important in all of human history is a "waste of time"? Curious attitude. One might wonder why Christians would "waste time" on fleeting verses in the Bible regarding homosexuality, in that case.


----------



## AllieBaba

When you have different people writing about the same event, but from different perspectives, you expect to have differences in what they report, and even timelines.

That does not change the fact that there is a purpose. There is a reason that the gospel of Luke is different from the gospel of Matthew, and Matthew from John, and those reasons are known to God.

But the bible is not contradictory in any way shape or form. While you may have different timelines, the story remains the same. And the fact remains that while the disciples were speaking to thousands upon thousands of people who lived in the time of Christ, who saw the miracles and his death...NOBODY contradicted them. Nobody, including Romans, stepped forward to say "this is not true".


----------



## ABikerSailor

Agnapostate said:


> So a one-to-two day discrepancy in a "divinely inspired" text regarding an event that many Christians consider to be the most important in all of human history is a "waste of time"? Curious attitude. One might wonder why Christians would "waste time" on fleeting verses in the Bible regarding homosexuality, in that case.



If it doesn't agree with her, it's a "waste of time" to her.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> When you have different people writing about the same event, but from different perspectives, you expect to have differences in what they report, and even timelines.
> 
> That does not change the fact that there is a purpose. There is a reason that the gospel of Luke is different from the gospel of Matthew, and Matthew from John, and those reasons are known to God.
> 
> But the bible is not contradictory in any way shape or form. While you may have different timelines, the story remains the same. And the fact remains that while the disciples were speaking to thousands upon thousands of people who lived in the time of Christ, who saw the miracles and his death...NOBODY contradicted them. Nobody, including Romans, stepped forward to say "this is not true".



On the contrary, those accounts are blatantly contradictory. They assert utterly different time frames. They are a contradiction just as when Paul says in Galatians 1:16-17 that he did not immediately go down to see the apostles in Jerusalem after encountering Jesus at Damascus, while, in Acts 9:26, he is recorded as attempting to do so.  

Or when the Pharisees rebuked Jesus because his disciples plucked heads of grain on the Sabbath, when it was unlawful to do so, and Jesus says in Mark 2:25-26 that King David and his men had done the same thing with the Temple showbread when Abiathar was the high priest, despite the fact that the incident he cited, (in 1 Samuel 21:1-6), it is Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, who is the high priest. 

Or you might consider the portions of Scripture that are blatantly wrong. Such as when Jesus says in Mark 4:31 that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in the world, despite the fact that it is not. Or Deuteronomy 14:7, when "God" claims that the Israelites are prohibited from eating the rock hyrax because it chews the cud, despite the fact that it does not. Those might be mistakes that ignorant men might make, but not omniscient beings.


----------



## sky dancer

ABikerSailor said:


> If it doesn't agree with her, it's a "waste of time" to her.




Let me know when you find someone who agrees with her.


----------



## Agnapostate

But Jerry Falwell's dead.


----------



## AllieBaba

Oh for  heaven's sakes.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah.......and Ted Haggard has decided to lay low!


----------



## Agnapostate

I'm not sure I want to think about that image.


----------



## chloe

A little bit of what truthspeaker says makes sense to me now. The part where he said that Jospeh Smith saw God, because that's what the bible always says, the people in it always spoke to God or saw him whatever. So why would it just stop>?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Agnapostate said:


> No, you failed to reply because you couldn't think of any explanation for the clearly documented proof that we don't possess an "infallible" version of the Bible. Are you not _"prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you to give an account of the hope that is in you"_? (1 Peter 3:15)
> 
> As I mentioned previously, the Gospel of Mark, (which was likely the first Gospel written), recounts that the Passover had started before Jesus was killed, (Mark 14:12 & 15:25), and that the "first day of unleavened bread" (Nisan 14) had occurred, whereas the Gospel of John claims that Jesus had been crucified prior to the consumption of the Passover meal. (John 19:14). In addition, in Mark 15:25, Mark claims that Jesus was crucified in "the third hour," whereas John claims in John 19:14 that it was "about the sixth hour." Even if we were to assume that John used the Roman method of reckoning time rather than the Jewish method, this still presents a chronological difficulty in that Mark's "third hour" would have been about 9:00 AM, whereas John's "sixth hour" would have been about 6:00 AM.
> 
> What is your explanation of this inconsistency?



We all know that the Bible has gone through some pretty harsh gauntlets and it is amazing that we have anything left of it today. Seeing as it was kept in private hands for how many hundred years, left in the care of how many corrupt priests? Of course there are going to be lots of plain and precious truths lost because of the interpolations of wicked and conspiring men. This is the reason that we need a living prophet to help interpret these things. Someone who doesn't use his own wisdom but gets the interpretation from the Lord.
The important thing if someone wants to know if the messages in the Bible is true is to pray to God for a personal understanding of them. He always gives the same answer to honest people who truly ask in humility.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Moroni is a 'real' angel?  What gives an angel it's 'reality'?



The only way to know if something is real without actually seeing it with your eyes is to pray to God and ask in the name of Christ if a thing is true?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Agnapostate said:


> So a one-to-two day discrepancy in a "divinely inspired" text regarding an event that many Christians consider to be the most important in all of human history is a "waste of time"? Curious attitude. One might wonder why Christians would "waste time" on fleeting verses in the Bible regarding homosexuality, in that case.



I don't think any matter in the scriptures is a waste of time as long as it is a meaningful discussion between two parties willing to listen to each other.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> A little bit of what truthspeaker says makes sense to me now. The part where he said that Jospeh Smith saw God, because that's what the bible always says, the people in it always spoke to God or saw him whatever. So why would it just stop>?



Why thank you cloe. If someone believes that God is the same today, yesterday and forever, then it doesn't make sense that he would change the way he operates and no longer talk to prophets. The question is then very polarizing. Is a prophet true or false and how would we know. This seems a logical scripture found in the Bible:
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

Unless you are very afraid of having your opinion of Joseph Smith change dramatically. Click this link to view one of the most impressive prophecies of all time. This prophecy of the civil war down to it's minutest details are squeaky clean and irrefutable as they were prophesied in 1832 and the Civil war wasn't until the mid 1860's. Joseph had been dead a long time. The truth has a certain ring to it. Who will hear it?
Joseph Smith's War Prophecy


----------



## chloe

Interesting, but maybe someone gave him inside political information.....


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> Interesting, but maybe someone gave him inside political information.....



The only possible person who could have given inside information about exactly how a war would play out over 33 years in advance would have been God himself. One can't begin to guess that accurately. That would be one hell of a guess.



btw-Anyone ever seen the movie "Glory"?


----------



## Eightball

chloe said:


> A little bit of what truthspeaker says makes sense to me now. The part where he said that Jospeh Smith saw God, because that's what the bible always says, the people in it always spoke to God or saw him whatever. So why would it just stop>?



Chloe:  The bible or scripture cautions us about validating alleged "truth" based on the senses...i.e.   "I saw God!".

I have posted two times, a very strong rebuttle to J.S. Jr.'s being a spokesman for God's truth, right from Paul's N.T. book, Romans.  

"FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD."

I.E. Chloe:  Even in Paul's time, there were Joseph Smith types who claimed to have the "truth", and claimed to have experienced supernatural phenomena that they "of course" attributed to God.  Many were sadly misled, yet they had been cautioned/warned.  Manmade religions say that they "esteem" God, but it's basically a secondary prioriy to doing what they esteem the most.  That is working hard to "please" God.  "Pleasing" God can be a precarious path, as it often leads to something called "works" or "legalism".  Basically this is a means in which man tries/attempts to assuage his guilt ridden soul by doing "goodie two shoes" attempts towards humanity or the world to gain "brownie points" with his/her maker.  It may take the form of rabid participation in saving the whales, the Death Valley Pupfish, the Manatee......etc...  It may involve pushing for all kinds of welfare reforms even to the absurd.  Man is born with a conscience that validates God's truthful premise that we are a most sinful people.  The greatest sin, is the pride in "self", and the "I'll do it my way." type of pride that rebells against giving-up, giving-in, surrendering, serving, self-sacrificing, etc....  This is all foreign to the natural born human mind.

So these great religions pop up that claim to be the fix-it-all of mainstream biblical Christianity.  They proceed to point out alleged flaws, and discrepancies in biblical Christianity, and of course have their answer to the problem.  Wa La!  We create Latter Day Prophets......Joseph Smith Jr. conveniently comes on the scene.  Although God tolerated polygamy in the O.T., it definetly ended during the N.T. as "ok".  Not with J.S. Jr.'s new reformed Christianity.  J.S. Jr. had many wives, and many were very young.........His co-patriot, Brigham Young also had many wives too.  Interestingly, it's novel how cults often seem to go the multiple wife route.  Why not, that male human drive to pro-create is fed to the limit in J.S. Jr's religion.   

There is a natural tendency in humanity to try and work out guilt, or pay back to others when receiving a gift.  Gifts are not rewards, but are given without having to earn them.  This biblical salvation.  A gift, via Christs sacrifice, not ours.  He did it in our "stead".  Yet, the man inspired religions of the world can't comprehend a "free" gift, but must "earn" it via works........."Be a good Mormon, or Moonie, or Scientologist", and you will have rewards.....  God is good, Christ is good, we receive God's goodness, and it's done.  Our part is belief, or faith.  That is an act of our human wills.  The enemy of our wills and souls will do everything possible to disuade you and I from believing. They will make prerequisites to it.  You must do this or that.  You must get baptised first.  You must learn a catechism first, you must say this chant or this prayer......or do so many deeds.  God doesn't need deeds.  He wants us............our lives, our love, our intimacy, and belief in Him as our all in all.  Giving Up:  That at the core.  We fight the good life of earthly living, but sooner or later we get exhausted.........That's when it's time to finally let God to what we can't do.  That's cope with life hand in hand with Him.  Let Him be the pilot.  We don't even occupy the co-pilot seat.  We need to take a passenger's seat, and just trust that the plane/our life is in good hands.

Throughout the bible, and especially the N.T., Christians are cautioned to "beware!" of the wiles and deceptions of the enemy of God's children and the human race in total; namely Lucifer/Satan.  He was one of the most powerful and beautiful creatures in heaven.  There is even evidence in the scripture that Lucifer might have been a Seraphim, or one of the majestic/powerful multi-winged creatures that stood before God's throne in heaven, before he/Satan was cast out with 1/3 or the heavenly host/angels who also abided in Satan and not in God.  These beautiful creatures apparently had free-will, not unlike humanity, yet they were eye witnesses to God's very beauty, and character, and still rebelled, as they wanted to be "Like God" Himself, and not humbly serve Him in gratitude and awe.

So Joseph Smith Jr. has this vision and says he saw an angel who identified itself as "Moroni".  Ok, thats possible, but remember that 1/3 of the angels created by God rebelled in eternity past, and are now renamed "demons", though they are still angels.  They have a Commander and Chief named Lucifer, who is not omnipresent, but has myriads of demons to work on the souls of humanity across this terrestrial ball called "earth".  Lucifer in a sense is self-deluded, as he still assumes that he can "win" in essence this mighty, battle with God in heavenly/spiritual realms unseen by the eyes of mere earthly man.  

Jesus Himself told His disciples that He saw Lucifer fall from the heavens to earth with his army of wicked-minded angels.  They now go about the earth tempting mankind in ways to attempt to thwart God's Holy Spirit, which is also tugging at the heart/consciences of mankind.

How Do They Do This?:

False miracles, not from God.  False visions, not from God.
False prophets and prophetesses, not from God.

How can we be sure what messages are right and from God, and what are from the literal "pit" of evil or Satan's authorship?

Paul had a very simple and effective play.  He told the current believers/Christians of his day to do as the Bereans do.  What did the Berean believers do?  Well, whenever a person came to Berea or to their church or gatherings in Berea and claimed to be speaking words from God, or performing miracles in the name of God, he/Paul said that the Bereans immediately fleed to their scripture of God to validate or verify these messages and messengers.

As I quoted that Romans verse above, we Christians are supposed to bring all "things" of question or of supposed God inspiriation to the scriptures, bar none!  God's scripture will not fail to enlighten, and keep us safe from being misled, and or disceived.  

Our faith is non based on miracles, visions, dreams, voices in our head, but on scriptural truth that reveals the true nature of God, and His gospel of reconciliation with the human race through the redemptive work of His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.  

In every case, the best way to test if a religion is Christian to the core, is test it's material, or doctrine in the area of how they deal with Jesus.  Is He, non created by has always been, and is and always will be......I.E.  "The same yesterday, today, and forever." "The Alpha and Omega." "The I AM", who existed before the prophets, before time, before creation, for eternity past, present, and future.

The Mormon doctrine of Jesus Christ cannot fullfill that descriptiron of their "jesus".  Their Journal of Discourses, and Book of Mormon cannot.

When a Mormon missionary comes to your door and asks if you will pray and ask God to tell you if Mormonism is the "truth", they are breaking the cardinal rule that Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ set down in Romans.  "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD(scriptures/bible) OF GOD."

People that laugh at the fact that God in His omnipotence can and has protected His Word/scripture throughout the ages are saying that God is basically week, and can't control that which He created.

Who can follow a god, that let's his word or alleged truths become corrupted as the Mormons claim the present day bible is?  

The bible succinctly says that God holds the stars and the sun, and earth and all things in suspension according to His might strength and wisdom.  In the N.T. book of Collosians, Paul clearly said that all things were created in and through Jesus Christ Himself.  God the Father is Spirit, Jesu Christ God's Son is God in the flesh/incarnate so that man would and could glimpse and understand the true nature of God, and the Holy Spirit is our counselor that indwells Christians/believers and enables, directs, and protects us, and is God's lasting seal on our souls that we are His for eternity.

Mormonism is a manmade counterfeit.  It's jesus is a skewed strange jesus that if you read the many sermons of Brigham Young, and check out the Journal of Discourses, you will find a most strange belief system.

Throughout it's inception, Mormonism has had to adapt, and change many of their doctrinal stances, as they went against common biblical, ethical rules of culture, and human life.  They had to withdraw their Polygamous doctrine, their ban on Negroid/African decent human beings being allowed into their priesthoods.......etc..

The most revolting counterfeit is their Melkisidek(Mispelled but phonetically correct) priesthood.  This Priest is indeed listed in Genesis, and was the priest that met and blessed Abraham after his battles.  Abraham gave this priest a tenth of his spoils/riches from his battles as a than offering or worshipful offering to God.  Melkisidek is clearly stated to have no geneology in the bible, and many notable bible scholars believe Him to have been the pre-incarnate Christ.  There is no more mention of Melkisidek accept, I believe in the book of Hebrews by Paul.  

The LDS church has used this priest's name and bestowed this priesthood on many of their most obedient members.  This is pure blasphemy!  We are not God nor are we little gods.  We are created, we have a geneology, and we are not a type of Christ.

Paul said that every Christian, or every believer/elect is a priest, in the principle that we have access to the Most High/God, through the Spirit of Jesus/Holy Spirit.  How do we have access?  Christ said, "It is finished!" on the cross.  He died, and the Holy veil in the Jerusalem temple that guarded the Holy of Holies place from all of humanity except the Levitical Priest who once a year could enter the veil, was torn in two or asunder!  This was Gods direct intervention, telling mankind that Jesus had made entrance to the Holy of Holies accessible to all of mankind through His sacrifice of His life, and blood.  So all who would believe by faith on Jesus's work would also enter in to the Holy of Holies, or have access to an intimate relationship with God.  Our sin stained souls were no longer a road block to access to our Creator.  Jesus took those sin-stains, and suffered God's eternal punishment for them all.

Our Part:  Just accept, believe, surrender, commit, and live-on in faith that God has taken care of it all.

Our earthly lives may not be any different that the family next door, or may be even worse, but, we are secure, and have received an "eternity" of life that does not end at death.  We only give up our old battered earth suit, and live on in with our God in heaven.  No more tears, no more regrets, no more repentance, no more sin........

We will be clothed in garments of such brightness and purity that our earthly eyes can't comprehend!  

J.S. offers you a planet of your own to pro-create another human race not to different from the 77 virgins for Islamic martyrs.  It is all man based/created incentives, lacking grace, humility, humbleness, and the joy of true salvation with the utmost of security.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know......the really interesting thing is, that those who claim to hear God, are generally not real open to hearing other viewpoints.  Now, if God is everything, then that would mean that beliefs I don't necessarily carry that others have should be accorded the same respect that I would want mine.  The only exception for that is when I figure out something isn't a true religion, then I attack it.

But.....there are many places where God has told us that we've got to have an open mind, which means a "one way only" attitude has gotta ease up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Joseph Smith NEVER to my knowledge claimed to have SEEN God. He was visited by Angels of God. 

You will have to point me DIRECTLY to verifiable source that claims he saw God. That is NOT a claim made by any missionary I have ever had a conversation with, nor with anyone in the church.

As a Prophet God would have talked to him possibly directly. That is NOT the same as God appearing before a mortal man.


----------



## AllieBaba

I would find it difficult to believe that gaybiker has any firmer a grasp on Mormonism than he does on the content of the bible.


----------



## chloe

Eightball said:


> Chloe:  The bible or scripture cautions us about validating alleged "truth" based on the senses...i.e.   "I saw God!".
> 
> I have posted two times, a very strong rebuttle to J.S. Jr.'s being a spokesman for God's truth, right from Paul's N.T. book, Romans.
> 
> "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD."
> 
> I.E. Chloe:  Even in Paul's time, there were Joseph Smith types who claimed to have the "truth", and claimed to have experienced supernatural phenomena that they "of course" attributed to God.  Many were sadly misled, yet they had been cautioned/warned.  Manmade religions say that they "esteem" God, but it's basically a secondary prioriy to doing what they esteem the most.  That is working hard to "please" God.  "Pleasing" God can be a precarious path, as it often leads to something called "works" or "legalism".  Basically this is a means in which man tries/attempts to assuage his guilt ridden soul by doing "goodie two shoes" attempts towards humanity or the world to gain "brownie points" with his/her maker.  It may take the form of rabid participation in saving the whales, the Death Valley Pupfish, the Manatee......etc...  It may involve pushing for all kinds of welfare reforms even to the absurd.  Man is born with a conscience that validates God's truthful premise that we are a most sinful people.  The greatest sin, is the pride in "self", and the "I'll do it my way." type of pride that rebells against giving-up, giving-in, surrendering, serving, self-sacrificing, etc....  This is all foreign to the natural born human mind.
> 
> So these great religions pop up that claim to be the fix-it-all of mainstream biblical Christianity.  They proceed to point out alleged flaws, and discrepancies in biblical Christianity, and of course have their answer to the problem.  Wa La!  We create Latter Day Prophets......Joseph Smith Jr. conveniently comes on the scene.  Although God tolerated polygamy in the O.T., it definetly ended during the N.T. as "ok".  Not with J.S. Jr.'s new reformed Christianity.  J.S. Jr. had many wives, and many were very young.........His co-patriot, Brigham Young also had many wives too.  Interestingly, it's novel how cults often seem to go the multiple wife route.  Why not, that male human drive to pro-create is fed to the limit in J.S. Jr's religion.
> 
> There is a natural tendency in humanity to try and work out guilt, or pay back to others when receiving a gift.  Gifts are not rewards, but are given without having to earn them.  This biblical salvation.  A gift, via Christs sacrifice, not ours.  He did it in our "stead".  Yet, the man inspired religions of the world can't comprehend a "free" gift, but must "earn" it via works........."Be a good Mormon, or Moonie, or Scientologist", and you will have rewards.....  God is good, Christ is good, we receive God's goodness, and it's done.  Our part is belief, or faith.  That is an act of our human wills.  The enemy of our wills and souls will do everything possible to disuade you and I from believing. They will make prerequisites to it.  You must do this or that.  You must get baptised first.  You must learn a catechism first, you must say this chant or this prayer......or do so many deeds.  God doesn't need deeds.  He wants us............our lives, our love, our intimacy, and belief in Him as our all in all.  Giving Up:  That at the core.  We fight the good life of earthly living, but sooner or later we get exhausted.........That's when it's time to finally let God to what we can't do.  That's cope with life hand in hand with Him.  Let Him be the pilot.  We don't even occupy the co-pilot seat.  We need to take a passenger's seat, and just trust that the plane/our life is in good hands.
> 
> Throughout the bible, and especially the N.T., Christians are cautioned to "beware!" of the wiles and deceptions of the enemy of God's children and the human race in total; namely Lucifer/Satan.  He was one of the most powerful and beautiful creatures in heaven.  There is even evidence in the scripture that Lucifer might have been a Seraphim, or one of the majestic/powerful multi-winged creatures that stood before God's throne in heaven, before he/Satan was cast out with 1/3 or the heavenly host/angels who also abided in Satan and not in God.  These beautiful creatures apparently had free-will, not unlike humanity, yet they were eye witnesses to God's very beauty, and character, and still rebelled, as they wanted to be "Like God" Himself, and not humbly serve Him in gratitude and awe.
> 
> So Joseph Smith Jr. has this vision and says he saw an angel who identified itself as "Moroni".  Ok, thats possible, but remember that 1/3 of the angels created by God rebelled in eternity past, and are now renamed "demons", though they are still angels.  They have a Commander and Chief named Lucifer, who is not omnipresent, but has myriads of demons to work on the souls of humanity across this terrestrial ball called "earth".  Lucifer in a sense is self-deluded, as he still assumes that he can "win" in essence this mighty, battle with God in heavenly/spiritual realms unseen by the eyes of mere earthly man.
> 
> Jesus Himself told His disciples that He saw Lucifer fall from the heavens to earth with his army of wicked-minded angels.  They now go about the earth tempting mankind in ways to attempt to thwart God's Holy Spirit, which is also tugging at the heart/consciences of mankind.
> 
> How Do They Do This?:
> 
> False miracles, not from God.  False visions, not from God.
> False prophets and prophetesses, not from God.
> 
> How can we be sure what messages are right and from God, and what are from the literal "pit" of evil or Satan's authorship?
> 
> Paul had a very simple and effective play.  He told the current believers/Christians of his day to do as the Bereans do.  What did the Berean believers do?  Well, whenever a person came to Berea or to their church or gatherings in Berea and claimed to be speaking words from God, or performing miracles in the name of God, he/Paul said that the Bereans immediately fleed to their scripture of God to validate or verify these messages and messengers.
> 
> As I quoted that Romans verse above, we Christians are supposed to bring all "things" of question or of supposed God inspiriation to the scriptures, bar none!  God's scripture will not fail to enlighten, and keep us safe from being misled, and or disceived.
> 
> Our faith is non based on miracles, visions, dreams, voices in our head, but on scriptural truth that reveals the true nature of God, and His gospel of reconciliation with the human race through the redemptive work of His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.
> 
> In every case, the best way to test if a religion is Christian to the core, is test it's material, or doctrine in the area of how they deal with Jesus.  Is He, non created by has always been, and is and always will be......I.E.  "The same yesterday, today, and forever." "The Alpha and Omega." "The I AM", who existed before the prophets, before time, before creation, for eternity past, present, and future.
> 
> The Mormon doctrine of Jesus Christ cannot fullfill that descriptiron of their "jesus".  Their Journal of Discourses, and Book of Mormon cannot.
> 
> When a Mormon missionary comes to your door and asks if you will pray and ask God to tell you if Mormonism is the "truth", they are breaking the cardinal rule that Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ set down in Romans.  "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD(scriptures/bible) OF GOD."
> 
> People that laugh at the fact that God in His omnipotence can and has protected His Word/scripture throughout the ages are saying that God is basically week, and can't control that which He created.
> 
> Who can follow a god, that let's his word or alleged truths become corrupted as the Mormons claim the present day bible is?
> 
> The bible succinctly says that God holds the stars and the sun, and earth and all things in suspension according to His might strength and wisdom.  In the N.T. book of Collosians, Paul clearly said that all things were created in and through Jesus Christ Himself.  God the Father is Spirit, Jesu Christ God's Son is God in the flesh/incarnate so that man would and could glimpse and understand the true nature of God, and the Holy Spirit is our counselor that indwells Christians/believers and enables, directs, and protects us, and is God's lasting seal on our souls that we are His for eternity.
> 
> Mormonism is a manmade counterfeit.  It's jesus is a skewed strange jesus that if you read the many sermons of Brigham Young, and check out the Journal of Discourses, you will find a most strange belief system.
> 
> Throughout it's inception, Mormonism has had to adapt, and change many of their doctrinal stances, as they went against common biblical, ethical rules of culture, and human life.  They had to withdraw their Polygamous doctrine, their ban on Negroid/African decent human beings being allowed into their priesthoods.......etc..
> 
> The most revolting counterfeit is their Melkisidek(Mispelled but phonetically correct) priesthood.  This Priest is indeed listed in Genesis, and was the priest that met and blessed Abraham after his battles.  Abraham gave this priest a tenth of his spoils/riches from his battles as a than offering or worshipful offering to God.  Melkisidek is clearly stated to have no geneology in the bible, and many notable bible scholars believe Him to have been the pre-incarnate Christ.  There is no more mention of Melkisidek accept, I believe in the book of Hebrews by Paul.
> 
> The LDS church has used this priest's name and bestowed this priesthood on many of their most obedient members.  This is pure blasphemy!  We are not God nor are we little gods.  We are created, we have a geneology, and we are not a type of Christ.
> 
> Paul said that every Christian, or every believer/elect is a priest, in the principle that we have access to the Most High/God, through the Spirit of Jesus/Holy Spirit.  How do we have access?  Christ said, "It is finished!" on the cross.  He died, and the Holy veil in the Jerusalem temple that guarded the Holy of Holies place from all of humanity except the Levitical Priest who once a year could enter the veil, was torn in two or asunder!  This was Gods direct intervention, telling mankind that Jesus had made entrance to the Holy of Holies accessible to all of mankind through His sacrifice of His life, and blood.  So all who would believe by faith on Jesus's work would also enter in to the Holy of Holies, or have access to an intimate relationship with God.  Our sin stained souls were no longer a road block to access to our Creator.  Jesus took those sin-stains, and suffered God's eternal punishment for them all.
> 
> Our Part:  Just accept, believe, surrender, commit, and live-on in faith that God has taken care of it all.
> 
> Our earthly lives may not be any different that the family next door, or may be even worse, but, we are secure, and have received an "eternity" of life that does not end at death.  We only give up our old battered earth suit, and live on in with our God in heaven.  No more tears, no more regrets, no more repentance, no more sin........
> 
> We will be clothed in garments of such brightness and purity that our earthly eyes can't comprehend!
> 
> J.S. offers you a planet of your own to pro-create another human race not to different from the 77 virgins for Islamic martyrs.  It is all man based/created incentives, lacking grace, humility, humbleness, and the joy of true salvation with the utmost of security.



my attention span isn't that long, if you shorten it down I might get it better. , basically if faith comes by hearing it, then who decides who hears it or who is the Prophet? why isn't it allowed for just anyone to be a Prophet nowadays or not allowed to believe someone got word from God about something if people accepted it in the old bible days? Why would God just stop giving commandments? I hope you can explain that to me. thanks.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Judaism has quite a bit of guidance concerning prophets.


----------



## chloe

ABikerSailor said:


> Judaism has quite a bit of guidance concerning prophets.




Do they have Prophets nowadays?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yep.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Chloe:  The bible or scripture cautions us about validating alleged "truth" based on the senses...i.e.   "I saw God!".
> 
> I have posted two times, a very strong rebuttle to J.S. Jr.'s being a spokesman for God's truth, right from Paul's N.T. book, Romans.
> 
> "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD OF GOD."
> 
> I.E. Chloe:  Even in Paul's time, there were Joseph Smith types who claimed to have the "truth", and claimed to have experienced supernatural phenomena that they "of course" attributed to God.  Many were sadly misled, yet they had been cautioned/warned.  Manmade religions say that they "esteem" God, but it's basically a secondary prioriy to doing what they esteem the most.  That is working hard to "please" God.  "Pleasing" God can be a precarious path, as it often leads to something called "works" or "legalism".  Basically this is a means in which man tries/attempts to assuage his guilt ridden soul by doing "goodie two shoes" attempts towards humanity or the world to gain "brownie points" with his/her maker.  It may take the form of rabid participation in saving the whales, the Death Valley Pupfish, the Manatee......etc...  It may involve pushing for all kinds of welfare reforms even to the absurd.  Man is born with a conscience that validates God's truthful premise that we are a most sinful people.  The greatest sin, is the pride in "self", and the "I'll do it my way." type of pride that rebells against giving-up, giving-in, surrendering, serving, self-sacrificing, etc....  This is all foreign to the natural born human mind.
> 
> So these great religions pop up that claim to be the fix-it-all of mainstream biblical Christianity.  They proceed to point out alleged flaws, and discrepancies in biblical Christianity, and of course have their answer to the problem.  Wa La!  We create Latter Day Prophets......Joseph Smith Jr. conveniently comes on the scene.  Although God tolerated polygamy in the O.T., it definetly ended during the N.T. as "ok".  Not with J.S. Jr.'s new reformed Christianity.  J.S. Jr. had many wives, and many were very young.........His co-patriot, Brigham Young also had many wives too.  Interestingly, it's novel how cults often seem to go the multiple wife route.  Why not, that male human drive to pro-create is fed to the limit in J.S. Jr's religion.
> 
> There is a natural tendency in humanity to try and work out guilt, or pay back to others when receiving a gift.  Gifts are not rewards, but are given without having to earn them.  This biblical salvation.  A gift, via Christs sacrifice, not ours.  He did it in our "stead".  Yet, the man inspired religions of the world can't comprehend a "free" gift, but must "earn" it via works........."Be a good Mormon, or Moonie, or Scientologist", and you will have rewards.....  God is good, Christ is good, we receive God's goodness, and it's done.  Our part is belief, or faith.  That is an act of our human wills.  The enemy of our wills and souls will do everything possible to disuade you and I from believing. They will make prerequisites to it.  You must do this or that.  You must get baptised first.  You must learn a catechism first, you must say this chant or this prayer......or do so many deeds.  God doesn't need deeds.  He wants us............our lives, our love, our intimacy, and belief in Him as our all in all.  Giving Up:  That at the core.  We fight the good life of earthly living, but sooner or later we get exhausted.........That's when it's time to finally let God to what we can't do.  That's cope with life hand in hand with Him.  Let Him be the pilot.  We don't even occupy the co-pilot seat.  We need to take a passenger's seat, and just trust that the plane/our life is in good hands.
> 
> Throughout the bible, and especially the N.T., Christians are cautioned to "beware!" of the wiles and deceptions of the enemy of God's children and the human race in total; namely Lucifer/Satan.  He was one of the most powerful and beautiful creatures in heaven.  There is even evidence in the scripture that Lucifer might have been a Seraphim, or one of the majestic/powerful multi-winged creatures that stood before God's throne in heaven, before he/Satan was cast out with 1/3 or the heavenly host/angels who also abided in Satan and not in God.  These beautiful creatures apparently had free-will, not unlike humanity, yet they were eye witnesses to God's very beauty, and character, and still rebelled, as they wanted to be "Like God" Himself, and not humbly serve Him in gratitude and awe.
> 
> So Joseph Smith Jr. has this vision and says he saw an angel who identified itself as "Moroni".  Ok, thats possible, but remember that 1/3 of the angels created by God rebelled in eternity past, and are now renamed "demons", though they are still angels.  They have a Commander and Chief named Lucifer, who is not omnipresent, but has myriads of demons to work on the souls of humanity across this terrestrial ball called "earth".  Lucifer in a sense is self-deluded, as he still assumes that he can "win" in essence this mighty, battle with God in heavenly/spiritual realms unseen by the eyes of mere earthly man.
> 
> Jesus Himself told His disciples that He saw Lucifer fall from the heavens to earth with his army of wicked-minded angels.  They now go about the earth tempting mankind in ways to attempt to thwart God's Holy Spirit, which is also tugging at the heart/consciences of mankind.
> 
> How Do They Do This?:
> 
> False miracles, not from God.  False visions, not from God.
> False prophets and prophetesses, not from God.
> 
> How can we be sure what messages are right and from God, and what are from the literal "pit" of evil or Satan's authorship?
> 
> Paul had a very simple and effective play.  He told the current believers/Christians of his day to do as the Bereans do.  What did the Berean believers do?  Well, whenever a person came to Berea or to their church or gatherings in Berea and claimed to be speaking words from God, or performing miracles in the name of God, he/Paul said that the Bereans immediately fleed to their scripture of God to validate or verify these messages and messengers.
> 
> As I quoted that Romans verse above, we Christians are supposed to bring all "things" of question or of supposed God inspiriation to the scriptures, bar none!  God's scripture will not fail to enlighten, and keep us safe from being misled, and or disceived.
> 
> Our faith is non based on miracles, visions, dreams, voices in our head, but on scriptural truth that reveals the true nature of God, and His gospel of reconciliation with the human race through the redemptive work of His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.
> 
> In every case, the best way to test if a religion is Christian to the core, is test it's material, or doctrine in the area of how they deal with Jesus.  Is He, non created by has always been, and is and always will be......I.E.  "The same yesterday, today, and forever." "The Alpha and Omega." "The I AM", who existed before the prophets, before time, before creation, for eternity past, present, and future.
> 
> The Mormon doctrine of Jesus Christ cannot fullfill that descriptiron of their "jesus".  Their Journal of Discourses, and Book of Mormon cannot.
> 
> When a Mormon missionary comes to your door and asks if you will pray and ask God to tell you if Mormonism is the "truth", they are breaking the cardinal rule that Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ set down in Romans.  "FAITH COMETH BY HEARING, AND HEARING BY THE WORD(scriptures/bible) OF GOD."
> 
> People that laugh at the fact that God in His omnipotence can and has protected His Word/scripture throughout the ages are saying that God is basically week, and can't control that which He created.
> 
> Who can follow a god, that let's his word or alleged truths become corrupted as the Mormons claim the present day bible is?
> 
> The bible succinctly says that God holds the stars and the sun, and earth and all things in suspension according to His might strength and wisdom.  In the N.T. book of Collosians, Paul clearly said that all things were created in and through Jesus Christ Himself.  God the Father is Spirit, Jesu Christ God's Son is God in the flesh/incarnate so that man would and could glimpse and understand the true nature of God, and the Holy Spirit is our counselor that indwells Christians/believers and enables, directs, and protects us, and is God's lasting seal on our souls that we are His for eternity.
> 
> Mormonism is a manmade counterfeit.  It's jesus is a skewed strange jesus that if you read the many sermons of Brigham Young, and check out the Journal of Discourses, you will find a most strange belief system.
> 
> Throughout it's inception, Mormonism has had to adapt, and change many of their doctrinal stances, as they went against common biblical, ethical rules of culture, and human life.  They had to withdraw their Polygamous doctrine, their ban on Negroid/African decent human beings being allowed into their priesthoods.......etc..
> 
> The most revolting counterfeit is their Melkisidek(Mispelled but phonetically correct) priesthood.  This Priest is indeed listed in Genesis, and was the priest that met and blessed Abraham after his battles.  Abraham gave this priest a tenth of his spoils/riches from his battles as a than offering or worshipful offering to God.  Melkisidek is clearly stated to have no geneology in the bible, and many notable bible scholars believe Him to have been the pre-incarnate Christ.  There is no more mention of Melkisidek accept, I believe in the book of Hebrews by Paul.
> 
> The LDS church has used this priest's name and bestowed this priesthood on many of their most obedient members.  This is pure blasphemy!  We are not God nor are we little gods.  We are created, we have a geneology, and we are not a type of Christ.
> 
> Paul said that every Christian, or every believer/elect is a priest, in the principle that we have access to the Most High/God, through the Spirit of Jesus/Holy Spirit.  How do we have access?  Christ said, "It is finished!" on the cross.  He died, and the Holy veil in the Jerusalem temple that guarded the Holy of Holies place from all of humanity except the Levitical Priest who once a year could enter the veil, was torn in two or asunder!  This was Gods direct intervention, telling mankind that Jesus had made entrance to the Holy of Holies accessible to all of mankind through His sacrifice of His life, and blood.  So all who would believe by faith on Jesus's work would also enter in to the Holy of Holies, or have access to an intimate relationship with God.  Our sin stained souls were no longer a road block to access to our Creator.  Jesus took those sin-stains, and suffered God's eternal punishment for them all.
> 
> Our Part:  Just accept, believe, surrender, commit, and live-on in faith that God has taken care of it all.
> 
> Our earthly lives may not be any different that the family next door, or may be even worse, but, we are secure, and have received an "eternity" of life that does not end at death.  We only give up our old battered earth suit, and live on in with our God in heaven.  No more tears, no more regrets, no more repentance, no more sin........
> 
> We will be clothed in garments of such brightness and purity that our earthly eyes can't comprehend!
> 
> J.S. offers you a planet of your own to pro-create another human race not to different from the 77 virgins for Islamic martyrs.  It is all man based/created incentives, lacking grace, humility, humbleness, and the joy of true salvation with the utmost of security.



As God said in the book of Job "Who is this that darkeneth my counsel by words without knowledge."
I have never seen a wordier explanation of nothing. Did you not read the posts previously that I have explained. apparently you are conceding or "surrendering" your previous arguments and also surrendered the clear fulfilled prophecy of Joseph Smith. You set it aside as though it were nothing. 
So you are saying then that all visions and voices and divine phenomena that happen to people in not biblical times is of the devil. Of course, it is, because it destroys your little dogma and shows you that you need to do something and not just hear something to be worth something in this life.
You fit exactly what Joseph heard from the voice of God describing other preachers in his day which he described "They draw near unto me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me." Does that sound like a god who wants lipservice without action, like the bible says, faith without works is dead.

You are a fraud. Joseph was a prophet of God. Jesus is the Christ and wants all of us to return to live with him so he can teach us to be like him in the eternities. That is something to be excited about. 
Just go your separate way and stop kicking against the pricks.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> You know......the really interesting thing is, that those who claim to hear God, are generally not real open to hearing other viewpoints.  Now, if God is everything, then that would mean that beliefs I don't necessarily carry that others have should be accorded the same respect that I would want mine.  The only exception for that is when I figure out something isn't a true religion, then I attack it.
> 
> But.....there are many places where God has told us that we've got to have an open mind, which means a "one way only" attitude has gotta ease up.



Everyone should do their own research and stand up for what they believe. If you come to a different conclusion than I, more power to you. I am convinced, you are convinced but only one is right. So I am happy to go on discussing it forever and perhaps one day on the other side we can talk more about it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> Joseph Smith NEVER to my knowledge claimed to have SEEN God. He was visited by Angels of God.
> 
> You will have to point me DIRECTLY to verifiable source that claims he saw God. That is NOT a claim made by any missionary I have ever had a conversation with, nor with anyone in the church.
> 
> As a Prophet God would have talked to him possibly directly. That is NOT the same as God appearing before a mortal man.



From Joseph Smith history, in our Pearl of Great Price Joseph Said, "I saw a pillar of light, exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, descending gradually. When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me calling me by name and said, pointing to the other, "This is my Beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased, Hear Him!" ..........I had seen a vision, I knew it, and I knew that God knew it and no power on earth or hell could make me deny it."


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Everyone should do their own research and stand up for what they believe. If you come to a different conclusion than I, more power to you. I am convinced, you are convinced but only one is right. So I am happy to go on discussing it forever and perhaps one day on the other side we can talk more about it.



Dude......you couldn't have printed a more ignorant post when you said "but only one is right". 

Does this mean that the spiritual connection that His Holiness the Dali Lama is any less than that of the Pope?  How about the Rabbis?  Is there just one of those theologies that is right, or, are they all wrong, because according to you, there can be only one "right one".  I personally have listened to, and read, the things that the Dali Lama puts down.  I've also listened to the Pope.  John Paul was one of the better men I've known (and yes, I went to Rome to see him).  I also know several Orthodox Rabbis, as well as a few Torah Scholars.

None of them (with the exception of the Pope), has said that they've got the only one true way.

Fanaticism like that is another tell of a false religion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> my attention span isn't that long, if you shorten it down I might get it better. , basically if faith comes by hearing it, then who decides who hears it or who is the Prophet? why isn't it allowed for just anyone to be a Prophet nowadays or not allowed to believe someone got word from God about something if people accepted it in the old bible days? Why would God just stop giving commandments? I hope you can explain that to me. thanks.



he even said in his novel, that faith cometh by hearing the word. Then he inserted his own interpretation saying(bible/scriptures) handcuffing God and saying he can't talk to anyone in any other way. Who is he to say that? Is he a Prophet? He can't even stay consistent with what he is trying to say. He says god doesn't speak to prophets anymore but says that jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Go figure. Your question is valid. Why would he just stop! He wouldn't. The Bible is clearly not in it's purest form and is merely a tool for us to use to gain spirtual enlightenment. Not the only tool. Prayer is a tool, visions are a tool, the Holy Ghost is the biggest tool. He is taking so much time to fight this because his faith has been rocked and he is struggling for air. If he only knew that he doesn't have to.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Yep.



Who in Judaism claims to be a prophet?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Who in Judaism claims to be a prophet?



Dude.....ya may wanna brush up on your OT.  Moses for one.  Abraham for another.  Elijah.  How many more you want me to name?  

As far as modern day prophets?  Well.....if you were to study under a rabbi for a while, you would be able to start spotting them yourself.

Only Jews and B'neh Noach can become prophets.  Ya gotta be a tzadik before you can become a prophet.

Check out the Universal Torah Network on the web.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Dude......you couldn't have printed a more ignorant post when you said "but only one is right".
> 
> Does this mean that the spiritual connection that His Holiness the Dali Lama is any less than that of the Pope?  How about the Rabbis?  Is there just one of those theologies that is right, or, are they all wrong, because according to you, there can be only one "right one".  I personally have listened to, and read, the things that the Dali Lama puts down.  I've also listened to the Pope.  John Paul was one of the better men I've known (and yes, I went to Rome to see him).  I also know several Orthodox Rabbis, as well as a few Torah Scholars.
> 
> None of them (with the exception of the Pope), has said that they've got the only one true way.
> 
> Fanaticism like that is another tell of a false religion.



I think it is pretty reasonable to assume there is one truth. Like the bible says, One Lord, One faith, One baptism.
Of course all religions have some true teachings in them, mixed in with false teachings. The Book of Mormon states, he that is ignorant is blameless, and his sins shall be answered upon the head of another. 
People who err not knowing any better are in good standing with the Lord, most of the time. That is why there is so much work to do in the afterlife. There is so much  more to it than this life. Yes we claim to have all true teachings but unlike others who claim they have the whole truth, we don't exalt ourselves by saying we are the only ones going to heaven. There are going to be a lot of us actually who miss out, according to our teaching because some are slothful in their duties and chose willingly to disobey the commandments of God because they love the things of the world more.

Take a second to ponder that. It is a pretty benevolent teaching and shows how God can let bad things happen and still be merciful at the last day. Nobody else teaches anything like it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Dude.....ya may wanna brush up on your OT.  Moses for one.  Abraham for another.  Elijah.  How many more you want me to name?
> 
> As far as modern day prophets?  Well.....if you were to study under a rabbi for a while, you would be able to start spotting them yourself.
> 
> Only Jews and B'neh Noach can become prophets.  Ya gotta be a tzadik before you can become a prophet.
> 
> Check out the Universal Torah Network on the web.



Are you kidding me She asked if there are any modern day Jewish Prophets and you said "Yep" and so I asked who. Then you answer with OT Prophets. Are you crazy?

Seriously I am sorry if I sound insulting but you need to keep up with the conversation......dude.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Are you kidding me She asked if there are any modern day Jewish Prophets and you said "Yep" and so I asked who. Then you answer with OT Prophets. Are you crazy?
> 
> Seriously I am sorry if I sound insulting but you need to keep up with the conversation......dude.



Yo dipstick......did you bother to read the second sentence of my post, or did you just zip right over it like you do with truth?

I said......study under a Rabbi, and you'll be able to spot them yourself.  And, the reason I said it that way, is even if the rabbi knows who one is, he's not gonna tell you.  He's bound NOT to, as they aren't recognized as prophets until they are tested by the leaders of the Jewish faith.

Are you really that dense?


----------



## chloe

Eightball said:


> Chloe
> 
> Throughout the bible, and especially the N.T., Christians are cautioned to "beware!" of the wiles and deceptions of the enemy of God's children and the human race in total; namely Lucifer/Satan.  He was one of the most powerful and beautiful creatures in heaven.  There is even evidence in the scripture that Lucifer might have been a Seraphim, or one of the majestic/powerful multi-winged creatures that stood before God's throne in heaven, before he/Satan was cast out with 1/3 or the heavenly host/angels who also abided in Satan and not in God.  These beautiful creatures apparently had free-will, not unlike humanity, yet they were eye witnesses to God's very beauty, and character, and still rebelled, as they wanted to be "Like God" Himself, and not humbly serve Him in gratitude and awe.
> 
> Jesus Himself told His disciples that He saw Lucifer fall from the heavens to earth with his army of wicked-minded angels.  They now go about the earth tempting mankind in ways to attempt to thwart God's Holy Spirit, which is also tugging at the heart/consciences of mankind.
> 
> How Do They Do This?:
> 
> False miracles, not from God.  False visions, not from God.
> False prophets and prophetesses, not from God.
> 
> How can we be sure what messages are right and from God, and what are from the literal "pit" of evil or Satan's authorship?
> 
> Paul had a very simple and effective play.  He told the current believers/Christians of his day to do as the Bereans do.  What did the Berean believers do?  Well, whenever a person came to Berea or to their church or gatherings in Berea and claimed to be speaking words from God, or performing miracles in the name of God, he/Paul said that the Bereans immediately fleed to their scripture of God to validate or verify these messages and messengers.
> 
> As I quoted that Romans verse above, we Christians are supposed to bring all "things" of question or of supposed God inspiriation to the scriptures, bar none!  God's scripture will not fail to enlighten, and keep us safe from being misled, and or disceived.
> 
> Our faith is non based on miracles, visions, dreams, voices in our head, but on scriptural truth that reveals the true nature of God, and His gospel of reconciliation with the human race through the redemptive work of His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Paul said that every Christian, or every believer/elect is a priest, in the principle that we have access to the Most High/God, through the Spirit of Jesus/Holy Spirit.  How do we have access?  Christ said, "It is finished!" on the cross.  He died, and the Holy veil in the Jerusalem temple that guarded the Holy of Holies place from all of humanity except the Levitical Priest who once a year could enter the veil, was torn in two or asunder!  This was Gods direct intervention, telling mankind that Jesus had made entrance to the Holy of Holies accessible to all of mankind through His sacrifice of His life, and blood.  So all who would believe by faith on Jesus's work would also enter in to the Holy of Holies, or have access to an intimate relationship with God.  Our sin stained souls were no longer a road block to access to our Creator.  Jesus took those sin-stains, and suffered God's eternal punishment for them all.
> 
> Our Part:  Just accept, believe, surrender, commit, and live-on in faith that God has taken care of it all.
> 
> Our earthly lives may not be any different that the family next door, or may be even worse, but, we are secure, and have received an "eternity" of life that does not end at death.  We only give up our old battered earth suit, and live on in with our God in heaven.  No more tears, no more regrets, no more repentance, no more sin........
> 
> We will be clothed in garments of such brightness and purity that our earthly eyes can't comprehend!



before there was jesus though people still got messages from God so how come they don't anymore? Don't get angry but really I honestly don't understand the "concept" of when people say jesus died for our sins. I don't get what that means? I think about people being responsible and accountable to pay there own bills and provide for themselves and own there own problems, so i have a really hard time comprehending when people say he died for our sins, It just dones't make any sense to me. im not being saracastic either so please don't take it that way.


----------



## chloe

ABikerSailor said:


> Dude.....ya may wanna brush up on your OT.  Moses for one.  Abraham for another.  Elijah.  How many more you want me to name?
> 
> As far as modern day prophets?  Well.....if you were to study under a rabbi for a while, you would be able to start spotting them yourself.
> 
> Only Jews and B'neh Noach can become prophets.  Ya gotta be a tzadik before you can become a prophet.
> 
> Check out the Universal Torah Network on the web.



I don't know anything at all about what jewish people think, the ancestors on my moms side were jewish i guess but nobody ever talked about it, and nobody in my family is any religion currently.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Yo dipstick......did you bother to read the second sentence of my post, or did you just zip right over it like you do with truth?
> 
> I said......study under a Rabbi, and you'll be able to spot them yourself.  And, the reason I said it that way, is even if the rabbi knows who one is, he's not gonna tell you.  He's bound NOT to, as they aren't recognized as prophets until they are tested by the leaders of the Jewish faith.
> 
> Are you really that dense?



Cmon dude, Why would you mention old testament prophets? It makes no sense regarding her question and act as though I had never heard of them. Truly you make a dizzying argument.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> before there was jesus though people still got messages from God so how come they don't anymore? Don't get angry but really I honestly don't understand the "concept" of when people say jesus died for our sins. I don't get what that means? I think about people being responsible and accountable to pay there own bills and provide for themselves and own there own problems, so i have a really hard time comprehending when people say he died for our sins, It just dones't make any sense to me. im not being saracastic either so please don't take it that way.



It is very difficult really to understand the atonement. There are many conflicting views of how Christ paid for our sins. Here is our explanation.

First you must understand that God knows everything past present and future. That being said, God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were in an innocent state without desires to do good or evil. Although everything around them was paradise, they could not fully appreciate it because they had never experienced pain or suffering. In order to experience pain or suffering they would have to transgress and be kicked out of the garden, thus being subject to earthly life with it's temptations and adversity.


God actually wanted them to experience the good and the evil and knew that they would be deceived by Lucifer and eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At that moment, Satan was allowed to tempt and try them. This is necessary for our long term happiness because you never know to appreciate the good and prosperity without experiencing the bad and suffering.

Since this environment will throw so many temptations at us, we will eventually choose to sin, which is knowingly do something wrong. Since we then all become spiritually filthy when we sin, we would thus never be allowed to go back to the prescence of God because he said, no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of heaven.

Since God wants us all to come back and live with him, and we are not able to undo the wrongs we have done, there had to be a Saviour who would come and live the same life and endure all the same temptations we would. But he had to be perfect and resist them all and be sinless, otherwise he could not plead our case and pay the debt we were unable to pay. 

He paid the price while in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he said"The hour is come". during that hour, all the pains of hell and earth were unleashed on him. Every physical, mental and emotional and spiritual pain imaginable inflicted itself on Him. It would have killed anyone else but because he was perfect and the Son of God, he could endure it, even though he "bled from every pore." as Luke describes. Once he had suffered this, he can now relate with all of our sufferings, so we can feel he understands us and come to know him and believe in Him. The crucifixion was mere child's play compared to the Garden Suffering. 

Do you understand now how he can be an intercessor for us? it's kind of like we are the fannie and freddie's of the world and he is the spiritual bailout plan.


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> It is very difficult really to understand the atonement. There are many conflicting views of how Christ paid for our sins. Here is our explanation.
> 
> First you must understand that God knows everything past present and future. That being said, God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. They were in an innocent state without desires to do good or evil. Although everything around them was paradise, they could not fully appreciate it because they had never experienced pain or suffering. In order to experience pain or suffering they would have to transgress and be kicked out of the garden, thus being subject to earthly life with it's temptations and adversity.
> 
> 
> God actually wanted them to experience the good and the evil and knew that they would be deceived by Lucifer and eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At that moment, Satan was allowed to tempt and try them. This is necessary for our long term happiness because you never know to appreciate the good and prosperity without experiencing the bad and suffering.
> 
> Do you understand now how he can be an intercessor for us? it's kind of like we are the fannie and freddie's of the world and he is the spiritual bailout plan.



No I don't understand it, It is like your saying God is a socialist. It does not make sense to me sorry. The way it reads to me is like God made two people then decided they should experience life but instead of trying to warn them to watch out for cars , look both ways before you cross the street he just sent them into the middle of traffic, and let them get hit or get across the street if they were able to. w00t? No thanks ! Why would that be? it doesnt make sense. Also I am Against the "bank bailout" why should I have to support all the losers who went into debt knowingly when I didnt? So its hard for me to get it. Now if you go to debt counciling and pay your own bills off and dont do it again, great but Im not responsible for your actions. So why is Jesus responsible for sins of other people, that is not Fair! Thanks for trying to explain it to me though.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Cmon dude, Why would you mention old testament prophets? It makes no sense regarding her question and act as though I had never heard of them. Truly you make a dizzying argument.



Yes, there are prophets today.  They are Jewish.

Satisfied?


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> No I don't understand it, It is like your saying God is a socialist. It does not make sense to me sorry. The way it reads to me is like God made two people then decided they should experience life but instead of trying to warn them to watch out for cars , look both ways before you cross the street he just sent them into the middle of traffic, and let them get hit or get across the street if they were able to. w00t? No thanks ! Why would that be? it doesnt make sense. Also I am Against the "bank bailout" why should I have to support all the losers who went into debt knowingly when I didnt? So its hard for me to get it. Now if you go to debt counciling and pay your own bills off and dont do it again, great but Im not responsible for your actions. So why is Jesus responsible for sins of other people, that is not Fair! Thanks for trying to explain it to me though.



I am also not for the bank bailouts so maybe it wasn't the best analogy. The other thing is that Jesus was not responsible to save us. It was his willingness to do it that makes it special. He didn't have to. we would have been forever damned because of our evil nature. but he saw the good in us and decided to intercede. Also he does give us warnings about what to do to avoid pitfalls and harms. He sends people to help us, gives us scriptures and puts good thoughts in our minds to help us make the right decisions.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Yes, there are prophets today.  They are Jewish.
> 
> Satisfied?



Yes, although I would like to know what some of the prophets say.


----------



## Eightball

The time of prophets ended with John the Baptist.

The advent of the "Christ", was the fullfillment of O.T. scripture.........

The Passover Lamb, first instituted by Israel upon their leaving Egypt, was leading/pointing towards the coming/future Messiah, or the actual "Lamb of God", Jesus Christ.

The Passover Lamb had to be unblemished, it was sacrificed and it's blood sprinkled on every door post of the Israelites, or their first borns would be taken in death when the Angel of the Lord passed over their house.

Jesus, virgin born, was the fullfillment of the unblemished lamb, or sinless man, as He was not of Joseph or Mary's actual seed, but the New Adam(Romans/Author Paul).  The Holy Spirit of God placed the miracle of the sinless human babe in the virgin Mary's womb.

God's judgement on mankind had to be assuaged, once and for all, and only a perfect, sinless human being could fullfill this for the human race.  Even the temple for the Ark that was built in the desert by the Israelites is a perfect metaphorical representation of the Christ, and God the Father and the Holy Spirit/Ghost.  The Holy of Holies was only accessible once a year by a Levitical priest.  That priest had to go through days of both physical, and spiritual cleansing, to metaphorically represent, the future "elect" or believers that have access to God through Jesus Christ's blood, and life as an atonement and propitiation for their sinful lives.

The Mercy seat or top of the Ark was sprinkled with an unblemished, sacrificed lamb's blood.  This represented what Christ would do in the future.  Within the Ark was the shattered tablets of God's laws, that represented man's failure and sinfulness before an Holy, Just, and Righteous God.  

The lambs blood sprinkled on the Mercy Seat covered the top of the Ark, and assuaged or met God's demand for a suitable sacrifice to stand in mankind's place.

Once a year, the collective sins of Isreal were symbolically forgiven by this ritual.  At that time, God did indeed dwell within the Tent of Meeting or the Temple, but withdrew Himself from their midst after the Israelites rebelled and built a Golden Calf in Moses' absence, to worship.  God said, "No idols, just worship and believe in Me!".  God continued to lead the Israelites to the Promised Land of Canaan, but called them an obstinate, or "stiff necked" people; not unlike us or the verdict or depiction of mankind nowadays.

When Jesus breathed His last on the cross of Golgotha, and voluntarily gave up His life, the veil that protected the Holy of Holies from man's eyes, was torn from top to bottom that day.  Many people just remember the depiction of earthquakes, thunder, etc..., but the most important symbolic happening was the "veil" torn in two.

Now the Ark, or the most Holy of Holies that was only accessible once a year for one approved, Levitical priest was accessible to all mankind, via Jesus' death, and ressurrected life.  Jesus lifted the veil between humanity and God Almighty!

The only measure that was required of mankind was to surrender in faith, their lives into the hands/life of Christ as their intermediator, intercessor, Passover Lamb, as the only means to approach their Creator/God.  Christ was the only means for man to release, or erase, his sinful nature, and sins too.  

No angel, no old or new prophet, no priest, not any of the old testament saints, just Christ Jesus, the perfect unblemished, sinless sacrifice would suffice.

Paul says that every person who believes on Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is a "New Creature, New Creation in Christ".  

This is an internal, soulical/spiritual birth, not a physical change.  God does it.  Not us.

  Nicodemus the Pharisee came to Jesus, in secret and asked Jesus How he/Nicodemus could inherit eternal life.  Jesus said, "Nicodemus, you must be, "Born Again" or some translations say, "Born From Above".".  Nicodemus couldn't comprehend this, and thought that Jesus was implying that he had to be physically born from the womb of a woman again and start over somehow, but Jesus explained even more succinctly to the Samaritan woman at the well that there was a "water" that one can drink that will totally quench one's thirst, "once and for all".  Jesus said that the water that He could give to her, the Samaritan woman, would provide eternal life, and one would never thirst again.  Excitedly, the woman ran off to her village and brought others back, as she started to understand what Christ was saying.

Folks,,,,,,there is no longer a need for new or Latter Day Prophets, no, new Revelations to add to the bible, as all the truth that's needed has been clearly revealed in Jesus' 33 years of earthly life.  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote what is called the 4 Gospels, that have covered those 33 years of the Lord's life here on earth, from 4 distinct perspectives.  Matthew the tax collector spoke of the strong connection of Judaism, the O.T. and the coming Christ and the fullfillment of scripture.  Mark did similarly to Matthew, yet added new and different perspective.  John, who was claimed to have the most intimate friendship with Jesus, adds his observations/perspective, and Luke, the physician, gives details that are incredible finite, and give added proof of their eye-witness relationships with Jesus.

Morminism is built upon not the Character of God, but the character of Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, and many other elders of that religion.  .........And were they characters! 

Joseph Smith's life is skewed with sinful behaviour, lies, false martyrdom, and totally unethical, and rascist practices.  This man started as a con man in New York, and carried out his elaborate charade upon people, hungry for truth.  One day, Joseph Smith Jr. will face some incredible scrutiny and judgement before the God!  Because of him, literally millions of human souls have lived and died not knowing the truth Christ, and God of the bible.  

Nowadays, the Mormon church pushes family bonds, the American flag, Apple Pie, and "Leave to Beaver" home life as their godly answer to Christianity.

The relationship with God through Jesus Christ is not a theatrical summation of various jumps through difficult hoops of life, in order to please this Mormon father god.  

Having the most intimate relationship with God through Christ doesn't involve mandatory missions domestically or in other parts of the world, riding bicycles, wearing pressed white shirts, dark ties, and pressed slacks.

All of these people that come to your door, who want you to become Latter Day Saints, are in need of salvation, as the Wall Street Executive, UAW worker, Sheet Metal Man, Butcher, Teacher, Retired person, in your city.  

They just offer you a manmade concoction of Joseph Smith's sinful yet brilliant con-like imaginations since 1830

Brand new Mormons are never exposed to the deep teachings of the LDS church..........or what is within Temple Rites, for various priesthoods, or what is contained within their Journal of Discourses.  If the novice Mormon were to read these documents, they would be so shocked with rancid displeasure, and revulsion at what they were tied or connected to as a religion that they probably would never want to enter another Mormon church, or Stake.

One of the other signs of a cult, is the "holding back" of the real "truth" or the core of the belief system to the novice.  Members must be slowly "spoon fed" these doctrines gradually, so as to not upset and send them fleeing from the flock.  Just read some studies on how cults "hook" their members.  You'll see what I'm saying.  

True biblical Christianity holds back nothing to new believers and old timers alike.  Christ ripped the blocking veil of intimacy/relationship between our Creator, and ourselves.  Christ gave us total access to God the Father through His sacrificed life.  God is and was pleased with the atonement, and with open arms welcomes us to dine, and commune with Him eternally.  Jesus is the "gateway", not Mormonism, nor charitable works, nor clean living, etc....  It is by "faith" that we enter the portal of God's new life for us.  He just asks us to accept His Son as the "completion" of our quest.  Just becareful to be asking for the Jesus of the bible and not some conconction dreamed up by Joseph Smith Jr. back in 1830.

Don't be beguiled by the sweet smiles and clean cut appearance of these young Mormons who come to your door.  They bring to you a false Gospel; a false Jesus, a false hope, and a totally unbiblical counterfeit of true Christianity.  Their Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer.  That is from their documents.  Missionaries will deny this, either out of ignorance of their own doctrines, or because they don't want to admit to a potential novice member.

Don't hate these missionaries!  Pity them, and pray for them that the scales on their eyes would be removed and they would realize how they have lived a Stepford-type life, in order to please their Mormon god.  Pray for their salvation!  Read your bible and be ready to tell them the real Truth, when then come to your door.  The Truth sets men and women free!

They need salvation badly.  People in Christian-type cults are often the most difficult to help, as they live under so much pressure and fear to think for themselves and even investigate their own system of belief.  It is taboo in all cults.  You listen to the elder of your group.  You interpret scripture according to your elders direction.  You accept, without question.  This is not Christianity!  

In biblical Christianity, mere babes in the faith often bring wonderful nuggets of wisdom to those that have been long time Christians.

Even the Crusaders of old, were poor examples of true biblical Christianity.  God did not want them slaughtering Jews, and Muslims in the Holy lands to extend a so-called Christian empire.  They should have been bringing the gospel of reconciliation through Christ.  Not with the physical sword, but with the sword of the Word or God's scripture!

God's way, is "abiding" in His Truth.  It's giving up inside, our own ways, dreams, and ambitions, and letting God direct us into the treasures of life.  It's scarey, as we all have been trained from birth to find that dream or star that is our's.  God doesn't take away ambition, nor material blessings, but He does show us how we have prioritized wants of life in a very upside down way, that will only lead to ultimate dissappointment, and disillusionment.  Things will fade away one day.  Things will rust, and moths will eat holes, but a relationship with God is for eternity.

Make sure you choose wisely.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I honestly don't have the patience to read all that. It is undoubtedly more of the same jargon as before. I skimmed through it and all I really needed to see is that you think because of the Old Testament fulfillment of the Law of Moses, YOU think that there are no prophets today. But you claim God is the same yesterday today and forever. You still never answered my scripture from Amos 3:7 which states that "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secrets to his servants the prophets."
You dodge topics all day long and jump to something else. Can't we just agree to disagree? You don't like us, you don't like our teachings so that's fine, you won't convince me and I won't convince you so let's go our separate ways.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> I honestly don't have the patience to read all that. It is undoubtedly more of the same jargon as before. I skimmed through it and all I really needed to see is that you think because of the Old Testament fulfillment of the Law of Moses, YOU think that there are no prophets today. But you claim God is the same yesterday today and forever. You still never answered my scripture from Amos 3:7 which states that "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secrets to his servants the prophets."
> You dodge topics all day long and jump to something else. Can't we just agree to disagree? You don't like us, you don't like our teachings so that's fine, you won't convince me and I won't convince you so let's go our separate ways.



The last, best cry of someone who is truly defeated.


----------



## Truthspeaker

whatever. I have lost all confidence in your ability to reason. So what you say means nothing to me.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> whatever



The last, best, cry before death.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> The last, best, cry before death.



You are weird man


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah........I know........comes with having an open mind.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It worked better for you as a hot blooded firebreathing ignoramus. Now you are just a calmer ignoramus.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Ya know what......lemmie lay a little wisdom on ya.........

As much as I can be vicious, bloodthirsty, and cruel, I can be equally gentle, kind, and generous.  Comes from studying Eastern Philosophy, Taoism to be exact, as well as quite a bit of Zen.

Helps to find your way through the lies.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> I honestly don't have the patience to read all that. It is undoubtedly more of the same jargon as before. I skimmed through it and all I really needed to see is that you think because of the Old Testament fulfillment of the Law of Moses, YOU think that there are no prophets today. But you claim God is the same yesterday today and forever. You still never answered my scripture from Amos 3:7 which states that "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secrets to his servants the prophets."
> You dodge topics all day long and jump to something else. Can't we just agree to disagree? You don't like us, you don't like our teachings so that's fine, you won't convince me and I won't convince you so let's go our separate ways.



How about skipping Amos.........from the BOM, and going to a legitimate book such as the bible..........Then maybe there can be some rational discussion.  Christians don't accept the Book of Mormon, nor do rational Christian theologians.  Even the secular, scientific world had debunked the BOM's historicity of North and South America.  The very visitation of Jesus to N. America is right from the High I.Q. Lunacy of J.S. Jr.'s mind.  There is absolutely no evidence of Hebrew DNA in the American indian, nor the evidence of metalurgy prior to the European colonization, nor, any archeological evidence of great, highly evolved empires having existed in N. America in the past.

The reason you don't want to read my post, is it cuts like a sword at the very foundations of your religiosity in Mormonism, based on a very questional person as your prophet, and all the following LDS prophets.

The Word/bible/scripture is a two edged sword that cuts deep in a man's soul, even to the "marrow".  Now that's deep.

You aren't going to get validation for your system of belief as long as you rely on these con-man inspired books...i.e. Book of Mormon.......etc...

Me wonders how much you really know about the core beliefs/doctrines of your church.

My Dad's side of the family goes back to Salt Lake City.  His Mom was from Mormon background but his Dad owned two saloons in Salt Lake in from the late 1800's into the early 1900's.  He or grandpa was an episcapaleon.  If you weren't a Mormon in Salt Lake you were scum of the earth.

You couldn't make the good business connections with the good old LDS boys club........etc...
******
Your founder was a full blown Freemason, who didn't hide  any traces of his Freemason background when he instituted all the secret LDS Temple rituals for the "good Mormons".  He built an empire of a cult.  The magic underware is absolutely weird, and pitiful.  The witchcraft/occultic symbols on Mormon magic underware are absolutely an abomination.

Mainstream Christian theologians don't even consider Mormonism even a Christian cult, but just a cult, as they don't venerate the bible as the scriptural foundation of Christianity.  Instead they have bought into J.S. Jr's blasphemous creation of a God, who had sexual relations with the Virgin Mary..............Yes, that's your Latter Day Prophet's very words from your Journal of Discourses, and have humanized God, and brought Him down to a level of a goofy, fleshly, sinner.

Secondly, you exude a pride by discounting all the posts that don't agree with your doctrine or mindset.  

Christians are told to be open minded, but also to not stray from the admonistions of scripture..........Scripture meaning the bible, not some ticker-tape printout out of J.S. Jr.'s hat one day, while using his seer's stone.

Do you realize that in the O.T. if Joseph Smith had claimed to be a follower or Prophet of God, he would have been stoned to death as a seer.  God will have no other gods before him..........Christians don't need old latter day geezer prophets in high places in Salt Lake City telling them, "Thus sayeth the Lord".  God has given every believer the Holy Ghost/Spirit, to help interpret scripture, to discern evil and good, to counsel in the inner man/or soul of man, and to also enable man to do good works, not appeasement works as the Mormons do through their Missions requirements, and stiff tithing quotas.......

Also, the fact that the Mormon husband holds the power to ressurrect his wife from the grave is a travesty!

In the God's economy, both man and woman are co-equal in marriage.  One is not master over the other's destiny or decisions of life.  God had however called man to spiritually lead his family............but he has also called woman to respectfully correct and encourage her husband in this position that he's entrusted the husband with.  This is a co-equal partnership.

Husband and wife are helpmates to each other.  Together they make a marriage and the foundation of the family.

God has also called husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church.  How did Jesus express His love of the church?  He gave His life!
********
You know full well, that your Mormon jesus, is not the bible Jesus.  You also know or maybe don't know that your prophets of old have some real "screw ball" concepts of creation.  They believe in a Pantheon of Adams and planets that Mormons will inhabit and fill with their off-spring.

Mormons also think that their children were little spirit babies waiting up in heaven to be born on earth.  Where in the bible is this?

You know about the Celestial sexual Intercourse that is promised for Mormon husbands, who also can call which wife or woman they want.  It's hard to believe that so many intelligent, rational thinking people could be hoodwinked by this N.Y. con man, but he did it with a big fat green light and help from the Author of all Lies, Lucifer himself.  A most powerful fallen angel.  Do not under-estimate his power.  Just look at his creation.  The multi-million member LDS church that is spreading like wildfire throughout the world.

Also remember that the road to the truth is a narrow one, and wide is the road of perdition or rebellion.  Sadly, the bible says that multitudes will follow after false gods, and anti-christs claiming to be the "one".  

True Christians don't become Christians by hanging on the familial coat-tails of their relatives or parent's religions or systems of belief.  That isn't the way it works.  All must face the reality of their human condition when reaching the age of accountability, and "think" for themselves, and decide for themselves.  Salvation is a one on one encounter with God.

  The bible is a book that demands a verdict.  It has over and over again, proven itself in Middle Eastern archeological digs, with both recent and older ruins being unearthed that validate the existence of people's and cities that were mentioned in the O.T..  Countless evidences support both the O.T. and N.T..  Not one evidence has been found to support J.S. Jr.'s Book of Mormon.

So an angel tells J.S. Jr. that the bible is corrupted.  Remember that 1/3 of the angels rebelled and are now steadfastly on the hunt to tempt, mislead, and basically de-rail any human beings attempt at finding the Truth in God's very protected Word, the bible.  Think Omnipotence!  That is one of God's attributes.  Omnipotence means that there is no, "OOPs!" with God.  He is perfect, sinless, holy, and doesn't mislead, nor lie, nor does He make Himself difficult to find.  Nothing happens in creation that isn't directed, or allowed in some fashion by God.

He hasn't changed through the ages.........from eternity past to eternity future..........He is the same always.

If God wants man to know about Himself, He doesn't let man screw-up His communication to His Creation.

The Mormon concept of God is one anemic, helpless, god, that can't keep track of his creation nor, protect his written word.  Thus we need J.S. Jr. and his angel Moroni to set things straight for God.   

That's not the God of the bible!


----------



## chloe

why did God want to trick adam & eve without warning them or giving them any guidance ?


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Ya know what......lemmie lay a little wisdom on ya.........
> 
> As much as I can be vicious, bloodthirsty, and cruel, I can be equally gentle, kind, and generous.  Comes from studying Eastern Philosophy, Taoism to be exact, as well as quite a bit of Zen.
> 
> Helps to find your way through the lies.



"you sperm burping, weenie wacking, penis pumping gutter bitch."
First I genuinely and truly want to thank you because I don't think I have ever heard such a funny insult before. I showed it to my friends and we all just about split a gizzard and now we have been laughing about it for almost a week. You must have been truly enlightened because it enlightened my day. I am laughing thinking about it right now. Was that the Buddhist or the Sailor in you? Bravo


----------



## ABikerSailor

God didn't want to trick them.  What He had done, was give the SaTan the job of tempting them, to make sure they obeyed what He had told them to do.  Only trouble is, the SaTan (in his great desire to do a good job), went way beyond what he was told to do.

Some scholars say that the reason the SaTan did it was because he was jealous of anyone else coming close to God, and he especially didn't like that God had given us humans free will, which places us above the demons and angels.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> "you sperm burping, weenie wacking, penis pumping gutter bitch."
> First I genuinely and truly want to thank you because I don't think I have ever heard such a funny insult before. I showed it to my friends and we all just about split a gizzard and now we have been laughing about it for almost a week. You must have been truly enlightened because it enlightened my day. I am laughing thinking about it right now. Was that the Buddhist or the Sailor in you? Bravo



Actually, it's penis PUFFING gutter SLUT.

Which side of me?  Both.  The Zen side is there to assemble the things (think of it like directions), and the life experience I had in the Navy is the parts.

Combine 'em both together, and you get me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I must regrettably get back to work. I am a salesman you know. Eightball, you would do very well and save yourself the writers cramp, if you would start reading this discussion from the beginning, and you will see that I already quite easily answered every point you brought up in that last essay. Oooh especially the DNA thing, you'll get a kick out of that, plus the ancient hebrew writing  found in america... I am so excited I can't hardly wait for you to get back to me.  See you all tonight.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker--

Tell us about what you call modern day prophets?  What are prophets?

We have 'tulkus' in our tradition.  They are like spiritual geniuses.  They incarnate with qualities already present as small children and they develop rapidly when they meditate.

Are prophets like this?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> I must regrettably get back to work. I am a salesman you know. Eightball, you would do very well and save yourself the writers cramp, if you would start reading this discussion from the beginning, and you will see that I already quite easily answered every point you brought up in that last essay. Oooh especially the DNA thing, you'll get a kick out of that, plus the ancient hebrew writing  found in america... I am so excited I can't hardly wait for you to get back to me.  See you all tonight.



No, you have not.........and you know it too.

You've done what most Mormons do when confronted with biblical truth, or the truth about your founders.......You do the good old "side step" and evade the question.


----------



## Dr Grump

Eightball said:


> There is absolutely no evidence of Hebrew DNA in the American indian, nor the evidence of metalurgy prior to the European colonization, nor, any archeological evidence of great, highly evolved empires having existed in N. America in the past.



Nor is there any evidence that Jesus was the son of a god. Just faith. Go figure....


----------



## Eightball

Dr Grump said:


> Nor is there any evidence that Jesus was the son of a god. Just faith. Go figure....



There are a myriad of authors in the N.T. that were eye witnesses to Jesus' life, and witnessed His transfiguration, and distinctly heard God tell them that "This is My Son....."

John in his first verses of his book called "John" says distinctly that the Word became flesh, and that He was Jesus, and the Word was God.  Just read the 1st chapter of John.  John spent 3 years with Jesus, and witnessed his ressurrected life, and also his death and burial too.

Luke records in Acts, that several hundred people witnessed Jesus and also witnessed His ascension.

Does the bible have to be written last week to be valid?

Omnipotence, my friend.  We have a God who has full control over his message line to mankind.  He didn't need J.S. Jr. to amend alleged corrupted translations.  If that was the case, then our Creator is most weak, and ill prepared to care for us at all.


----------



## chloe

ABikerSailor said:


> God didn't want to trick them.  What He had done, was give the SaTan the job of tempting them, to make sure they obeyed what He had told them to do.  Only trouble is, the SaTan (in his great desire to do a good job), went way beyond what he was told to do.
> 
> Some scholars say that the reason the SaTan did it was because he was jealous of anyone else coming close to God, and he especially didn't like that God had given us humans free will, which places us above the demons and angels.



so did God make satan too?


----------



## no1tovote4

Truthspeaker said:


> I honestly don't have the patience to read all that. It is undoubtedly more of the same jargon as before. I skimmed through it and all I really needed to see is that you think because of the Old Testament fulfillment of the Law of Moses, YOU think that there are no prophets today. But you claim God is the same yesterday today and forever. You still never answered my scripture from Amos 3:7 which states that "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secrets to his servants the prophets."
> You dodge topics all day long and jump to something else. Can't we just agree to disagree? You don't like us, you don't like our teachings so that's fine, you won't convince me and I won't convince you so let's go our separate ways.


I'll shorten it for you.

[synopsis]

First it was clear that he spoke of the portion that speaks of being "born again", and how Jesus explained to Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman at the well.  

Then he explained that Jesus tore the veil placed between individuals and their Creator.  That all can access Christ's forgiveness and therefore any religion that hides portions in secrecy is not of God, but of those who set up the religion.

[/synopsis]

That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## chloe

why didnt jesus have a religion?


----------



## B94

Truthspeaker

Is it true that Joseph Smith killed 2 people by shooting them as stated here by John Taylor ? -



> He, however, instantly arose, and with a firm, quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, approached the door, and pulling the six-shooter left by Brother Whellock from his pocket, opened the door slightly, and snapped the pistol six successive times; only three of the barrels, however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, two of whom, I am informed died


 (History of the Church, vol. 7, pp.102-3)


----------



## Truthspeaker

B94 said:


> Truthspeaker
> 
> Is it true that Joseph Smith killed 2 people by shooting them as stated here by John Taylor ? -
> 
> (History of the Church, vol. 7, pp.102-3)



I believe it is true. Good for Joseph, I wish he would have shot a few more.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I believe it is true. Good for Joseph, I wish he would have shot a few more.



Really?  You wish Joseph Smith would have killed more people?  Is that what 'saints' do?  Kill people?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> I believe it is true. Good for Joseph, I wish he would have shot a few more.



Not the true definition of a "martyr" either.

By the way, how did Joseph Smith carry 230 lbs of gold plates and even run with them?

He was known to have had surgery years before on his leg, and didn't have a strong leg to stand on.

Also, as I understand, the American Indian when converted to Mormonism is supposed to go through a skin color change and become white, like a typical caucasian.

Why is it that the BOM has had atleast 4,000 changes since 1830?

Why did some of the witnesses to the Golden Plates end up being removed from the church?

Why is their Greek words, and even a french word in the BOM?

Did Joseph Smith Jr. get arrested in N.Y. under the vagrancy laws that included seers, treasure hunters, etc.?

Why did Joseph Smith Jr. get jailed in the Carthage Jail.  What had he done.

Why does the church liken Joseph Smith Jr.'s martyrdom to Jesus Christs?  Did Jesus try to escape or fight it out with his accusers, and even kill some of them?

Christians in the Roman Colloseum went to their deaths without a fight.

Stephen a member of the early Christian church was stoned to death for his Christian faith, and didn't fight back, but actually prayed for his accusers.

Paul took whippings, and all kinds of incarceration for his faith, but never once fought his captors, nor killed or hurt anyone.  He willingly submitted to the govermental authorities.


----------



## ABikerSailor

chloe said:


> why didnt jesus have a religion?



Yeshua (Jesus) did have a religion.  He was Jewish.  Matter of fact, that is the reason He was in Jerusalem when He was crucified, He was there to celebrate Passover.

He debated with rabbis in the Temple, He did a lot of things, and was pretty observant also.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> No, you have not.........and you know it too.
> 
> You've done what most Mormons do when confronted with biblical truth, or the truth about your founders.......You do the good old "side step" and evade the question.



You didn't read my posts because I know you couldn't have read through all the pages that fast. Therefore you remain in your ignorance of our faith. Please if you read my posts, prove it and tell me where I didn't address any of your questions.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> You didn't read my posts because I know you couldn't have read through all the pages that fast. Therefore you remain in your ignorance of our faith. Please if you read my posts, prove it and tell me where I didn't address any of your questions.



Actually, the onus is on you Truthspeaker.  If you know where it is, as well as if you were the person who wrote it, it is up to you to go back and find the number of the post that backs up your assertion.

Otherwise, you'll be forfeit the discussion on fouls.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Really?  You wish Joseph Smith would have killed more people?  Is that what 'saints' do?  Kill people?



Please Sky, you must understand, he shot those people while defending himself and his fellow prisoners, one of them his brother, from an angry mob of anti-mormons who painted their faces black and murdered his brother before he shot them. I don't see what is wrong with this.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Please Sky, you must understand, he shot those people while defending himself and his fellow prisoners, one of them his brother, from an angry mob of anti-mormons who painted their faces black and murdered his brother before he shot them. I don't see what is wrong with this.



That sounded vaguely islamic in its delivery........


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> Truthspeaker--
> 
> Tell us about what you call modern day prophets?  What are prophets?
> 
> We have 'tulkus' in our tradition.  They are like spiritual geniuses.  They incarnate with qualities already present as small children and they develop rapidly when they meditate.
> 
> Are prophets like this?



For us a prophet is a person that is the mouthpiece of God, much like moses was the mouthpiece of God for Israel at the time. Prophets have firsthand knowledge of the mind of god because they speak with him directly so there can be no doubt or confusion among the people. When the prophet speaks, we believe he is conveying the will of the Lord and not trying to take advantage of the people. Today the prophet would be Thomas S. Monson. He is truly a great spiritual leader and a wise and kind man who has a firm testimony of Jesus.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> That sounded vaguely islamic in its delivery........



wow, unbelievable.


----------



## sky dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Please Sky, you must understand, he shot those people while defending himself and his fellow prisoners, one of them his brother, from an angry mob of anti-mormons who painted their faces black and murdered his brother before he shot them. I don't see what is wrong with this.



I think you wishing a saint could have killed MORE people is wrong, at least, it is to me, from my ethical perspective.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr Grump said:


> Nor is there any evidence that Jesus was the son of a god. Just faith. Go figure....



There actually is plenty of evidence of pre columbian transoceanic contact between the old world and the new world.
Response to the Smithsonian Institute Statement on the Book of Mormon

Response to the Smithsonian Institute Statement on the Book of Mormon


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> so did God make satan too?



God organized all the intelligences into their original forms. Some chose to disobey him and others to follow, but yes God did make Satan. He did not make him into what he is though.


----------



## sky dancer

How can Joseph Smith be considered a martyr when he offered resistance and killed two people?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Not the true definition of a "martyr" either.
> 
> By the way, how did Joseph Smith carry 230 lbs of gold plates and even run with them?
> 
> He was known to have had surgery years before on his leg, and didn't have a strong leg to stand on.
> 
> Also, as I understand, the American Indian when converted to Mormonism is supposed to go through a skin color change and become white, like a typical caucasian.
> 
> Why is it that the BOM has had atleast 4,000 changes since 1830?
> 
> Why did some of the witnesses to the Golden Plates end up being removed from the church?
> 
> Why is their Greek words, and even a french word in the BOM?
> 
> Did Joseph Smith Jr. get arrested in N.Y. under the vagrancy laws that included seers, treasure hunters, etc.?
> 
> Why did Joseph Smith Jr. get jailed in the Carthage Jail.  What had he done.
> 
> Why does the church liken Joseph Smith Jr.'s martyrdom to Jesus Christs?  Did Jesus try to escape or fight it out with his accusers, and even kill some of them?
> 
> Christians in the Roman Colloseum went to their deaths without a fight.
> 
> Stephen a member of the early Christian church was stoned to death for his Christian faith, and didn't fight back, but actually prayed for his accusers.
> 
> Paul took whippings, and all kinds of incarceration for his faith, but never once fought his captors, nor killed or hurt anyone.  He willingly submitted to the govermental authorities.



Now this is not a bad list of questions. I have dealt with some but some are new. 
As for the weight of the gold plates, please understand first that Joseph made a full recovery, a miracle in itself considering the surgery he went through and was known to be one of the strongest physical specimens in the state. He wrestled often and engaged in stick pulling, a test of strength back in the day. He was quite capable of lifting a whole person on his back and carrying them for some time as he demonstrated. We have all seen soldier running with deadweight humans on their backs in war. 250 pounds in a small block is much easier to lift than a human shape. However the plates were not as heavy as you make them out to be, there were many factors to consider. see this nifty link.
Metals, Weapons, and the Book of Mormon (Mormon Answers/LDSFAQ)

As for native americans undergoing a skin change that is a badly misinterpreted teaching and is false doctrine. It has been confused with the black skin curse temporarily placed on the seed of Laman in book of mormon times. That curse was lifted completely by the time of 3 Nephi, when there was described as "neither were there any manner of -ites, all being in one, the children of Christ." There has been an ungodly amount of confusion about race and skin color in Mormonism. I have already discussed it though in detail. Please read the whole thread and you will see it.

As for witnesses of the plates who left the church: None of them ever retracted their statements regarding what they saw, because of the fear of the Lord. It just goes to show that people say they want to see miracles and then they will follow God, but it's not seeing signs or wonders that saves you, it is making a lifelong commitment to God and keeping it. It is hard for everyone. Truly sad that some fell away.


As for changes in the book of mormon, this is a great question and deserves an equally great answer. See nifty link #2
LDS FAQ: Changes in the Book of Mormon

As for greek words and the french word adieu in the book, These were words that we borrow and use in engish and still understand. I think everyone knows the meaning of adieu who speaks english. Those words are still communicable in english and serve as a better translation as far as impact and meaning from the reformed egyptian. You could say farewell but it doesn't quite have the same formality and impact as adieu.

Next question. Joseph Smith was arrested many times because of false accusations but not once was ever convicted of a crime. He was each time acquitted. 

He was incarcerated on charges of prohibiting freedom of the press when he ordered the destruction of the anti-mormon press that was calling for all of it's readers to "mobilize and rid ourselves of this Mormon plague. Let this issue be decided by powder and ball!"
Freedom of the press does not include the right to preach genocide and violence against a community. As Governer he was acting to keep the public peace. I believe he would have been acquitted again. 

Joseph's martyrdom was definitely not equivalent to Jesus's. They were both voluntary as Joseph decided not to run from arrest and knew he would be slain, but just because he fought back doesn't take away his martyrdom. 
Jesus was completely passive because he had a different mission. To submit to every affliction. Joseph was not required nor are we required to do what Jesus did. There was a totally different set of circumstances and nothing comes close to the sacrifice of Christ. 
definition of martyrdom:
The term martyr (Greek &#956;&#940;&#961;&#964;&#965;&#962; martys "witness") is most commonly used today to describe an individual who sacrifices his or her life (or personal freedom) in order to further a cause or belief for many. Long ago, it initially signified a witness in the forensic sense, a person called to bear witness in legal proceedings. With this meaning it was used in the secular sphere as well as in both the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible.[1] The process of bearing witness was not intended to lead to the death of the witness, although it is known from ancient writers (e.g. Josephus) that witnesses, especially of the lower classes, were tortured routinely before being interrogated as a means of forcing them to disclose the truth. During the early Christian centuries the term acquired the extended meaning of a believer who is called to witness for his or her religious belief and on account of this witness endures suffering and death. In the English language, the term is a loanword, and often used with the extended meaning of someone who has been killed for his religious belief. The death of a martyr or the value attributed to it is called martyrdom.

Just because some may have not fought back doesn't mean that when they were cast into the middle to fight for their lives against lions or crocodiles that others didn't fight back. It is okay to fight for your life and still be a martyr. I don't know why you think passive death is required but you are wrong.

You cannot possibly answer back in less than a day because of the amount of reading required to finish in those links, so don't pretend you read them by responding back today. I will no longer answer you at that point as you will be exposed as a liar.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> I think you wishing a saint could have killed MORE people is wrong, at least, it is to me, from my ethical perspective.



Well I respect your opinion but my view is different. The Book of Mormon says we should"defend your families even unto bloodshed." 
Which I wholeheartedly agree with.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sky dancer said:


> How can Joseph Smith be considered a martyr when he offered resistance and killed two people?



A martyr is not required to not offer resistance. 
The term martyr (Greek &#956;&#940;&#961;&#964;&#965;&#962; martys "witness") is most commonly used today to describe an individual who sacrifices his or her life (or personal freedom) in order to further a cause or belief for many. Long ago, it initially signified a witness in the forensic sense, a person called to bear witness in legal proceedings. With this meaning it was used in the secular sphere as well as in both the Old Testament and the New Testament of the Bible.[1] The process of bearing witness was not intended to lead to the death of the witness, although it is known from ancient writers (e.g. Josephus) that witnesses, especially of the lower classes, were tortured routinely before being interrogated as a means of forcing them to disclose the truth. During the early Christian centuries the term acquired the extended meaning of a believer who is called to witness for his or her religious belief and on account of this witness endures suffering and death. In the English language, the term is a loanword, and often used with the extended meaning of someone who has been killed for his religious belief. The death of a martyr or the value attributed to it is called martyrdom.


----------



## chloe

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeshua (Jesus) did have a religion.  He was Jewish.  Matter of fact, that is the reason He was in Jerusalem when He was crucified, He was there to celebrate Passover.
> 
> He debated with rabbis in the Temple, He did a lot of things, and was pretty observant also.



So why didnt people just become Jewish like Jesus?


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> God organized all the intelligences into their original forms. Some chose to disobey him and others to follow, but yes God did make Satan. He did not make him into what he is though.



So satan was like a disobediant child of God?


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> So satan was like a disobediant child of God?



precisely


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> So why didnt people just become Jewish like Jesus?



WEll everybody already was jewish already. It was a matter of believing the new and challenging doctrine that christ was putting forth. that he was the messiah they were waiting for, not some general announcing himself in a blaze of fire and glory. He won't do that until his second coming.


----------



## chloe

I liked hinkley better, I cried when he died. Ok I get everything you & abikersailor said the last two pages thanks.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> WEll everybody already was jewish already. It was a matter of believing the new and challenging doctrine that christ was putting forth. that he was the messiah they were waiting for, not some general announcing himself in a blaze of fire and glory. He won't do that until his second coming.



Ummmm.......no.  Everyone WAS NOT Jewish as you claim, as there were the Jews, and there were the Nations of the World, which is to say, everyone else.

Jesus didn't come for the Jews, he came for everyone else, as those were the ones that didn't understand God, as there was pagan worship and idolatry.  Jesus even said it repeatedly in the Gospels that He came for the nations, not Israel.

And, it wasn't a "new and challenging doctrine" as you claim, as Jesus was a good Jewish boy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> I liked hinkley better, I cried when he died. Ok I get everything you & abikersailor said the last two pages thanks.



I really loved President Hinckley. He was the nicest guy ever.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> You didn't read my posts because I know you couldn't have read through all the pages that fast. Therefore you remain in your ignorance of our faith. Please if you read my posts, prove it and tell me where I didn't address any of your questions.



Your spouting typical "Mormon Speak" taught to you by your elders........"Non Mormons don't know the truth, though they may rely on the bible, they don't have the full truth and that is only from the LDS Prophets, and the BOM, and your discourses, and articles.".

Your BOM has had 4,000+ alterations, yet you have the truth?

Why did your church remove "Article 11"?

Many parts of the BOM are direct plagureistic writings from the bible.

Also your BOM uses King James 1611 language, which wasn't the language of the early church.

There are so many "holes" in your belief system, but you just pridefully smirk and really don't see yourselves as persecuted, but as holders of the "truth" handed down from a man who totally failed the tests of a true prophet of God.

Some day, you'll have to really ponder what you've been promoting, and how real and validated what you espouse trully is.  

Mormons need to repent of their sins just like any other human being, and totally fall on the mercy and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Christ who is of the Triune Godhead, not the Christ that once was a mere man like yourself, and became a god or saviour.

The Blasphemy of your religion to teach that we humans can become gods of our own planets.

God said their can and will not be any other gods before me!  Mormons have totally disregared that command.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Ummmm.......no.  Everyone WAS NOT Jewish as you claim, as there were the Jews, and there were the Nations of the World, which is to say, everyone else.
> 
> Jesus didn't come for the Jews, he came for everyone else, as those were the ones that didn't understand God, as there was pagan worship and idolatry.  Jesus even said it repeatedly in the Gospels that He came for the nations, not Israel.
> 
> And, it wasn't a "new and challenging doctrine" as you claim, as Jesus was a good Jewish boy.



I am certainly not claiming everyone in the world was jewish at the time of christ. You can't possibly assume that I meant it that way. However Jesus did his preaching among the Jews and the vast majority of the people he taught were jews. That is what I was saying. 
I would stand by my statement as well that he was preaching challenging new doctrine. That is what got the Parisees and Saducees all riled up and eventually got Jesus killed. No one else was preaching new doctrines. Except oh yeah John the Baptist, and he got 86'd as well. Yes I would venture to say that he rocked the boat a little with some new teachings which would explain why the Jews were "astonished at his doctrine."


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> I am certainly not claiming everyone in the world was jewish at the time of christ. You can't possibly assume that I meant it that way. However Jesus did his preaching among the Jews and the vast majority of the people he taught were jews. That is what I was saying.
> I would stand by my statement as well that he was preaching challenging new doctrine. That is what got the Parisees and Saducees all riled up and eventually got Jesus killed. No one else was preaching new doctrines. Except oh yeah John the Baptist, and he got 86'd as well. Yes I would venture to say that he rocked the boat a little with some new teachings which would explain why the Jews were "astonished at his doctrine."



No, I didn't assume that you thought everyone was Jewish.  I said there were Jews and there were the Nations (everyone OTHER THAN Jews), which is whom Jesus came for.

No, the vast majority of people that Jesus taught were not Jews.  They were people from the Nations, and, one of the reasons that the High Priest wanted Jesus turned over to the Romans was because He was teaching the Nations the same thing that the Jews knew.  And, when He said that "no man gets to the Father except by Me", he was telling them that they needed to pay attention to Him, so that they could approach Father in the right way.

Matter of fact, Judas was the treasurer of the group, as well as was Jesus' best friend, and Jesus chose him to turn Him over to the priests, who in turn, after they'd had their say with Him, turned Him over to the Romans.  The reason that had to happen was because Jesus had to get a face to face with the High Priest.  Once the High Priest was done with Him, he turned Jesus over to the Romans for execution.  

I find it interesting that it took the combined force of 2 different civilizations to bring Him down.

Might wanna bounce the Book of Mormon Myths against the Torah dude.  Your belief system needs a tune up.


----------



## B94

It is interesting to compare the death of Joseph Smith with that of Jesus. In Isaiah 53:7 we read: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." In the New Testament it is claimed that Christ fulfilled this prophecy (see Acts 8:32). He died without resistance. In 1 Peter 2:23 we read: "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously."
When Peter tried to defend Jesus with the sword, Jesus told him to "put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11).
It is claimed that before Joseph Smith was murdered in the Carthage jail he stated: "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter"... (Doctrine and Covenants, 135:4).
Most Mormons believe that Joseph Smith died without putting up a struggle, but the actual truth is that he died in a gunfight. In the History of the Church the following account is given concerning Joseph Smith's death:
Immediately there was a little rustling at the outer door of the jail, and a cry of surrender, and also a discharge of three or four firearms followed instantly... Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel....
When Hyrum fell, Joseph exclaimed, "Oh dear, brother Hyrum!" and opening the door a few inches he discharged his six shooter in the stairway (as stated before), two or three barrels of which missed fire.Joseph, seeing there was no safety in the room, and no doubt
thinking that it would save the lives of his brethren in the room if he could get out, turned calmly from the door, dropped his pistol on the floor, and sprang into the window ... and he fell outward into the hands of his murderers...
In the introduction to volume 6 of the History of the Church, page XLI, Joseph Smith is praised for his part in the gunfight: "... the Prophet turned from the prostrate form of his murdered brother to face death-dealing guns and bravely returned the fire of his assailants, 'bringing his man down everytime,' and compelling even John Hay, who but reluctantly accords the Prophet any quality of virtue, to confess that he 'made a handsome fight.'..."
From the preceding information it can be seen that the death of Joseph Smith can in no way be compared to the death of Jesus. Jesus did go like a "lamb to the slaughter," but Joseph Smith died like a raging lion.
Today the Joseph Smith of Mormon adoration is a highly romanticized version of the real Joseph Smith. While possessing natural abilities and talents, his personal character was far from the saintly image his followers mold him into. His strong egotism and drive for power, together with his deceptive practices led ultimately to his destruction.

The above was taken from here -

Changing World Chapter 17

Which was at this link -

The Changing World of Mormonism Contents


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Your spouting typical "Mormon Speak" taught to you by your elders........"Non Mormons don't know the truth, though they may rely on the bible, they don't have the full truth and that is only from the LDS Prophets, and the BOM, and your discourses, and articles.".
> 
> Your BOM has had 4,000+ alterations, yet you have the truth?
> 
> Why did your church remove "Article 11"?
> 
> Many parts of the BOM are direct plagureistic writings from the bible.
> 
> Also your BOM uses King James 1611 language, which wasn't the language of the early church.
> 
> There are so many "holes" in your belief system, but you just pridefully smirk and really don't see yourselves as persecuted, but as holders of the "truth" handed down from a man who totally failed the tests of a true prophet of God.
> 
> Some day, you'll have to really ponder what you've been promoting, and how real and validated what you espouse trully is.
> 
> Mormons need to repent of their sins just like any other human being, and totally fall on the mercy and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Christ who is of the Triune Godhead, not the Christ that once was a mere man like yourself, and became a god or saviour.
> 
> The Blasphemy of your religion to teach that we humans can become gods of our own planets.
> 
> God said their can and will not be any other gods before me!  Mormons have totally disregared that command.



Now I REALLY  know that you didn't read the link that i posted for your enjoyment because I address the changes made to the book of mormon. I told you it was a lengthy article so you obviously just lost patience with the idea of reading it. 
As for "gods before me" you don't even know the context of the scripture. God was talking to Moses about IDOL WORSHIP. 
You didn't read 1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords many.
Just because He wants to make his children gods in the eternities doesn't mean they are "Before Me". We will still worship him forever and ever. We will all be unified and Christ made it all possible.

By the way I don't know where you think we removed article 11 but we didn't and here it goes:
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. 

Your accusations regarding plagiarism are vague. What was plagiarized? You give no specifics. And wouldn't you think  because the Book of Mormon was claimed to be written primarily by descendants of the Jews that they would have similar mannerisms in their speech? Old English certainly wasn't the language of the early church in Israel, but it was the language used in the time of King James' England when the Bible was translated. People of upstate new york would always speak in a more reverent way which was closer to Old English when referring to spiritual issues. We still do it today. Read the declaration of independance, read the letters of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin, they weren't that far off from old english. Joseph Smith in roughly the same time period after those men. Should they speak Ebonics?

Back in the 1800's when people read scriptures, older English was the respectable way to discuss matters of God. The language was not as archaic as King James times but was certainly more formal than todays jargon. Therefore Book of Mormon uses purer English than todays common speech but is easier to understand than King James language. It resembles King James speech and uses many of the phrases like, "and it came to pass"
but it doesn't even matter. What does your argument prove?

I have pondered my religion. I really have put years and hours and days and months into my views. I am certain of what I believe.BUT..... I am not promoting it. I have nothing to gain, no money, no fame, no power by clarifying the truth about what we believe. What would you think then is my motivation? I can't get converts here on the web. I am not trying to get them. I just don't like people misunderstanding us.and no one misunderstands us like you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Now I REALLY  know that you didn't read the link that i posted for your enjoyment because I address the changes made to the book of mormon. I told you it was a lengthy article so you obviously just lost patience with the idea of reading it.
> As for "gods before me" you don't even know the context of the scripture. God was talking to Moses about IDOL WORSHIP.
> You didn't read 1 Corinthians 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords many.
> Just because He wants to make his children gods in the eternities doesn't mean they are "Before Me". We will still worship him forever and ever. We will all be unified and Christ made it all possible.
> 
> By the way I don't know where you think we removed article 11 but we didn't and here it goes:
> We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
> 
> Your accusations regarding plagiarism are vague. What was plagiarized? You give no specifics. And wouldn't you think  because the Book of Mormon was claimed to be written primarily by descendants of the Jews that they would have similar mannerisms in their speech? Old English certainly wasn't the language of the early church in Israel, but it was the language used in the time of King James' England when the Bible was translated. People of upstate new york would always speak in a more reverent way which was closer to Old English when referring to spiritual issues. We still do it today. Read the declaration of independance, read the letters of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin, they weren't that far off from old english. Joseph Smith in roughly the same time period after those men. Should they speak Ebonics?
> 
> Back in the 1800's when people read scriptures, older English was the respectable way to discuss matters of God. The language was not as archaic as King James times but was certainly more formal than todays jargon. Therefore Book of Mormon uses purer English than todays common speech but is easier to understand than King James language. It resembles King James speech and uses many of the phrases like, "and it came to pass"
> but it doesn't even matter. What does your argument prove?
> 
> I have pondered my religion. I really have put years and hours and days and months into my views. I am certain of what I believe.BUT..... I am not promoting it. I have nothing to gain, no money, no fame, no power by clarifying the truth about what we believe. What would you think then is my motivation? I can't get converts here on the web. I am not trying to get them. I just don't like people misunderstanding us.and no one misunderstands us like you.



In your first paragraph, talking about many gods and lords, it kinda sounds a little like it was taken from Buddhism, as they believe that every man and woman can become a Buddha, and that there is nothing higher than a Buddha.  However......that theory of each and every one of you getting to become rulers of your own planet?  Pure crap.

As far as Jews translating their Bible?  Might wanna check again, because the Bible was translated from Hebrew into Greek, and from Greek into Latin and English, so no, unless you speak Hebrew, you can't say that you are using "the language of your ancestors".  ESPECIALLY if you claim to be a lost tribe of Israel.

Hate to see that you're pondering a lie though...........


----------



## chloe

Truthspeaker said:


> I really loved President Hinckley. He was the nicest guy ever.



I like hinkley better then monson


----------



## RetiredGySgt

ABikerSailor said:


> In your first paragraph, talking about many gods and lords, it kinda sounds a little like it was taken from Buddhism, as they believe that every man and woman can become a Buddha, and that there is nothing higher than a Buddha.  However......that theory of each and every one of you getting to become rulers of your own planet?  Pure crap.
> 
> As far as Jews translating their Bible?  Might wanna check again, because the Bible was translated from Hebrew into Greek, and from Greek into Latin and English, so no, unless you speak Hebrew, you can't say that you are using "the language of your ancestors".  ESPECIALLY if you claim to be a lost tribe of Israel.
> 
> Hate to see that you're pondering a lie though...........



The tablets were not written in English. Joseph Smith had to translate them after being given the gift to do so. You may want to check your facts. Joseph Smith translated the tablets INTO the language used in the Book of Mormon. As to the tablets, I believe there were 6? Witnesses that they existed. And even though I believe some later left the church NONE of them ever recanted their witness.


----------



## KittenKoder

Okay ... I think I may as well post a fact here as I am bored and about to go to bed. Here is the reason the Joseph Smith 'translating' the book is bull, a cute myth that lead to a once decent christian cult, but still myth.

The English they spoke at the time did NOT sound remotely like that, even in England itself. It had already evolved into something of what we speak today, though without many of the technical terms. If he HAD translated it, the language would have come out more like today than like the original translation of the christian bible from Greek to Old English. But the fact that it was translated to Old English (and poorly) shows that it was not translated but most likely invented. There are other minor facts that aid in this but this is just a boredom post and I don't want to get into it all.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> In your first paragraph, talking about many gods and lords, it kinda sounds a little like it was taken from Buddhism, as they believe that every man and woman can become a Buddha, and that there is nothing higher than a Buddha.  However......that theory of each and every one of you getting to become rulers of your own planet?  Pure crap.
> 
> As far as Jews translating their Bible?  Might wanna check again, because the Bible was translated from Hebrew into Greek, and from Greek into Latin and English, so no, unless you speak Hebrew, you can't say that you are using "the language of your ancestors".  ESPECIALLY if you claim to be a lost tribe of Israel.
> 
> Hate to see that you're pondering a lie though...........



I said nothing of the sort. You might wanna check up on your reading comprehension.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> I like hinkley better then monson



That's fine but they are all nice guys.


----------



## Truthspeaker

B94 said:


> It is interesting to compare the death of Joseph Smith with that of Jesus. In Isaiah 53:7 we read: "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth." In the New Testament it is claimed that Christ fulfilled this prophecy (see Acts 8:32). He died without resistance. In 1 Peter 2:23 we read: "Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously."
> When Peter tried to defend Jesus with the sword, Jesus told him to "put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11).
> It is claimed that before Joseph Smith was murdered in the Carthage jail he stated: "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter"... (Doctrine and Covenants, 135:4).
> Most Mormons believe that Joseph Smith died without putting up a struggle, but the actual truth is that he died in a gunfight. In the History of the Church the following account is given concerning Joseph Smith's death:
> Immediately there was a little rustling at the outer door of the jail, and a cry of surrender, and also a discharge of three or four firearms followed instantly... Joseph sprang to his coat for his six-shooter, Hyrum for his single barrel....
> When Hyrum fell, Joseph exclaimed, "Oh dear, brother Hyrum!" and opening the door a few inches he discharged his six shooter in the stairway (as stated before), two or three barrels of which missed fire.Joseph, seeing there was no safety in the room, and no doubt
> thinking that it would save the lives of his brethren in the room if he could get out, turned calmly from the door, dropped his pistol on the floor, and sprang into the window ... and he fell outward into the hands of his murderers...
> In the introduction to volume 6 of the History of the Church, page XLI, Joseph Smith is praised for his part in the gunfight: "... the Prophet turned from the prostrate form of his murdered brother to face death-dealing guns and bravely returned the fire of his assailants, 'bringing his man down everytime,' and compelling even John Hay, who but reluctantly accords the Prophet any quality of virtue, to confess that he 'made a handsome fight.'..."
> From the preceding information it can be seen that the death of Joseph Smith can in no way be compared to the death of Jesus. Jesus did go like a "lamb to the slaughter," but Joseph Smith died like a raging lion.
> Today the Joseph Smith of Mormon adoration is a highly romanticized version of the real Joseph Smith. While possessing natural abilities and talents, his personal character was far from the saintly image his followers mold him into. His strong egotism and drive for power, together with his deceptive practices led ultimately to his destruction.
> 
> The above was taken from here -
> 
> Changing World Chapter 17
> 
> Which was at this link -
> 
> The Changing World of Mormonism Contents



Yet another person who didn't read my post about the difference between the two martyrdoms. You don't have to die without resistance to be a martyr. I already said no ones martyrdom was equal to Christs. I am proud of the fact that Joseph took a few of his brother's murderers with him. I don't think anyone really thinks there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## Dante

Truthspeaker said:


> Now I REALLY  know that you didn't read the link that i posted for your enjoyment because I address the changes made to the book of mormon. I told you it was a lengthy article so you obviously just lost patience with the idea of reading it.
> As for "gods before me" you don't even know ...



If you are this insufferable in real life I think we may be related. My family has recently been compiling a family tree. Are you perchance branched out of the fig tree?


.

I can't believe one man can go on _and on and on and on and on_ about his faith while at the same time bashing people with his christian kindness. Are all your values weapons? How big is that chip on your shoulder?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KittenKoder said:


> Okay ... I think I may as well post a fact here as I am bored and about to go to bed. Here is the reason the Joseph Smith 'translating' the book is bull, a cute myth that lead to a once decent christian cult, but still myth.
> 
> The English they spoke at the time did NOT sound remotely like that, even in England itself. It had already evolved into something of what we speak today, though without many of the technical terms. If he HAD translated it, the language would have come out more like today than like the original translation of the christian bible from Greek to Old English. But the fact that it was translated to Old English (and poorly) shows that it was not translated but most likely invented. There are other minor facts that aid in this but this is just a boredom post and I don't want to get into it all.



Good, you won't need to go into it. Just listen to this excerpt from Oliver Cowdery. You will see that it is exactly the same type of language used in the Book of Mormon. It is not in the Book of Mormon. It is also not true Old English like you say, but more of a hybrid of old and modern english, like the book of mormon language. It was translated into the most common understanding of the day. see below.
"These are days never to be forgottento sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his (Joseph Smith's) mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, "Interpreters," the history or record called "The Book of Mormon."

To notice, in even few words, the interesting account given by Mormon and his faithful son Moroni, of a people once beloved and favored of heaven, would supersede my present design; I shall therefore defer this to a future period, and, as I said in the introduction, pass more directly to some few incidents immediately connected with the rise of this Church, which may be entertaining to some thousands who have stepped forward amid the frowns of bigots and the calumny of hypocrites, and embraced the Gospel of Christ.

No men, in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up His Church, and especially when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a "good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

After writing the account given of the Savior's ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easy to be seen, as the prophet said would be, that darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. On reflecting further it was easy to be seen, that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. For the question might be asked, have men authority to administer in the name of Christ, who deny revelations, when His testimony is no less than the spirit of prophecy, and His religion based, built, and sustained by immediate revelations in all ages of the world when He has had a people on earth? If these facts were buried, and carefully concealed by men whose craft would have been in danger if once permitted to shine in the faces of men, they were no longer to us; and we only waited for the commandment to be given, "Arise and be baptized."

This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon Him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us His will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted, and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked-for message, and the keys of the Gospel of repentance. What joy! what wonder! what amazement! While the world was racked and distractedwhile millions were groping as the blind for the wall, and while all men were resting upon uncertainty, as a general mass, our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the "blaze of day;" yes, moreabove the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature! Then his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words, "I am thy fellow-servant," dispelled every fear. We listened, we gazed, we admired! 'Twas the voice of an angel from glory, 'twas a message from the Most High! And as we heard we rejoiced, while His love enkindled upon our souls, and we were wrapped in the vision of the Almighty! Where was room for doubt? Nowhere; uncertainty had fled, doubt had sunk no more to rise, while fiction and deception had fled forever!

But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said:

"Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the Gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

I shall not attempt to paint to you the feelings of this heart, nor the majestic beauty and glory which surrounded us on this occasion; but you will believe me when I say, that earth, nor men, with the eloquence of time, cannot begin to clothe language in as interesting and sublime a manner as this holy personage. No; nor has this earth power to give the joy, to bestow the peace, or comprehend the wisdom which was contained in each sentence as they were delivered by the power of the Holy Spirit! Man may deceive his fellow-men, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till naught but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind. The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel, the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied, as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry; and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that day which shall never cease."


----------



## Eightball

You poor, poor, brainwashed young man.  Evidence demands a verdict, and so much has been presented to you, but you still want to cling to your church founder's, and prophet's "thus sayeth's".

People on this forum have given you valid questions, and also presented valid evidences, but you refuse to consider any of it.  You are here for one reason only, and you are attempting web style missions on this board.  That's allowed.

Secondly, your online name "Truthspeaker", leaves no room for discussion.  The name also exudes big letter "P"/"Pride".  Obviously you "think" you have the truth, and have discarded thousands of years of Christian historical evidence, and totally smacked God's attribute of omnipotence squarely in His face with the "corrupted bible" doctrine.  As the "humble" Paul said, if we don't believe in the Gospel, we are to be most pitied, as we have gone on and on, for naught.

Secondly, in the realm of works.  Works is a bi-product of salvation, and that is exactly what James meant.  He was not talking to non-Christians/Mormons/JW's, but Christians when he said that if you have true faith, it will reveal "works" as a result of true salvation.  There are many works in the world done by a myriad of religious followers, and even secular/agnostic/atheistic folks, but they aren't the "Jame's" "works".

James knew, as all the apostles and disciples knew, that the H.Spirit, came and regenerated the dead or fallen spirit of humans, upon their willful belief by faith in Christ as the only Lord and Saviour of their lives.  The H. Spirit was the seal or evidence sent/given from God, that one was "saved".  Afterwards that "saved" individual should start to produce, "fruit" or "works" in accordance with the fruit of the Spirit of God.  Love(King James-Charity), patience, long suffering, Joy, peace, mercy, etc....

Sure, a Mormon can think him or herself into thinking they have the "truth" if they want to live a life with their collective heads buried in the ostrich holes of the LDS church's edicts of exclusivity, and protectors of the "real uncorrupted truth".

Sadly, Mormons want true Christians and non-Christians whom them attempt to evangelize to be "open minded" and thus consider their side or "truth".  

Is it a true(open mindedness) for the Mormon, such as "Truth Speaker"?  Absolutely not!  He or she is told to ignore any and all attempts by non-LDS to persuade them with any and all possible statements, as they are misleading, and will only cause confusion, and possibly upset their "Testimony" and conviction to the LDS faith/church.

"Confusion" in a person that is in bondage to a cult, is the beginning of "FREEDOM"!  What it means is that their constructed paradym of belief is actually crumbling, not because of untruths, but because in their conscience, and sub-conscience, their foundations of belief are being eroded and that's uncomfortable, and scarey.  What do they do under these circumstances........Three possiblities:  Flee = Get off the forum and make oneself "gone" and run to the protection of the church/cult.
Fight back = They will continue to ignore or refute any and all offerings of alternative possiblities as attacks against them personally, and basically, adhere to a form of denial and prideful superiority.  Best Scenario = They will start to question both their elders, and will do independent study starting with a simple, honest prayer, "Lord Jesus, I'm not sure what to believe right now.  I've been in the church so long, my brothers, sisters, parents, and generations have been members.  I've heard things from non-LDS that make me wonder, but also make me feel very insecure, and fearful.  I'm worried about how my relatives and friends will treat me if I were to consider an alternative belief to LDS.  I've seen what happens to LDS members who have left the fold, and it isn't pretty, what the church and it's members do to them.  Lord Jesus, I'm scared to do independent study, without the bias, or pre-conditions of my elders/church, but just my own inquirey.  Please give me the strength to do this, and protect me from the wiles and deceptions of the enemy of my soul, and his fallen angels.  In Jesus Name I pray, Amen(So Be It!) 

If the true God is the LDS God, then your independent, and I mean independent study and prayerful, and honest wonderings will be for naught.  If on the other hand the God of Mormonism is not the true God, you will have one big surprise in your life, and it will be the most freeing surprise you'll ever experience in your soul and most deep inner man!  When the Holy Spirit of God comes to reside, He will make all things known and will show you the difference between actual truth and actual falsehood.  

One important condition though.  You come to the biblical God in prayer, not as a "Truthspeaker", but as a sinner, in need of salvation, or new life/eternal in and through the crucified, buried, and ressurrected Christ, and on Son of the only God and Father/Creator of all things.  That a big heapful, but if you trully have the courage, you will receive the Spirit of God, as your Counselor, who will open up God's scripture and discern for you the will of God for your life, and also bestow upon you the many "fruits" of the Spirit to both serve and abide in His wonderful life eternally.

If you take the faithful plunge, I guarantee you, "*Truthspeaker*" that you'll change your moniker to 
"*Humblespeaker*" from thence onward in your life.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Eightball........dude man.......that was one of the best posts that I've read in a while.


----------



## Eightball

ABikerSailor said:


> Eightball........dude man.......that was one of the best posts that I've read in a while.



I thank you for those encouraging and kind words.


----------



## B94

> Yet another person who didn't read my post about the difference between the two martyrdoms. You don't have to die without resistance to be a martyr. I already said no ones martyrdom was equal to Christs. I am proud of the fact that Joseph took a few of his brother's murderers with him. I don't think anyone really thinks there is anything wrong with that.




I read your post but I found this interesting 

Joseph Smith "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter"... (Doctrine and Covenants, 135:4).

I guess he meant to say  - I am going like a lamb to the slaughter with a gun and kill some people before I am killed. 

Sounds like a true prophet of god doesnt it?


----------



## Dr Grump

Eightball said:


> There are a myriad of authors in the N.T. that were eye witnesses to Jesus' life, and witnessed His transfiguration, and distinctly heard God tell them that "This is My Son....."
> 
> John in his first verses of his book called "John" says distinctly that the Word became flesh, and that He was Jesus, and the Word was God.  Just read the 1st chapter of John.  John spent 3 years with Jesus, and witnessed his ressurrected life, and also his death and burial too.
> 
> Luke records in Acts, that several hundred people witnessed Jesus and also witnessed His ascension.
> 
> Does the bible have to be written last week to be valid?
> 
> Omnipotence, my friend.  We have a God who has full control over his message line to mankind.  He didn't need J.S. Jr. to amend alleged corrupted translations.  If that was the case, then our Creator is most weak, and ill prepared to care for us at all.



What you have is a group of people supposedly claiming this. There isn't even evidence that John and Luke even existed. Hell, even if they did exist, you can bet your bottom dollar their names were not John or Luke. If the people who wrote the bible can't even get that part right, what else is wrong with the good book..


----------



## Dr Grump

Eightball said:


> There are so many "holes" in your belief system, but you just pridefully smirk and really don't see yourselves as persecuted, but as holders of the "truth" handed down from a man who totally failed the tests of a true prophet of God.



Didn't your 'saviour' say those without sin cast the first stone? you have the audacity to questions ones beliefs when your own have more holes in them than a block of Swiss cheese. Like a typcial Christian zealot, yours is the truth, while everybody else's beliefs are false...can you say hypocrite...



Eightball said:


> Some day, you'll have to really ponder what you've been promoting, and how real and validated what you espouse trully is.



Ditto you....




Eightball said:


> Mormons need to repent of their sins just like any other human being, and totally fall on the mercy and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Christ who is of the Triune Godhead, not the Christ that once was a mere man like yourself, and became a god or saviour.



Stop prothelysing windbag. I have more chance of going to heaven if a god truly existed. You're the type of person Jesus was preaching against - a sanctimoneous Know it All who proports to be the seer of truth. You would have disgusted Jesus....


----------



## Dr Grump

Eightball said:


> You poor, poor, brainwashed young man.[/U]




Pot (eightball) meet Kettle (Truth)...two religious zealots who think their religions have all the answers to the meaning of life...You poor, poor brainwashed fellows...


----------



## KittenKoder

Dr Grump said:


> What you have is a group of people supposedly claiming this. There isn't even evidence that John and Luke even existed. Hell, even if they did exist, you can bet your bottom dollar their names were not John or Luke. If the people who wrote the bible can't even get that part right, what else is wrong with the good book..



While I grant that the original versions of the text could possibly be right in many of their legends and myths, each time it is copied by human hands (we just don't have the originals anyway) it gets changed. Since each book was written in a different region and most in different languages even if the original texts existed somewhere you would have to master many languages (almost all of them) from those time periods to read it. This is the reason their names are written that way, just translations. Even today we see prejudisms in names given, so they would be changed to something that "doesn't offend or offer any truth".


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well Grump, maybe I am a religious zealot. Because I have zeal and passion for my religion. At least I don't condemn others to hell. If I weren't religious I would certainly think as you do and be disgusted with 8 ball's refusal to deal with my posts by launching new attacks without substance or backups.
I can make sense till I am blue in the face, but 8 ball has been behind the 8 ball ever since I showed him he was wrong in everyone of his feeble little attacks. he just switches to something new and get shut down and refuses to accept his losses without backing up his dogma.
His comebacks are "Your brainwashed." and "when you do independant study, you will understand."

You may not agree with what I write, but no one can say that I haven't done my own independant study. I think it is quite clear that I have formed who I am through personal prayer and study. 

I didn't start this thread to prove my religion better than someone elses. I only wanted to clarify the truth about what we believe and hopefully stem the tide of misunderstanding and prejudice against us. But alas, some have taken this forum as an opportunity to attack me rather than question me. Those who attack me are inviting themselves to be exposed as nothing more than angry anti-mormons without substance and full of prejudice. 

Please can anyone bring up just 1 instance where I have not satisfactorily answered their questions? Some have said that I refuse to acknowledge their points and am blindly following my leaders like a robot? At the risk of repeating myself for the HUNDREDTH time: SHOW ME WHERE I DIDN'T DISPUTE ANY AND ALL ATTACKS LEVIED AGAINST MY CHURCH.
show me where I didn't respond to a question. I have done my due diligence. It is irresponsible to ignore my answers because you don't like them. You are free to disagree but at least you will know exactly where you disagree with us.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well Grump, maybe I am a religious zealot. Because I have zeal and passion for my religion. At least I don't condemn others to hell. If I weren't religious I would certainly think as you do and be disgusted with 8 ball's refusal to deal with my posts by launching new attacks without substance or backups.
I can make sense till I am blue in the face, but 8 ball has been behind the 8 ball ever since I showed him he was wrong in everyone of his feeble little attacks. he just switches to something new and get shut down and refuses to accept his losses without backing up his dogma.
His comebacks are "Your brainwashed." and "when you do independant study, you will understand."

You may not agree with what I write, but no one can say that I haven't done my own independant study. I think it is quite clear that I have formed who I am through personal prayer and study. 

I didn't start this thread to prove my religion better than someone elses. I only wanted to clarify the truth about what we believe and hopefully stem the tide of misunderstanding and prejudice against us. But alas, some have taken this forum as an opportunity to attack me rather than question me. Those who attack me are inviting themselves to be exposed as nothing more than angry anti-mormons without substance and full of prejudice. 

Please can anyone bring up just 1 instance where I have not satisfactorily answered their questions? Some have said that I refuse to acknowledge their points and am blindly following my leaders like a robot? At the risk of repeating myself for the HUNDREDTH time: SHOW ME WHERE I DIDN'T DISPUTE ANY AND ALL ATTACKS LEVIED AGAINST MY CHURCH.
show me where I didn't respond to a question. I have done my due diligence. It is irresponsible to ignore my answers because you don't like them. You are free to disagree but at least you will know exactly where you disagree with us.


----------



## Truthspeaker

B94 said:


> I read your post but I found this interesting
> 
> Joseph Smith "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter"... (Doctrine and Covenants, 135:4).
> 
> I guess he meant to say  - I am going like a lamb to the slaughter with a gun and kill some people before I am killed.
> 
> Sounds like a true prophet of god doesnt it?



Jeez, another person who doesn't read my previous posts. For the 12th time it seems, 
You don't have to be a passive resistor to be a martyr. The phrase lamb to the slaughter doesn't have to be completely literal. Lamb to the slaughter is meant more to say that he had no chance to survive, which he didn't. three bullets wouldn't be enough to stop 180 men if they all got in a conga-line and let Joseph try to shoot through all of them.
he also didn't have wool for his skin, or hoofs and didn't go "baaa".

go back a few pages and read Joseph's prophecy on the civil war and you tell me it doesn't sound like a prophet. Oh yeah, since I posted that prophecy, oddly enough no one has peeped a word about it, because they can't find a single thing to say to discredit it. Hmmmm. counfounded again?  Sounds like a prophet to me!


----------



## B94

> go back a few pages and read Joseph's prophecy on the civil war and you tell me it doesn't sound like a prophet. Oh yeah, since I posted that prophecy, oddly enough no one has peeped a word about it, because they can't find a single thing to say to discredit it. Hmmmm. counfounded again? Sounds like a prophet to me!




Here is something about the civil war -

Changing World Chapter 14

Conclusion
The prophecy concerning the Mormons being driven to the Rocky Mountains and the one concerning the Civil War are considered Joseph Smith's most important prophecies. These are used to try to prove that he was a prophet of God. In the chapter dealing with changes in Joseph's history we demonstrate that the prophecy concerning the Rocky Mountains is a forgery which was written after Joseph Smith's death. In this chapter we have shown that the prophecy about the Civil War came because of the rebellion of South Carolina in 1832, and that it contains inaccuracies which tend to invalidate it. In addition to this, the Mormon leaders have suppressed part of Joseph Smith's diary which tended to discredit the revelation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

B94 said:


> Here is something about the civil war -
> 
> Changing World Chapter 14
> 
> Conclusion
> The prophecy concerning the Mormons being driven to the Rocky Mountains and the one concerning the Civil War are considered Joseph Smith's most important prophecies. These are used to try to prove that he was a prophet of God. In the chapter dealing with changes in Joseph's history we demonstrate that the prophecy concerning the Rocky Mountains is a forgery which was written after Joseph Smith's death. In this chapter we have shown that the prophecy about the Civil War came because of the rebellion of South Carolina in 1832, and that it contains inaccuracies which tend to invalidate it. In addition to this, the Mormon leaders have suppressed part of Joseph Smith's diary which tended to discredit the revelation.



That is a pretty lame attempt to discredit Joseph's Prophecy. It jumps through all these hoops to say Joseph just was a good guesser. And so what if it wasn't published until after he died. It doesn't matter. Look you can think what you want about Joseph, I am not here to convince you that what I believe is right. I am simply stating why I believe what I do. 
The Prophecy itself also contains other things which have not happened yet. For example it was not necessary for war to be poured out "all nations" at the beginning of the civil war. It merely meant the inauguration of all these things happening leading up to the second coming of Christ. It contains prophecies beyond just the civil war and a few things have yet to be fulfilled. But the fact that the slaves would "rise up against their masters, and be marshalled and disciplined for war." was pretty compelling, especially if you ever saw the movie Glory. Also pretty compelling that the south actually did call upon the nation of Great Britain. If it wasn't a true prophecy then he is irrefutably the best guesser of all time.
There is always an argument against anything, and so I am not here to argue my religion. I will defend it if attacked, but I repeat, I only want to clarify misconceptions about our faith.


----------



## B94

Truthspeaker

Well the way I see it Joseph Smith was either a con man or a prophet. Looks like arguments can be made in support of or against Joseph Smith. Either way I thank you for answering questions about your religion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

B94 said:


> Truthspeaker
> 
> Well the way I see it Joseph Smith was either a con man or a prophet. Looks like arguments can be made in support of or against Joseph Smith. Either way I thank you for answering questions about your religion.



thank you for your wonderful reply. That is exactly what I hope everyone thinks about Joseph. He was either a con man or a prophet. People will draw their own conclusions. I have drawn mine. What I say is that no one will really know unless they get a confirmation from God through prayer. Unless that comes, then people will decide which argument makes more sense to them in order to form their opinions about Joseph Smith. But all this does fulfill another prophechy spoken by the angel Moroni in Joseph Smith History chapter 1 verse 33"...and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people (JSH 1:33).


----------



## ABikerSailor

You really are a prime example of the quote "ignorance is bliss" Truthspeaker.

You should really seek out the truth and know it before you start to speak of it dude.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You really are a prime example of the quote "ignorance is bliss" Truthspeaker.

You should really seek out the truth and know it before you start to speak of it dude.


----------



## Eightball

Nice little "Ditty" from N.T. Book Romans Chapter 1.



> *God's Wrath Against Mankind*
> 
> 18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of *men who suppress the truth *by their wickedness, *19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.* 20For since the creation of the world *God's invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature&#8212;have been clearly seen*, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
> 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, *but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools *



Can't make it any clearer than that.  Paul sum's it up very clearly.

Man is without excuse.  God is and has not shrouded Himself in mystery nor allowed man to  have difficulty finding Him.  His true identity is found in any motel room in a Gideon bible, or at any Barnes and Nobles, or just about any library or person's home.  With that knowledge easily gleened from the bible, plus a contrite, and humbled heart, one can ask and one will receive eternal communion(permanent, eternal, new life) with the true and living God through the attoning death and life of Jesus His Son.

The bible has proven to be accurate to such an incredible extent both archeologically, and historically, and also is validated very strongly via the evidenciary Dead Sea scrolls that were written nearly 2,000 years ago.  The odds on our current translations being so very accurate to the 2,000 year old Black sea scrolls, is against all human and normal odds, and is "evidence" that demands a verdict.    

In fact the Dead Sea Scrolls, say with sounding uproarious thunder, that God indeed has "protected" or "guarded" His Truth or Word to man since it's inception.  The bible's scriptural preservation/accuracy, itself, is evidence of God's miraculous, overseeing of His Truth through the ages.

J.S. Jr. just didn't want to accept biblical scripture in total, and went the humanistic, fleshly route, that met his sinful, humanistic, fleshly desires...........Polygamy, marriage of very young girls to grown adult- perverted men.  If J.S. Jr. is a true prophet of God, then God is both fallible, unpredictable, weak, a sexual deviate, and no better or different that the pantheon of gods of the greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians....

As Romans Chapter One, succinctly states, "Man is without excuse", and that includes every human being, Mormon, J.W., .......You name 'em.  

As Romans states, God has revealed His very existence through His creation; namely the very finite, and mystery of life itself from the uni-cellular to the epitome of cellular, mankind himself.

Man has been given a "will" or "chooser" to say "Yeah" or "Nay" to all things within his realm of senses or God's creation.  That goes for the bible's contents too.  If man wants to believe that their is a pantheon of gods ruling the universe, or that he, man himself can become a god, he has not been stopped, but has been strongly cautioned via the bible.

The Mormons abide to what they call the "wide road", but the bible says that the "wide" or popular road leads to death and total separation from God(Hell).  The bible instead says, "Take the narrow road.", which metaphorically infers that it is not easy, and will not be the popular humanistic, fleshly, choice of those who continue in rebellion, self-love, self agrandizement, and Pride, with a big letter, "P".  The narrow road is the "crucified" life of Christ.  As Paul clearly said in *Galatians 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." *  This is not the route of or direction of Mormon doctrine or teaching, but actually the antithesis.  Paul's life as a Christian is now totally abiding in the life of Christ, and the life he/Paul now lives is in total surrender, and relationally connected to the deepest degree of his soul.  To live or abide in the "crucified" life, is not descriptive of a "picnic" on earth existence, but a life of walking a most painful walk at times, not for the desire to be a martyr, but because the alternative leades to total separation from God's presence for eternity.  To abide in Christ/God/the Spirit, is to place all things second before the Almighty!  When Jesus said that you must hate your mother, father, brothers, sisters to follow Me, the greek definition of "hate" meant you must love me more or greater than all others, not literal hate as in despising an enemy.   Hate, is a very poor translation, but does not take from the very accurate message of scripture.  

There are many translations of the bible, and all have their weak and strong points over the others in certain areas of translation.  Never the less, they all convey the same message:  Christ is God incarnate, God is one, and the only, and not a pantheon of choices.  

Sadly, Mormonism is trully a man-run, and authored, society at best, with second class citizenship to women epitomizing it's unGodly authorship.  Don't let the obsession with Boy Scouting, and all the other "leave to beaver" family life veneer fool you.  It is all a result of Mormonism placing works to be saved or pleasing to God, over, abiding by faith in the total work of Christ as the end-all to man's striving to reach, abide, and be at peace with God.  

The angel Moroni was either a masterful fiction of J.S. jr.'s mind, or an out and out demonic angel that really did a job on this J.S. Jr..  Just look back at that Roman's chapter 1, quote, and you can see how J.S. Jr. had brought on his own spiritual blindness, by suppressing both the truth for himself and his followers.

This man will face a most harsh judgement in the end times, as he will have the naive, and willing souls of millions of LDS members on his bloody hands and memory for an eternity.

No good Mormon is going to inherit a planet of his own to propagate his human race.  Why?  Cause being a good Mormon is a travesty before the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, John, Luke, Paul, James, Steven, and every true follower of the one and only Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Being a good Mormon is ignoring the very evidences of God as He is revealed in the bible, and instead laying all hope on a N.Y. scam artist who had a criminal record in N.Y. and did not fullfill the definition of a martyr by any secular or religious definition.  His followers exude pride, and Truthspeaker is propagating lies, and untruths, and if you are a true biblical Christian, confront Truthspeaker with scripture.  The truth of the bible is sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing so deep into a man's soul, even to the very "marrow" of his bones, metaphorically. 

Truthspeaker probably is an elder or will be one shortly.  He is taught that biblical Christians are naive, people lacking the true, "Truth", of namely this cockamaimee story of Joseph Smith's perverted/twisted imaginations, with much help from Lucifer.  The very name "Truthspeaker", reveals the very spiritual condition of this LDS missionary.  He has the truth.....end of story.  Is he hear to discuss life, and beliefs with an open mind.  No!  He's here for one thing only.  He needs another notch on his gun stock; one more convert to add to his bag of converts.

Satan is just sitting back in his easy-chair just lapping-up with joy everytime a biblical Christian is sucked into the LDS church.  They won't lose their salvation, but they will  live a most miserable life, out of the will of God.

Mormons are to be most pitied, but also to be cautious-of.

Paul said, "Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing!".  Truthspeaker is one of those wolves.  He has bought hook, line and sinker, into this skewed, manmade madness of fleshly works, and need to legitamize it through avid missionary endeavors.  This thread is his mission currently.  

Be respectful to him, but be cautious.  Behind that smiling exterior is a very lost, but ambition person that must make a quota of converts to earn brownie points with the LDS God; to be a Mormon in good standing.  J. Witnesses, go door to door under such angst and worry for their own security, as they try so hard to convince us all that Watch Tower is the way.  Their bible has convoluted so many N.T. verses in an endeavor to make Jesus to seem like just another prophet, or lesser being of God's realm.  

Realize that the 144,000 people mentioned in Revelations as 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Isreal is denied by the J.W.'s and claimed to be their members instead!

Remember, remember, cults devalue, and or lessen, the person of Christ down to just a divinely inspired person, but not God, or Jehovah.  J.W.'s won't even call God, "God".  More ritualism and fear.  Christmas trees and flag waving patriotism is forbidden, as they teach their converts that these are graven idols.  Can't remember last time I prayed to the American flag when I put my hand on my heart and pledged allegiance, nor do I remember worshipping that fir tree in our livingroom decorated at Christmas.

Folks, the bible said their will be so many coming through the future centuries saying, "I have the truth" or "I've seen the Christ"..........etc.... and they are all counterfeits, propagated by the Prince of this World............SATAN, and his cohorts, or demonic principalities.

Satan does not want the true Christ to be exaulted by mankind.  Satan does not want the crucifixion and ressurrection of Christ to be venerated, and believed by mankind.  At Calvary's cross, sin was defeated, Satan was neutered, and man was given access to the Holy of Holies........namely a relationship with their Creator, God Almighty.  God didn't offer perpetual sex on a new planet, nor 77 virgins, but the best of all, no more tears, total security, constant communion with our Maker, Joy, and peace everlasting.  Something that man cannot author.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> You really are a prime example of the quote "ignorance is bliss" Truthspeaker.
> 
> You should really seek out the truth and know it before you start to speak of it dude.



I heard ya the first time. Merry Christmas


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Nice little "Ditty" from N.T. Book Romans Chapter 1.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make it any clearer than that.  Paul sum's it up very clearly.
> 
> Man is without excuse.  God is and has not shrouded Himself in mystery nor allowed man to  have difficulty finding Him.  His true identity is found in any motel room in a Gideon bible, or at any Barnes and Nobles, or just about any library or person's home.  With that knowledge easily gleened from the bible, plus a contrite, and humbled heart, one can ask and one will receive eternal communion(permanent, eternal, new life) with the true and living God through the attoning death and life of Jesus His Son.
> 
> The bible has proven to be accurate to such an incredible extent both archeologically, and historically, and also is validated very strongly via the evidenciary Dead Sea scrolls that were written nearly 2,000 years ago.  The odds on our current translations being so very accurate to the 2,000 year old Black sea scrolls, is against all human and normal odds, and is "evidence" that demands a verdict.
> 
> In fact the Dead Sea Scrolls, say with sounding uproarious thunder, that God indeed has "protected" or "guarded" His Truth or Word to man since it's inception.  The bible's scriptural preservation/accuracy, itself, is evidence of God's miraculous, overseeing of His Truth through the ages.
> 
> J.S. Jr. just didn't want to accept biblical scripture in total, and went the humanistic, fleshly route, that met his sinful, humanistic, fleshly desires...........Polygamy, marriage of very young girls to grown adult- perverted men.  If J.S. Jr. is a true prophet of God, then God is both fallible, unpredictable, weak, a sexual deviate, and no better or different that the pantheon of gods of the greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians....
> 
> As Romans Chapter One, succinctly states, "Man is without excuse", and that includes every human being, Mormon, J.W., .......You name 'em.
> 
> As Romans states, God has revealed His very existence through His creation; namely the very finite, and mystery of life itself from the uni-cellular to the epitome of cellular, mankind himself.
> 
> Man has been given a "will" or "chooser" to say "Yeah" or "Nay" to all things within his realm of senses or God's creation.  That goes for the bible's contents too.  If man wants to believe that their is a pantheon of gods ruling the universe, or that he, man himself can become a god, he has not been stopped, but has been strongly cautioned via the bible.
> 
> The Mormons abide to what they call the "wide road", but the bible says that the "wide" or popular road leads to death and total separation from God(Hell).  The bible instead says, "Take the narrow road.", which metaphorically infers that it is not easy, and will not be the popular humanistic, fleshly, choice of those who continue in rebellion, self-love, self agrandizement, and Pride, with a big letter, "P".  The narrow road is the "crucified" life of Christ.  As Paul clearly said in *Galatians 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." *  This is not the route of or direction of Mormon doctrine or teaching, but actually the antithesis.  Paul's life as a Christian is now totally abiding in the life of Christ, and the life he/Paul now lives is in total surrender, and relationally connected to the deepest degree of his soul.  To live or abide in the "crucified" life, is not descriptive of a "picnic" on earth existence, but a life of walking a most painful walk at times, not for the desire to be a martyr, but because the alternative leades to total separation from God's presence for eternity.  To abide in Christ/God/the Spirit, is to place all things second before the Almighty!  When Jesus said that you must hate your mother, father, brothers, sisters to follow Me, the greek definition of "hate" meant you must love me more or greater than all others, not literal hate as in despising an enemy.   Hate, is a very poor translation, but does not take from the very accurate message of scripture.
> 
> There are many translations of the bible, and all have their weak and strong points over the others in certain areas of translation.  Never the less, they all convey the same message:  Christ is God incarnate, God is one, and the only, and not a pantheon of choices.
> 
> Sadly, Mormonism is trully a man-run, and authored, society at best, with second class citizenship to women epitomizing it's unGodly authorship.  Don't let the obsession with Boy Scouting, and all the other "leave to beaver" family life veneer fool you.  It is all a result of Mormonism placing works to be saved or pleasing to God, over, abiding by faith in the total work of Christ as the end-all to man's striving to reach, abide, and be at peace with God.
> 
> The angel Moroni was either a masterful fiction of J.S. jr.'s mind, or an out and out demonic angel that really did a job on this J.S. Jr..  Just look back at that Roman's chapter 1, quote, and you can see how J.S. Jr. had brought on his own spiritual blindness, by suppressing both the truth for himself and his followers.
> 
> This man will face a most harsh judgement in the end times, as he will have the naive, and willing souls of millions of LDS members on his bloody hands and memory for an eternity.
> 
> No good Mormon is going to inherit a planet of his own to propagate his human race.  Why?  Cause being a good Mormon is a travesty before the God of Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, John, Luke, Paul, James, Steven, and every true follower of the one and only Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
> 
> Being a good Mormon is ignoring the very evidences of God as He is revealed in the bible, and instead laying all hope on a N.Y. scam artist who had a criminal record in N.Y. and did not fullfill the definition of a martyr by any secular or religious definition.  His followers exude pride, and Truthspeaker is propagating lies, and untruths, and if you are a true biblical Christian, confront Truthspeaker with scripture.  The truth of the bible is sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing so deep into a man's soul, even to the very "marrow" of his bones, metaphorically.
> 
> Truthspeaker probably is an elder or will be one shortly.  He is taught that biblical Christians are naive, people lacking the true, "Truth", of namely this cockamaimee story of Joseph Smith's perverted/twisted imaginations, with much help from Lucifer.  The very name "Truthspeaker", reveals the very spiritual condition of this LDS missionary.  He has the truth.....end of story.  Is he hear to discuss life, and beliefs with an open mind.  No!  He's here for one thing only.  He needs another notch on his gun stock; one more convert to add to his bag of converts.
> 
> Satan is just sitting back in his easy-chair just lapping-up with joy everytime a biblical Christian is sucked into the LDS church.  They won't lose their salvation, but they will  live a most miserable life, out of the will of God.
> 
> Mormons are to be most pitied, but also to be cautious-of.
> 
> Paul said, "Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing!".  Truthspeaker is one of those wolves.  He has bought hook, line and sinker, into this skewed, manmade madness of fleshly works, and need to legitamize it through avid missionary endeavors.  This thread is his mission currently.
> 
> Be respectful to him, but be cautious.  Behind that smiling exterior is a very lost, but ambition person that must make a quota of converts to earn brownie points with the LDS God; to be a Mormon in good standing.  J. Witnesses, go door to door under such angst and worry for their own security, as they try so hard to convince us all that Watch Tower is the way.  Their bible has convoluted so many N.T. verses in an endeavor to make Jesus to seem like just another prophet, or lesser being of God's realm.
> 
> Realize that the 144,000 people mentioned in Revelations as 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Isreal is denied by the J.W.'s and claimed to be their members instead!
> 
> Remember, remember, cults devalue, and or lessen, the person of Christ down to just a divinely inspired person, but not God, or Jehovah.  J.W.'s won't even call God, "God".  More ritualism and fear.  Christmas trees and flag waving patriotism is forbidden, as they teach their converts that these are graven idols.  Can't remember last time I prayed to the American flag when I put my hand on my heart and pledged allegiance, nor do I remember worshipping that fir tree in our livingroom decorated at Christmas.
> 
> Folks, the bible said their will be so many coming through the future centuries saying, "I have the truth" or "I've seen the Christ"..........etc.... and they are all counterfeits, propagated by the Prince of this World............SATAN, and his cohorts, or demonic principalities.
> 
> Satan does not want the true Christ to be exaulted by mankind.  Satan does not want the crucifixion and ressurrection of Christ to be venerated, and believed by mankind.  At Calvary's cross, sin was defeated, Satan was neutered, and man was given access to the Holy of Holies........namely a relationship with their Creator, God Almighty.  God didn't offer perpetual sex on a new planet, nor 77 virgins, but the best of all, no more tears, total security, constant communion with our Maker, Joy, and peace everlasting.  Something that man cannot author.



Well you never cease to amaze me there 8 ball. that is quite an interpretation of the scriptures to call me a wolf in sheeps clothing, I never claimed to be a prophet so I am not the person warned about in the scripture. In fact, from the start I have told people that I am NOT trying to convince others of my faith, but only to clarify the truth of what we believe. 
In your incessant and truly baseless attacks against me you have spouted off the worst insults and assumptions of my faith. You are entitled. Whatever dude.
I guess they are based on your wild interpretations without authority. go for it.
Well I am here if anyone wants to ask questions about 1 issue at a time if this meeting is not fully adjourned. 
Talk to you later.


----------



## Eightball

You do, most completely fullfill what biblical scripture defines as a "Sheep in Wolve's Clothing".

You come here playing the innocent, person who wants to dialogue about faith and Christianity, but all along your agenda is just what you've been succinctly taught by your elders.

From the biblical perspective, you are that Wolf, but from your skewed perspective, your a persecuted, person with the Truth.


----------



## Modbert

First off, sorry if this has already been addressed but I don't feel like reading 58 pages today. 

1.) Joseph Smith was a con man. Alot of what he talked about for Mormonism is what he made up as he went along. For example, Polygamy was originally not a part of the religion. However, eventually it was when he amassed I believe over 7 wives and 50 children.

2.) Similar to honor killings in the Islam world, Blood Atonement. The whole act that if someone has committed a act (murder, rape, especially rape and murder of a child) then the only way they can get into salvation (heaven though  that they could still get in) is if a fellow member of the church killed them out of love not vengeance. I understand Brigham Young, the leader after Joseph Smith was the one who started this. This continued well into the 20th century, which even helped pass Utah's firing squad laws.

I've done plenty of research on this so I believe I'm correct when I say this.

My question is, how do you feel about that being a part of your religion's history? And I assume also that you don't feel it should be brought back today?


----------



## DavidS

Truthspeaker said:


> thank you for your wonderful reply. That is exactly what I hope everyone thinks about Joseph. He was either a con man or a prophet. People will draw their own conclusions. I have drawn mine. What I say is that no one will really know unless they get a confirmation from God through prayer. Unless that comes, then people will decide which argument makes more sense to them in order to form their opinions about Joseph Smith. But all this does fulfill another prophechy spoken by the angel Moroni in Joseph Smith History chapter 1 verse 33"...and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people (JSH 1:33).



Wait, wait, wait. This is too good to be true. Are you a Mormon who lives in San Francisco? That's like a Chasddic Jew who lives in Utah, or a Buddhist who lives in Alabama, or a Taoist who lives in India.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Modbert said:


> First off, sorry if this has already been addressed but I don't feel like reading 58 pages today.
> 
> 1.) Joseph Smith was a con man. Alot of what he talked about for Mormonism is what he made up as he went along. For example, Polygamy was originally not a part of the religion. However, eventually it was when he amassed I believe over 7 wives and 50 children.
> 
> 2.) Similar to honor killings in the Islam world, Blood Atonement. The whole act that if someone has committed a act (murder, rape, especially rape and murder of a child) then the only way they can get into salvation (heaven though  that they could still get in) is if a fellow member of the church killed them out of love not vengeance. I understand Brigham Young, the leader after Joseph Smith was the one who started this. This continued well into the 20th century, which even helped pass Utah's firing squad laws.
> 
> I've done plenty of research on this so I believe I'm correct when I say this.
> 
> My question is, how do you feel about that being a part of your religion's history? And I assume also that you don't feel it should be brought back today?



See TS?  I'm not the only one in the world that sees a correlation between Islam and Mormon beliefs.


----------



## Neubarth

As long as they teach salvation through faith and inspire people to lives of morality they are OK by me.  

Religions that teach that you must convert "or we will kill you" need to be stomped out.  Thus, I favor the complete termination of Radical Islam.  Most of my Islamic friends do, too. I would hope that Islam could cleanse itself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

DavidS said:


> Wait, wait, wait. This is too good to be true. Are you a Mormon who lives in San Francisco? That's like a Chasddic Jew who lives in Utah, or a Buddhist who lives in Alabama, or a Taoist who lives in India.



Miracles do happen


----------



## Truthspeaker

Modbert said:


> First off, sorry if this has already been addressed but I don't feel like reading 58 pages today.
> 
> 1.) Joseph Smith was a con man. Alot of what he talked about for Mormonism is what he made up as he went along. For example, Polygamy was originally not a part of the religion. However, eventually it was when he amassed I believe over 7 wives and 50 children.
> 
> 2.) Similar to honor killings in the Islam world, Blood Atonement. The whole act that if someone has committed a act (murder, rape, especially rape and murder of a child) then the only way they can get into salvation (heaven though  that they could still get in) is if a fellow member of the church killed them out of love not vengeance. I understand Brigham Young, the leader after Joseph Smith was the one who started this. This continued well into the 20th century, which even helped pass Utah's firing squad laws.
> 
> I've done plenty of research on this so I believe I'm correct when I say this.
> 
> My question is, how do you feel about that being a part of your religion's history? And I assume also that you don't feel it should be brought back today?



Well you have done your research and I have done mine. I know for a certainty that he was not because of two reasons put together, my prayers combined with overwhelming "coincidences" that Joseph Smith knew nothing about ancient literature but hit every historical norm of the Jews and Asiatic warfare while describing in detail conditions in the arabian desert and new world that it is truly impossible for him to have known. Especially for a backwoods farm boy in 1826. The actual teachings of Joseph Smith have inspired me to live a better life. I am sure you have your reasons to believe as you do. But i am sticking to mine.
2) I like your manipulative question. you must be in sales. I must say the teaching you have heard about us being allowed to kill anyone of our families is incorrect, despite your research. I feel great about the fact that people feel they constantly need to "expose" something they truly haven't studied. They look up mormon history on anti-mormon websites and books but don't bother to get the straight dope from the horses mouth. As far as they are concerned, they have heard "what the mormons won't tell you." then they give up because they don't possibly think that a knowledgeable mormon can possibly refute their errors. That's how I feel. How do you feel? Are you really interested in finding out what we believe or are you just anxious to try and prove a smiling stranger wrong. If you have drawn all of your conclusions and are not willing to hear my side of a story, then don't waste yours or my time.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Neubarth said:


> As long as they teach salvation through faith and inspire people to lives of morality they are OK by me.
> 
> Religions that teach that you must convert "or we will kill you" need to be stomped out.  Thus, I favor the complete termination of Radical Islam.  Most of my Islamic friends do, too. I would hope that Islam could cleanse itself.



Well I haven't heard from you in a while, thanks for sticking up for us to some degree. What took you so long to come back on this thread?


----------



## Truthspeaker

DavidS said:


> Wait, wait, wait. This is too good to be true. Are you a Mormon who lives in San Francisco? That's like a Chasddic Jew who lives in Utah, or a Buddhist who lives in Alabama, or a Taoist who lives in India.



By the way I'd be willing to bet that all those other circumstances have probably already happened.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> See TS?  I'm not the only one in the world that sees a correlation between Islam and Mormon beliefs.



it's true biker! You are not original


----------



## AllieBaba

ABikerSailor said:


> You really are a prime example of the quote "ignorance is bliss" Truthspeaker.
> 
> You should really seek out the truth and know it before you start to speak of it dude.



Are you trying to be funny? Because at this point in time I'm laughing my butt off at you.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> it's true biker! You are not original



I'm not original.....nope.....new thoughts are rare, and I don't choose to waste them on you.

What has 2 thumbs and don't really give a fuck what you think?

<--------Rob Murphy.  How ya doing?


----------



## Modbert

Truthspeaker said:


> Well you have done your research and I have done mine. I know for a certainty that he was not because of two reasons put together, my prayers combined with overwhelming "coincidences" that Joseph Smith knew nothing about ancient literature but hit every historical norm of the Jews and Asiatic warfare while describing in detail conditions in the arabian desert and new world that it is truly impossible for him to have known. Especially for a backwoods farm boy in 1826. The actual teachings of Joseph Smith have inspired me to live a better life. I am sure you have your reasons to believe as you do. But i am sticking to mine.
> 2) I like your manipulative question. you must be in sales. I must say the teaching you have heard about us being allowed to kill anyone of our families is incorrect, despite your research. I feel great about the fact that people feel they constantly need to "expose" something they truly haven't studied. They look up mormon history on anti-mormon websites and books but don't bother to get the straight dope from the horses mouth. As far as they are concerned, they have heard "what the mormons won't tell you." then they give up because they don't possibly think that a knowledgeable mormon can possibly refute their errors. That's how I feel. How do you feel? Are you really interested in finding out what we believe or are you just anxious to try and prove a smiling stranger wrong. If you have drawn all of your conclusions and are not willing to hear my side of a story, then don't waste yours or my time.



1.) How do we know that Joseph Smith did not know the other religion literatures? Mormonism is a mix of Christianity, Islam, and some Judaism.

2.) I'm not saying you're allowed to kill anyone for no reason. I'm simply stating according to Blood Atonement that if you murder, rape, or another horrible deed that compares to such a extent then the only way for you to reach salvation is to be killed by a member of the church.

Blood Atonement and the Early Mormon Church

I'm not "exposing" anything but rather showing the facts of history here. I love how you must assume that I got my information from Anti-Mormon books or websites when I didn't. By simply assuming that I did such a thing is a attack on my character in order to try and invalidate my points because of my character.

You didn't even bother to answer my question. All you did was tell me I was wrong, and some bullshit.

I'm interested in finding out what you thought, but obviously you think I'm attacking your religion and being seen as some enemy that you must character destroy in order to validate your own points.

If I wasn't interested in hearing your story, I wouldn't of asked would I?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Modbert said:


> 1.) How do we know that Joseph Smith did not know the other religion literatures? Mormonism is a mix of Christianity, Islam, and some Judaism.
> 
> 2.) I'm not saying you're allowed to kill anyone for no reason. I'm simply stating according to Blood Atonement that if you murder, rape, or another horrible deed that compares to such a extent then the only way for you to reach salvation is to be killed by a member of the church.
> 
> Blood Atonement and the Early Mormon Church
> 
> I'm not "exposing" anything but rather showing the facts of history here. I love how you must assume that I got my information from Anti-Mormon books or websites when I didn't. By simply assuming that I did such a thing is a attack on my character in order to try and invalidate my points because of my character.
> 
> You didn't even bother to answer my question. All you did was tell me I was wrong, and some bullshit.
> 
> I'm interested in finding out what you thought, but obviously you think I'm attacking your religion and being seen as some enemy that you must character destroy in order to validate your own points.
> 
> If I wasn't interested in hearing your story, I wouldn't of asked would I?



Well, then, since we cannot hear intonations in print, we are bound to eventually have some misunderstandings. Thank you for showing some genuine interest and I will forgive you for insulting me back with the  sign. If you have followed a small portion of this thread I created you would not blame me for being a little gunshy. I have answered people questions every single time. Some have not liked my answers but in this thread, I would consider myself the authority on my religion before anyone else who is not part of my religion. 
I came here for genuine dialogue and that is what you will get from me. What, now if I am not mistaken, did I fail to address in your post?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Well, then, since we cannot hear intonations in print, we are bound to eventually have some misunderstandings. Thank you for showing some genuine interest and I will forgive you for insulting me back with the  sign.  Turn the other cheek isn't in your doctrine is it? If you have followed a small portion of this thread I created you would not blame me for being a little gunshy. I have answered people questions every single time.  Totally untrue!  You've repeated that same mantra throughout this thread.  You have not answered most if any of the pertinent questions about your religion at all! Some have not liked my answers but in this thread, I would consider myself the authority on my religion before anyone else who is not part of my religion.  Pride.......Not, a Christian attribute.
> I came here for genuine dialogue cough, cough..such lies.  You've come here like a male Peacock spreading it's wings.  You don't answer legitimate questions, and you dismiss people, who don't agree with you.  Also you play the "victim of persecution" as you've been totally schooled in your church and that is what you will get from me. What, now if I am not mistaken, did I fail to address in your post?



Smiles, apple pie, the American flag, and "leave to beaver" living don't cut it with God.  "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" Romans N.T./Author Paul


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Well, then, since we cannot hear intonations in print, we are bound to eventually have some misunderstandings. Thank you for showing some genuine interest and I will forgive you for insulting me back with the  sign. If you have followed a small portion of this thread I created you would not blame me for being a little gunshy. I have answered people questions every single time. Some have not liked my answers but in this thread, *I would consider myself the authority on my religion before anyone else who is not part of my religion. *I came here for genuine dialogue and that is what you will get from me. What, now if I am not mistaken, did I fail to address in your post?



Pride cometh before a fall?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Smiles, apple pie, the American flag, and "leave to beaver" living don't cut it with God.  "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" Romans N.T./Author Paul



Specifics please? what didn't I answer?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Pride cometh before a fall?



You are ill man. seriously weird.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Standard response when you're out of arguments.

Truthspeaker, you're full of shit.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> You are ill man. seriously weird.



There is a sickness indigenous to man.......Pride?

Does it ring a bell of familiarity? 

If I'm ill because I believe the Word of God/bible is complete, and totally capable of directing man's ways, and instructing him in the way to go and how he must make a finality to his pursuit to God through the redeeming blood, and sacrificed life of Christ, who does not have a spiritual brother named Satan, and is God, as He succinctly stated to those ready to stone Him to death for Blasphemy(claiming to be God)..............Then yes, I'm ill; very, very, ill.   And very very humbly glad to be ill in that way.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> There is a sickness indigenous to man.......Pride?
> 
> Does it ring a bell of familiarity?
> 
> If I'm ill because I believe the Word of God/bible is complete, and totally capable of directing man's ways, and instructing him in the way to go and how he must make a finality to his pursuit to God through the redeeming blood, and sacrificed life of Christ, who does not have a spiritual brother named Satan, and is God, as He succinctly stated to those ready to stone Him to death for Blasphemy(claiming to be God)..............Then yes, I'm ill; very, very, ill.   And very very humbly glad to be ill in that way.



Do you think you know more about Mormonism that Truthspeaker does?  That's all he is saying, isn't it, that someone who is a part of the faith knows more about it than someone who is not?

As for the Bible....

Are you really going to assert  that the Bible is the complete word of God?  

Are you aware of the history of how the modern Bible came to be?


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Standard response when you're out of arguments.
> 
> Truthspeaker, you're full of shit.



Again I am not arguing my religion over someone elses. This thread is about the truth of what we believe, I have already defended all attacks and you and 8-ball are only on this thread to insult me and mormonism. Not to learn anything about the truth of what we believe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> There is a sickness indigenous to man.......Pride?
> 
> Does it ring a bell of familiarity? So i guess I should learn from you, the master of all humility.
> 
> If I'm ill because I believe the Word of God/bible is complete, and totally capable of directing man's ways, and instructing him in the way to go and how he must make a finality to his pursuit to God through the redeeming blood, and sacrificed life of Christ, who does not have a spiritual brother named Satan, and is God, as He succinctly stated to those ready to stone Him to death for Blasphemy(claiming to be God)..............Then yes, I'm ill; very, very, ill.   And very very humbly glad to be ill in that way.


 Believe what you want and I respect your beliefs. but to say that god cannot or would not ever speak anything new that is not in the bible is both arrogant and ignorant. Had you done research on the chronologically last written book of the Bible you would have known that the book of John was the last to be written. Interesting that individuals responsible for putting together the bible decided not to put the book in chronological order. I think they were afraid that putting the book of John last would have destroyed their craft. Take a gander at the last verse of John which would be John 21:25. It reads And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

Instead the "scholars" in charge of putting together the bible into it's current cannon decided to end with REvelation 22:19-21, verse 19 was misinterpreted to mean that no more books can come. "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." 

Are you kidding? John was clearly talking about the book of Revelation only. Otherwise we cannot accept most of the New Testament. It is abundantly clear that God would continue to communicate with his children rather than just abandon them.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Believe what you want and I respect your beliefs. but to say that *god* cannot or would not ever speak anything new that is not in the bible is both arrogant and ignorant. Had you done research on the chronologically last written book of the Bible you would have known that the book of John was the last to be written. Interesting that individuals responsible for putting together the bible decided not to put the book in chronological order. I think they were afraid that putting the book of John last would have destroyed their craft. Take a gander at the last verse of John which would be John 21:25. It reads And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
> 
> Instead the "scholars" in charge of putting together the bible into it's current cannon decided to end with REvelation 22:19-21, verse 19 was misinterpreted to mean that no more books can come. "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
> 
> Are you kidding? John was clearly talking about the book of Revelation only. Otherwise we cannot accept most of the New Testament. It is abundantly clear that God would continue to communicate with his children rather than just abandon them.



For such a devout believer in God, you sure as hell don't realize that you're supposed to capitalize His Name everytime. 

But......I'm sure you knew that, as you've told us time and again how gifted you are with noticing the details.

Second question........Do you capitalize moroni's name all the time, or just some of the time?


----------



## AllieBaba

Is the thing about capitalizing God's name in the bible somewhere?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah.....it is......we are told to be respectful of Father at all times.


----------



## Skeptik

I believe god refers to any deity, while God refers to one's personal god.


----------



## KittenKoder

The word god is a title of position not a name.


----------



## Eightball

Actually various translations capitalize "God" and others don't.  The NIV doesn't normally, but the NASB does, and I'd assume the KJV that the Mormons semi-respect, but consider corrupted like the others does capitalize references to God, also.  I.E.  His, Him, Lord, God, Himself, Emanuel, Adonai, Jehovah, Jesus,


----------



## Eightball

*The Temple Endowment Ceremony 
Masonic Roots of Mormonism..*

This is an excerpt from an article by Mark Hines, M.A.

Some Mormons do not realize that their temple Endowment ceremony was copied directly from rites in Masonry. The Mormon temple ceremony has no connection whatsoever with Christianity. On March 15, 1842, Joe Smith became an Entered Apprentice Mason, and the next day he became a Master Mason. The usual thirty-day wait between degrees was waived by Abraham Jonas, Grandmaster of the Illinois Lodge.

Joe Smith admitted to being a Mason in his History of the Church (vol. 4, p. 551).

Under the date of March 15, 1842 his entry is, "In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office" (History of the Church vol. 4, p. 551).

The very next day he noted becoming a Master Mason, "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree" (Ibid., p. 552).

Dr. Reed Durham, who was president of the Mormon History Association, noted:

"There is absolutely no question in my mind that the Mormon ceremony which came to be known as the Endowment, introduced by Joseph Smith to Mormon Masons, had an immediate inspiration from Masonry. It is also obvious that the Nauvoo Temple architecture was in part, at least, Masonically influenced. Indeed, it appears that there was an intentional attempt to utilize Masonic symbols and motifs. . . ." (Mormon Miscellaneous, pub. David C. Martin, October, 1975, pp. 11-16). 

Less than two months after becoming a Master Mason, Joe Smith introduced the Endowment ceremony. For the Endowment ceremony, Joe Smith copied Masonic rites from a book called Freemasonry Exposed (1827) by William Morgan. When one compares the Nauvoo ceremony with the Masonic rite in Morgan's book, one easily sees the Masonic influence on the Mormon rite. The two rites resemble each other to the point of being identical at places. Morgan's account was an exposé of his local York Rite's "Craft" degrees.

One can easily see the similarities between Masonic and Mormon rites. The penalty for revealing the First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, Smith copied from the penalty of disclosing the first degree (Entered Apprentice) of Freemasonry.

Mormon text: "We, and each of us, covenant and promise that we will not reveal any of the secrets of this, the first token of the Aaronic priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign or penalty. Should we do so, we agree that our throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots" (W. M. Paden, Temple Mormonism, 1931, p. 18).

Mason text: "I will . . . never reveal any part or parts, art or arts, point or points of the secret arts and mysteries of ancient Freemasonry . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots. . . ." (William Morgan, Freemasonry Exposed, 1827, pp. 21-22)

Compare the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood with the Second Degree (Fellow Craft) oath:

Mormon text: "We and each of us do covenant and promise that we will not reveal the secrets of this, the Second Token of the Aaronic Priesthood, with its accompanying name, sign, grip, or penalty. Should we do so, we agree to have our breasts cut open and our hearts and vitals torn from our bodies and given to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field" (Paden, p. 20)

Mason text: "I . . . most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear . . . that I will not give the degree of a Fellow Craft Mason to any one of an inferior degree, nor to any other being in the known world . . . binding myself under no less penalty than to have my left breast torn open and my heart and vitals taken from thence . . . to become a prey to the wild beasts of the field, and vulture of the air. . . ." (Morgan, p. 52).

Besides similar penalties, there are also similar signs, arm positions, ear whisperings, passwords and handgrips. For instance, compare the "First Token of the Aaronic Priesthood" grip with the "First Degree" Masonic grip:

Mormon text:
Peter - "What is that?"
Adam - "The first token of the Aaronic Priesthood."
Peter - "Has it a name?"
Adam - "It has."
Peter - "Will you give it to me?"
Adam - "I can not, for it is connected with my new name, but this is the sign" (Paden, p. 20).

Mason text:
"What is this?"
Ans. "A grip."
"A grip of what?"
Ans. "The grip of an Entered Apprentice Mason."
"Has it a name?"
Ans. "It has."
"Will you give it to me?"
Ans. "I did not so receive it, neither can I so impart it." (Morgan, pp. 23-24).

Joe Smith copied the Mormon Endowment ceremony directly from the Blue Lodge degrees of Freemasonry, and he borrowed Masonic symbolism, such as the Masonic markings on underwear Mormons wear. Over the right breast in Mormon underwear is a carpenter's square, and over the left, a mason's compass. The opening at the navel is symbolic of the evisceration penalty for disclosing Mormon secrets. Mormons are taught that their underwear, and in particular its Masonic markings, "will be a shield and a protection" to them from the power of the destroyer (Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, vol. 2, p. 295).

When the underwear becomes worn, Mormons may use the garment as, say, a rag only if they cut out and burn the patches with the Masonic square and compass. The occult power is in the Masonic symbolism.

Ashamed and embarrassed about Smith's copying Masonic rites for the Endowment ceremony, Mormon officials expunged the Five Points of Fellowship and the Penalties from the Endowment in 1990. (Top)


----------



## AllieBaba

So we're agreed there's nothing about capitalizing the word "God" in the bible and that it is irrelevant.

Thank you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Eightball said:


> Actually various translations capitalize "God" and others don't.  The NIV doesn't normally, but the NASB does, and I'd assume the KJV that the Mormons semi-respect, but consider corrupted like the others does capitalize references to God, also.  I.E.  His, Him, Lord, God, Himself, Emanuel, Adonai, Jehovah, Jesus,



The Mormons do NOT consider the Bible corrupted. You keep making that lie as if it were true.


----------



## Eightball

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Mormons do NOT consider the Bible corrupted. You keep making that lie as if it were true.



Shows you how much you know about your own faith/religion.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Shows you how much you know about your own faith/religion.



I didn't know that RetiredGySgt was a Mormon also.

Church doctrine is that the Bible is correct so far as it has been translated correctly.

Actually, there is no mystery about LDS doctrine.  It is succintly summed up in the Articles of Faith.



> 8.  We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dude 8-ball, you have no understanding of what the free masons are so you think that our religion is just copied from it. If you knew the history of the free masons it is a tradition passed down from Solomon's Temple and the signs and symbols that happened there. Over the years some of the symbols had been lost to time and misinterpreted as well. Joseph Smith, interested in the popular Masonry of the day, joined to see what all the fuss was about. It is not a religion, free masonry, it is more of a social club where people use the signs that the original stone masons copied from the temple ceremonies of Solomon's Temple, which was of God, to distinguish themselves from another. 
In Masonic meetings they talk with each other about the meaning of life and religion. 
However Joseph, being a  prophet, inquired of the Lord concerning the true meaning of these symbols from masonry. 
He was revealed which signs were true, and which should be eliminated as not having the true symbolism. It was part of the restoration of the gospel or "restitution of all things, spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:14-15.
It's no secret that Joseph was a Mason. Nothing to be ashamed of either. In fact it turns out yet again to be a strong stamp of authenticity of the prophet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.....it is......we are told to be respectful of Father at all times.



If I was trying to have perfect punctuation all the time, I would have tried a little harder Professor Sailor. Thank you for grading my posts. I already know they are getting a low grade from you so I didn't bother to fix the spelling or punctuation errors. 

Oh yeah, I don't remember where we capitalized the name MORONI but if you could refresh my memory, I could clarify the reason why. Anywhoo, We do captilize the name of God and Jesus in Scripture.


----------



## Truthspeaker

As for the Bible, I wouldn't say it has been corrupted, but it is no longer a secret that it has been tampered with. For one, the original manuscripts included in the bible are nowhere to be found. The few original translations from the greek are missing pages, gee, I wonder why
Then the most suspicious blatant attack on the true word of God was the Nicean creed, in which, Constantinople, the pagan Roman emperor decided to try and unify the peope by forcing leaders of the church to get together for a great debate and compromise over what books and interpretations should be included in the bible. 
No prophet or apostle was present to quell the debate but instead man was left to his own uninspired wisdom. Several valuable books were voted out of the original cannon. There was a great show called "Banned from the Bible" that just aired on the History Channel. I just watched it and so should you.Check this out.http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-19-2003/0002079002&EDATE It is plain to see that all knowledge and wisdom is not contained in one book, but from the ever speaking mouth of God.

We are grateful that there is anything even left of the Bible.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Dude 8-ball, you have no understanding of what the free masons are so you think that our religion is just copied from it. If you knew the history of the free masons it is a tradition passed down from Solomon's Temple and the signs and symbols that happened there. Over the years some of the symbols had been lost to time and misinterpreted as well. Joseph Smith, interested in the popular Masonry of the day, joined to see what all the fuss was about. It is not a religion, free masonry, it is more of a social club where people use the signs that the original stone masons copied from the temple ceremonies of Solomon's Temple, which was of God, to distinguish themselves from another.
> In Masonic meetings they talk with each other about the meaning of life and religion.
> However Joseph, being a  prophet, inquired of the Lord concerning the true meaning of these symbols from masonry.
> He was revealed which signs were true, and which should be eliminated as not having the true symbolism. It was part of the restoration of the gospel or "restitution of all things, spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began." Acts 3:14-15.
> It's no secret that Joseph was a Mason. Nothing to be ashamed of either. In fact it turns out yet again to be a strong stamp of authenticity of the prophet.



My friend, my Dad was a 32nd degree Scottish Rite Freemson, and went through all the chairs of the Lodge, and was a "Worshipful Master"!!!!!!!!

My sister was a Job's Daugher, and worked her way to "Honored Queen" of her Bethel!!!!!!!!

I have a nice ancient copy of the "Morals and Dogmas Of Freemasonry" by the venerated Albert Pike, whom Freemasons don't like to tell anyone that he was a high up official in the KKK!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't give me any bloviating about what I don't know about Freemasonry.  I lived with it all my life.  My Uncles were Freemasons, my dad was gone every Friday night of my growing up, attending his meetings.

My Grandmother was a full blown LDS, and her husband, Frederick, was an Episcopalean.  They married and lived in Salt Lake City.  Frederick owned two Saloons in Salt Lake City.  Though not LDS, he also was a craftsman and helped build the Mormon Tabernacle.  I have a beer mug from his saloon that dates back to the later 1800's that says Pabst's of Milwaukee, on it and has a picture of the Bee Hive, on one side and Brigham Young's picture on the other side!

I've done extensive study of Mormonism, also working with Ex-Mormons for Jesus in Portland Oregon, back in my bible school days.

You don't have to be LDS to know your religion, and where it's pushing doctrinally.  Just takes a little scratching of the surface and all the skewed stuff just spews out.  

What a "haughty" statement by the LDS to say that the bible is "ok" so long as it is translated correctly or is correct with the original.

What gives the LDS church and it's hierarchy the cajones or credentials to judge the bible's credentials when their BOM has had over 4,000 major and minor changes?

The whole core of true Christianity is built upon the "grace" of God.  Grace=unmerited favor.  That's what God extended to us through the sacrificing of His Son's life in our place(The passover lamb).

The whole LDS concept is rolled up in one basic revealing; you must continue to do good works to reach a levels in the after-life.  They take the James chaper 4 statement of "My faith has works" said by James and construe that to mean that works is what God desires or needs for us to prove ourselves worthy.  This is so anti-biblical, and so out of context.  James first of all was talking to Christians, not unsaved.  He was letting the "saved" know that a "naturally"expression of their new, saved life through the blood of Christ, will be revealed in good works, or works that are a result of the prompting of God's resident Spirit, or Holy Spirit in these Christian's souls.

Faith or belief is said over and over again, in the bible, then comes works as a result of becoming a changed or new creature/creation in Christ Jesus.  It is very straight forward, yet the LDS church "keys in" on the James passaged takes it out of context, makes it the key reason that they must go out on missions, knock on peoples doors, and all kinds of works of kindness.

God owns thousands of cattle on a thousand hills!  Meaning, God doesn't need our wealth, our charity, our works to make Him happy with us or Himself.

God is most please with us, because with contrite, and humble hearts we finally surrendered in our hearts and admitted that He/Jesus must become, or be Lord of our lives.  Not just in name, but in actual reality.  To call Him, "Lord Jesus" and to live our own way and reason devoid of supplication, prayer, and humility before most righteous Creator, is to be a hypocrite, and illiterate of the ramifications of His title, "Lord".

Lord, means to rule, to have sway and way before our wills.

It means that, though we have free-will, we have a very important responsibility to appropriate to Him, what He is worthy or deserving-of.  If indeed He made all things, then He is most competent to take care of our needs as well.  Self, is our battlefield.  Will we allow that metaphorical throne in our soul to have ourselves seated on it, or will we rightfully allow Christ to take that thrown at the very center of our being?

The LDS church is a manmade mishmash of do's and don't's not unlike the thousands of extra laws that the Jews added to the 10 commandments.  Jesus was born into an environment or nation/Israel that was literally hamstrung by do's and don't laws.  The Pharisee's, of His time were supposed to be the ethical and religious guides of the people, but instead they were men obsessed with power, and position, and control of the people through a myriads of laws that had nothing to do with faith in God.

God just wants us.  We have only one major responsiblity.  We must as an act of our God given wills, believe with all our hearts that Jesus is source of forgiveness of past, present, and future sins, and that He/Jesus was the only possible human being who could fullfill God's righteous desire.  Christ was the only unblemished lamb/human who could fullfill God's righteous judgement upon rebellious, and sin natured man.

So, our part is to accept, belief, and then rest in Christ's finished work.  Also believe/accept that fact that Christ has also given us the H.S. to guide, counsel, and direct us not with shouting, and guilt, but with gentle, loving persuasion, as we are called God's adopted sons and daughters.

How can we know that Mormonism is the new or better truth?  Shall it be decided by a burn bosom testimony that could easily be counterfeited by Lucifer?  Or shall we rest upon the Word, and the Word only to validate what is from God and what is not?

The LDS church encourages it's people to believe upon visual, audible, and dream like occurrences to validate the Mormon church as "the church".  

Paul says, "No!" Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Jesus said, "Go and do thou likewise."
Jesus states in Matthew chapter 5 verse 48"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
Why would Jesus command us to do something impossible? Because he wants us to try, then his grace will do the rest.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Jesus said, "Go and do thou likewise."
> Jesus states in Matthew chapter 5 verse 48"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
> Why would Jesus command us to do something impossible? Because he wants us to try, then his grace will do the rest.



You still don't get it.  Jesus' admonition wasn't to Christians.  Their were know Christians before Pentacost.

He was talking to the "Walking Dead" I.E. unsaved Jews, and possibly some gentiles thrown sprinkled in.

Go thee there for and be perfect......was His admonition that would be fullfilled at the Cross.  Was Abraham's Righteousness bestowed upon him because He was perfect?  Hardly.  Abraham did a lot of sinful things.  He even tried to pawn off his wife to a man he feared as his sister.  Abraham, never the less, believed, and God counted it to Abraham's account as righteousness.  Was Abrahan righteous because he followed a recipe of works, by taking Isaac up the mountain and taking Isaac's life?  Righteousness is a "standing" which God bestows, not by works, but by faith, that may be revealed or displayed both by action, and verbal statement or committment, involving the will, or chooser of man.

When Christ said be perfect, He well knew that they could not be perfect, just as Paul said the that the Law leads to death, because no man can obey the law to perfection, but will indeed fail somewhere, and thence is condemned by the law.

Jesus came and fullfilled the requirements of the laws perfection requirement from birth to death.  He was sinless at birth, sinned-not throughout the entirety of His life.  Thence He fullfilled the requirements of the Law.  Yet He died in our place, because we humans could not fullfill the requirement of the law.

His admonition to be perfect, was His way to show man that futility of trying to be good to please God.  They could not, and would never in their own strength.  Gods righteousness upon man is judicial, and positional.  When you abide or commit and believe that Jesus is "Lord" of you life, you are asceding by your will and accepting that you are 2nd, and Christ is first.  By willfulling making Christ first, you are acknowledging that you are a sinner, you are incapable of saving yourself, you are fallible, and weak.  Now, it is God who meets you.  Just as the Prodigal son was a distance from his father who was scanning the horizon for him, it was his father who ran to meet his son.

When we willfully seek God, through Jesus's life, with a contrite, and repentant heart, God "meet's" us at the point; often called "hitting bottom".  In fact if you viewed a few AA meetings you'd know what "hitting bottom" means.  It's when a human being hits a point in their life where there's no further they can fall.  It's the gutter literally or in a sense that's just as dreadful and sad.  That is when we are trully ready to accept God's requirements for establishing an eternal and blessed relationship with Him.  God accepts us into His fold when we give our lives to His Son who fullfilled the requirements of the law to every jot and tittle.  That which not one human being can.

Doing "good" works to please God, is an endless treadmill, that never ends.  It is a life of physical, emotional, mental, and soulical exhaustion.  I heart cries inside, when these clean cut young men and women come to my door, while often working their "missions" with an elder at their side to bail them out of they get rattled or confused trying to fullfill their churches evangelical requirements of the rest of the word.  J.W.'s likewise, are very unsure of their standing or salvation.  Them must hit door after door and try, try, try, to make converts.

The rate of per-capita alcoholism with active, and innactive, LDS members, and J.W.'s is way off the chart, compared to average Joe and Jane Americans.  Why?

When we personally hold ourselves accountable to continue a life of making both peace and strides towards greater alleged perfection, and pleasing of our Creator, we will inevitably fall off the wagon.  Burn-out, with LDS members is rampant.  The Pharisees of Jesus' time absolutely held the average Jew in bondage to "works" in order to "please" Jehovah.  

Jesus, said, "Come unto me as or like children".  Children don't have anything to offer a Mom and Dad, but love......A relational, tight, love!  Jesus didn't say, "Do a good turn daily(B.Scout Slogan)) and I will extend my love to you and then you'll be a pleasure to Me.

My father and I had a very close relationship.  When I was a little boy, I had chores to do.  Sometimes I tried to get away without doing my chores and my Dad got after me.  Did my dad cease to be my Dad because I disobeyed?  No!  Did my Dad cease to love me, because I disobeyed? No!  Did I cease to be my Dad's son, because I disobeyed?  No!

That is how it is with our biblical God's relationship with every bonafide Christian.  Once saved, He hopes and prods us to do works or bear fruit in accordance with our sonship and incredible relationship with Him.  In fact Paul said that we can call Him Abba, or Daddy!  Yes, Christians can call God, "My Daddy in heaven!".  It's that close, that intimate!

As a Christian, the Holy Spirit that indwells my soul like all other true Christians, might urge me deep withing to do certain things.  Maybe it's serving in a Rescue soup kitchen.  Maybe, it's bringing food to my neighbor who is sick or lost a job and doesn't have much money?

Maybe, it's spending more time with my kids and not watching Monday night football?  Whatever the case, God urges us to do things in our life that Glorify Him, not us!

Our lives should cause people to wonder what makes us tick.  A Christian's life should be more and more Christlike as he or she matures and grows, through the chastening that God will allow in our lives.  

Perfection is a gift from God.  Perfection is a title or honor that God bestowes upon those that have appropriated their lives in total to Christ, and have accepted His life in a humble surrendered committment.  God looks upon all of those who have believed on His Son as their Saviour and Lord, as "justified" or "Righteous" before Him.  Does this mean that we no longer sin.  No!  What it does mean is that are "standing" is strong and totally immovable before God.  He accepts us, with our dirty, sin-stained clothing, as, acceptable.  Jesus paid our unpayable debt of sin.  God sees the bill, as "Paid in full by the blood of My Son.".

Be Perfect..........Jesus knew they couldn't........He was preparing them for His rescue, and for His perfection that would soon be bestowed on them, in standing.

A son is a son know matter what a son does.  A son can do any and all dispicable things, but he can't sever his sonship.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well you are allowed your interpretation of the bible, that's great, I don't see the logic of your interpretation but we will have to agree to disagree. To me it is plain and simple, be perfect means do the best you can and Jesus will purge out the imperfections. Nothing else makes sense to me. I see it one way and you another.We are not going to agree and I am not trying to swerve you my way. Anyone have any new questions about what we believe?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> Well you are allowed your interpretation of the bible, that's great, I don't see the logic of your interpretation but we will have to agree to disagree. To me it is plain and simple, be perfect means do the best you can and Jesus will purge out the imperfections. Nothing else makes sense to me. I see it one way and you another.We are not going to agree and I am not trying to swerve you my way. Anyone have any new questions about what we believe?



Really?  So, in your religion, you are able to stop trying to fix yourself by learning and knowledge, because you people believe that Yeshua is going to fix you?

Way to cop out on responsibility dude.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Well you are allowed your interpretation of the bible, that's great, I don't see the logic of your interpretation but we will have to agree to disagree. To me it is plain and simple, be perfect means do the best you can and Jesus will purge out the imperfections. Nothing else makes sense to me. I see it one way and you another.We are not going to agree and I am not trying to swerve you my way. Anyone have any new questions about what we believe?



Fortunately, I can see and understand your way, and blessedly see many other ways, as well as the one that I shared previously.

I can compare them all to the bible, and see a clear answer.

You are confused or don't want to understand the way that I explained.

You see, cultists trully don't have freedom.  They think they do, but they are held in the paradym of their doctrine, and are afraid to look otherwise.

A Christian who is strong in their faith, can walk into a bar, shoot a rack of billiards with a bunch of rough and tumble folks, and see these people through Jesus' eyes.

Jesus invited Himself to dine with Zacheus, a sinner of the 10th degree.  He/Jesus was chastised for that by the "religious" folks.  Jesus saw a man in bondage to sin, but He also saw a man you needed a life preserver, and Jesus who said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and no man cometh to the Father but through Me." saw deep into Zacheus's soul.  He didn't see hardness, but a heart that was ready to accept salvation, and was crying out for meaning, and acceptance.

You see, your faith says, "Be careful, don't dirty yourself around the bad sinful influences of the world.".  It is scared to high heavens to love a Hells Angel, or a man laying in the gutter with an empty bottle of rot gut gin.

Your religion wants converts, wants lots of tithing, wants total and absolute obedience to it's elders, and also wants it's converts to totally not think independently when it comes to investigating the merits of other faiths, or systems of belief.

Your church has told you what is right and what is wrong.  On the other side, the bible has laid out to every man, woman and child what is Godly, and what is sin.  

The one "corker" with the bible is that it is Spiritually discerned.  That is why people read a little of it and then put it down, and scratch their collective heads.  One must be prompted by the H. S. and also have the counsel of the H. S., to discern the meaning/intent of God's scripture.  It was authored by God the Father, who is Spirit, and must be understood while one is abiding in the Spirit.

For non-Christians, the bible seems like a dry old book in many cases.  For the true Christian, the words within it's pages are like a fresh, warm, piece of delicious bread, fresh out of the oven to the soul or inner man.

Doing good deeds doesn't add one bean to a hill of gold in God's economy.  It's just part of man's endless struggle to appease, please, pleasure, what they have self interpretted as their creator or god.

In true Christianity, it is a level playing field.  Elders aren't to be respected or venerated anymore than one who is not an elder.  In fact Timothy succinctly said that those who are appointed to positions in the church should be those that are of the most humble in the faith, living lives that are a glory to God.  Men not overly fond of strong drink, nor one's that live rowdy lives.

Never the less, in God's eyes, the New Christian is as precious to Him as the one who has been saved for many years.

The heirarchy of the priesthood in the Mormon religion reeks of pride, and self accomplishment, and is an abomination to God.  The bible says that every believer is already part of a very, very, God bestowed, royal priesthood, not of man's making, but of God's making.  Not a result of deeds done, nor of taking oaths or doing rituals, or being specially chosen to have great secrets revealed to them.  All of that is out of the wild imaginations of J.S. Jr. and Brigham Young.

What God gives to the new Christian, He gives to the mature old Christian; son and daughtership via absolute, and unrevocable adoption into His life.  

"Peace I give you."........And that He does.  He gives us inner peace through the challenges of life, that the world does not know nor comprehend.  It caused early Christians to stand in the Roman colliseum and not resist or clammer for life when lions were released upon them.  

That's because they knew they were secure beyond death.  Death was no longer a might "sting" to the Christian.  Jesus had taken the might "sting", and laid it to rest in the ground, and walked out of the tomb.

Christians receive the life of Christ when saved.  That life of Christ is a "risen" life, not a life that's still crucified, nor still in the tomb.

I have the toughest time listening even to Christian preachers that will tell us to do this or that "For God".  

God doesn't want us to do anything "For Him".  He doesn't need us to do what He can "speak" into being in total.

Here's where it's at.  God wants us to do things that glorify Him but it's to be done in God's empowerment, not our man inspired methods.  "Thy will be done.".......Thats where it's at.

When we are totally surrendered to God as trully born again, Holy Spirit indwelt people, God will prod and move us in our soul to proceed along in life making choices in concert with His Spirit's urging and His will.

Gideon learned a big lesson in the O.T., when he started with an army of 30,000 men to face the Phillistines.  By the time God had finished with Gideon, he had 300 men to face thousands of Phillistines.

The Phillistines were defeated, but Gideon finally realized by what power, and might they were defeated.

All of us, both men, and women, must learn that Frank Sinatra's mantra, "I did it my way.", is how the world interprets victory, freedom, and correct living.  This is not in God's economy, but trully of Lucifer's authorship.

The Mormon religion, as well as all the religions of the world have one undergirding mantra; do things to make God happy or pleased with them.  In fact, it isn't a one-time thing, but must be carried on constantly right the day we take our last breath.  On the contrary, Jesus said, "Taking my life is like removing one montrous, heavy backpack."........."My Yoke is easy"  We know what a yoke was/is.  It sat upon an oxen's shoulder's and was a very heavy beam of formed/carved wood that held the beast paired with another in it's very hard, hard work.

The Christian life is not "easy".  No where in the bible does it say it's easy.  What is does say is that man's striving to reach or please God, is over.  "It is finished".  Manmade religions hold it's adherents in bondage by ignoring the "finished" work of Christ, but adding to it with do's and don'ts in order to please God, who is already pleased with what His Son did  in our stead.  

The persecution that Mormons endure at times is not because they are following God's will.  Persecution because one is God's child is a result of bravely standing for what God says is the truth, and not following the worlds ways.  

Much flak received by Mormons is because their belief system creates a prideful exclusivity, and also harbors abherrent beliefs, that even non-Christians find revolting.

God has placed withing every human being a knowledge that their is a Creator.  Atheist just fight that inner knowledge through their God given free-will.  Never the less, man is without excuse.  

Mormons are loved by true Christians, but also pitied.  Christians shouldn't slam their doors in the faces of Mormons or J.W.'s, but should dialogue with them and prayerfully interject God's biblical truths to them when and where they can.  Most of all, Christians need to pray for these people, who work so hard, endlessing peddling bicycles door to door, and doing all kinds of missions trips in order to became better Mormons.  

In God's economy, a believer has arrived, can't become better in God's eyes, but does have some maturing in the faith ahead.  It is not through works that we are saved, but works must indeed follow one's conversion.  It will follow in God's timing as He works on each and every unique life that becomes His adopted child forever.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Once again, We don't see it the way you do.
you should probably go start your own church because I am sure there are some who believe as you do. There are many who do not. It seems more like you are seeking converts with your sermons. I am not giving sermons here. Only answering questions about my beliefs. Go do whatever you want with your religion and I will do the same. But you aren't convincing me because I see the scriptures in a different light than you do, and because you seem to be convinced and I am definitely convinced of my religion then we aren't going to get anywhere. I am not debating my religion. It is not up for debate with me. go debate with someone else who isn't sure about what they believe. 
I am here to answer questions. YOu don't have any questions. You only have preconceived notions about what we believe.


----------



## ABikerSailor

However.......only blind crazy people see it like you do TS.


----------



## Truthspeaker

whatever dude, your opinion means nothing to me.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Just like your opinion and religion equally mean nothing to me.  You are a cultist following a false religion, trying to tell everyone else that THEIR religion is wrong because it doesn't jibe with the false prophet Smith and the demon Mornoni.

Nope.....mormons are just as bad as muslims.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Just like your opinion and religion equally mean nothing to me.  You are a cultist following a false religion, trying to tell everyone else that THEIR religion is wrong because it doesn't jibe with the false prophet Smith and the demon Moron-i.

Neat thing?  Ya spell it backwards and it's I-Moron.

Nope.....mormons are just as bad as muslims.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> Just like your opinion and religion equally mean nothing to me.  You are a cultist following a false religion, trying to tell everyone else that THEIR religion is wrong because it doesn't jibe with the false prophet Smith and the demon Mornoni.
> 
> Nope.....mormons are just as bad as muslims.



Why would you be part of a religion that you believed was wrong?

You're trying to make the argument that somehow people are wrong for believing they are following the truth simply because it means they believe others are not. It's a fact of life that some things are true and others are false. That doesnt trying to show people what the truth is is wrong or believing you have found it is wrong.

Your whole idea is absurd.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> Just like your opinion and religion equally mean nothing to me.  You are a cultist following a false religion, trying to tell everyone else that THEIR religion is wrong because it doesn't jibe with the false prophet Smith and the demon Moron-i.
> 
> Neat thing?  Ya spell it backwards and it's I-Moron.
> 
> Nope.....mormons are just as bad as muslims.



Actually spelled backwards it would be Inorom.

But then considering the depth of your arguments, I'm not really surprised you got it wrong.


----------



## Skeptik

ABikerSailor said:


> trying to tell everyone else that THEIR religion is wrong



Where has TS done that?  He has done a good job of explaining Mormon doctrine.  I'm not sure just where he has told you your religion is wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Where has TS done that?  He has done a good job of explaining Mormon doctrine.  I'm not sure just where he has told you your religion is wrong.



excellent point. I havent seen that either. But then i dont see a problem with someone telling me my religion is wrong or telling anyone else that either. I dont think its some great sin to be confident in what you believe in and want to share that with someone.


----------



## Truthspeaker

At last it is good to hear a rational thought process on this thread. This 8 ball and sailor can't seem to get enough of trying to harass me. I never started this thread to quarrel over right and wrong. My mind is made up. I am a solid believer in our faith. If you think that I am stupid or guilty of worshipping falsely, then that is your prerogotive.
I just want to answer questions and clear up the truth of what we believe. 
For example people are not sure as to our doctrine on polygamy. I have answered those questions.
People have thought we were racists because of the priesthood not being available to them before 1978, I have explained why.
People have asked me how could Joseph have lifted pure gold plates that were so heavy, I have explained this also. 
People ask why do we abstain from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, coffee and tea and I have answered those. 
Perhaps someone would want to ask why changes were made in the Book of Mormon, rather than condemn the book of mormon for it's changes. They may want to ask, what were the changes, and did they affect the doctrine of the book?
Some may ask, why do you believe that a 14 year old boy saw God?
Such would be good critical and honest questions that I could answer or any of that sort. 
Some people feel the need and cannot restrain themselves from an attack even though they haven't heard the explanations that would destroy their preconcieved notions about our church. When people ask, they will get honest answers from me. If they feel they need to launch a doctrinal offensive, they will only receive a reply from me that states, we don't interpret doctrine the way you do.

I can state our church's official position on pretty much every subject. If you ask me the church's official stance on things where there is no official stance, I will state so, like if you ask if we believe that Adam had a belly button or not, or what sexual acts are permitted in marriage, or the exact location of Kolob. There are many mysteries and questions which we will just have to wait for and are not important for our salvation.


----------



## ABikerSailor

TS, whenever someone has refuted your claims, you have just simply said "You believe this way, I believe that way" without bothering to fully explain.

From what you HAVE explained, I believe that your religion is a screwed up cult, as well as the things that I've seen on the news that were connected with the Mormon church.

Nope.....I stand by my opinions, and if the rest of you don't like it, remember, it's a free country.  I know that because I spent 20 years defending it......what have the rest of you done?


----------



## Skeptik

ABikerSailor said:


> From what you HAVE explained, I believe that your religion is a screwed up cult, as well as the things that I've seen on the news that were connected with the Mormon church.
> 
> Nope.....I stand by my opinions, and if the rest of you don't like it, remember, it's a free country.  I know that because I spent 20 years defending it......what have the rest of you done?



It is your privilege to believe that Mormonism is a "screwed up cult" if you want.  All TS wants to do is to give you the facts, so that whatever opinion you form is based on knowledge, rather than on urban legends.  Yes, indeed, it is a free country, at least for now.  Thank you for defending her!


----------



## ABikerSailor

Skeptik said:


> It is your privilege to believe that Mormonism is a "screwed up cult" if you want.  All TS wants to do is to give you the facts, so that whatever opinion you form is based on knowledge, rather than on urban legends.  Yes, indeed, it is a free country, at least for now.  Thank you for defending her!



First off TS is a dude.

Yes....it IS a free country.

But, according to the things that I've studied and seen, Mormonism is a derivative of other religions, and it lies about some of the ways it uses the things it borrows from other religions.

But......I guess you think that freedom of speech, also means freedom to lie.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> TS, whenever someone has refuted your claims, you have just simply said "You believe this way, I believe that way" without bothering to fully explain.
> 
> From what you HAVE explained, I believe that your religion is a screwed up cult, as well as the things that I've seen on the news that were connected with the Mormon church.
> 
> Nope.....I stand by my opinions, and if the rest of you don't like it, remember, it's a free country.  I know that because I spent 20 years defending it......what have the rest of you done?



We grew into mature adults.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You grew into a mature adult?  Really?  

Can't tell it from what you're posting here idiot.


----------



## Skeptik

ABikerSailor said:


> First off TS is a dude.
> 
> Yes....it IS a free country.
> 
> But, according to the things that I've studied and seen, Mormonism is a derivative of other religions, and it lies about some of the ways it uses the things it borrows from other religions.
> 
> But......I guess you think that freedom of speech, also means freedom to lie.



Of course freedom of speech means freedom to lie.  Who always tells the truth?  That doesn't, of course, mean that someone who says something that you disagree with is lying necessarily.

And, when I said "Thank you for defending her", the pronoun "her" didn't refer back to TS.  We often speak of the country in the feminine, don't we?

Whether or not you think that Mormonism is a "derivative of other religions" really is not relevant to understanding just what Mormon beliefs are, nor is it supportable from the standpoint of the religion's originator.  Just how versed in comparative religions do you think Joseph Smith could have been?  Sure, there are going to be similarities between any two belief systems.  So what?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Skeptik said:


> Of course freedom of speech means freedom to lie.  Who always tells the truth?  That doesn't, of course, mean that someone who says something that you disagree with is lying necessarily.
> 
> And, when I said "Thank you for defending her", the pronoun "her" didn't refer back to TS.  We often speak of the country in the feminine, don't we?
> 
> Whether or not you think that Mormonism is a "derivative of other religions" really is not relevant to understanding just what Mormon beliefs are, nor is it supportable from the standpoint of the religion's originator.  Just how versed in comparative religions do you think Joseph Smith could have been?  Sure, there are going to be similarities between any two belief systems.  So what?



Don't usually hear the pronoun "her" very often anymore.  Sorry.

I don't mind the similarities, I just mind the way that their religion twists it.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> You grew into a mature adult?  Really?
> 
> Can't tell it from what you're posting here idiot.



Thanks for making my point.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> Don't usually hear the pronoun "her" very often anymore.  Sorry.
> 
> I don't mind the similarities, I just mind the way that their religion twists it.



Twists it how? Im curious whether you even really know what you are so upset over.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Avatar4321 said:


> Twists it how? Im curious whether you even really know what you are so upset over.



Yeah, I do know what I'm upset over.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah, I do know what I'm upset over.



Yeah... that really didn't answer my question.


----------



## ABikerSailor

The way that they twist some of their beliefs which are clearly based in Judaism.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> The way that they twist some of their beliefs which are clearly based in Judaism.



I really hate when Im right sometimes.


----------



## Eightball

The basic premise of this thread was Truthspeakers attempt to project a theme of dialogue about beliefs, but was really not open to anything, but his beliefs.  When confronted with very distinct, and obvious controversial positions by his founders and church doctrinal positions, he/Truthspeaker would "dodge" everytime.  

In fact every "comeback" was, "I answered your question!", and he hadn't, and knew he hadn't.

You must understand, that Mormonism is a "works" based belief or religion, that drives it's adherents to work at gaining God's pleasure or "atta boys/girls" by evangelizing the heck out of the populous, via bicycles, white dress shirts, neck ties, black slacks, short haircuts, etc........

Christianity is not based on "works" but based on "grace".  Works are indeed part and partial of a Christian's life, but works of a Christian does not affect their relationship with God.  As mentioned before, a father can't revoke sonship from his son.  Whether the son goes out on a wild binge and moves 20,000 miles away, he's still his father's son.

Most of what are referred to in mainstream Christianity as Christian cults, tend to devalue the divinity of Jesus, or water down His signifigance as God incarnate, and make Him into a lesser being, of created origin...i.e. An angel, a prophet, etc....but heavens no, not the Son of God!

Secondly, the Christian cults tend to weigh-down the member with so many do's and don'ts in order to please God, that it is just mind boggling.

Skeptics of any system of belief, in my opinion would assess any system of belief by going to the basic doctrines of the system, and check them out for themselves.  

The Mormon religion is a mishmash of confused and contradictory ordinances and cultic rituals, with constantly changing or modified stances to protect themselves from widespread accusations of rascism, sexism, etc.

It was but a few years ago, that African Americans could not join or have any involvement in the Mormon Priesthoods.  Why?  Their dear old accurate prophets claimed that people of the negroid race were decedents of Cain............Yes, Cain, who killed the Righteous Able out of jealousy.  Talk about stereotyping a billions of human beings to second class status in their church!...........

But somehow, when under public scrutiny, their prophet/president, had a "word from god", and they changed that practice and now people of the Negroid race were welcome to participate in thei Mormon Priesthoods.

Polygamy:  Their prophets of old said it was ok..........The U.S. Government got pretty mad and was going to withhold statehood from Utah,..............Here came another Epiphany from God............All of sudden, God changed His mind and said, plural marriages are out.

Joseph Smith's testimony of meeting up with this ange called Moroni, and receiving these golden plates with "reformed Heiroglyphics" printed upon them is just another bunch of bull feathers.  To this day, not one linguist in the ancient language of heiroglyphics will substantiate this new Heiroglyphics that J.S. Smith Jr. received and then translated via a "seers" stone in his hat.

Folks........J.S. Jr. used a seers stone while scamming folks in New York with his dad J.S. Sr..  The man had a history of conning and scamming people.  He went on crazy treasure hunts in the New York, and got lots of people to give him investment money to do these bogus schemes.

The American people are patient, and tolerant folks for the most part, but they won't tolerate illegal activities in their communities or anyone propagating them.  This is why J.S. Jr., was run out of every city and was pushed West to Salt Lake.

J.S. jr.s death was rewritten by their church to project a persecuted man of god, who was killed by very people in Illinois; when in fact he was in prison in Illinois for breaking into a newspaper publisher's shop and attempted or did damage the printing press.  It was printing material that didn't shine favorable on J.S. jr.'s group and their activies.

If I was a skeptic.......this religion would raise more red flags than an Olympic ceremony.


----------



## Dr Grump

Eightball said:


> religion would raise more red flags than an Olympic ceremony.



Funny. All religions and their tenets do that for me...all the time...


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> The basic premise of this thread was Truthspeakers attempt to project a theme of dialogue about beliefs, but was really not open to anything, but his beliefs.  When confronted with very distinct, and obvious controversial positions by his founders and church doctrinal positions, he/Truthspeaker would "dodge" everytime.



No, the basic premise of this thread was to explain just what Mormon beliefs are, not to debate the truth of those beliefs.


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> No, the basic premise of this thread was to explain just what Mormon beliefs are, not to debate the truth of those beliefs.



If you as a skeptic were to check into the teachings of the LDS church, you would see very clearly that Truthspeaker's "motiv operandi" was clearly a "wolf in sheeps" clothing attempt on this board.

They/LDS attempt to project or explain their position as a starting point of discussion, then they move in for the "sale".

When one starts a thread on this forum or other similar ones, and wants to tell everyone about their system of belief, are they expecting "Oohs, and Awe's" and agreement?  Maybe?  This is the religion section of this web forum, and when you present your doctrinal beliefs, it is expected, that you will get inquiries, agreement, and disagreement, debate, .........and especially questions concerning possible inconstitencies.  

There was a book written some years ago by Josh MacDowell, called, "Evidence Demands A Verdict".  The title is appropriate for this section of the forum; namely religion or beliefs.

You avatar or moniker your name as a "Skeptic".  Nothing wrong with that.  We should all be sceptics, or we'll can get the old perverbail "wool" pulled over our eyes, and end up in a bad situation.  

There is however a dividing, or parting point when scepticism butts heads with "wisdom", and refuses to accept the obvious, or just is enjoined to perpetual argument for the sake of creating or perpetuating differences.  That is the beginning of "ignorance", with strong underlying currents of rebelliousness to support it's precarious position.

Again, it is "wise" to question all things.  It is a natural and protective thing to do as a human being.  It is also exhibited in the animal world to lesser and greater extents.

During Jesus' time there were sceptics too.  In fact after Pentacost, and the gradual growth of the early Christian church their were a people of Berea, that were very devout to the "Way" or Christianity, and even when Apostles of Christ would meet with them and share testimonies and teachings, the Bereans would immediately go to scripture to validate/agree, or not accepty what they heard.  The Apostle Paul commended them for not accepting what he taught them, hook, line and sinker.

That is not the sign of a cult.  A cult teaches, but cautions it's adhere to avoid any and all other possibilities.  You are not supposed to "test" what your elders tell you.  You accept their teaching as the truth.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> That is not the sign of a cult.  A cult teaches, but cautions it's adhere to avoid any and all other possibilities.  You are not supposed to "test" what your elders tell you.  You accept their teaching as the truth.



Then I think according to your standards, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be a cult. Because at the essence of the it's teachings is to ask questions and learn from God. In fact, no one can be baptized into the Church until they do this. 



> 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
> 
> 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
> 
> 6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. (Moroni 10:3-6)



This is the promise that comes with the Book of Mormon. That the Lord will reveal through revelation it's veracity.

In fact, Joseph Smith's own account tells that he the reason he was on the path he was on is because he had questions none of the local denominations could answer and eventually came accross James 1:5-6 stating that if any man lack wisdom he could ask God.

In fact, it's a long standing mormon commandment to ask questions and to learn:



> 7 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith; (D&C 109:7)





> 77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.
> 
> 78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;
> 
> 79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms
> 
> 80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you. (D&C 88:77-80)



One of the first things Joseph Smith did after organizing the Church and after moving to Kirtland was to organize a school. The School of the Prophets as it was called was a place where the various leaders could meet and learn not only doctrine but other things as well. They had Hebrew lessons because Joseph wanted to be able to understand the Bible in the original Hebrew. 

And the most reoccuring theme taught is not to believe just because they said something but to go and find out from God yourself. There has never been a request for blind obedience. Brigham Young stated:



> I will say a few words in regard to your belief in being led, guided, and directed by one man. Brother Jackman has said that our enemies hate the fact of our being led by one man. Thousands of times my soul has been lifted to God the Father, in the name of Jesus, to make that verily true in every sense of the word, that we may be led by the man Jesus Christ, through Joseph Smith the Prophet. You may inquire how we are to know that we are so led. I refer you to the exhortation you have heard so frequently from me. Do not be deceived, any of you; if you are deceived, it is because you deceive yourselves. You may know whether you are led right or wrong, as well as you know the way home; for every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind, and there is no calling of God to man on earth but what brings with it the evidences of its authenticity....
> 
> What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually (Brigham Young, "Eternal Punishment," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 12 January 1862, Vol. 9 (London: Latter-Day Saints Book Depot, 1862), 150.)



In fact, several prominent Latter-day Saints have spoken against "blind obedience"



> Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. We are the sons and daughters of God, willing followers, disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, and "under this head are [we] made free." (Mosiah 5:8)
> 
> Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel. There is an obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any external form of control. We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see. (Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66)





> Concerning the question of blind obedience. Not a man in this Church, since the Prophet Joseph Smith down to the present day, has ever asked any man to do as he was told blindly. No Prophet of God, no Apostle, no President of a Stake, no Bishop, who has had the spirit of his office and calling resting upon him, has ever asked a soul to do anything that they might not know was right and the proper thing to do. We do not ask you to do anything that you may not know it is your duty to do, or that you may not know will be a blessing for you to do.
> 
> If we give you counsel, we do not ask you to obey that counsel without you know that it is right to do so. But how shall we know that it is right? By getting the Spirit of God in our hearts, by which our minds may be opened and enlightened, that we may know the doctrine for ourselves, and be able to divide truth from error, light from darkness and good from evil. (Josehp F. Smith, Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, Vol. 3 (Burbank, B.H.S. Publishing, 1987-1992)





> Now, we do not believe in blind obedience, but we do believe in discerning obedience. Every one of us is entitled to enjoy discernment. What is discernment? It is recognizing the difference between right and wrong, or developing clearness of judgment or insight. If we are living the Gospel we are entitled to enjoy the light of the Holy Spirit to guide and bless us, to enable us to judge rightly. We do not have to accept the judgment or counsel of the man who stands at the head of the Church here upon the earth; but we will know that the things he advises are right, if we will divorce ourselves from personal or political desire or ideas. We should strive to enjoy the spirit of discernment. The Apostle Paul tells us that one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost is the discernment of spirits. In like manner one of the gifts is discernment of right and wrong. What a wonderful thing it will be when we shall all learn correct principles, and have the discernment to govern ourselves in righteousness. Then we shall grow in justice and fair dealing, we shall avoid strife and contention, we shall enact and administer equitable laws, and improve in temporal and spiritual things. The Lord will prosper this people temporally as well as spiritually if we control our selfish feelings and strive to carry out his purposes. (Sylvester Q. Cannon, Conference Report, April 1937, Afternoon Meeting, 83-84)



Now I know I've said a lot. But I am sure you can see from Latter-day Saint scripture and leaders that there is absolute encouragement of finding out and learning the truth for oneself. In fact, its an absolute fear of the Apostles that people will blindly obey and not rely on the Spirit for discernment. 

Man cannot be saved in ignorance. That is why the Apostle Peter taught us to add knowledge to our faith.


----------



## AllieBaba

Eightball said:


> The Apostle Paul commended them for not accepting what he taught them, hook, line and sinker.
> 
> That is not the sign of a cult.  A cult teaches, but cautions it's adhere to avoid any and all other possibilities.  You are not supposed to "test" what your elders tell you.  You accept their teaching as the truth.



Paul also encouraged people to contact those who actually had seen Jesus, to obtain their testimony if they doubted his.

The truth is, nobody who lived at the time of Jesus ever challenged his ability to perform miracles nor did they challenge the apostles' veracity as they traveled around, teaching.


----------



## chloe

I thought faith is kind of like blind obediance.


----------



## Eightball

chloe said:


> I thought faith is kind of like blind obediance.



That's absolutely opposite of biblical teaching.


----------



## Agnapostate

AllieBaba said:


> Paul also encouraged people to contact those who actually had seen Jesus, to obtain their testimony if they doubted his.
> 
> The truth is, nobody who lived at the time of Jesus ever challenged his ability to perform miracles nor did they challenge the apostles' veracity as they traveled around, teaching.



These absurd comments indicate an ignorance of the development of early Christianity. Early Christians formed into multiple sects that made modern sect divisions appear trivial and petty. Each sect had their own books purporting to be written by disciples of Jesus, with alternate sects claiming that Jesus was wholly divine or that he was wholly human, claiming that there was one god, two gods, ten gods, or even three hundred and sixty five gods. 

Then again, you are audacious enough to supply "evidence" that allegedly proves the veracity of the Bible, while ignoring evidence that disproves it, as well as textual criticism which documents the scribal additions to this "infallible" book, so it is not surprising that you would be unaware of this.


----------



## chloe

Eightball said:


> That's absolutely opposite of biblical teaching.



oh ok


----------



## Eightball

chloe said:


> oh ok



Romans Chapter of New Testament, authored by the Apostle Paul.  Chapter 10 verse 17.....NIV Translation

"Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ."

Now other translations use "Word of God" which is the same as "Word of Christ"; as God proclaimed and Christ Himself proclaimed to be God, or the "I AM".

The bible is our "Word of God" today.  So faith is not blind, but is believing in the testimony of these authors of all the books of the bible, both Old and New Testament.

The bible was trully written down or recorded by men, but the difference between Mark Twain, or Grisham or Plato, is that these men/authors of the bible were inspired by God's Spirit.

Also, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that are nearly 2,000 years old that were created not long after Jesus' life, contain a nearly complete copy of the O. T. book of Isaiah.  When it was compared with our current bible translations, it was word for word the same!

Now in just 180 years since it's creation in 1830, the Book of Mormon has been changed over 4,000 times.  What will the Book of Mormon look like texturally in 2,000 years at that rate of change?

One of God's attributes mentioned throughout the bible is His omnipotence.

Lets let Merriam Webster(dictionary) define this attribute.



> 1om·nip·o·tent
> Pronunciation: \-t&#601;nt\
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
> Date: 14th century
> 1often capitalized : almighty 1
> 2: *having virtually unlimited authority or influence *<an omnipotent ruler>
> 3obsolete : arrant
>  om·nip·o·tent·ly adverb



So you can see by the evidence alone of the zero change in 2,000 years of one major portion of the bible, that God, through His omnipotent power, can protect His Word that He gives to His people or creation.

Man is fallible, and finite.  God is infallible, and infinite.  The Mormons doctrines have changed so many times since that religion's inception, that it will make you dizzy.

The bible says that God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  The Mormon god, is one thing yesterday, something different today, and who knows what tomorrow.

As I've mentioned previously, the LDS church strategically changes is doctrinal stances as the political and ethical, secular rules of society change.  True Christianity as reflected even in the book of Acts, that is a beginning of the early church, is as applicable to present life as it was back then.  Within the bible is also cultural reflections of the time of it's writing, and often cults will latch onto those cultural revealings from the scripture and make them doctrinal stances.  One must discern scripture with the absolute inclusion of the Holy Spirits counsel.  

This is why, when people trully become Christians, their hunger for the bible will grow by leaps and bounds.  Their hunger for secular literature doesn't grow or change necessarily, but for what's revealed within the pages of the bible does indeed.  This is an evidence of true conversion of one's soul or person.  Man does not make himself a Christian by being the son or daughter of devout Christian parents.  True Christianity is a "one on one" encounter with God, through the person's contrite, and humble recognition of God's Son as their one and only ultimate Saviour, and thence Lord for the rest of their lives.


----------



## Avatar4321

AllieBaba said:


> Paul also encouraged people to contact those who actually had seen Jesus, to obtain their testimony if they doubted his.
> 
> The truth is, nobody who lived at the time of Jesus ever challenged his ability to perform miracles nor did they challenge the apostles' veracity as they traveled around, teaching.



I dont know about that. I dont doubt that Jesus and the Apostles preformed many miracles. But i wouldnt say no one challenged them simply because we have no record of it. 

But then I dont really see how miracles challenging skeptics invalidates the miracle. So it doesnt bother me if someone does doubt it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Man is fallible, and finite.  God is infallible, and infinite.  The Mormons doctrines have changed so many times since that religion's inception, that it will make you dizzy.



Having studied it indepth, I can promise you the doctrines are the same today as they were originally. Im not sure where you are getting this idea that the doctrines have changed so many times, but it's not accurate.

But then I suppose beleving in ongoing revelation is tough for some people to accept because they get their own ideas of what things should be and when God clarifies things, they think God has changed when in reality their views of what was from God was just wrong.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Having studied it indepth, I can promise you the doctrines are the same today as they were originally. Im not sure where you are getting this idea that the doctrines have changed so many times, but it's not accurate.
> 
> But then I suppose beleving in ongoing revelation is tough for some people to accept because they get their own ideas of what things should be and when God clarifies things, they think God has changed when in reality their views of what was from God was just wrong.



Your churchs' "Ongoing Revelations" spits in the face of Jesus Christ who said 2,000 years ago, "IT IS FINISHED!".

The "IT IS FINISHED", is a Spiritually discerned statement like the rest of the bible, and I can understand your abiding in continuing revelation and change from your god.

Never the less, the bible has been proven itself archeologically sound, historically sound by both secular and theologically minded researchers.  The BOM has not been validated one IOTA, with it's "New Revelations" concerning North America, the American Indians, ancient North American development of metalurgy.... etc....

I hope I might be able to crack through the difficulty here:
"IT IS FINISHED", Is about as clear and succinct as one can communicate to mankind from God Himself.  What Christ did at Golgotha/Calvary is finish the job, of bridging the infinite canyon of sinful man's condition and a most Holy, pure, just/righteous God, by be the Passover Lamb or the only possible means to meet God's Holy, and Just demands of meeting the sinful nature and sins of man since their fall at Eden.

Christ took it all.  

No where in the bible does it say that we can become gods in our own right, but LDS doctrine says it is possible, if one is a good Mormon man.

It was God who became human flesh/incarnate so that man could see God, and know what true Holiness, and righteousness was.  

The LDS church has it as "Man can become a god or God.".....God in the bible incarnated to flesh.  In the bible is the "God" title given to man, accept in a cultural sense of being special to God.  Often cults will ignore the cultural, "god" connotation of man in the O.T. and say, "See, we can become like God."  We do however live and act like little gods, on many occassions... Stalin, Hitler, and ourselves.  Like kings of our own destinys.

No where in the bible does it say that people of the Negroid race our decendents of Caine's loins or geneology.

No where in the bible does it say that their is a "curse" on Caine's line of decendents.

No where in the bible does God promote Polygamy, though it was carried on by people of that time.  We can see what happens when man disobeys God and takes another wife or sexual partner in the life of Abraham, when he/Abraham went into his slave girl and begot Ishmiel.  

Solomon had nothing but headache after headache from taking multiple wives.............So did his father David.

When man decides to figure out what God's will is without the counsel of the true Holy Spirit abiding in his soul, that Jesus told(being born from above/again) the Pharisee Nicodemus about, then man will create all kinds of havoc both for himself and those around him.

You see, even Nicodemus couldn't Spiritually discern Jesus' explanation of being "born again/from above".  He/Nicodemus even asked how he could go back into his mother's womb, and be born again?

Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, that the water she drew from the well would quench one's thirst for a time and then the well water would be needed again and again.  Then Jesus said, that the "Spring of water" that He offered would quench one's thirst once and for all time.  The Samaritan woman was ecstatic over this chance to not have to run to the well and draw more water after drinking Jesus' source of water.  She again, didn't understand the Spiritual signifigance of Jesus' water that was in actuality, the Holy Spirit/Ghost; the very Spirit of God.  

Jesus fed the multitudes on more than one occassion, and that is the discrepencies of 4,000, or 5,000 mouths fed.  Also the accounts of peoples being numbered only included men and not women and children in that day.  

If one studies the Gospels of the N.T. closely you will see that there is no difference or contradiction with the feeding of the thousands, as the different counts of people are attributed to more than one occasion where Christ/God fed the multitudes.

Bottom Line:  The LDS church can't fathom one of God's most important attributes; namely Omnipotence, which I explained to another poster, and even gave the Webster's definition of.

To need a continuing revelation of God, with additional do's and don'ts is to totally slap the face of our Saviour who was the end of all continuing speculation about the nature and will of God.  The accounts by Jesus' apostles of Jesus' life, and the growth and spread of the early Christian church there after, ends with the book of Revelations, authored by John who was extremely close to Jesus during His time on on earth.   The book of Revelations, inspired by God and written down by John ends with a very strong, and definite statement.  

"DON'T ADD OR TAKE AWAY ONE THING FROM THIS BOOK OR ALL THE ACCOUNTS OF GOD, THE PROPHETS, AND JESUS HIMSELF"  

Some like to say, that John only meant, "Don't take away or add to my particular book, Revelations, but that argument falls very short and is only propagated by detractors and non theologically trained.

The LDS church must deal with Jesus' proclamation, "IT IS FINISHED!!!!".  With that proclamation the veil of the great temple that hid from the people of earth the Holy of Holies, was rent from top to bottom, symbolically telling the world that through Christ Jesus's death, man now had access to God/Holy of Holies, and didn't need anything more.  

Just believe on by faith Christ as your one and only intermediator, bridge, advocate, perfect sacrifice, Passover Lamb, once and for all and you would receive the Spirit of Christ/Holy Spirit/Counselor, and access to the Holy of Holies.  Even the Prophets of old would be envious of what we Christians have been given, but they/prophets will in the great end times receive their due reward for their allegiance and Faith in God Almighty.

The LDS church has added to, Christs's, "IT IS FINISHED!", with priesthood rituals, Masonic or cultic imagery symbols, secret temple oaths, magic/superstion bearing underware, and all sorts of things that God of the bible totally forbid.  Just as witchcraft was totally forbidden of God, the LDS church has dressed up this occult practice with white linen, and has duped millions of human beings.  

There will be a finally reckoning for those who add too Christ's finished work, and propagate, other gospels, that claim that the Word of God is corrupt, or only accurate in as much as has been accurately handed down.  This all flies in the face of God's omnipotent power, to protect His Word to His human creation.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Your churchs' "Ongoing Revelations" spits in the face of Jesus Christ who said 2,000 years ago, "IT IS FINISHED!".
> 
> The "IT IS FINISHED", is a Spiritually discerned statement like the rest of the bible, and I can understand your abiding in continuing revelation and change from your god.



God's work is not done. Nor is He silent in the Heavens while one soul remains perishing. If we accepted your premise that God can not speak simply because Christ's mortal mission and His Great Atoning Sacrifice was finished, we'd have to reject the New Testament. We'd have to reject the testimony of the Apostles that Christ appeared to them and taught them after the resurrection. We would have to reject the Vision the Lord provided to the Apostle John of the work God would do in the last days. Do you honestly believe God has been silent ever since despite the testimony by the Apostles otherwise?




> Never the less, the bible has been proven itself archeologically sound, historically sound by both secular and theologically minded researchers.  The BOM has not been validated one IOTA, with it's "New Revelations" concerning North America, the American Indians, ancient North American development of metalurgy.... etc....



The Bible has bene proven archaelogically sound? What is the archaelogical proof of the resurrection? There is none. You dont prove that which is Spiritual with that which is physical. You prove it by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost that testifies to the soul of the individual that Christ lives and that He has saved us from death and hell. If science gave you your faith, it will take it away.

Nevertheless, you appear you have some misunderstandings. First, the Book of Mormon is the record of North America alone. In fact, textual analysis indicates Meso America as a more accurate location.

Second, the Book of Mormon does describe an accurate path from Jerusalem through the Arabian penninsula to Nahom and then to Bountiful. Which is pretty amazing considering no one knew about it until recently.

Third, Scholars have recently been learning more about Ancient American Metallurgy and it's coinciding quite nicely with the Book of Mormon.

However, it would be foolish to claim that archaelogy proves the record true. Any more archaelogy of Greece, Troy, and other areas in the Mediteranean prove that the Illiad and Oddessy really happened. There is only one way to learn whether the Book of Mormon is true, regardlesses of the evidence for it. And that's to ask God.



> I hope I might be able to crack through the difficulty here:
> "IT IS FINISHED", Is about as clear and succinct as one can communicate to mankind from God Himself.  What Christ did at Golgotha/Calvary is finish the job, of bridging the infinite canyon of sinful man's condition and a most Holy, pure, just/righteous God, by be the Passover Lamb or the only possible means to meet God's Holy, and Just demands of meeting the sinful nature and sins of man since their fall at Eden.
> 
> Christ took it all.



No one has denied that Christ has atoned for our sins. But that doesnt change the fact that God still speaks to man and continues redeeming those who are lost and will not stop until the end.




> No where in the bible does it say that we can become gods in our own right, but LDS doctrine says it is possible, if one is a good Mormon man.



True, except Christ in John 10 who testified that those who recieved the Word were gods to prove His claim of being the Son of God. And Paul, in Romans, who testified that we would become Joint Heirs with Christ and inherit all the Father has. Or Peter, in 2 Peter, who taught the Saints how to become partakers of the Divine Nature. Or John, in 1 John 3, who promised us that when He appears, we will be see Him as He is and be like Him. Or God, In Genesis, who testified that man had become as the gods knowing Good from Evil.

Through God, all things are possible.



> It was God who became human flesh/incarnate so that man could see God, and know what true Holiness, and righteousness was.



Christ didnt come just for us to see God. He bled so that we could become like Him. The Son of God became a man, so men could become the sons of God.



> The LDS church has it as "Man can become a god or God.".....God in the bible incarnated to flesh.  In the bible is the "God" title given to man, accept in a cultural sense of being special to God.  Often cults will ignore the cultural, "god" connotation of man in the O.T. and say, "See, we can become like God."  We do however live and act like little gods, on many occassions... Stalin, Hitler, and ourselves.  Like kings of our own destinys.



Paul was right when he said that in the last days men shall have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof.

Christ didnt atone for our sins for us to become perfect in Christ only to reject His offer.



> No where in the bible does it say that people of the Negroid race our decendents of Caine's loins or geneology.
> 
> No where in the bible does it say that their is a "curse" on Caine's line of decendents.



Im sure the Southern Baptists of the 19th century would disagree with you. But then I am not too worried about that because no where mormon scriptures does it make that claim either.




> No where in the bible does God promote Polygamy, though it was carried on by people of that time.  We can see what happens when man disobeys God and takes another wife or sexual partner in the life of Abraham, when he/Abraham went into his slave girl and begot Ishmiel.
> 
> Solomon had nothing but headache after headache from taking multiple wives.............So did his father David.



Except in the lives of the great Patriarchs. and the Law of Moses. and of course in the life of David when God says He gave David all his wives.

God blessed Abraham through Ishmael. Does God usually bless the disobedient in their sins?


> When man decides to figure out what God's will is without the counsel of the true Holy Spirit abiding in his soul, that Jesus told(being born from above/again) the Pharisee Nicodemus about, then man will create all kinds of havoc both for himself and those around him.
> 
> You see, even Nicodemus couldn't Spiritually discern Jesus' explanation of being "born again/from above".  He/Nicodemus even asked how he could go back into his mother's womb, and be born again?



Nicodemus learned though. I cannot tell whether he eventually exercised faith in Christ and repented. Or if he was eventually baptized with water and the Spirit. But he did learn.



> Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, that the water she drew from the well would quench one's thirst for a time and then the well water would be needed again and again.  Then Jesus said, that the "Spring of water" that He offered would quench one's thirst once and for all time.  The Samaritan woman was ecstatic over this chance to not have to run to the well and draw more water after drinking Jesus' source of water.  She again, didn't understand the Spiritual signifigance of Jesus' water that was in actuality, the Holy Spirit/Ghost; the very Spirit of God.



Im not sure you are correct here. I think the water He was teaching her about was Himself. Not the Holy Spirit. Because Christ is the Bread of life. He is the everlasting waters.



> Jesus fed the multitudes on more than one occassion, and that is the discrepencies of 4,000, or 5,000 mouths fed.  Also the accounts of peoples being numbered only included men and not women and children in that day.
> 
> If one studies the Gospels of the N.T. closely you will see that there is no difference or contradiction with the feeding of the thousands, as the different counts of people are attributed to more than one occasion where Christ/God fed the multitudes.



Not really seeing anyone disagreeing with you here. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make in acting like there is someone disagreeing with you here. Christ fed the multitudes. He showed them His power.




> Bottom Line:  The LDS church can't fathom one of God's most important attributes; namely Omnipotence, which I explained to another poster, and even gave the Webster's definition of.



I dont see how anything you've said before proves this assertion. 




> To need a continuing revelation of God, with additional do's and don'ts is to totally slap the face of our Saviour who was the end of all continuing speculation about the nature and will of God.  The accounts by Jesus' apostles of Jesus' life, and the growth and spread of the early Christian church there after, ends with the book of Revelations, authored by John who was extremely close to Jesus during His time on on earth.   The book of Revelations, inspired by God and written down by John ends with a very strong, and definite statement.



I disagree. to deny continuing revelation when the scriptures testify of it throughout the lives of the Apostles ridiculous. To deny the spirit of prophecy when it is no less than the testimony of Jesus Christ demonstrates a lack of understanding of the power of God. The Book of Revelation testifies that there will be two prophets in the last days protecting Jerusalem with the power of Heaven. and you want to deny that God is silent. Im sorry it just doesnt mesh.

BTW You do realize that Revelation was not the last book of the Bible written dont you?




> "DON'T ADD OR TAKE AWAY ONE THING FROM THIS BOOK OR ALL THE ACCOUNTS OF GOD, THE PROPHETS, AND JESUS HIMSELF"
> 
> Some like to say, that John only meant, "Don't take away or add to my particular book, Revelations, but that argument falls very short and is only propagated by detractors and non theologically trained.



Theologically trained? Who cares about being Theologically trained when you can be trained by the Holy Spirit? 

John was speaking of the Book of Revelation. You can tell because if we accept your interpretation he condemned himself when he wrote his Gospel and Epistles afterwards. 

The Book of Deuteronmy and Proverbs says the same thing. Should we discount all revelation after? There was no Bible when Revelation was written. It wasnt finished. And after it was finished it wasnt compiled into a single volume for centuries following. Our modern Bible canon didnt even exist until the Protestant Reformation.

Your interpretation is just not plausible. 

Let's not forget that Revelation itself testifies that the Lord would send an Angel carrying the everlasting Gospel to men.



> The LDS church must deal with Jesus' proclamation, "IT IS FINISHED!!!!".  With that proclamation the veil of the great temple that hid from the people of earth the Holy of Holies, was rent from top to bottom, symbolically telling the world that through Christ Jesus's death, man now had access to God/Holy of Holies, and didn't need anything more.



Again. The Church of Jesus Christ boldly testifies that Christ's atonement and mortal ministry was complete when He said that. But according to the countless prophecies of God's work in the last days, God has restored His Church to teach and prepare the world for His coming. 



> Just believe on by faith Christ as your one and only intermediator, bridge, advocate, perfect sacrifice, Passover Lamb, once and for all and you would receive the Spirit of Christ/Holy Spirit/Counselor, and access to the Holy of Holies.  Even the Prophets of old would be envious of what we Christians have been given, but they/prophets will in the great end times receive their due reward for their allegiance and Faith in God Almighty.



Interesting point, how do you have access to the Holy of Holies when there is no Temple you acknowledge?

I am pretty confident that the Prophets of old are quite content with the reward they have already recieved the Atonement and resurrection. Their only concern now would be that their descendents also recieve the blessings they are entitled to. But Im not sure you really understand what we have been promised. Few do. I know I don't.



> The LDS church has added to, Christs's, "IT IS FINISHED!", with priesthood rituals, Masonic or cultic imagery symbols, secret temple oaths, magic/superstion bearing underware, and all sorts of things that God of the bible totally forbid.  Just as witchcraft was totally forbidden of God, the LDS church has dressed up this occult practice with white linen, and has duped millions of human beings.



You really need to read the Old Testament sometime. You honestly dont think God has priesthood? Or ordinances? what do you call baptism and the laying on of hands? Isaiah prophecied that man would break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances, yet we are to believe God has no ordinances? Paul testified of both Aaronic and Melchesidek Priesthoods and yet God has no priesthood? The Gospels taught that the people marveled because Christ taught with authority. That he gave others this authority. Paul testified that Christ called Apostles, prophets, Pastors, teachers, etc. And yet we are supposed to believe the Bible totally forbids this?

This is exactly what Paul mean when He said men have a form of godliness by deny the power thereof.



> There will be a finally reckoning for those who add too Christ's finished work, and propagate, other gospels, that claim that the Word of God is corrupt, or only accurate in as much as has been accurately handed down.  This all flies in the face of God's omnipotent power, to protect His Word to His human creation.



Are you honestly suggesting that the scriptures are accurate where people have changed them? That just doesnt make any sense. 

God has made no promise to keep the Bible without error. Nor has He declared Himself silent. Why would God change His modus operendi after thousands of years? You look to the dead for the words of Christ, and the words of our forefathers are very useful tools in coming to Christ. But the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is God of the living. He speaks with the living. Not just through the dead.

Do you deny the gifts of the Spirit as well? Its obvious you already deny the gift of revelation and prophecy? Has healing been done away with? What about the gift of tongues? The gift of Discernment?

Honestly, I think Ill take my chances believing in the revelations God still provides mankind. Ill take my chances believing in and testifying of the Book of Mormon because it's true and it brings people to Christ. Ill take my chances believing in the Bible but not making an idol out of it to prevent me from coming to God on His own terms. Im not going to tempt God by denying His power to act now.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> TS, whenever someone has refuted your claims, you have just simply said "You believe this way, I believe that way" without bothering to fully explain.
> 
> From what you HAVE explained, I believe that your religion is a screwed up cult, as well as the things that I've seen on the news that were connected with the Mormon church.
> 
> Nope.....I stand by my opinions, and if the rest of you don't like it, remember, it's a free country.  I know that because I spent 20 years defending it......what have the rest of you done?



What part have I not fully explained? I could explain our interpretation if you like but I won't debate it. And well I guess I will have to concede that there is no arguing with the news. It's completely the truth and there are no hidden agendas and both sides of the story are always told on TV. 


and good for you and your service to our country. But I don't think you need to be an officer or a soldier to support freedom.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Then I think according to your standards, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be a cult. Because at the essence of the it's teachings is to ask questions and learn from God. In fact, no one can be baptized into the Church until they do this.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the promise that comes with the Book of Mormon. That the Lord will reveal through revelation it's veracity.
> 
> In fact, Joseph Smith's own account tells that he the reason he was on the path he was on is because he had questions none of the local denominations could answer and eventually came accross James 1:5-6 stating that if any man lack wisdom he could ask God.
> 
> In fact, it's a long standing mormon commandment to ask questions and to learn:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first things Joseph Smith did after organizing the Church and after moving to Kirtland was to organize a school. The School of the Prophets as it was called was a place where the various leaders could meet and learn not only doctrine but other things as well. They had Hebrew lessons because Joseph wanted to be able to understand the Bible in the original Hebrew.
> 
> And the most reoccuring theme taught is not to believe just because they said something but to go and find out from God yourself. There has never been a request for blind obedience. Brigham Young stated:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, several prominent Latter-day Saints have spoken against "blind obedience"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know I've said a lot. But I am sure you can see from Latter-day Saint scripture and leaders that there is absolute encouragement of finding out and learning the truth for oneself. In fact, its an absolute fear of the Apostles that people will blindly obey and not rely on the Spirit for discernment.
> 
> Man cannot be saved in ignorance. That is why the Apostle Peter taught us to add knowledge to our faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Agnapostate said:


> These absurd comments indicate an ignorance of the development of early Christianity. Early Christians formed into multiple sects that made modern sect divisions appear trivial and petty. Each sect had their own books purporting to be written by disciples of Jesus, with alternate sects claiming that Jesus was wholly divine or that he was wholly human, claiming that there was one god, two gods, ten gods, or even three hundred and sixty five gods.
> 
> Then again, you are audacious enough to supply "evidence" that allegedly proves the veracity of the Bible, while ignoring evidence that disproves it, as well as textual criticism which documents the scribal additions to this "infallible" book, so it is not surprising that you would be unaware of this.



The Bible is not an infallible book. I know the history of how it came to be and the hundreds of years of lack of prophets and apostles to help cannonize the book. A Pagan Roman emperor oversaw the compilation of the Bible. Enough said about the infallibility of it. 
As I have said before, it is amazing that anything is left of the Bible. What we do have now needs to be authoritatively interpreted, because as there are thousands of churches that teach different doctrines, there are thousands of interpretations of man.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chloe said:


> oh ok



You might like our view on faith and how it is obtained. It is in harmony with the Bible but very refreshing. It is also an instruction on how to gain spiritual knowledge. Alma chapter 32 states in verse  21 And now as I said concerning faithafaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye bhope for things which are cnot seen, which are true. 
  22 And now, behold, I say unto you, and I would that ye should remember, that God is amerciful unto all who believe on his name; therefore he desireth, in the first place, that ye should believe, yea, even on his word. 
  23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, anot only men but women also. Now this is not all; little bchildren do have words given unto them many times, which cconfound the wise and the learned. 
  24 And now, my beloved brethren, as ye have desired to know of me what ye shall do because ye are afflicted and cast outnow I do not desire that ye should suppose that I mean to judge you only according to that which is true 
  25 For I do not mean that ye all of you have been compelled to humble yourselves; for I verily believe that there are some among you who awould humble themselves, let them be in whatsoever circumstances they might. 
  26 Now, as I said concerning faiththat it was not a perfect knowledgeeven so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. 
  27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. 
  28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselvesIt must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. 
  29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. 
  30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 
  31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own alikeness. 
  32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. 
  33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. 
  34 And now, behold, is your aknowledge bperfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your cfaith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your dmind doth begin to expand. 
  35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is bgood, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect? 
  36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good. 
  37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit. 
  38 But if ye aneglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out. 
  39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your aground is bbarren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof. 
  40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the atree of life. 
  41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with apatience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree bspringing up unto everlasting life. 
  42 And because of your adiligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the bfruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst. 
  43 Then, my brethren, ye shall areap the brewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth cfruit unto you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Your churchs' "Ongoing Revelations" spits in the face of Jesus Christ who said 2,000 years ago, "IT IS FINISHED!".
> 
> The "IT IS FINISHED", is a Spiritually discerned statement like the rest of the bible, and I can understand your abiding in continuing revelation and change from your god.
> 
> Never the less, the bible has been proven itself archeologically sound, historically sound by both secular and theologically minded researchers.  The BOM has not been validated one IOTA, with it's "New Revelations" concerning North America, the American Indians, ancient North American development of metalurgy.... etc....
> 
> I hope I might be able to crack through the difficulty here:
> "IT IS FINISHED", Is about as clear and succinct as one can communicate to mankind from God Himself.  What Christ did at Golgotha/Calvary is finish the job, of bridging the infinite canyon of sinful man's condition and a most Holy, pure, just/righteous God, by be the Passover Lamb or the only possible means to meet God's Holy, and Just demands of meeting the sinful nature and sins of man since their fall at Eden.
> 
> Christ took it all.
> 
> No where in the bible does it say that we can become gods in our own right, but LDS doctrine says it is possible, if one is a good Mormon man.
> 
> It was God who became human flesh/incarnate so that man could see God, and know what true Holiness, and righteousness was.
> 
> The LDS church has it as "Man can become a god or God.".....God in the bible incarnated to flesh.  In the bible is the "God" title given to man, accept in a cultural sense of being special to God.  Often cults will ignore the cultural, "god" connotation of man in the O.T. and say, "See, we can become like God."  We do however live and act like little gods, on many occassions... Stalin, Hitler, and ourselves.  Like kings of our own destinys.
> 
> No where in the bible does it say that people of the Negroid race our decendents of Caine's loins or geneology.
> 
> No where in the bible does it say that their is a "curse" on Caine's line of decendents.
> 
> No where in the bible does God promote Polygamy, though it was carried on by people of that time.  We can see what happens when man disobeys God and takes another wife or sexual partner in the life of Abraham, when he/Abraham went into his slave girl and begot Ishmiel.
> 
> Solomon had nothing but headache after headache from taking multiple wives.............So did his father David.
> 
> When man decides to figure out what God's will is without the counsel of the true Holy Spirit abiding in his soul, that Jesus told(being born from above/again) the Pharisee Nicodemus about, then man will create all kinds of havoc both for himself and those around him.
> 
> You see, even Nicodemus couldn't Spiritually discern Jesus' explanation of being "born again/from above".  He/Nicodemus even asked how he could go back into his mother's womb, and be born again?
> 
> Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well, that the water she drew from the well would quench one's thirst for a time and then the well water would be needed again and again.  Then Jesus said, that the "Spring of water" that He offered would quench one's thirst once and for all time.  The Samaritan woman was ecstatic over this chance to not have to run to the well and draw more water after drinking Jesus' source of water.  She again, didn't understand the Spiritual signifigance of Jesus' water that was in actuality, the Holy Spirit/Ghost; the very Spirit of God.
> 
> Jesus fed the multitudes on more than one occassion, and that is the discrepencies of 4,000, or 5,000 mouths fed.  Also the accounts of peoples being numbered only included men and not women and children in that day.
> 
> If one studies the Gospels of the N.T. closely you will see that there is no difference or contradiction with the feeding of the thousands, as the different counts of people are attributed to more than one occasion where Christ/God fed the multitudes.
> 
> Bottom Line:  The LDS church can't fathom one of God's most important attributes; namely Omnipotence, which I explained to another poster, and even gave the Webster's definition of.
> 
> To need a continuing revelation of God, with additional do's and don'ts is to totally slap the face of our Saviour who was the end of all continuing speculation about the nature and will of God.  The accounts by Jesus' apostles of Jesus' life, and the growth and spread of the early Christian church there after, ends with the book of Revelations, authored by John who was extremely close to Jesus during His time on on earth.   The book of Revelations, inspired by God and written down by John ends with a very strong, and definite statement.
> 
> "DON'T ADD OR TAKE AWAY ONE THING FROM THIS BOOK OR ALL THE ACCOUNTS OF GOD, THE PROPHETS, AND JESUS HIMSELF"
> 
> Some like to say, that John only meant, "Don't take away or add to my particular book, Revelations, but that argument falls very short and is only propagated by detractors and non theologically trained.
> 
> The LDS church must deal with Jesus' proclamation, "IT IS FINISHED!!!!".  With that proclamation the veil of the great temple that hid from the people of earth the Holy of Holies, was rent from top to bottom, symbolically telling the world that through Christ Jesus's death, man now had access to God/Holy of Holies, and didn't need anything more.
> 
> Just believe on by faith Christ as your one and only intermediator, bridge, advocate, perfect sacrifice, Passover Lamb, once and for all and you would receive the Spirit of Christ/Holy Spirit/Counselor, and access to the Holy of Holies.  Even the Prophets of old would be envious of what we Christians have been given, but they/prophets will in the great end times receive their due reward for their allegiance and Faith in God Almighty.
> 
> The LDS church has added to, Christs's, "IT IS FINISHED!", with priesthood rituals, Masonic or cultic imagery symbols, secret temple oaths, magic/superstion bearing underware, and all sorts of things that God of the bible totally forbid.  Just as witchcraft was totally forbidden of God, the LDS church has dressed up this occult practice with white linen, and has duped millions of human beings.
> 
> There will be a finally reckoning for those who add too Christ's finished work, and propagate, other gospels, that claim that the Word of God is corrupt, or only accurate in as much as has been accurately handed down.  This all flies in the face of God's omnipotent power, to protect His Word to His human creation.



The only thing he was referring to being finished was his life and atonement that he made for mankind. That is one whopper of an interpretation you have.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I like what you say all the time Avatar. You are on the money but you may soon tire of the ignorance of some of your attackers. My fate is to stay this board because I started it. One small correction I will make, and it's totally ok.
Africans are primarily of the seed of Cain. I explained very early in this thread that they are and it has been revealed that they are. So what. We know Cain was married and had children, it is not a shame. Every last one of us has MANY MANY, BAD OR EVIL PEOPLE IN OUR LINEAGE. It has no bearing on us. I have explained the difference between the curse of cain, the mark of cain, the curse of the lamanites black skin, that no longer existed after Book of Mormon times and how the mark was a blessing and not a curse. It was somewhere between the 5th and 15th page. It is all in detail.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ok I found the link. Man I hate going back in this thread to show people that I have answered their questions. Either they didn't read or they ignored my answers. The Blacks and Priesthood question was answered in the 221st through the 223rd posts on page 15. Maybe somebody can help teach me how to save stuff so I can pull it out of my back pocket without having to go searching through each thread individually.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I think I figured something out. http://www.usmessageboard.com/922153-post221.html


----------



## Truthspeaker

Anywhoo, I was away in Baltimore the last week and it feels good to be back and to see that I am not the only one out there that doesn't hate mormons


----------



## Eightball

Bottom line folks:

Investigate for yourselves what the Mormon Church has done with the Lord Jesus Christ of the bible.

No one comes to the Father on the shirt-tails of their Christian parents or friends..........Man was given a free-will to ponder, and to search for God.

Evaluate what Jesus says in the New Testament, and also what His 12 Apostles wrote in the many Epistles, and then compare that to the Mormon Journal of Discourses, Doctrine of Covenants, and the Book of Mormon.

You will see a most different Jesus from the bible's very clear revealing.

Did Jesus promise you that you could one day become a god?   Did Jesus say that He has a spirit brother named Lucifer/Satan?

Did Jesus say that Black people are cursed?

Nuff...........said.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Bottom line folks:
> 
> Investigate for yourselves what the Mormon Church has done with the Lord Jesus Christ of the bible.
> 
> No one comes to the Father on the shirt-tails of their Christian parents or friends..........Man was given a free-will to ponder, and to search for God.
> 
> Evaluate what Jesus says in the New Testament, and also what His 12 Apostles wrote in the many Epistles, and then compare that to the Mormon Journal of Discourses, Doctrine of Covenants, and the Book of Mormon.
> 
> You will see a most different Jesus from the bible's very clear revealing.
> 
> Did Jesus promise you that you could one day become a god?   Did Jesus say that He has a spirit brother named Lucifer/Satan?
> 
> Did Jesus say that Black people are cursed?
> 
> Nuff...........said.



I agree that everyone should ask all those questions. Finally I agree with you 100% 
Ask and ye shall receive, Knock and it shall be opened unto you. 
God will answer. That is what we always say.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Bottom line folks:
> 
> Investigate for yourselves what the Mormon Church has done with the Lord Jesus Christ of the bible.
> 
> No one comes to the Father on the shirt-tails of their Christian parents or friends..........Man was given a free-will to ponder, and to search for God.
> 
> Evaluate what Jesus says in the New Testament, and also what His 12 Apostles wrote in the many Epistles, and then compare that to the Mormon Journal of Discourses, Doctrine of Covenants, and the Book of Mormon.
> 
> You will see a most different Jesus from the bible's very clear revealing.
> 
> Did Jesus promise you that you could one day become a god?   Did Jesus say that He has a spirit brother named Lucifer/Satan?
> 
> Did Jesus say that Black people are cursed?
> 
> Nuff...........said.



Already answered them with scriptural references. The answers were ignored.

BTW there is no Mormon Journal of Discourses. The JoD is not scripture. Not will it ever be. It's a short hand compilation of discourses. Due to the nature of writing short hand dictation, and the fact that the speakers never editted any of the discourses, it's not reliable for doctrine. Which, of course, is the collection states that its not reliable.

I cant imagine why anyone would ignore the countless clear books of scripture adopted by the Church and then try to use unscriptural short hand accounts of unedited speeches to determine what Mormon doctrine actually is. Makes me think they couldnt find any problems with the actual revelations.

I do have to agree with one point. Dont take my word for it or anyone elses. The Book of Mormon come along with a promise that those who ask God can know for themselves by the power of the Spirit. This is true. The only reason I read and share the Book of Mormon with others is because the Holy Ghost has told me that it's true. If God revealed anything to me otherwise, Id do otherwise.

I dont know why it's so hard to accept that God lives. I wish it wasnt. I dont know whats so hard to accept that God speaks because He does. I dont know why people want so badly to keep God silent.

I don't know why people say the Bible is clear. It's not. If it was there wouldnt be thousands of different Christian sects teaching different information. Without the Holy Spirit, The matters of God are impossible to understand. You cant learn from God in a book. You learn from God from God. 

Ive already demonstrated where the Bible is compatible with the many things that supposedly the Bible is inconsistant with in the Church. People can interpret passages differently. That is why God invites us to come to Him and learn. But people set up stakes. They say they will go only so far and no farther and wonder why they see no miracles. They wonder why they dont hear His voice.

God wants a nation of Prophets. People who know that Jesus is the Christ. People that know the mysteries of the Kingdom. Who actively strive to build His Kingdom on earth.

God has unspeakable blessings for those who follow Him. He grants them power and authority. Blessings from on high. Revelations, prophecies, healing, Wisdom, discernment. Angelic visitations and Personal Interviews. And those are just some of the blessings in mortality. There is so much more in the world beyond that they can't be described with our language.

I wish I could explain with my frail words even a fraction of the majesty of God. That's not where my gifts lie. At least not at the moment. But I can testify of the Light I have found studying the Gospel of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. I can testify of the light Ive found in prayerful communication with the Lord.

Satan is the great deciever. He tries to imitate the Gospel to lead people astray. But he can't provide Light. He can't provide clarity. He can't provide peace in mind and heart. The fruits of the Gospel are beyond him. 

Trust God, He wont lead you astray. I've never heard of a man damned for believing too much, only for unbelief.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Eightball will never be convinced, he is to interested in posting lies and half truths. He does not feel secure enough in his beliefs to survive if others may have more answers.

It is simple Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and translated and provided for the World, the Book of Mormon. The Bible is clear, there is not one single work of God but MANY. The Book of Mormon is another work of God.

I love how Eightball keeps claiming Mormons believe the Bible is tainted or corrupted. Out right lie and he keeps repeating it. Hate does horrible things to you and he clearly hates us.


----------



## Avatar4321

RetiredGySgt said:


> Eightball will never be convinced, he is to interested in posting lies and half truths. He does not feel secure enough in his beliefs to survive if others may have more answers.
> 
> It is simple Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and translated and provided for the World, the Book of Mormon. The Bible is clear, there is not one single work of God but MANY. The Book of Mormon is another work of God.
> 
> I love how Eightball keeps claiming Mormons believe the Bible is tainted or corrupted. Out right lie and he keeps repeating it. Hate does horrible things to you and he clearly hates us.



God can do anything my friend.


----------



## Eightball

RetiredGySgt said:


> Eightball will never be convinced, he is to interested in posting lies and half truths. He does not feel secure enough in his beliefs to survive if others may have more answers.
> 
> It is simple Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and translated and provided for the World, the Book of Mormon. The Bible is clear, there is not one single work of God but MANY. The Book of Mormon is another work of God.
> 
> I love how Eightball keeps claiming Mormons believe the Bible is tainted or corrupted. Out right lie and he keeps repeating it. *Hate does horrible things to you and he clearly hates us*.



Sadly, you've followed the typical brainwashed script that the LDS church tells it's adherents.........Your persecuted, and hated.

Biblical Christians are praying all over the world for the members of your church, that they may see the light, and the scales of spiritual blindness might fall away from your precious souls.

To infer that I, hate Mormons is a travesty, and not unexpected.  We/biblical Christians love the lost, who don't have a relationship with God through Christ.

We classify Mormons as lost, as they teach a gospel, that is not validated by biblical scripture.  Jesus said that He and only He is the way to the Father.  

Not one word of scripture relates to humanity that they, too, may reach godhood, as your church teaches.

Let it be known that everyone of my posts in rebuttle have not been from a position of hate, but of love for the lost of mankind.  LDS members are not in the fold that Jesus mentions in the bible, but our definitely in a "fold", but are not His sheep.  That makes me and every true Christian very sad, and pushes us more and more to reach out and attempt to reason, with your church members as well as those that aren't Mormons and do not have Christ as their one and only Lord and Savior.

You know that J.S. Jr. comes from such an unsavory background, and was never a "man of God".  His death has been rewritten by your church, and you know that, as secular press accounts of his death totally refute the church's account that he was a godly man, and a true martyr.

There are so many inconsistencies in your doctrines of faith, and you  also know that.

You also follow the Masonic tradition that there are many books that are inspired by God......or maps to God.

The very occult teachins of Freemasonry are written all over Mormonism.  

Now you may call me a hater of Mormons, but you are very wrong.  My grandma was a steaffast Mormon, in Salt Lake City, and her husband, my grandfather was an Episcapalean, and owned two saloons in Salt Lake City in the late 1800's.  My Grandfather even helped build the Mormon tabernacle, and was is in the famous photo of the driving of the Golden Spike when the first transcontinental rail line was finished at Promontory Point, Utah..

I have in my possession one of my Grandfather's beer mugs that was logo'd with Pabst Blue Ribon Beer of Milwaukee, and has a picture of the Utah, Bee Hive on one side and a picture of Brigham Young on the other side.  Yes, a beer mug, with Prophet Brigham Young's picture proudly caricatured on it!

Mormons, segregated themselves from non-Mormons in Salt Lake back in the early days, right into the early 1900's.  My father even recollects when Mormons would choose to walk on one side of the street and not associate with non Mormons.

To be a Non-Mormon in Salt Lake City, was to receive persecution...........Not the other way around.

A good buddy of mine that worked at the Camas, Washington H.P. plant, was summarily cut out of lucrative job positions by the abundance of Mormon, H.P. employees, that had a "Good Old Boy" fraternity at that plant.

My buddy actually joined the LDS church along with his wife after that time, and then left the church as they saw so many inconsistencies with the bible.  

Again, to call a person a hater, because they don't buy into your doctrine, is, the lowest, and poorest defense, and is utilized by a myriad of occult, and Christian cults to keep their members from straying.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Sadly, you've followed the typical brainwashed script that the LDS church tells it's adherents.........Your persecuted, and hated.Is it brainwashing if it's true?
> 
> Biblical Christians are praying all over the world for the members of your church, that they may see the light, and the scales of spiritual blindness might fall away from your precious souls.
> 
> To infer that I, hate Mormons is a travesty, and not unexpected.  We/biblical Christians love the lost, who don't have a relationship with God through Christ.
> 
> We classify Mormons as lost, as they teach a gospel, that is not validated by biblical scripture.  Jesus said that He and only He is the way to the Father.
> I wish you could read the chapter in the book of mormon describing the Zoramites, you sound eerily like them. 15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a aspirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.
> 16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.
> 17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.
> 18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.
> 19 Now it came to pass that after Alma and his brethren and his sons had heard these prayers, they were astonished beyond all measure.
> 20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers.
> 21 Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand.
> Not one word of scripture relates to humanity that they, too, may reach godhood, as your church teaches.
> Not one word? How about Jesus saying, what manner of men ought ye to be, Even as I am.
> Let it be known that everyone of my posts in rebuttle have not been from a position of hate, but of love for the lost of mankindI can just feel the love oozing everywhere.  LDS members are not in the fold that Jesus mentions in the bible, but our definitely in a "fold", but are not His sheep. Thanks for bringing that up. John chapter 10:16 states, many other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, them must I also bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.  He then went and visited the Nephites, who were not of the fold of Jerusalem but they heard his voice and loved his gospel. That makes me and every true Christian very sad, and pushes us more and more to reach out and attempt to reason, with your church members as well as those that aren't Mormons and do not have Christ as their one and only Lord and Savior.Don't have Christ as our shepherd? Please see said scripture in blue.
> 
> You know that J.S. Jr. comes from such an unsavory backgroundA much better background than you, and was never a "man of God". Prophecies that have come to pass would state otherwise His death has been rewritten by your church,Not true and you know that,very true as secular press accounts of his death totally refute the church's account that he was a godly man, and a true martyr.How so, specifics please?
> 
> There are so many inconsistencies in your doctrines of faithYou can't even name one, and you  also know that.Thank you
> 
> You also follow the Masonic tradition that there are many books that are inspired by God......or maps to God.So very true see the last verse of the book of John. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written
> 
> The very occult teachins of Freemasonry are written all over Mormonism.
> Would more properly read, that Joseph was revealed the true meaning of the Temple ordinances and which had been corrupted and which had not
> Now you may call me a hater of Mormons, but you are very wrong.  My grandma was a steaffast Mormon, in Salt Lake City, and her husband, my grandfather was an Episcapalean, and owned two saloons in Salt Lake City in the late 1800's.  My Grandfather even helped build the Mormon tabernacle, and was is in the famous photo of the driving of the Golden Spike when the first transcontinental rail line was finished at Promontory Point, Utah..
> 
> I have in my possession one of my Grandfather's beer mugs that was logo'd with Pabst Blue Ribon Beer of Milwaukee, and has a picture of the Utah, Bee Hive on one side and a picture of Brigham Young on the other side.  Yes, a beer mug, with Prophet Brigham Young's picture proudly caricatured on it!
> 
> Mormons, segregated themselves from non-Mormons in Salt Lake back in the early days, right into the early 1900's.  My father even recollects when Mormons would choose to walk on one side of the street and not associate with non Mormons.
> If that has ever happened then those individuals will stand accountable for doing something Jesus would not accept from them
> To be a Non-Mormon in Salt Lake City, was to receive persecution...........Not the other way around.
> 
> A good buddy of mine that worked at the Camas, WaNot that it hasn't happened but I believe that is a slight exaggerationshington H.P. plant, was summarily cut out of lucrative job positions by the abundance of Mormon, H.P. employees, that had a "Good Old Boy" fraternity at that plant.You are finally starting to admit that you have a problem with the people and are attacking them since you have no firm ground wherewith to attack the doctrine. People are not the church and people will stand accountable for their actions no matter what church they belong to.
> 
> My buddy actually joined the LDS church along with his wife after that time, and then left the church as they saw so many inconsistencies with the bible.  Maybe inconsistencies with their interpretations of the bible
> 
> Again, to call a person a hater, because they don't buy into your doctrine, is, the lowest, and poorest defense, and is utilized by a myriad of occult, and Christian cults to keep their members from straying.



Whatever you say


----------



## Avatar4321

I get it. You think we are a cult. You think we are decieved simply because we dont agree with your interpretation of the scriptures but have the audacity to actually believe God speaks to man and that the Bible is not everything God has and will ever say.

It was our fault mobs chased us out of New York, out of Ohio, Out of Missouri, Out of Illinios. And despite countless efforts to help out other religious faiths in Utah when it was being settled. We somehow ended up persecuting them.

And of course, we dont have a relationship with Lord, because you said so. Despite the fact that I know my spiritual life far better than you do. You are telling me that no my relationship with my Heavenly Father is somehow invalid because I refuse to reject everything He says.

I don't have a relationship with a book. I dont worship a book. I dont deny the Spirit when He wants to say more and therefore I dont know God. 

I feel impressed to quote the words of Christ when the Pharisees came to Him trying to show Him they followed the scriptures:



> 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
> 
> 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
> 
> 39 Ye search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
> 
> 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. (John 5:37:40)



Come to Christ. Be humble before Him and repent of your all your sins. And He will show you things that have never been revealed. But He won't show you anything against your will. He won't show you if you refuse to let go of the notion that everything there ever was and will be is found in the Bible. The Bible doesnt support that view. Nor does the Lord God if you just ask Him.

God is a God of miracles. He spoke to men in the past. He speaks to men now. He healed men in the past. He heals them now. God has not changed. We only fail to see the miracles and recieve the blessings because of our lack of faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> I get it. You think we are a cult. You think we are decieved simply because we dont agree with your interpretation of the scriptures but have the audacity to actually believe God speaks to man and that the Bible is not everything God has and will ever say.
> 
> It was our fault mobs chased us out of New York, out of Ohio, Out of Missouri, Out of Illinios. And despite countless efforts to help out other religious faiths in Utah when it was being settled. We somehow ended up persecuting them.
> 
> And of course, we dont have a relationship with Lord, because you said so. Despite the fact that I know my spiritual life far better than you do. You are telling me that no my relationship with my Heavenly Father is somehow invalid because I refuse to reject everything He says.
> 
> I don't have a relationship with a book. I dont worship a book. I dont deny the Spirit when He wants to say more and therefore I dont know God.
> 
> I feel impressed to quote the words of Christ when the Pharisees came to Him trying to show Him they followed the scriptures:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to Christ. Be humble before Him and repent of your all your sins. And He will show you things that have never been revealed. But He won't show you anything against your will. He won't show you if you refuse to let go of the notion that everything there ever was and will be is found in the Bible. The Bible doesnt support that view. Nor does the Lord God if you just ask Him.
> 
> God is a God of miracles. He spoke to men in the past. He speaks to men now. He healed men in the past. He heals them now. God has not changed. We only fail to see the miracles and recieve the blessings because of our lack of faith.


----------



## Eightball

Please Refute This Or Any Part Of This?  This information was presented by biblical centered Christian organization that doesn't "hate" Mormons, but is very strongly concerned and impassioned for their eternal destiny. - Eightball



> *The Plain Truth about the Mormons*
> 
> The Mormon movement began with "the prophet" Joseph Smith, Jr. in the year 1820. Joe (as he was known) was born to some rather strange parents in 1805. His mother, Lucy, was involved in occult practices and visions, while his father, Joseph, Sr., consumed much time with imaginary treasure digging (including the booty of Captain Kidd).
> 
> According to Mormon writings (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:1-25), on a day in 1820, Joe was praying in the woods when he received a vision from God the Father and Jesus. It was revealed to Joe that the church was in apostasy and he was the chosen one to launch a new dispensation.
> 
> Being unwilling to drop his current occupation of money-digging with his father (while using "peep stones" and "divining rods"), Joe put his "calling" on hold for three years. Then, according to his own account (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:29-54), he was paid a bedside visit by the angel Moroni in 1823. Moroni, who professed to be the glorified son of a man named Mormon (who had been dead 1400 years), told Joe about a book of golden plates which contained "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel." This book was said to have been buried at Cumorah Hill, near Palmyra, New York, some 1400 years earlier by the man named Mormon. Four years later (1827), Joe supposedly dug up the golden plates along with a gigantic pair of spectacles which he called "the Urim and Thummim." The spectacles were for translating the hieroglyphics on the plates. With the help of his only legal wife and a friend named Oliver Cowdery, Joe translated the plates and published the Book of Mormon in 1830. Later that same year, Joe, his wife, his brothers (Hyrum and Samuel), and Cowdery established the "Church of Jesus Christ," which is known today as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints."
> 
> The Book of Mormon contains many plagiarisms of the King James English (at least 25,000 words). This is strange since the plates were supposed to have been in the ground many centuries before the King James Bible was completed in 1611! The Book of Mormon also contains many errors such as claims of elephants in the Western Hemisphere and advanced metal producing capabilities in America before 400 A.D. (See Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults for a fine study in the errors of the Mormon Bible)
> 
> The Mormons, under Smith's command, turned out to be a rough bunch. Joe was a polygamist with at least twenty- seven wives (some say over 60 wives). The whole gang left New York for Ohio, and then moved to Missouri. The Missouri governor ran them out of the state, so they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, and built the state's largest city. In 1844, Joe and Hyrum were thrown in jail. Then an angry mob stormed the jail and murdered them both. Naturally, this "martyrdom" insured the perpetual reverence of the great "prophet" Joseph Smith.
> 
> The "church" then split. The Smith family headed for Independence, Missouri and started what is now the "Recognized Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints." However, the majority of Smith's followers chose Brigham Young as their new captain.
> 
> To escape U.S. laws, Young led the Mormons from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City in 1847 (which then belonged to Mexico). For the next thirty years, Young and his "saints" laid the foundation stones of the Mormon cult.
> 
> Little known to most Mormons, Young was a rather rough and ruthless character. In 1857, he commanded Bishop John D. Lee to murder a wagon train of over one hundred helpless non-Mormon immigrants. Twenty years later Lee was convicted and executed by the U.S. Government. Young escaped punishment, and his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre has escaped the Mormon history books.
> 
> Young spent most of his "ministry" dodging the law to continue the immoral practice of polygamy. At the time of his death in 1877, Young had seventeen wives and fifty-six children.
> 
> Today the Mormon church is administrated by its "General Authorities." These authorities consist of the "First Presidency," the "Counsel of Twelve Apostles," the "First Quorum of the Seventy" and its presidency, the "Presiding Bishoprick," and the "Patriarch of the Church."
> 
> Male Mormons over twelve years of age are divided into priesthoods. The Aaronic order is the lesser priesthood, and the Melchizedek order is the higher.
> 
> The church is divided into thousands of "wards" and "stakes," with over 2000 branches and 180 missions, and over 5,000,000 members.
> 
> Mormons are very missionary-minded people, with over 26,000 active missionaries. However, much of this missionary army consists of young men and women in their early twenties who must serve two years in missionary work while supporting themselves.
> 
> The Mormon people of today are highly respected in our society, but there is nothing respectable about their doctrines. Some are as follows:
> 
> The Deity of Man Promoted
> 
> Mormons teach that man can become God, and that God was once a man:
> 
> "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted immortal resurrected man!" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 322-23, 517, 643)
> "...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens..." (Journal of Discourses, V6, P3, 1844)
> "As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become." (Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, the Gospel Through the Ages, pp. 105-106)
> 
> This is plain and simple heresy. Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God was ever a man, or that man can become God! Malachi 3:6 says, "For I am the LORD, I change not..." How could this be true if God was once a man? Genesis 1:1 states that God existed "in the beginning" before man was ever created. John 4:24 states that God is a "spirit," and Jesus tells us in John 1:18 that no man has seen God at any time. Numbers 23:19 says that "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." God has always been God, and no one has ever "become" God.
> 
> Deity of Jesus Christ Denied
> 
> The Deity of Jesus Christ is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, yet the Mormons deny this truth. Exalting man to "god status" is apparently alright, but Jesus Christ is not acknowledged as the eternal Son of God in the Mormon church. The Mormon Jesus was a preexisting spirit who was exalted, just as Mormon followers hope to be exalted someday.
> 
> God is a Trinity (I Jn. 5:7), and the second Member of that Trinity is the Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:1 says that "the Word was God," and John 1:14 tells us that "the Word was made flesh." Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate, and John 1:1 tells us that the Word was God; so Jesus Christ is God.
> 
> Jesus allowed Thomas to address Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28. In Isaiah 9:6, He is called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father," and we read in Micah 5:2 that Jesus is "from everlasting."
> 
> Our Lord allowed people to worship him in John 10:38 and in Matthew 14:33, and since He is "God with us" (Mat. 1:23) He also has power to forgive sins (Mk. 2:5). Jesus Christ is clearly Deity, yet this doctrine is denied by the Mormons.
> 
> Multiple Authorities
> 
> The Bible declares, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20) However, the Mormon Church claims that other writings, such as the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's writings are also authoritative. In fact, Joseph Smith taught his people to doubt the accuracy of the Bible: "...it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 10)
> 
> Mormon Writings Support Polygamy
> 
> "...if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery...And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery." (Doctrines and Covenants, 132:61, 62)
> 
> Jesus Christ held a slightly different view (Mark 10:6- 9). There is no way a man can be "one flesh" with more than one woman. A man and his wife are supposed to picture Christ and his church (Eph. 5:23-32), but this symbolism is shattered by the Mormon heresy of Polygamy.
> 
> True Church Theory
> 
> The Mormon book, The Pearl of Great Price, claims that all other Christian groups are "corrupt" and are an "abomination" in God's sight (Joseph Smith, 2:19). Such claims as this are based on the unscriptural assumption that the Lord Jesus Christ has a specific religious organization on the earth today, complete with a name, a membership, and a leadership, which makes up His "true church." This doctrine is found nowhere in God's word. Everyone who has received Christ as their Saviour is a member of His church, which is a spiritual body of born-again believers (Eph. 4:4; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18-24; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 19:7; 5:9-10; 21:9).
> 
> Other False Teachings
> 
> The Mormons deny the Trinity and the existence of a literal burning Hell, yet they promote polytheism (many gods), baptism for the dead, and the notion that Jesus and Satan were originally spirit brothers! Friend, make no mistake about it--Mormonism is a dangerous cult. In the eyes of man, the Mormons seem very respectable, but the light of God's word reveals the true wolves behind the sheep clothing. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Mat. 7:15) Don't look at their nice families, their clean-cut hair, and their friendly "missionaries." LOOK AT THEIR DOCTRINES! (I Tim. 4:1)
> 
> There is no way to cover all of the Mormon heresies in a tract this size. For further reading, we recommend our publication, The Bible Believer's Handbook of Heresies, which sheds light on many of the heresies being taught today in the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
> 
> Salvation through Works
> 
> Mormons believe that one's salvation is based on such good works as baptism, good deeds, missionary work, and following Mormon teachings. In The Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, justification by faith in Jesus Christ is called a "pernicious doctrine" twice and he states that it has been "an influence for evil." (pp. 107, 480) Bruce McConkie once stated at Brigham Young University that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is "improper and perilous" (Church News, March 20, 1982, p. 5)
> 
> Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Romans 4:5 says that salvation comes to those who do not work for salvation, but believe on Jesus Christ instead!
> 
> Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6) "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
> 
> Jesus PAID your way to Heaven! Your church cannot save you! Only by receiving Jesus Christ as your Saviour can you escape the damnation of Hell. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Why not pray right now and ask the Lord to come into your heart and cleanse you from all sin? He will save you just as He promised.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

So many outright lies and half truths as to be pointless to answer. Spread your hate somewhere else.


----------



## jillian

RetiredGySgt said:


> So many outright lies and half truths as to be pointless to answer. Spread your hate somewhere else.



Frankly, anyone arguing "faith" is pretty pointless. People believe what they believe... And so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, who cares what other people find beneficial in their lives?


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Please Refute This Or Any Part Of This?  This information was presented by biblical centered Christian organization that doesn't "hate" Mormons, but is very strongly concerned and impassioned for their eternal destiny. - Eightball



I didn't read the whole rant, as it wasn't worth my time, but this total falsehood did catch my eye as I scrolled through:



> Deity of Jesus Christ Denied
> 
> The Deity of Jesus Christ is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, yet the Mormons deny this truth. Exalting man to "god status" is apparently alright, but Jesus Christ is not acknowledged as the eternal Son of God in the Mormon church. The Mormon Jesus was a preexisting spirit who was exalted, just as Mormon followers hope to be exalted someday.



From the Articles of Faith:



> We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.



Actually, if you want to know that Mormons believe, just follow the above link.  Beliefs are summarized in one page, a lot more efficient reading than this thread.


----------



## Eightball

RetiredGySgt said:


> So many outright lies and half truths as to be pointless to answer. Spread your hate somewhere else.



Maybe you should spread your accusations of "hate" somewhere else?

As I've said before, my posts aren't from a position of hate, but of rebuttal, and Christian concern/love for the fate Mormons, as well as others who are "lost" in accordance with what the bible terms, "lost".

I don't hate people that refute my biblical faith.  Jesus didn't hate folks who didn't accept what he succinctly laid down or communicated in the bible.

The "hate" mantra goes along with your churches "we are a persecuted people" mantra.

Have there been lynchings, of Mormons lately?  If so, that is a hate crime.

Have people critiqued Mormonism........Most definetly......and found it lacking.........Most definetly.  Is that a hate crime or hating Mormons........Hardly.

Jesus came to save the sick............and He didn't mean the physically sick, but the spiritually sick, and ignorant.

He made Himself so awfully plain and easy to understand as revealed in the N.T., and even emphasized He was, and is the "I AM".  So we had a revealing of God in the Flesh/incarnate.  Not a glorified man who did good works to earn godhood......

He said He was the Way and the Truth and the Light, and that no man could see or have a relationship with the Father except by "Me/Jesus".

The Jews didn't understand plain old faith, and continued to bury themselves in the "Laws" in order to please God.  All along, God was telling the Jews, and Gentiles that if one little jot or tittle of the law was missed or violated, then one was doomed to death and separation from God.

So Jesus bridged this infinite gap between man and God, with His sacrificed life, as He was the only human who was sinless, and fitting to be that unblemished, Passover Lamb that could put an end to God's judgement upon sinful mankind.

Man's Responsibility:  To accept Christ in their heart, objectively, as the One and Only subsitute or sacrifice for their sinful lives, and then accept that forgiveness by faith, objectively, and receive the Holy Spirit, as a seal and guarantor from God, that they were saved.

Visions and miracles cannot be trusted to be authored by God.  Even Pharoahs magicians duplicated some of the miracles that Moses performed before Pharoah.

God wants us to depend on the bible over any and all miracles, visions, dreams, and other phenomena.

In the end times, the bible says that most of the worlds population will be duped by visions, and false Christs, and will ultimately go down the "Wide" or popular road, and will totally miss the "narrow" or challenging road of faith in God's promises set down and protected through the ages.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dude, your are like a maniac with a shotgun that doesn't run out of ammo.

I stole that from someone on these boards.

Except with you the ammo is really weak. It's clear to see that you just copy and paste from anti- mormon websites and your whole mission is to try and prove mormon doctrine wrong. You can't do it. You won't win anymore than I would win if I tried to convert you.

Your sources are entirely questionable, your lack of history is astounding concerning the compilation of the bible or ancient languages. Your arrogance is hilarious. Your scriptures are grossly taken out of context whether from the bible or book of mormon. I have answered every question in your ridiculous essays. But you are so bloodthirsty that you keep coming back for more. Ok, fine, you will just continue to embarass yourself.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Dude, your are like a maniac with a shotgun that doesn't run out of ammo.
> 
> I stole that from someone on these boards.
> 
> Except with you the ammo is really weak. It's clear to see that you just copy and paste from anti- mormon websites and your whole mission is to try and prove mormon doctrine wrong. You can't do it. You won't win anymore than I would win if I tried to convert you.
> 
> Your sources are entirely questionable, your lack of history is astounding concerning the compilation of the bible or ancient languages. Your arrogance is hilarious. Your scriptures are grossly taken out of context whether from the bible or book of mormon. I have answered every question in your ridiculous essays. But you are so bloodthirsty that you keep coming back for more. Ok, fine, you will just continue to embarass yourself.



My questionable sources are the bible, and newspaper accounts, and actually from your own church's historical accounts. 

Care to share with the forum about of the Planet "Kolob" and it's signifigance to Mormon doctrine?

Also, Brigham Young's teaching about "blood atonement" when sins are too great for Jesus to forgive?  What must a good Mormon do to the Mormon who has sinned beyond forgivenness?

Did Adam and Eve come from Planet Kolob? 

Of course my inquiries are coming from the basis of "hatred" for Mormons......Not!  If you might tackle looking at Eightball's past threads and posts, you won't find one "iota" of hate towards anyone.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> My questionable sources are the bible, and newspaper accounts, and actually from your own church's historical accounts.
> 
> Care to share with the forum about of the Planet "Kolob" and it's signifigance to Mormon doctrine?Thanks for posting something that doesn't take an hour to read finally.
> OK, now we are getting somewhere by asking questions and having a discussion.
> Kolob is simply the star closest to planet on which God resides. No big deal. It was shown to Adam and many prophets who were privy to the information. It is not important for us to know in regards to our salvation however.
> 
> Also, Brigham Young's teaching about "blood atonement" when sins are too great for Jesus to forgive?  What must a good Mormon do to the Mormon who has sinned beyond forgivenness?You totally misunderstand the hypothetical message of President Young. Brigham was simply asking if we would be willing to do like Abraham who was asked to kill his own son as a sacrifice to God. It was an act of obedience that didn't seem to make sense at the time but because Abraham knew that God was just, obeyed anyway.
> We are not authorized or asked to kill anyone to atone for the sins of anyone. But if we were, would we be willing to do the same as Abraham? There are a few examples in scripture where the Lord commands righteous people to slay another. Usually it is the wicked being slain except for cases like Isaac.
> If a person's sins are not covered by Jesus Christ's atonement, then it is of their own choosing.
> That is why the scriptures talk over and over about "ridding ourselves of the blood of our brethren."
> 
> Did Adam and Eve come from Planet Kolob? Yes. No big deal.
> 
> Of course my inquiries are coming from the basis of "hatred" for Mormons......Not! If not hatred then gross misunderstanding of our doctrine If you might tackle looking at Eightball's past threads and posts, you won't find one "iota" of hate towards anyone.I have tackled every one of your posts and would tend to disagree with you but if I am wrong and you are not full of hate, then you are just full of error


----------



## Eightball

Might you elaborate on what the Mormon church teaches are those who can't be forgiven by the Lord Jesus Christ, or the category of sin/sins that cannot be atoned for by the blood of The Lord Jesus Christ?  Could you substantiate this via the bible?

Note:  Isaac was indeed a good person, but God's command to Abraham to take Isaac up to be sacrificed was a "test" of Abramham's faith in the true nature of God..i.e love, compassion, forgiveness, etc..  "That God would prepare a way, i.e.  Isaac would not die.  A Ram was provided.

Take note that many people were slain by the Israelites in the O.T., by command of God, but it is stated that those who died before the crucifixion and ressurrection of Christ will have their "moment" from the grave of old to say, "yeah" or "nay" before the post crucified Jesus Christ.  The bible still seems to substantiate that atonement is still in the realm of Christ's work at the cross and not in man's hands(B. Young).

Aside from B. Young saying that man can take another man's life in blood atonement for sins, allegedly beyond Christ's ability or scope of redemption, could you please give some specific bible verses that substantiate this?

Also, could you please reference in the bible where it is taught or told that Adam and Eve came from the planet Kolob?

Where in the bible does it say, that us humans can achieve Godhood?

Who in Mormon doctrine determines where bible scripture is correct, and where it is not correct?

Where in the bible does God actually say, that He/God is for or blesses multiple marriage?  If you reference verses where bible characters had more than one wife, that is not a carte' blanc approval, but a tolerance and forebearance on God's part.  

Knowing that James 4:11 is referring/talking to Christians/saved who are not working to be saved, where does the bible specifically say "in context" that to be saved one must perform satisfactorily "faith plus good works"?

In Romans 3:23, " For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." is quite specific.  Yet Paul, the inspired author of Romans, also  says in following passages/verses that Christ sacrifice was for all of humanity, both Jew and gentile.

Where in the bible does it state that before human being's were born or conceived that they were alive as spirits?

Where in the bible does it substantiate that one's earthly marriage will continue in heaven?

Does the bible teach that Jesus had a brother named Lucifer?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You can ONLY be saved if you accept Jesus and repent of your sins. IF you choose to either not ask for Jesus forgiveness , fail to repent or continue your wicked ways PURPOSEFULLY Jesus will not save you.

The exception being those that have not been taught about Jesus. They will be given a chance to learn and accept Jesus as their savior after Judgement Day.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Please Refute This Or Any Part Of This?  This information was presented by biblical centered Christian organization that doesn't "hate" Mormons, but is very strongly concerned and impassioned for their eternal destiny. - Eightball



Yeah, I believe that. Right. 

Is it really that difficult to learn the truth as it is rather than as corrupt individuals who would no longer be able to collect money from their flocks if the truth got out sees it?

If they are so concerned about my Eternal Destiny, why do they have to lie about what I believe. Why do they have to lie period?

This is one of the ultimate questions which I had to ask myself when I was studying the Restoration. If those who fight against it are so right, why do they have to lie? It just didnt make sense. And its not like they are just misinterpreting things. They out and out lie. And what gets me is all you have to do is read the freaking title page of the Book of Mormon to start to see where they are lying. It's ridiculous.

If your position is accurate, you dont have to lie about others to prove your points. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Avatar4321

jillian said:


> Frankly, anyone arguing "faith" is pretty pointless. People believe what they believe... And so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, who cares what other people find beneficial in their lives?



And by what standard do we judge that it doesnt hurt anyone?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Maybe you should spread your accusations of "hate" somewhere else?
> 
> As I've said before, my posts aren't from a position of hate, but of rebuttal, and Christian concern/love for the fate Mormons, as well as others who are "lost" in accordance with what the bible terms, "lost".
> 
> I don't hate people that refute my biblical faith.  Jesus didn't hate folks who didn't accept what he succinctly laid down or communicated in the bible.
> 
> The "hate" mantra goes along with your churches "we are a persecuted people" mantra.
> 
> Have there been lynchings, of Mormons lately?  If so, that is a hate crime.
> 
> Have people critiqued Mormonism........Most definetly......and found it lacking.........Most definetly.  Is that a hate crime or hating Mormons........Hardly.
> 
> Jesus came to save the sick............and He didn't mean the physically sick, but the spiritually sick, and ignorant.
> 
> He made Himself so awfully plain and easy to understand as revealed in the N.T., and even emphasized He was, and is the "I AM".  So we had a revealing of God in the Flesh/incarnate.  Not a glorified man who did good works to earn godhood......
> 
> He said He was the Way and the Truth and the Light, and that no man could see or have a relationship with the Father except by "Me/Jesus".
> 
> The Jews didn't understand plain old faith, and continued to bury themselves in the "Laws" in order to please God.  All along, God was telling the Jews, and Gentiles that if one little jot or tittle of the law was missed or violated, then one was doomed to death and separation from God.
> 
> So Jesus bridged this infinite gap between man and God, with His sacrificed life, as He was the only human who was sinless, and fitting to be that unblemished, Passover Lamb that could put an end to God's judgement upon sinful mankind.
> 
> Man's Responsibility:  To accept Christ in their heart, objectively, as the One and Only subsitute or sacrifice for their sinful lives, and then accept that forgiveness by faith, objectively, and receive the Holy Spirit, as a seal and guarantor from God, that they were saved.
> 
> Visions and miracles cannot be trusted to be authored by God.  Even Pharoahs magicians duplicated some of the miracles that Moses performed before Pharoah.
> 
> God wants us to depend on the bible over any and all miracles, visions, dreams, and other phenomena.
> 
> In the end times, the bible says that most of the worlds population will be duped by visions, and false Christs, and will ultimately go down the "Wide" or popular road, and will totally miss the "narrow" or challenging road of faith in God's promises set down and protected through the ages.



The thing is, you arent critiquing mormonism. You don't know what it is.

Ive seen no evidence that God wants us to rely on the Bible above all else. This concept is found no where in the Bible. In fact, as cited before, Christ specifically chewed out the Pharisees because they claimed to believe the scriptures above all else and ignored God. 

We are supposed to live off every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Not just the words He spoke thousands of years ago.

And the scriptures are correct, many will miss the narrow and challenging road of faith. Because they will continually put up stakes and say "I will believe this and nothing more". Man has never been damned for believing too much, just unbelief.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> My questionable sources are the bible, and newspaper accounts, and actually from your own church's historical accounts.



Really? So that article with no reference is in the Bible? Which part?



> Care to share with the forum about of the Planet "Kolob" and it's signifigance to Mormon doctrine?



Sure, it's a reprentation of Jesus Christ and used to teach that we need to look to Him for light. I recommend reading it sometimes.



> Also, Brigham Young's teaching about "blood atonement" when sins are too great for Jesus to forgive?  What must a good Mormon do to the Mormon who has sinned beyond forgivenness?



It's not a difficult concept. If Christ's blood doesnt cover you, you have to pay for your sins. You either have an atonement for your sins or you pay. Seriously, the Bible isnt too hard to understand.



> Did Adam and Eve come from Planet Kolob?



Since Kolob is a representation of Christ, the question could be answered several ways. But it is quite irrelevant to the doctrines of the Gospel. Much as what type of wood Noah used to build the Ark would be irrelevant.



> Of course my inquiries are coming from the basis of "hatred" for Mormons......Not!  If you might tackle looking at Eightball's past threads and posts, you won't find one "iota" of hate towards anyone.



If you were serious in your efforts, youd want to talk about the actual doctrines of the Church. You know, Faith, Repentence, Baptism, the Laying on of Hands, the priesthood organization, the resurrection, revelation. 

But then, you cant argue them can you? You havent researched it to begin with. You've trusted what others have said. Others who, for whatever reason, spend their days ripping quotes out of context in unofficial journals and short hand accounts rather than deal with the actual revelations.

It's because they can't deal with the revelations. And youd rather argue irrelevant side issues then deal with the strength of the Church.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Where in the bible does it say, that us humans can achieve Godhood?



How many times are you going to ignore the citations? Ive already posted dozens



> Who in Mormon doctrine determines where bible scripture is correct, and where it is not correct?



God. That would be the entire point for giving us the Gift of the Holy Ghost. So we can learn from Him. So we dont have to put our faith in others.



> Where in the bible does God actually say, that He/God is for or blesses multiple marriage?  If you reference verses where bible characters had more than one wife, that is not a carte' blanc approval, but a tolerance and forebearance on God's part.



I suppose God gave David his wives because He didn't approve of this. David, a man who was after the Lord's own heart.



> 7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. *Thus saith the Lord God of Israel*, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
> 
> 8 And *I gave thee *thy masters house, and *thy masters wives *into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things (2 Sam 12:7-8)



Are you really proposing that we should believe that God didn't approve of David having more than one wife, after He said He gave them to him, just because you say so?



> Knowing that James 4:11 is referring/talking to Christians/saved who are not working to be saved, where does the bible specifically say "in context" that to be saved one must perform satisfactorily "faith plus good works"?



Completely irrelevant because we dont believe we are saved by our works. We believe we are saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. However, we do believe we actually have to accept it by faith and not just give a meaningless confession of our lips.



> In Romans 3:23, " For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." is quite specific.  Yet Paul, the inspired author of Romans, also  says in following passages/verses that Christ sacrifice was for all of humanity, both Jew and gentile.



Yes. The Son of God became a man so that men can become the sons of God. Something you keep denying.



> Where in the bible does it state that before human being's were born or conceived that they were alive as spirits?



Off the top of my head? Jeremiah 1, John 9:1-2, John 38, Eph. 1:3-4

There are others of course, but Id have to do some searching. I know Ecclesiasties and Proverbs or Psalms talks about it.



> Where in the bible does it substantiate that one's earthly marriage will continue in heaven?



How about Genesis, where Adam and Eve were married prior to the fall?

Or how about Christ's own words:



> 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matt. 19:6)



Man brought death into the world. If God has stated that man cannot put asunder what God has joined together, then death cannot separate a husband and wife joined by the Lord.



> Does the bible teach that Jesus had a brother named Lucifer?



No, it simply points out that we are all the offspring of God. And Job mentions that the Adversary was among the sons of God. 

What the heck that has to do with actual doctrine, who the heck knows?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> How many times are you going to ignore the citations? Ive already posted dozens
> 
> 
> 
> God. That would be the entire point for giving us the Gift of the Holy Ghost. So we can learn from Him. So we dont have to put our faith in others.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose God gave David his wives because He didn't approve of this. David, a man who was after the Lord's own heart.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really proposing that we should believe that God didn't approve of David having more than one wife, after He said He gave them to him, just because you say so?
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant because we dont believe we are saved by our works. We believe we are saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. However, we do believe we actually have to accept it by faith and not just give a meaningless confession of our lips.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The Son of God became a man so that men can become the sons of God. Something you keep denying.
> 
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head? Jeremiah 1, John 9:1-2, John 38, Eph. 1:3-4
> 
> There are others of course, but Id have to do some searching. I know Ecclesiasties and Proverbs or Psalms talks about it.
> 
> 
> 
> How about Genesis, where Adam and Eve were married prior to the fall?
> 
> Or how about Christ's own words:
> 
> 
> 
> Man brought death into the world. If God has stated that man cannot put asunder what God has joined together, then death cannot separate a husband and wife joined by the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it simply points out that we are all the offspring of God. And Job mentions that the Adversary was among the sons of God.
> 
> What the heck that has to do with actual doctrine, who the heck knows?



What a skewed mess, you've made of a very simple and clear gospel as revealed in the bible.

You've added-to, the bible teachings of Jesus Christ so many strange and weird concepts..........

What a "stretch" to say that Planet Kolot is Jesus....

No where in the bible does it say that Adam and Even's relationship came from anywhere, but when God Created Adam first, then wanted Adam to have a helpmate as God didn't want Adam to be lonely, and took a rib from Adam to make Eve...........All in the garden, not somewhere else.

God is Spirit.........Moses could not look at God and live, and God put him in a cleft of a rock and let Moses only see his glory and attributes, and that was enough.  The Tent of the Meeting in the desert, was God's dwelling place, and no one entered or they would perish.  

If God were bone and flesh in that triune state of being during the Israelites exodus from Egypt, then all of Israel could have climbed up Mt. Sinai and seen Him with their eyes, but God warned them that He could not be witnessed by humans and live.

When Christ died, the Shekinah Glory of God became available and non-threatening to all of mankind through Jesus Christ.

Jesus was God.........incarnate, sent to show the total representation of God the Father, but in human flesh that mankind might identifiy with and have a clear understanding of the attributes of God, through His Son.

This is Spiritually ascertained, and clearly laid-out in Johns Gospel.  The Word became Flesh, and the Word was God.

The only begotten of God..........


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> What a skewed mess, you've made of a very simple and clear gospel as revealed in the bible.
> 
> You've added-to, the bible teachings of Jesus Christ so many strange and weird concepts..........
> 
> What a "stretch" to say that Planet Kolot is Jesus....
> 
> No where in the bible does it say that Adam and Even's relationship came from anywhere, but when God Created Adam first, then wanted Adam to have a helpmate as God didn't want Adam to be lonely, and took a rib from Adam to make Eve...........All in the garden, not somewhere else.
> 
> God is Spirit.........Moses could not look at God and live, and God put him in a cleft of a rock and let Moses only see his glory and attributes, and that was enough.  The Tent of the Meeting in the desert, was God's dwelling place, and no one entered or they would perish.
> 
> If God were bone and flesh in that triune state of being during the Israelites exodus from Egypt, then all of Israel could have climbed up Mt. Sinai and seen Him with their eyes, but God warned them that He could not be witnessed by humans and live.
> 
> When Christ died, the Shekinah Glory of God became available and non-threatening to all of mankind through Jesus Christ.
> 
> Jesus was God.........incarnate, sent to show the total representation of God the Father, but in human flesh that mankind might identifiy with and have a clear understanding of the attributes of God, through His Son.
> 
> This is Spiritually ascertained, and clearly laid-out in Johns Gospel.  The Word became Flesh, and the Word was God.
> 
> The only begotten of God..........



In other words, you dont know how to respond, so you resort to the you dont know a thing about the Bible argument. 

This despite the countless citations from the Bible showing you where you are wrong about Mormons.

Oh, as a side note, Moses did see God face to face. As have many prophets. The natural man cannot see God and live, but when the Spirit falls upon man and changes him from his natural state, then that's a completely different story. 

I can never understand the desire of some people to limit what God can and can't do. If God wants to reveal Himself to someone and let that person live, of course He has power to do so. Saying that He can't while ignoring all the scriptures where exactly that has happened seems pointless.

Stop putting up stakes that keep you from exercising full faith in Him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

8 ball is very afraid that his craft might be destroyed by not being able to destroy ours. We haven't even tried to destroy his. But something is very wrong with his desire to kick against the pricks. It only makes sense if you realize that the truth has a certain ring to it and people will do 1 of three things, fight it, embrace it, or ignore it. If he really just ignored it he would have left a long time ago.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> In other words, you dont know how to respond, so you resort to the you dont know a thing about the Bible argument.
> 
> This despite the countless citations from the Bible showing you where you are wrong about Mormons.
> 
> *Oh, as a side note, Moses did see God face to face*. *As have many prophets*. The natural man cannot see God and live, but when the Spirit falls upon man and changes him from his natural state, then that's a completely different story.
> 
> I can never understand the desire of some people to limit what God can and can't do. If God wants to reveal Himself to someone and let that person live, of course He has power to do so. Saying that He can't while ignoring all the scriptures where exactly that has happened seems pointless.
> 
> EXODUS Chapter 33:18-23
> 
> Verse 19   And he/Moses said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory.
> 
> Verse 19   And he/God said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
> Rom 9:15
> 
> Verse 20   And he/God said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
> see Gen 32:30, Exod 24:10, Deut 5:24, Judg 6:22, Judg 13:22, Isa 6:5
> 
> Verse 21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
> 
> Verse 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
> 
> Verse 23  And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
> 
> Stop putting up stakes that keep you from exercising full faith in Him.



KJV as pasted here is quite clear about, even prophets seeing God Almighty face to face.......

Now, however Jesus Christ could and was witnessed, or seen face to face, and was God Almighty incarnate.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Now the natural man cannot see God, that is obviously what is meant by statements such as yours, but below you will see that prophets and apostles priviledged to have interface with God are not "the natural man", they are transfigured to be able to withstand the prescence of God and are no longer in the natural human man.
Genesis 12:7 
And the LORD appeareird unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him. 

Genesis 17:1 
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him.... 

Genesis 18:1 
And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre. 

Genesis 26:2 
And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of. 

Genesis 26:24 
And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not. 

Genesis 32:30 
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. 

Genesis 35:9 
And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him. 

Genesis 48:3 
And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan. 

Exodus 3:16 
The LORD God ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you. 

Exodus 4:5 
That they may believe that the LORD God ... hath appeared unto thee. 

Exodus 6:3 
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob.... 

Exodus 24:9-11 
Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink. 

Exodus 33:11 
And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend. 

Exodus 33:23 
And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts. 

Numbers 14:14 
For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face. 

Deuteronomy 5:4 
The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire. 

Deuteronomy 34:10 
And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face. 

Judges 13:22 
And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. 

1 Kings 22:19 
I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 

Job 42:5 
I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. 

Psalm 63.2 
To see thy power and they glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary. 

Isaiah 6:1 
In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. 

Isaiah 6:5 
For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. 

Ezekiel 1:27 
And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward.... 

Ezekiel 20:35 
And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face. 

Amos 7:7 
The LORD stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand. 

Amos 9:1 
I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake. 

Habakkuk 3:3-5 
God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran .... He had horns coming out of his hand. 

Matthew 18:9 
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.


----------



## Truthspeaker

By the way, You and I both believe that Jesus is and was Jehovah. Therefore making him God incarnate.


----------



## Eightball

John 6:46

Jesus Speaking: "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One(Jesus) who is from God; He(Jesus) has seen the Father.

John 8:19

"And so they(the people) were saying to Him(Jesus), "Where is Your Father?"
Jesus Answered: "You know neither Me(Jesus), nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also."

John 14:9

Jesus Speaking To Philip: "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip?  He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father'?(Great evidence of the Triune nature of God)

John 10:30

Jesus Said, "I and the Father are one." (Great evidence of the Triune nature of God.)

Matthew 11:27

Jesus Said, "All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
*******
Seeing God and Knowing God are two different things altogether.

Many witnessed the cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, but didn't know God or witness His whole being.

The bible says that God is Spirit, and that Jesus is the Fleshly manifestation of God.  When Jesus referred to "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father."  He was referring to knowing or the intimate relationship with God, not just attending one of His sermons, and seeing a man speaking.

To know God is to know Jesus first.  Jesus is as John stated, the Word, God, and the Word became flesh.

Also, Jesus is the One and Only begotten.........there are no other Jesus' nor God's.......

Also Jesus was not begotten by relations between God and Mary, or Mary would not have been a virgin at the birth of Jesus.

By the way, I couldn't correct my mis-type a few posts-ago.  Kolob.......was the planet.........that somehow is not mentioned in the Holy Bible.  Seems like a very important omission?


----------



## Truthspeaker

didn't you read that I already said Jesus is Jehovah?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthspeaker said:


> By the way, You and I both believe that Jesus is and was Jehovah. Therefore making him God incarnate.



Jesus is NOT God. The Bible is very clear on that. Jesus reminds John several times he is NOT God. Jesus is the "son" of God. A Divine Angel, the first ever created and he helps God create everything after that. The Bible is quite clear.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It is easy to misunderstand this issue, hence the great confusion in the world about the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the old Testament who spoke with Moses face to face and who appeared to the brother of Jared. Also see that he was the Word spoken of in John 1:1-3. But just because he is that same God, the Father of heaven and earth, does not mean that he didn't have a separate Father of his own, Elohim. That is who he was praying to in the garden of Gethsemane and who we pray to.
See this clip from Russell M. Nelson. With a collection of scriptures from several sources.  &#8220;The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him&#8221; (D&C 93:8&#8211;10; see also 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2; 2 Ne. 9:5; 3 Ne. 9:15; D&C 76:23&#8211;24; D&C 88:42&#8211;48; D&C 101:32&#8211;34).


----------



## RetiredGySgt

There is only one God and that is NOT Jesus. The Trinity is not one entity.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is only one God and that is NOT Jesus. The Trinity is not one entity.



I don't think you are understanding me. We don't believe in the trinity which states that Jesus is his own father and the bodiless Holy Ghost which is a purely Catholic notion.

Three separate people, three gods, 1 purpose or Godhead: Elohim, Jesus(Jehovah), who both have bodies of flesh and bone, and the Holy Ghost who is a spirit without a body.
That is what our doctrine states. Just like me, you and 8-ball are three different people, except we don't rule the universe and we are not one in purpose.


----------



## Eightball

RetiredGySgt said:


> There is only one God and that is NOT Jesus. The Trinity is not one entity.



*John 1*

*The Deity of Jesus Christ*

1 In the beginning was the Word(Jesus), and the Word(Jesus) was with God, and the Word(Jesus) was God. (There's your obvious unity of God and Jesus. Jesus wasn't with God, but was God.  Was John a lunatic RetiredGySgt? )  (A mysterious bond or relationship that is beyond our limited human psyche to comprehend as to His/God's anatomical/Spiritual make up, thus it is referred by mainstream biblical theologians as a triune or trinitarian relationship, that included the Holy Spirit that Jesus said would come at Pentacost in His stead to guide, counsel, and make the scriptures discernible to those who were saved or had received the indwelling H.S..  Remember that Jesus said, that He now goes to heaven to sit upon the right side of His Father(God the Father).  He will however be returning at a time not specified, but definitely given many evidences by things happening with humanity, world events, and earthly physical events..i.e. increased earthquakes, increase in rebellion towards the Judeau Christian God, and His scriptures, lunar, and astronomical events, unusual and extreme weather.....etc.)(Keep in mind that the Holy Spirit is often referred too in the bible in the masculine or first person, which makes the H.S. more than just an entity or cloud, but having the ability to make decision.)  Man wants to comprehend every aspect of God as to His make-up, and that is something that is going beyond our finite minds or abilities, as we are part of His creation, and are not God.  Trully, Paul says that we believers or saved have been given the "mind" of Christ, but that is in reference to having the ability to discern scripture and God's truths and taboos for our lives.  It may even include receiving "callings" to serve, to not serve, to exercise one's Spiritual gifts of mercy, joy, peace, patience, long suffering, and especially supernatural love given to us from the Father through the abiding life of Christ in us, the hope and glory, forever.)

 2 He was in the beginning(eternity past, present, future) with God. (God was not created.  Another mind-blower for the analytical mind that must demand answer, that is beyond his/her's finite mental faculties.)  I suppose this would go logger-heads with Mormon teaching, as the bible afirms that God was and is pre-existant, i.e. was not a created being, but has always existed throughout eternity past, present, future.  Us humans obviously can't even comprehend eternity, as we are time-bound creatures who live on the average 3 score and 10 years(70 years)....from Psalms/King David-author

 3 All things came into being through Him(Jesus), and apart from Him(Jesus) nothing came into being that has come into being. 

 4 In Him(Jesus) was life, and the life was the Light(Jesus) of men. 

 5 The Light(Jesus) shines in the darkness(mankind), and the darkness(mankind) did not comprehend it. 

*The Word(Jesus) Made Flesh(perfect sinless, Holy, human being-God)*

14 And the Word(Jesus) became flesh(Virgin Birth), and dwelt among us(33 years), and we saw His(Jesus) glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father(Same glory as God The Father), full of grace(unmerited favor towards mankind) and truth. 

 15 John(The Baptist) testified about Him(Jesus) and cried out, saying, "This was He(Jesus) of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me(Not older in existence by years, but by eternal existence).'" 

 16 For of His(Jesus) fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace(incredible unmerited forgiveness beyond human capacity to do, but only capable of God). 

 17 For the Law(Works To Please God, but man wholly incapable of doing it to God's standards) was given through Moses; grace(unmerited forgiveness) and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. Sadly, man in many religions continues to strive and strive to please their god, in order to hopefully have a place of honor or salvation in that paradigm.  God specifically said that one miscue of following the Law ='s death to that sojourner's life.  Thence in the O.T. times there was constant burning of offerings for all kinds of sins, both intentional and unintentional.  The sins were metaphorically transferred to the animal being sacrificed, but ultimately, those that died in O.T. times would still face the crucified Christ and have to accepty or reject His blood, and bodily atonement of His life for their's.
 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. 
*******
For those of you who are bored of scripture.......Remember that Jesus is the Word.........and also "The Bread of Life"

For those who hunger for the bible and what it contains, this Paul said was a sign that the H.S. indwells that person.  The scriptures were likened as bread or food to the one who read it to learn about the nature of God, and he/man's relationship to Him/God.

One of the important signs of true Christian salvation from God, is a desire or hunger for the scriptures.  Also there is often a gradual or dramatic change to previous lifestyles that were in ways hindrances to a person's getting to know God better, and to place God in the position of Lord or Lordship of one's life.

Salvation is totally from God.  He saves, we cooperate with him.

For those(even Christians) that have abided in the old saying, "God is my Co-pilot"; I've got a surprise for you.  The arrangement is totally unbiblical, as He/God must be the "Pilot" of a Christian's life, and there is no co-pilot's seat needed.  He needs to be given total control through one's willfull surrender of their life, family, loved ones, job, money, possessions........everything to God's care.  It's like dropping one of the biggest back packs off of one's shoulders imaginable.  As Jesus said, "Take my yoke, for it is light".  The Christian life is not an autobot life of slavery to God, but a life of peace, knowing that one has relinquished control over all one's aspects of their life to One/God who is most capable................So, lets put that saying in the right perspective.......It will be hard for Christians to swallow, but here it is.  "God is my pilot, and I'm His passenger on a journey that must be His will not mine.".   Now that's where the Christian adventure really starts.  It isn't easy, cause then you've given God the green light to start chastening/disciplining your live to make you more Christlike, so that you can be His Royal Ambassador to the world.  You also are the member of a Royal Priesthood of believers.  All Christians are Royal Priests, but not in the vain of Christ's ultimate Priesthood, that is perpetual for eternity, and who's life gave each and every Christian, the closest possible relationship with God the Father.  We too will see Him face to face one day, when we receive glorified bodies at the final ressurrection.  Come quickly Jesus!!!
******
*Side Note:  Truthspeaker:*  The Trinitarian definition does not say nor define Jesus as God the Father, but as a Person of three who make up One God...........I.E.  Trinity = An expression of three distinct individual persons/indentities who are in total union in will, and attributes.  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  All distinct in personality, yet totally in union, and unison in purpose, attributes and will of God.  One God, who expresses Himself in three ways that are totally beyond human comprehension........not unlike infinity/eternity is beyond our understanding.  All things must have a start and end, but not with God.  He has pre-existed eternally.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Taking the comments out of context and adding the wrong meaning does not make them what you claim. Jesus also TOLD John and the other disciples he was NOT GOD. And not to refer to him as such.

John 14:28  You heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming back to YOU. If you loved me, you rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.

John 5:19  Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

John 20:17  Jesus said to her "Stop clingingto me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and to your God.

Read all of John Jesus repeatedly refers to his father, admonishes them not to call him God and reminds them that he has no power save that given to him from God.


----------



## Eightball

RetiredGySgt said:


> Taking the comments out of context and adding the wrong meaning does not make them what you claim. Jesus also TOLD John and the other disciples he was NOT GOD. And not to refer to him as such.
> 
> John 14:28  You heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming back to YOU. If you loved me, you rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.
> You do not understand Jesus' words to the people.  The whole Godhead of the trinity, in ways has special roles yet are one in mind, will, intention, and attributes.  Jesus' role while on earth was as He succinctly said, to show us the Way of the servant.  Remember that Jesus' washed the feet of His disciples.  Why?  This was a very humbling gesture or act on Jesus' part.  He came to show His disciples the life that they would live that would glorify God.
> 
> Also you have totally ignored all the verses from the 1st chapter of John that clearly tell the reader, with out smoke and mirrors or out-of-context pickings that Jesus was the Word, the Word became flesh(Incarnation), the Word was God.  Jesus took or partook of the role of servant, but when He comes back the scriptures clearly explain that He will come back on a white horse, and as a conqueror.  Also, Paul clearly lays out in the Epistles that all things were created through Christ Jesus, and nothing created wasn't.  That means angels, the universe, human beings......everything......
> 
> John 5:19  Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
> 
> The bible clearly states that Jesus "gave up" these powers or perogatives when He came to earth as a man.  He gave them up and then re-asserted or picked them up and retained them again.  This was all part of identifying with humanity.
> 
> John 20:17  Jesus said to her "Stop clingingto me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and to your God.
> 
> You are hoping or picking and pulling at this verse to get it to say what you want.  Again, Jesus' mission was not to display His omnipotence, but to show us the Way of the servant.  Jesus prayed and the Father did the miracles in and through Him.  This is just as He was teaching us to do.
> 
> Paul clearly states that because of Jesus, we can all, if saved, refer to God in the most personal vernacular, Abba, that means "Daddy".  Is Jesus' relationship to God the Father the same as our relationship calling Him "Father"?  Only in the way that Jesus has restored us to a relationship with our Maker, where we can call Him Father, and rightly so.  Jesus' relationship to the Father is through pre-existent union of eternal proportions.
> 
> Jesus was not created, but has pre-existed eternally.  Remember when the crowds were about to stone Him, and He asked them why they were going to do this to Him?  Their response, "Because you claim to be God!"
> So even the folks of that time knew what Jesus was saying; that He was indeed God.  After their response, Jesus nailed this down clearly, "Before Abraham, I AM!".  That capitalized "I AM", was the english translation from Hebrew meaning, "Jehovah", "Alpha and Omega", "Emanual", "Adonai",......All incompassed in "I AM".
> 
> Read all of John Jesus repeatedly refers to his father, admonishes them not to call him God and reminds them that he has no power save that given to him from God.
> 
> Again, you misunderstand scripture.  Jesus came to serve, to teach us to serve and to worship and look to God.  He humbled Himself in human flesh in order to point man towards God.......Jesus relinquished His omnipotence(Power) to show man that it was in God that we receive our power.........It is His power, not our's that prayers are answered, that He is served........It is the indwelling H.S. that enables, counsels, comforts, .......Also the H.Spirit, is referred to in the bible as the Spirit of Christ........
> 
> When Jesus arose to heaven, and big His disciples goodbye, He went to sit at the right hand of God the Father in total oneness of relationship.
> 
> Read the bible clearly and you will see that the Godhead is split into three distinct functions per it's Persons.  This does not detract or take away their identies as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
> 
> The problem with the LDS church and with many religions is that they want to pull God down to a man made or man digestible context of understanding, leaving absolutely no distinct divinity or eternal purpose, or understanding that would belong to an ultimate Creator of all things.



There is absolutely no conflict of Jesus' Godhood, and also His relationship as Son of God.  

Jesus voluntarily lowered Himself to our state of being so that we could have a clearer understanding of God, and would be without excuse when choosing or refusing God's grace through Jesus' atonement of our sins/sinful lives.

Jesus said, if you've seen Me, you've seen the Father.....I and the Father are One.  He did mean one in purpose, but also One in kind, and totally embodiment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Eightball said:


> There is absolutely no conflict of Jesus' Godhood, and also His relationship as Son of God.
> 
> Jesus voluntarily lowered Himself to our state of being so that we could have a clearer understanding of God, and would be without excuse when choosing or refusing God's grace through Jesus' atonement of our sins/sinful lives.
> 
> Jesus said, if you've seen Me, you've seen the Father.....I and the Father are One.  He did mean one in purpose, but also One in kind, and totally embodiment.



Keep making ignorant comments, it amuses me.


----------



## Eightball

For those of you who believe that you must do good works plus add faith to it for your salvation.
Titus Chapter 3:5 - Author - Apostle Paul

Verse 5 - He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit....
********
Faith comes first, then righteous deeds should follow salvation, as James said to Christian followers in James Chapter 4 verse 11.

His/James salvation was evidenced by "works"/righteous deeds, but was not how he/James was saved.


----------



## Truthspeaker

You are free to believe as you wish. But our doctrine is different:
Let me put it this way, Salvation is one side of the grand canyon and you are on another. You can't jump the whole way on your own, but in order to make it, Jesus says Jump and I will do the rest.
 I wouldn't say to Jesus, "I can't make it so I won't jump."
Does that make sense?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> For those of you who believe that you must do good works plus add faith to it for your salvation.
> Titus Chapter 3:5 - Author - Apostle Paul
> 
> Verse 5 - He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit....
> ********
> Faith comes first, then righteous deeds should follow salvation, as James said to Christian followers in James Chapter 4 verse 11.
> 
> His/James salvation was evidenced by "works"/righteous deeds, but was not how he/James was saved.



You still don't get it. It's never been about doing good deed to save us. It's about using the Atonement of Christ to become sactified vessels of the Lord. To become partakers of the Divine Nature.

That is why we add to faith, virture, and to virture, knowledge, and so forth.

We are growing through the grace of our Lord to be what He meant us to become. The whole reason He died was to help us become like He is. and when we see Him, we will see Him as He is. And we will be like Him through our faith in His great love.

So please. stop with the strawmen. Stop pretending that the Lord requires nothing of us. Stop pretending as though we dont believe in Salvation through faith in Christ unto Repentence. Faith is the first principle of the Gospel for a reason. It is the foundation for everything we do.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well if he really believes in what he does, then that is his privilege, but he needs to realize that we are not here to try and prove him wrong, just to state what we really believe. I don't think 8-ball is interested in asking us what we believe, only telling us what we believe.


----------



## Avatar4321

BTW for there being no doctrine of diefication and becoming gods in Christianity, Wikipedia has a pretty long article on it.

Theosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agree or disagree with it's premises all you want. But the Saints clearly arent the only ones who believe in becoming gods. Nor is it a foriegn concept in the scriptures.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> BTW for there being no doctrine of diefication and becoming gods in Christianity, Wikipedia has a pretty long article on it.
> 
> Theosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Agree or disagree with it's premises all you want. But the Saints clearly arent the only ones who believe in becoming gods. Nor is it a foriegn concept in the scriptures.



Mormons don't believe in the concept that people have the potential of becoming gods because they read it in Wikipedia, but because their prophets have told them so.

But, the concept is quite obvious anyway, isn't it?  If we're the children of god, then we should be able to grow up to be like our parents, shouldn't we?  What child doesn't want to grow up to be like his/her parents?

Of course  the gods in embryo idea is a part of philosophical thought.  It would have to be.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It makes sense to me because all the types of things we encounter in this life are like the seed being planted, needing nourishment, growing up, having it's prime, then over time withering and dying. The only thing that doesn't wither over time is our knowledge and principles. Well unless you get a disease like alzheimers. but even then, these sufferings are only given to us so that we may fully appreciated the eternal world. 

How could we appreciate paradise truly, unless we have suffered in the desert?  That makes sense to me. If we endure and are faithful, God will increase our knowledge and physical prowess in the next life and then we will be able to have full joy. Because we will still have our memory of this evil world to take with us to appreciate our future circumstances.

No other doctrine has made that kind of full sense to me. This is not to insult other doctrines, but this one is the sweetest to my palate.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Where is 8 ball and the rest of the critics?
did the onslaught finally end?
Is everyone at last clear about Mormonism?
Shucks, I was hoping for some more questions too


----------



## Eightball

Is this quotation incorrect?  It's from a Christian apologetics web site, but it is not expressing hate nor persecution of Mormons.

Is the quoted statement below incorrect in it's summation of Mormon doctrine versus biblical doctrine?

Sincerely, Eightballsidepocket  

Truth About Mormonism, Mormons, Mormon


> *The Truth About Mormonism:*
> 
> "Is Mormonism Christian?" is a very important question. The answer is equally important and simple.  No. Mormonism is not Christian.
> If you are a Mormon, please realize that I am not trying to attack you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a non-Mormon looking into Mormonism, or if you are a Christian who is simply researching Mormonism, then this paper should be of help to you.
> The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it, like any other cult, denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically), Mormonism distorts two of them:  the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.
> Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation.  It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of Gods spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8).  This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5).  See Trinity for a correct discussion of what the Trinity is.
> Because Mormonism errors in who Jesus is, salvation (the forgiveness of sins) does not occur and the Mormon is still in his sins.  Christians are saved from their sins and judgment by putting their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. But, faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. The Mormon Jesus is not the one of the Bible, even though they call him Jesus, say he died for sins, and was born in Bethlehem.  The Mormon Jesus does not exist.  It is the nature of Jesus that is the issue. Jesus must be God in flesh, (second person of the Trinity) not "a" god in flesh who is the brother of the devil.    He must be uncreated, not created. He must be the creator (Col. 1:16-17).   This is who the true Jesus really is:  God, creator, uncreated, not the brother of the devil.
> Mormon theology teaches that god used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed. The Jesus of Mormonism is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus, is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn't exist.
> Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil" (Articles, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience" (Articles, p. 81). This contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18).
> To further confuse the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is twofold.  It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teach it. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible.
> Mormonism, to justify its aberrant theology, has undermined the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.  The 8th article of faith from the Mormon Church states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."  The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith allegedly corrected the Bible in what is called The Inspired Version, though it is not used by the LDS church.  Though they claim they trust the Bible, in reality they do not.  They use Mormon presuppositions to interpret it.  For example, where the Bible says there are no other gods in the universe (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), they interpret it to mean "no other gods of this world."  They do not trust what it says and they often state that the Bible is not translated correctly.  This is what I have encountered numerous times when speaking to Mormons.
> Why is Mormonism a non Christian cult? Because it adds works to salvation. It denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator. It alters the biblical teaching of the atonement. It contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheism. It undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible.
> I do not deny that Mormons are good people, that they worship "a" god, that they share common words with Christians, that they help their people, and that they do many good things. However, Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, " Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (NKJV). Becoming a Christian does not mean belonging to a church, doing good things, or simply believing in God. Being a Christian means that you have trusted in the true God for salvation, in the True Jesus -- not the brother of the devil.
> Provided By:
> 
> CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Is this quotation incorrect?  It's from a Christian apologetics web site, but it is not expressing hate nor persecution of Mormons.
> 
> Is the quoted statement below incorrect in it's summation of Mormon doctrine versus biblical doctrine?
> 
> Sincerely, Eightballsidepocket
> 
> Truth About Mormonism, Mormons, Mormon
> 
> 
> 
> *The Truth About Mormonism:*
> 
> "Is Mormonism Christian?" is a very important question. The answer is equally important and simple.  No. Mormonism is not Christian.
> If you are a Mormon, please realize that I am not trying to attack you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a non-Mormon looking into Mormonism, or if you are a Christian who is simply researching Mormonism, then this paper should be of help to you.
> The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it, like any other cultDefinition of a cult: A system of specific religious beliefs or practices., denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically), Mormonism distorts two of them:  the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.
> Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creationNo mere creation, but the Son of God.  It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God&#8217;s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8).  This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15)No it is actually in harmony. Created does not mean out of nothing but rather organized into the person he became. Jesus is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, therefore the Father of Heaven and Earth. Just because he has a Father named Elohim, makes him no less God., and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5).  See Trinity for a correct discussion of what the Trinity isThe trinity makes no sense. If it is a mystery we are not supposed to understand that is contrary to the nature of God who says "Seek and ye shall find, Ask and it shall be given you.".
> Because Mormonism errors in who Jesus is, salvation (the forgiveness of sins) does not occur and the Mormon is still in his sins.Believe as you may, but this doctrine is false.  Christians are saved from their sins and judgment by putting their trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins. But, faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. The Mormon Jesus is not the one of the Biblevery false, even though they call him Jesus, say he died for sins, and was born in Bethlehem.  The Mormon Jesus does not exist.  It is the nature of Jesus that is the issue. Jesus must be God in flesh, (second person of the Trinity) not "a" god in flesh who is the brother of the devilSo what, haven't we all had bad brothers or sisters. I repeat, so what?.    He must be uncreated, not created. He must be the creator (Col. 1:16-17).   This is who the true Jesus really is:  God, creator, uncreated, not the brother of the devil.
> Mormon theology teaches that god used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth. The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was SatanFalse doctrine to say Satan was second. We only know he was one of the great ones who changed from righteous to greedy, to evil and was therefore cast out., and then we all followed. The Jesus of Mormonism is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus, is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn't exist.
> Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with GodVery true and it makes total sense to me.; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness. Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, "The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil" (Articles, p. 432), and "Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience" (Articles, p. 81). This contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) Taken out of context.and the doctrine that works are not This is a doctrine of devils. Because the devil is the only one who would discourage people to do good works or make excuses not to do good and that all you have to do is confess with your lips. I repeat, a doctrine of Hell itself.part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18).
> To further confuseYou mean clarify? the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is twofold.  It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teach it. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible.
> Mormonism, to justify its aberrant theology, has undermined the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.  The 8th article of faith from the Mormon Church states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." Should we just ignore that the Nicean Creed happened or accept your dogma? The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith allegedly corrected the Bible in what is called The Inspired Version, though it is not used by the LDS churchWe do quote from it, but we don't have the rights to the copies because the RLDS Church owns the copyright..  Though they claim they trust the Bible, in reality they do notIn reality we know how to interpret it..  They use Mormon presuppositions to interpret it.  For example, where the Bible says there are no other gods in the universe (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), they interpret it to mean "no other gods of this world."  They do not trust what it says and they often state that the Bible is not translated correctly.  This is what I have encountered numerous times when speaking to Mormons.To follow a product of the Nicean Creed and generations of Corrupts priests blindly without proper interpretation would be ludicrous.
> Why is Mormonism a non Christian cult? Because it adds works to salvation. It denies that Jesus is the uncreated creatorNo it doesn't. It alters the biblical teaching of the atonement. It contradicts the Christian teaching of monotheismYou mean the dogma of monotheism. It undermines the authority and reliability of the BibleNot when translated correctly.
> I do not deny that Mormons are good peopleHow nice of you, that they worship "a" god, that they share common words with Christians, that they help their people, and that they do many good things. However, Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, " Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" Truer words were never spoken. We will see who knows Jesus and who doesn't.(NKJV). Becoming a Christian does not mean belonging to a churchVery true, doing good thingsVery false, or simply believing in GodFalse. Being a Christian means that you have trusted in the true God for salvation, in the True Jesus -- not the brother of the devil. Same guy.
> Provided By:
> 
> CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Click to expand...


This article is incorrect because it seeks to redefine Christianity. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Christian as "one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."
You can't call someone a non-Christian because of differences in Christian teachings. Who gives that guy the right to say we are not Christian when we believe in salvation through Christ and no other head?

So my answer is this article is yet again wrong about us.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Is this quotation incorrect?  It's from a Christian apologetics web site, but it is not expressing hate nor persecution of Mormons.



You know, when you have to preface your comments as "Not hate", its because you already know that is most certainly is.

And yes the quotation is incorrect



> Is the quoted statement below incorrect in it's summation of Mormon doctrine versus biblical doctrine?



Of course it is. Because there is no dichotemy between biblical doctrine and Mormon doctrine. They are one and the same.

Which of course once again raises the issue, if you are correct, why do you have to misrepresent Mormon doctrine? Why do you have to misrepresent Biblical doctrine? If the truth is on your side, shouldnt the truth in and of itself prove you correct?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this quotation incorrect?  It's from a Christian apologetics web site, but it is not expressing hate nor persecution of Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, when you have to preface your comments as "Not hate", its because you already know that is most certainly is.
> 
> And yes the quotation is incorrect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the quoted statement below incorrect in it's summation of Mormon doctrine versus biblical doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. Because there is no dichotemy between biblical doctrine and Mormon doctrine. They are one and the same.
> 
> Which of course once again raises the issue, if you are correct, why do you have to misrepresent Mormon doctrine? Why do you have to misrepresent Biblical doctrine? If the truth is on your side, shouldnt the truth in and of itself prove you correct?
Click to expand...


*"But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
(Galatians Chapter 1, verse 8 of the New Testament)*

Joseph Smith received a new and very different gospel from an angel (Moroni). 

In lieu of Galatians 1:8 something is awry, and it isn't the N.T. nor Paul's testimony to both the Jews and gentiles which include us. 

Galatians 1:8 says that the Gospel as Paul and the apostles received it from Christ 2,000 years ago, is the done deal.  There is no alterations, nor any angels that are assigned to bring a new and improved or changed gospel(good news).


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this quotation incorrect?  It's from a Christian apologetics web site, but it is not expressing hate nor persecution of Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, when you have to preface your comments as "Not hate", its because you already know that is most certainly is.
> 
> And yes the quotation is incorrect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the quoted statement below incorrect in it's summation of Mormon doctrine versus biblical doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. Because there is no dichotemy between biblical doctrine and Mormon doctrine. They are one and the same.
> 
> Which of course once again raises the issue, if you are correct, why do you have to misrepresent Mormon doctrine? Why do you have to misrepresent Biblical doctrine? If the truth is on your side, shouldnt the truth in and of itself prove you correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
> (Galatians Chapter 1, verse 8 of the New Testament)*
> 
> Joseph Smith received a new and very different gospel from an angel (Moroni).
> 
> In lieu of Galatians 1:8 something is awry, and it isn't the N.T. nor Paul's testimony to both the Jews and gentiles which include us.
> 
> Galatians 1:8 says that the Gospel as Paul and the apostles received it from Christ 2,000 years ago, is the done deal.  There is no alterations, nor any angels that are assigned to bring a new and improved or changed gospel(good news).
Click to expand...


but you see, we don't think it is a different gospel. We believe it is the RESTORED gospel that they were talking about. You may disagree but that is not what the thread is about. It is about clarifying the truth about our beliefs, not whether your beliefs are better than mine. 
You are entitled to your beliefs and me to mine. I just don't want people saying that I believe something I really don't, or don't believe something I really do.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this quotation incorrect?  It's from a Christian apologetics web site, but it is not expressing hate nor persecution of Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, when you have to preface your comments as "Not hate", its because you already know that is most certainly is.
> 
> And yes the quotation is incorrect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the quoted statement below incorrect in it's summation of Mormon doctrine versus biblical doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. Because there is no dichotemy between biblical doctrine and Mormon doctrine. They are one and the same.
> 
> Which of course once again raises the issue, if you are correct, why do you have to misrepresent Mormon doctrine? Why do you have to misrepresent Biblical doctrine? If the truth is on your side, shouldnt the truth in and of itself prove you correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
> (Galatians Chapter 1, verse 8 of the New Testament)*
> 
> Joseph Smith received a new and very different gospel from an angel (Moroni).
> 
> In lieu of Galatians 1:8 something is awry, and it isn't the N.T. nor Paul's testimony to both the Jews and gentiles which include us.
> 
> Galatians 1:8 says that the Gospel as Paul and the apostles received it from Christ 2,000 years ago, is the done deal.  There is no alterations, nor any angels that are assigned to bring a new and improved or changed gospel(good news).
Click to expand...


How can anyone possibly believe that all truth is in the Bible, that nothing new can be added, when the Bible has been written from stories told and retold, when those stories were told in languages now extinct, and translated and retranslated into modern languages, and when the Gnostics picked and chose what was to be in the Bible in a kind of committee to decide what was believable and what wasn't?  The Bible is a book by fallible human beings, and is therefore not perfect.  If there is any real Christian church on the Earth today, it has to have come directly from divine revelation.  That much was lost over the centuries is indisputable.  

If Christianity is correct, then the only complete Christian church is the Mormon church.  No other one believes in modern revelation.


----------



## Eightball

You sir, must and don't believe the bible is accurate because you don't trust the accuracy of mankind to re-translate, over and over and recopy over and over.

There's nothing wrong with expecting man to be fallible over thousands of years, but you forget one component of the God of the bible.  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  

He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent..........

Omnipotent:  Means "all powerful", and totally in control of all of His creation, and that includes mankind.  Though He has endowed man with free will, He has not allowed His Truth to become corrupted, though man is the agent whom He used to entrust with His Truth/Gospel.

As I've mentioned before in previous posts, the Dead Sea Scroll discovery "rocked" mankind, and theologians, and Skeptics of the innerancy of the bible.

Why?:  Because within those Dead Sea Jars hidden from Roman pillage by Jews, have been found textural pieces of O.T. Scripture, and even a 99% intact scroll of Isaiah.

The 2,000 year old Isaiah scroll was compared with present day text that included the KJV, NKJV, ASB, NASB, NIV, translations of the O.T. and N.T., and was found to be "dead on" in accuracy.

Now how in the world could fallible man in 2,000 years seem to pass on Isaiah, via scribes hand copying, myriads of times over, and then we finally got to the Guttenberg invention called the "printing press", and the first KJV, and subsequent translations thereafter in more common or cultural day language of later times?  

All matching the Black Sea Isaiah scroll in intent, and accuracy with on slight differences grammatically that didn't not change intent at all.

Omnipotence.........Sarge.........Omnipotence.

Something that the Mormon church must deny as God's great attribute.

The Mormon church doctrine is based on God's "OOPS!" in order for it to have legitimacy.  God must be weak and anemic, and unable to protect His truth/Gospel to mankind according to Mormonism, otherwise there would be no need for a Mormon church.
********
Now I worship a very powerful Maker, who is in complete control, and has never allowed His will to be stolen by away, or lost by man's fallibility, nor has any part of human history gone or left His loving, merciful watch and control.

As Paul said, "He is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow.......That ends the debate right there!  

That statement flies right in the face of anyone accepting Joseph Smith's testimony that the church in his time was off-beam and needed his testimony from an "angel" to get the church back to what it was suppose to be.

It's a "No brainer"..........Galatians 1:8 authored by Paul under the inspiration of God.........Yep, that God that the bible says is Omnipotent.........All powerful..........All encompassing.........said....
[quote*]"But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."*
(Galatians Chapter 1, verse 8 of the New Testament)
[/quote]

Somehow you don't see the parallel between what Paul said in Galatians and Joseph Smith's encounter with Moroni the angel.

Paul says, don't listen to anyone who comes telling you that they were visited by an angel or a person or supposed prophet, who says,  "Thus sayeth the Lord".  

Paul commended the people of Berea, for not trusting Paul's own words to them, until they had gone to scripture and verified that Paul had said nothing,,,,,,,,,,,yes nothing that goes against scripture.

Can you take Mormon doctrine as dictated from Moroni, to Joseph Smith, or any Ladder day presidents proclamations, and thence passed on to the Mormon followers and put it up against the KJV bible and say, "The KJV validates the BOM, the Articles of Faith, the Journal of Discourse.........etc.......?  You can't.

What's your alternative?:  The bible must be corrupted?  

The bible for hundreds of years, and the scriptures before the cannonization have changed men, women's, and children's lives by the millions upon millions.  It has given hope, and a clear message of a God who has made a great covenant with mankind through the total and complet blood, attonement of Jesus Christ, God's One and Only Son.  The Son of God, who in the Book authored by John the disciple, who had one of the closest and most intimate relationships with Jesus, testifies that this Jesus was not merely a man, but was God incarnate, and the I AM/Jehovah, in whom all things came to be and were created.

Not a Jesus who was married, nor had brothers, or a brother, nor was a perpetual geneological progression repeated time and again on one planet after another, by another Saviour, or "Jesus" type.

This is not in the bible!  But it is in Mormon belief/doctrine, and it is most strange too.

If you study the lives of the prophets before God "tapped" them for service, you will observe that they were men after God's heart throughout.  These were men that served or venerated God before being "called" to serve.

Can you say that for Joseph Smith Jr.'s life before leading his followers from state to state Westward to Illinois, before dieing in a shootout with towns people?

Does the bible say that people or the race of dark skin are a cursed people from Caine's progeny?  The BOM did until recently when it changed that skin color designation, and allowed dark skinned raced people equal access to Mormon priesthood.

Paul, nearly 2,000 years ago, said their is not difference between, Greek, gentile, Jew, etc.....  All our the same in God's eyes.  We are all in need of salvation from our sinful lives. Romans 3:23.

I've pounded and pounded the theme and truth of the bible over and over...........He is omnipotent.  Mormons by believing that the bible is corrupt, deny an All Powerful Creator.

You know that the BOM has gone through a myriad of changes since it's inception.  

You know that Joseph Smith gave his blessing to polygamy, or as your church tries to deflet that ugly word, and call it, "plural marriage", as though that will assuage both the lawmakers of our nation, and the clear bible definition of monogamy.

You can call me a hater, all you want, and deflect, deflect, the obvious.

I don't and never have hated a people of any faith, religion, club, fraternity, etc....

I do, however freely speak out when Christianity is bastardized from it's roots, by a person of very ill repute named Joseph Smith Jr..

The bible teaches that salvation and follow Christ is trully a very narrow road, and that there will be many false teachers claiming to have found the truth.  Many will be swayed away, and in Revelations it is referred to, as the "wide" or easy road.

Actually, following Mormon Doctrine to the letter is very difficult, but it is all works, in order to "be".   God makes us or gives us a new identity through faith in Christ and His propitiary death in our place.

Paul refers to this new identity, as become New Creatures, New Creations in Christ,............A royal priesthood.........Ambassadors......which is totally in line with His sermon on the mount, to go to all corners of the earth and preach the good news of the bible.

So biblical Christians start out with an identity, as belonging to God, and thence onward produce works in accordance with God's will.  Not works to appease or please God, but works in accordance with our new Natures which is having the H.S. or Spirit of Christ with us.

Christianity is a relationship, not a religion..........It is a new life given as a free gift through God's Son.
*******
The reason I don't respond for a few days, is that making the bible very obvious and straight forward is not a problem, but dealing with refusal to accept it as God's final and complete Word to mankind by the LDS church members on this thread is very sad, and leaves me wanting and praying for additonal insight that might crack through this wall.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> You sir, must and don't believe the bible is accurate because you don't trust the accuracy of mankind to re-translate, over and over and recopy over and over.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with expecting man to be fallible over thousands of years, but you forget one component of the God of the bible.  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.



Exactly right.  I've done some translating myself, from one modern language to another, and am well aware of the pitfalls that face even that relatively simple task.  Translating from a dead language is orders of magnitude more difficult, and it is not possible to have a native speaker read your work for accuracy.  

And no, I don't buy the idea than an omniscient and omnipotent god was looking over the shoulders of the translators while doing their work, making sure that everything was accurate.

Not only that, but the Bible stories were told and retold for years at a time when only an elite few could read and write at all before being written down.  That alone makes most of it highly suspect.

And, in addition, the word "Bible" simply means "books", and the books that were included and not included were decided on by human beings, not by any almighty god.  

Are you really a Biblical literalist?  Do you believe, as so many seem to, that events like Noah's flood, the Garden of Eden, and Christ's miracles are accounts of actual events?  

Or, are you open to the idea that some of what is written was meant to have been taken as allegorical tales?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this quotation incorrect?  It's from a Christian apologetics web site, but it is not expressing hate nor persecution of Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, when you have to preface your comments as "Not hate", its because you already know that is most certainly is.
> 
> And yes the quotation is incorrect
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the quoted statement below incorrect in it's summation of Mormon doctrine versus biblical doctrine?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. Because there is no dichotemy between biblical doctrine and Mormon doctrine. They are one and the same.
> 
> Which of course once again raises the issue, if you are correct, why do you have to misrepresent Mormon doctrine? Why do you have to misrepresent Biblical doctrine? If the truth is on your side, shouldnt the truth in and of itself prove you correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
> (Galatians Chapter 1, verse 8 of the New Testament)*
> 
> Joseph Smith received a new and very different gospel from an angel (Moroni).
> 
> In lieu of Galatians 1:8 something is awry, and it isn't the N.T. nor Paul's testimony to both the Jews and gentiles which include us.
> 
> Galatians 1:8 says that the Gospel as Paul and the apostles received it from Christ 2,000 years ago, is the done deal.  There is no alterations, nor any angels that are assigned to bring a new and improved or changed gospel(good news).
Click to expand...


So what your saying is that the Lord isnt going to send an angel to preach the Everlasting Gospel? Funny, the Bible says the exact opposite.



> 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
> 
> 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. (Revelation 14:6-7)



Whether you believe that Moroni came or not, the scriptures are clear and your interpretation is wrong. The Lord showed John that he would send an Angel with the everlasting Gospel.

In addition, have you ever stopped to consider that you are the one preaching a different Gospel?


----------



## Truthspeaker

8-ball has met with a crisis. While launching a lengthy offensive on the LDS religion he has found his attacks baseless and futile. Without anyone attacking his beliefs he has exposed the holes in his dogma. He is not content to stick to the topic of the discussion which is broadcasting official Mormon Doctrine. He pays  a small tribute to the subject and then reverts back to his attacks when he disagrees. 
I vehemently disagree with a lot of things he says, but I don't try to criticize his freedom to believe what he wants. I don't try to disprove his beliefs, yet he will stop at nothing to disprove mine. He is utterly wasting his time on this thread.

Am I wrong about your agenda 8-Ball? I'd like to be.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> 8-ball has met with a crisis. While launching a lengthy offensive on the LDS religion he has found his attacks baseless and futile. Without anyone attacking his beliefs he has exposed the holes in his dogma. He is not content to stick to the topic of the discussion which is broadcasting official Mormon Doctrine. He pays  a small tribute to the subject and then reverts back to his attacks when he disagrees.
> I vehemently disagree with a lot of things he says, but I don't try to criticize his freedom to believe what he wants. I don't try to disprove his beliefs, yet he will stop at nothing to disprove mine. He is utterly wasting his time on this thread.
> 
> Am I wrong about your agenda 8-Ball? I'd like to be.



*"But even if we( Or J.Smith Jr.) or an angel(Moroni?) from heaven, preach any other gospel(BOM) to you than what we have preached(Bible) to you, let him(Fill in the blank) be accursed."
(Galatians Chapter 1, verse 8 of the New Testament)----Author The Apostle Paul
*


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> *"But even if we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
> (Galatians Chapter 1, verse 8 of the New Testament)
> *



What's your point? You clearly dont care what anyone here says. So what's the point of posting when you dont listen and you cant even post accurate information?

I mean come on man. The only way we can have an honest and sincere interaction is by honestly acknowledging what is said and talking about it. Simply repeating yourself again and again when you've already had it explained to you just makes you come off as a dishonest arrogant jerk.

You dont want that. I dont want that. I dont think anyone readying this wants that. So seriously, what is so difficult about having an honest discussion?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthspeaker said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another question. To whom do you owe allegiance, the Mormon church or the US government in those issues that conflict?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God, the things which are God's" Matthew 22eusa_angel:
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

8 ball is kicking against the pricks.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> 8 ball is kicking against the pricks.



That phrase is likely to elicit a different image among non Mormons than the one you intend.

Perhaps, even a painful image.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 ball is kicking against the pricks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase is likely to elicit a different image among non Mormons than the one you intend.
> 
> Perhaps, even a painful image.
Click to expand...


Yeah well Acts 9:5 where Jesus says to Paul, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." is what I was referring to.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 ball is kicking against the pricks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That phrase is likely to elicit a different image among non Mormons than the one you intend.
> 
> Perhaps, even a painful image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah well Acts 9:5 where Jesus says to Paul, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." is what I was referring to.
Click to expand...


I know what you were referring to.  I'm not so sure that everyone did.  It is kind of a strange phrase, when you think of it.


----------



## Eightball

*What you need to know about Mormons*
Right Truth: What you need to know about Mormons

There are many differences between Christians and Mormons. I do not plan to get into all of those here and I understand that I will stir a hornet's nest with this post. What I DO intend, is to point out the one difference you need to know about. First a disclaimer:

I believe there ARE Christians in the Mormon church. I believe that many Mormons who have not gotten into the hierarchy and original teachings of the church, probably believe the same way I and most Christians believe. Having said that, I do NOT believe that the Mormon doctrine is truly Christian. Mitt Romney told the world that he believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I have no reason to doubt his statement or his faith. That's between him and God and I would be the last person to judge another's faith or relationship with God. This is not about politics.

My way of determining whether a group is Christian or not is this: Do they believe the way to salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ, and nothing else. Only faith is required.

... the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christs atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669). 

... the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom")  Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price  Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon  2 Nephi 25:23). (source)


Mormons believe in many gods and they believe that they can BECOME gods. They believe that God was once a human man. 

Leaders of the Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) say:

... the very name of the Savior is in the name of the church. . . . The New Testament is a fundamental scripture for us. We have in addition to that the Book of Mormon, which becomes another witness for Jesus Christ." (here)
First, there IS NO OTHER testament of Jesus Christ than the Bible. Not the Book of Mormon and not the Pearl of Great Price, or any other book. Mormons use all three books as their Scripture.

Second, Just like attaching a Roll Royce logo to a Volkswagen does not make the latter a Rolls Royce, using the name of Jesus Christ does not make Mormonism "Christian."

Third, and most important, Mormons believe Jesus was created, not Divine.

The Mormon Jesus Christ 

A created being: the elder brother 
of Lucifer 

Common (one of many gods) and, 
in some ways, of minor important in 
the larger Mormon cosmology 

Conceived by a physical sex act 
between God the Father (Adam or 
Elohim) and Mary, thus not through
a true virgin birth 

Once sinful and imperfect 

Earned his own salvation 
(exaltation, godhood)

A married polygamist? 

VS:

The Biblical Jesus Christ

Uncreated God

Unique (the Second Person of the one and only Godhead) 
and of supreme importance through time, eternity and all
creation 

Conceived by the Holy Spirit, who supermaturally 
"overshadowed" Mary, thus a true virgin birth

Eternally sinless and perfect

As God, never required salvation

An unmarried monogamist

Quite a comparison.

In the 2nd letter to the Corinthians Paul warns about the very real possibility of another Jesus, a Jesus different from the Jesus Paul had presented to the Corinthians. 
For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-you may well put up with it!
2 Corinthians 11:4 (here)

The Pearl of Great Price infers that Jesus and Satan were brothers, equals, before Satan refused to carry out God's will:

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; 
And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4)


So it can be said that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers, in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father, but it is a misrepresentation to say so without giving the contextual background. Whatever similarities in background exist between Jesus and Satan pale compared to the differences. Jesus is the Beloved and Chosen, who is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. (here)


*The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, believe some strange things like: *

Jesus visited the United States.

There are many heavens, celestial, and terrestrial, and telestial; believers go to one of these if they have earned it in their earthly life. 

... the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).
Mormons "continue to have children after the resurrection". Also the more children you have here on earth, the higher heaven, or kingdom, you will reside in after death.

...the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302). 
... the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577). (more)


Mormons also believe a living person can be baptized for someone who has already died, thus saving that person and getting them into a heaven/kingdom. 

I leave you with the above information and suggest you do some searches and reading on your own.


----------



## Avatar4321

You going to bother interacting or are you just going to cut and paste with no actual thought process yourself?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> *What you need to know about Mormons*
> Right Truth: What you need to know about Mormons
> 
> There are many differences between Christians and Mormons. I do not plan to get into all of those here and I understand that I will stir a hornet's nest with this post. What I DO intend, is to point out the one difference you need to know about. First a disclaimer:
> 
> I believe there ARE Christians in the Mormon church. I believe that many Mormons who have not gotten into the hierarchy and original teachings of the church, probably believe the same way I and most Christians believe. Having said that, I do NOT believe that the Mormon doctrine is truly Christian. Mitt Romney told the world that he believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I have no reason to doubt his statement or his faith. That's between him and God and I would be the last person to judge another's faith or relationship with God. This is not about politics.Every member of the church in good standing says the same thing Romney says.
> 
> My way of determining whether a group is Christian or not is this: Do they believe the way to salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ, and nothing else. Only faith is required.You can redifine it all you want. But the dictionary definition is the best.
> 
> A Christian  - (help·info) is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.[1]
> 
> 
> 
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christ&#8217;s atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669).
> 
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom") &#8212; Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price &#8212; Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon &#8212; 2 Nephi 25:23). (source)
> You don't understand. Everyone achieves salvation from death. All will be resurrected. But in order to achieve Godhood, you must be obedient to all of God's ordinances. It also doesn't have to happen in this life either.
> 
> Mormons believe in many godsWe believe there ARE many Gods, but we believe IN only One. and they believe that they can BECOME gods. They believe that God was once a human man. So what is so wrong about that?
> 
> Leaders of the Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) say:
> 
> ... the very name of the Savior is in the name of the church. . . . The New Testament is a fundamental scripture for us. We have in addition to that the Book of Mormon, which becomes another witness for Jesus Christ." (here)
> First, there IS NO OTHER testament of Jesus Christ than the Bible.If that were true, then none of us would be allowed to open our mouths to testify or write in favor of Jesus either. Not the Book of Mormon and not the Pearl of Great Price, or any other book. Mormons use all three books as their Scripture.
> 
> Second, Just like attaching a Roll Royce logo to a Volkswagen does not make the latter a Rolls Royce, using the name of Jesus Christ does not make Mormonism "Christian."
> Jesus said, "If the church be called in my name, it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
> Third, and most important, Mormons believe Jesus was created, not Divine.
> Jesus is eternal. That notion is false.
> The Mormon Jesus Christ
> 
> A created being: the elder brother
> of Lucifer I still don't know why people get all riled up about this.
> 
> Common (one of many gods) and,
> in some ways, of minor important in
> the larger Mormon cosmology
> 
> Conceived by a physical sex act
> between God the Father (Adam or
> Elohim) and Mary, thus not through
> a true virgin birth That is an UTTER LIE who ever taught it to you. We have always preached the virgin birth. in 1st Nephi chapter 11 verse 18" Behold the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God.
> 
> Once sinful and imperfect
> Jesus never sinned. His father lived a life just like ours eons ago and attained perfection. Now he is the father of Jesus and the God we pray to. No big deal.
> Earned his own salvation
> (exaltation, godhood)
> 
> A married polygamist? The bible preaches polygamy a lot more than the book of mormon does in case you want to try me.
> 
> VS:
> 
> The Biblical Jesus Christ
> 
> Uncreated God
> 
> Unique (the Second Person of the one and only Godhead)
> and of supreme importance through time, eternity and all
> creation
> 
> Conceived by the Holy Spirit, who supermaturally
> "overshadowed" Mary, thus a true virgin birth
> 
> Eternally sinless and perfect
> 
> As God, never required salvation
> 
> An unmarried monogamist
> 
> Quite a comparison.
> 
> In the 2nd letter to the Corinthians Paul warns about the very real possibility of another Jesus, a Jesus different from the Jesus Paul had presented to the Corinthians.
> For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-you may well put up with it!
> 2 Corinthians 11:4 (here)
> 
> The Pearl of Great Price infers that Jesus and Satan were brothers, equals, before Satan refused to carry out God's will:
> 
> Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
> And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4)
> 
> 
> So it can be said that Jesus and Lucifer were brothersWe are all related as brothers and sisters., in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father, but it is a misrepresentation to say so without giving the contextual background. Whatever similarities in background exist between Jesus and Satan pale compared to the differences. Jesus is the Beloved and Chosen, who is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. (here)
> 
> 
> *The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, believe some strange things like: *
> 
> Jesus visited the United States.Not such a strange idea any more since it is a tradition that has been passed down in the Mayan culture before white people ever came here. It has been proven.
> 
> There are many heavens, celestial, and terrestrial, and telestial; believers go to one of these if they have earned it in their earthly life. And this makes us un-christian how?
> 
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).
> Mormons "continue to have children after the resurrection". Also the more children you have here on earth, the higher heaven, or kingdom, you will reside in after death.
> 
> ...the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577). (more)
> 
> 
> Mormons also believe a living person can be baptized for someone who has already died, thus saving that person and getting them into a heaven/kingdom.
> 
> I leave you with the above information and suggest you do some searches and reading on your own.
> 
> 
> All the research has been done and you are not listening very often either, so I don't know what you're agenda is. I have completely given up trying to figure it out:banghead:


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What you need to know about Mormons*
> Right Truth: What you need to know about Mormons
> 
> There are many differences between Christians and Mormons. I do not plan to get into all of those here and I understand that I will stir a hornet's nest with this post. What I DO intend, is to point out the one difference you need to know about. First a disclaimer:
> 
> I believe there ARE Christians in the Mormon church. I believe that many Mormons who have not gotten into the hierarchy and original teachings of the church, probably believe the same way I and most Christians believe. Having said that, I do NOT believe that the Mormon doctrine is truly Christian. Mitt Romney told the world that he believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I have no reason to doubt his statement or his faith. That's between him and God and I would be the last person to judge another's faith or relationship with God. This is not about politics.Every member of the church in good standing says the same thing Romney says.
> In good standing? Meaning following Mormon doctrine.  We have very good, long time friends, that joined the LDS church back in the 1980's (when I was attending bible college), and were biblical Christians, then left the LDS church after they realized that it did not consider the bible innerant.  They also had joined because they were very new Christians and "prime bait" to be proselytized as they hadn't been grounded in their own biblical foundations.  Sadly their oldest son still is in the Mormon cult, and has shunned his parents because they pulled their membership and joined a bible church. The son's wife; also a Mormon treats our friends her mother and father in law, with very little respect.
> My way of determining whether a group is Christian or not is this: Do they believe the way to salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ, and nothing else. Only faith is required.You can redifine it all you want. But the dictionary definition is the best.
> 
> A Christian  - (help·info) is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.[1]
> 
> Sadly Merriam Webster is the last source a Christian would look to, t determine the definition of salvation in regards to biblical Christianity.  Going to secular sources to define a Spiritual, Godly, and most important part of Christianity, and disregard the bible is without merit, nor good apologetics.
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that the purpose of the atonement was to bring resurrection and immortality to all people, regardless of whether they receive Christ by faith. Christs atonement is only a partial basis for worthiness and eternal life, which also requires obedience to all the commands of the Mormon church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals (Gospel Principles, pp. 74-75; Mormon Doctrine, p. 669).
> 
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that eternal life in the presence of God (which it terms "exaltation in the celestial kingdom") must be earned through obedience to all the commands of the Mormon Church, including exclusive Mormon temple rituals. Works are a requirement for salvation (entrance into the "celestial kingdom")  Gospel Principles, p. 303-304; Pearl of Great Price  Third Article of Faith; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 339, 671; Book of Mormon  2 Nephi 25:23). (source)
> You don't understand. Everyone achieves salvation from death. All will be resurrected. But in order to achieve Godhood, you must be obedient to all of God's ordinances. It also doesn't have to happen in this life either.
> Everyone doesn't receive salvation.  "Romans 3:23, all have sinned and fallen short "........It is true that salvation is part and partial with "death", but not as the LDS church defines it.  Galatians 2:20 clearly defines death as co-crucifixion, co-burial, co-ressurrection "in" Christ's life.  When a person asked to be saved by the one and only source/person's/God's life who can do it; namely Jesus, they receive the crucified, buried, and ressurrected life of Jesus Christ, via the Mightly Counselor, the Spirit or Christ that enters their soul(Mind, will, emotions,) of that human being.  The recipient of Salvation literally receives Christ's life though retains their earthly fallible body, but is within, a new Creature, new Creation in Christ Jesus.  This is all in Romans, and very clearly laid out.  All who are Christians have "died", not all mankind.  The Mormon church may have a few true Christians within it's ranks, but it is a very difficult position to be in, as the Holy Spirit is quenched, and God is working on their soul to see the True LIght.
> 
> Mormons believe in many godsWe believe there ARE many Gods, but we believe IN only One. and they believe that they can BECOME gods. They believe that God was once a human man. So what is so wrong about that?
> Totally unbiblical, and flies in the face of Christ's last words at the cross, "It is finished".  And indeed it was finished for eternity past, present, and future.  Anyone who called on the biblical Jesus' name to save them, enter into that eternally past, present, and future life, that is the "Crucified Life".
> 
> As long as you accept the con-man from N.Y. as a bonafide prophet, you kick at the pricks of 2,000 years of biblical Christianity.
> 
> Leaders of the Mormon church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) say:
> 
> ... the very name of the Savior is in the name of the church. . . . The New Testament is a fundamental scripture for us. We have in addition to that the Book of Mormon, which becomes another witness for Jesus Christ." (here)
> First, there IS NO OTHER testament of Jesus Christ than the Bible.If that were true, then none of us would be allowed to open our mouths to testify or write in favor of Jesus either.
> The bible gives you more than enough information to testify of Christ's worth, identity and God Almight, Emmanuel, Adonai, etc....The BOM is filled with a very corrupt man's(J.S. Jr.) mystical abberations that started way back in his boyhood days.  He was arrested back their for vagrancy, was killed not as a martyr, but with gun in hand, as one who had conspired to destroy a city's news press.  The author of the BOM revealed a type of self pro-claimed ancient Egyptian language that was never confirmed as legitimate.  Also the God of present or in 1830 knows very well that the language of 17 century Americans was basically English and not ancient Egyptian; a most unusual and silly way to communicate cleary with mankind of that time period.
> 
> Not the Book of Mormon and not the Pearl of Great Price, or any other book. Mormons use all three books as their Scripture.
> 
> Second, Just like attaching a Roll Royce logo to a Volkswagen does not make the latter a Rolls Royce, using the name of Jesus Christ does not make Mormonism "Christian."
> Jesus said, "If the church be called in my name, it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
> Naming one's church with Jesus' name is not sufficient to claim true authorship of Jesus' Gospel.  That's a "no brainer".
> Third, and most important, Mormons believe Jesus was created, not Divine.
> Jesus is eternal. That notion is false.
> You go against the "pricks" of your own prophets teachings who taught that Jesus was a result of physical/sexual union between father god and Mary.  Also that would take away Mary's status as a virgin, and Jesus' birth as divine and the Holy Spirit being just that: Spirit, that came upon the virgin, Mary.
> The Mormon Jesus Christ
> 
> A created being: the elder brother
> of Lucifer I still don't know why people get all riled up about this.
> Shows that you don't know bible N.T. scripture........Jesus called those that didn't believe in Him or God, as "Children of the Devil/Lucifer).  It would certainly bother me to be part of that family of non-believers as Revelations and many of the N.T. epistles reveal a most unpleasant fate for those who die in unbelief.
> 
> Common (one of many gods) and,
> in some ways, of minor important in
> the larger Mormon cosmology
> 
> Conceived by a physical sex act
> between God the Father (Adam or
> Elohim) and Mary, thus not through
> a true virgin birth That is an UTTER LIE who ever taught it to you. We have always preached the virgin birth. in 1st Nephi chapter 11 verse 18" Behold the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of the Son of God.
> Answered earlier.
> 
> Once sinful and imperfect
> Jesus never sinned. His father lived a life just like ours eons ago and attained perfection. Now he is the father of Jesus and the God we pray to. No big deal.
> God never attained anything.  "The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" is self explanatory.  God is God.  He has pre-existed time, matter, creation, etc..........He has always existed.  I know it's hard to comprehend, "eternity or always been", but that's what differentiates us created beings from Him.  God didn't have to prove that He is who He is.  God didn't even need us to be self-sufficient.  Thats the heart of grace and mercy!  That's what causes men to fall on their faces before Him.  We are dust, we are finite, He is God.
> Earned his own salvation
> (exaltation, godhood)
> 
> A married polygamist? The bible preaches polygamy a lot more than the book of mormon does in case you want to try me.
> The bible doesn't "teach" polygamy, it reveals it as a cultural fact of the time that particular scripture was written-down.  God did not encourage Abraham to take his slave as a wife.  Abraham failed in the faith test of God's promise to wait for Sarah to become pregnant.
> King Solomon disobeyed God when he took more than one wife.  In fact the down fall of the king's reign seem to coincide with his rebellion.  Solomon partook in Sheba's gods that was totally against God's commands.  There was one Eve in the garden.  God saw Adam as lonely and need of a helpmate..........He made one woman for Adam.
> 
> VS:
> 
> The Biblical Jesus Christ
> 
> Uncreated God
> 
> Unique (the Second Person of the one and only Godhead)
> and of supreme importance through time, eternity and all
> creation
> 
> Conceived by the Holy Spirit, who supermaturally
> "overshadowed" Mary, thus a true virgin birth
> 
> Eternally sinless and perfect
> 
> As God, never required salvation
> 
> An unmarried monogamist
> 
> Quite a comparison.
> 
> In the 2nd letter to the Corinthians Paul warns about the very real possibility of another Jesus, a Jesus different from the Jesus Paul had presented to the Corinthians.
> For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted-you may well put up with it!
> 2 Corinthians 11:4 (here)
> 
> The Pearl of Great Price infers that Jesus and Satan were brothers, equals, before Satan refused to carry out God's will:
> 
> Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;
> And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (The Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4)
> 
> 
> So it can be said that Jesus and Lucifer were brothersWe are all related as brothers and sisters., in the sense of both being spiritually begotten by the Father, but it is a misrepresentation to say so without giving the contextual background. Whatever similarities in background exist between Jesus and Satan pale compared to the differences. Jesus is the Beloved and Chosen, who is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. (here)
> 
> 
> *The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, believe some strange things like: *
> 
> Jesus visited the United States.Not such a strange idea any more since it is a tradition that has been passed down in the Mayan culture before white people ever came here. It has been proven.
> Here we go again.  Your using pagan culture/religion to justify your alleged strange rites, beliefs.  If you stay locked into the bible, you can find all you want to keep yourself on the right path.  You don't need to referr to a pagan culture that ripped the hearts out of living beings to appease their gods.  A very poor example in my estimation.
> 
> There are many heavens, celestial, and terrestrial, and telestial; believers go to one of these if they have earned it in their earthly life. And this makes us un-christian how?
> Stray from the bible, and you go awry.  You have "chosen" to believe in an archeologically unsubstantiated belief system, with a very questionable founder, and you thing all is right with your religion?
> 
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate Gods (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577), and that the Son and Holy Ghost are the literal offspring of Heavenly Father and a celestial wife (Joseph Fielding McConkie, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, p. 649).
> Mormons "continue to have children after the resurrection". Also the more children you have here on earth, the higher heaven, or kingdom, you will reside in after death.
> 
> ...the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130). It also teaches that those who achieve godhood will have spirit children who will worship and pray to them, just as we worship and pray to God the Father (Gospel Principles, p. 302).
> ... the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577). (more)
> 
> 
> Mormons also believe a living person can be baptized for someone who has already died, thus saving that person and getting them into a heaven/kingdom.
> 
> I leave you with the above information and suggest you do some searches and reading on your own.
> 
> 
> All the research has been done and you are not listening very often either, so I don't know what you're agenda is. I have completely given up trying to figure it out:banghead:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that the one not listening is the one who is already set in their beliefs that Jesus is and Christianity is not defined by the Holy bible, but by questionable sources, for the last hundred and more years.
> 
> J.S. jr. started as a Church of Christ(Campbellite), member, in his early days, and re-named his new church LDS as "Church of Christ" was of Campbellite origin.  Though the Campbellites have some issues of their own, they are basically biblical, but are entrenched in "baptismal regeneration", and much legalism.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well, as I have said before, you are entitled to believe what you want. You and I understand the scriptures very differently. I am not here to try and convince you to believe my way. 
But I have almost given up on your ability to listen properly. You still insist we believe God had sex with Mary. But even though I have already told you that is a lie, you are still insisting on it. I even showed you from the book of mormon where it proves it. You just are blind beyond belief. Or stubborn. Let's just go our separate ways cuz you and I won't get anywhere. 

You can think I am going to hell and that's fine. We will see at the last day won't we?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well, as I have said before, you are entitled to believe what you want. You and I understand the scriptures very differently. I am not here to try and convince you to believe my way. 
But I have almost given up on your ability to listen properly. You still insist we believe God had sex with Mary. But even though I have already told you that is a lie, you are still insisting on it. I even showed you from the book of mormon where it proves it. You just are blind beyond belief. Or stubborn. Let's just go our separate ways cuz you and I won't get anywhere. 

You can think I am going to hell and that's fine. We will see at the last day won't we?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Well, as I have said before, you are entitled to believe what you want. You and I understand the scriptures very differently. I am not here to try and convince you to believe my way.
> But I have almost given up on your ability to listen properly. You still insist we believe God had sex with Mary. But even though I have already told you that is a lie, you are still insisting on it. I even showed you from the book of mormon where it proves it. You just are blind beyond belief. Or stubborn. Let's just go our separate ways cuz you and I won't get anywhere.
> 
> You can think I am going to hell and that's fine. We will see at the last day won't we?



They(LDS) change the definition of the word virgin. Mormons feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an IMMORTAL being who had sex with Mary, not a mere mortal man. And this is exactly what Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian, and one of the Mormon 12 Apostles, died in 1985) said:

"For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466). 
In other words, if Joseph had sex with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had sex with Mary, she remains a virgin.

By "Virgin birth", Mormons mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin!
**********
Here is the statement of BY's that JFS supports:
"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
his own likeness. *He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.* And who is the
Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."
(JoD 1:50-51, also "Answers", vol. 5, p. 121).

To illustrate more clearly that BY meant that Christ's conception was actual
physical sex, here is another of his statements:
"The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten
of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).

Here are a few more quotes from the 1962 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Lesson
Manual "Gospel Living in the Home," p. 16-17:
"Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh..."
(as quoted from 'The Articles of Faith' by James E. Talmage, p. 466).

"We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of
God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was
begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was
begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS
NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ
is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and
make mystery of it?" (as quoted from Joseph F. Smith, 'Box Elder Times,' Sep.
22, 1914).

"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was
begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
YOU AND ME." (as quoted from 'Discourses of Brigham Young," 1925 edition, p.
77).

"The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, her conception was under that influence, even
of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of
Mary....." (as quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Man: His Origin and
Destiny), p. 345.)

To allay any repugnancy from members on the idea of God having actual physical
relations with the human Mary, some leaders pitched the idea that Mary was one
of God's polygamous "celestial wives":

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully........He had a lawful right
to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
Son.......Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
wife of Joseph while in this
mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as
one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).

Pratt's statement is supported by one from Brigham Young: "The man Joseph, the
husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).

The same idea is repeated in "The Life and Teachings of Jesus", 1974, p. 29:
"Joseph was a mortal soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor
of coming to earth and acting as THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE SON OF THE ETERNAL
FATHER IN THE FLESH."

And another statement from this same 1974 lesson manual, distributed to tens of
thousands of LDS Institute students: "She, (Mary), heavy with child, traveled
all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give
birth to A HALF-DEITY. No other man in the history of this world of ours has
ever had such an ancestry--God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin
on the other."

I repeat a quote from Ezra Taft Benson from 1988, published while he was
president of the LDS church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The
body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy
Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father." (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).

Someone wrote here on ARM that the idea of God having sex with Mary was
'repugnant', etc. When the entire scope of the theology is laid out, it should
not be repugnant to Mormons at all, as it ties in completely with the doctrines
of pre-existence, eternal marriage, deification, plural marriage, etc. With
the abundance of consistent statements on the subject, from a plethora of LDS
leaders over the years, it's difficult to dismiss the concept as mere
'speculation.' The quote from Harold B. Lee that someone
furnished is the only one I have seen saying that Mormons should not
'speculate' about it. Lee did not deny the concept; he merely advised not to
discuss it. And as I quote above, church-dispensed lesson manuals have taught
the same idea since Lee's 1972 death.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I have said before, you are entitled to believe what you want. You and I understand the scriptures very differently. I am not here to try and convince you to believe my way.
> But I have almost given up on your ability to listen properly. You still insist we believe God had sex with Mary. But even though I have already told you that is a lie, you are still insisting on it. I even showed you from the book of mormon where it proves it. You just are blind beyond belief. Or stubborn. Let's just go our separate ways cuz you and I won't get anywhere.
> 
> You can think I am going to hell and that's fine. We will see at the last day won't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They(LDS) change the definition of the word virgin. Mormons feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an IMMORTAL being who had sex with Mary, not a mere mortal man. And this is exactly what Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian, and one of the Mormon 12 Apostles, died in 1985) said:
> 
> "For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).
> In other words, if Joseph had sex with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had sex with Mary, she remains a virgin.
> 
> By "Virgin birth", Mormons mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin!
> **********
> Here is the statement of BY's that JFS supports:
> "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
> his own likeness. *He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.* And who is the
> Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
> tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
> the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
> and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
> character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."
> (JoD 1:50-51, also "Answers", vol. 5, p. 121).
> 
> To illustrate more clearly that BY meant that Christ's conception was actual
> physical sex, here is another of his statements:
> "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
> was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten
> of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
> 
> Here are a few more quotes from the 1962 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Lesson
> Manual "Gospel Living in the Home," p. 16-17:
> "Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
> is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
> also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh..."
> (as quoted from 'The Articles of Faith' by James E. Talmage, p. 466).
> 
> "We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of
> God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was
> begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was
> begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS
> NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ
> is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and
> make mystery of it?" (as quoted from Joseph F. Smith, 'Box Elder Times,' Sep.
> 22, 1914).
> 
> "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
> world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
> with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was
> begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
> our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
> YOU AND ME." (as quoted from 'Discourses of Brigham Young," 1925 edition, p.
> 77).
> 
> "The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, her conception was under that influence, even
> of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of
> Mary....." (as quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Man: His Origin and
> Destiny), p. 345.)
> 
> To allay any repugnancy from members on the idea of God having actual physical
> relations with the human Mary, some leaders pitched the idea that Mary was one
> of God's polygamous "celestial wives":
> 
> "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
> the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
> associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
> been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
> lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
> He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully........He had a lawful right
> to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
> Son.......Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
> and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
> wife of Joseph while in this
> mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as
> one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
> Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).
> 
> Pratt's statement is supported by one from Brigham Young: "The man Joseph, the
> husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
> the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).
> 
> The same idea is repeated in "The Life and Teachings of Jesus", 1974, p. 29:
> "Joseph was a mortal soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor
> of coming to earth and acting as THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE SON OF THE ETERNAL
> FATHER IN THE FLESH."
> 
> And another statement from this same 1974 lesson manual, distributed to tens of
> thousands of LDS Institute students: "She, (Mary), heavy with child, traveled
> all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give
> birth to A HALF-DEITY. No other man in the history of this world of ours has
> ever had such an ancestry--God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin
> on the other."
> 
> I repeat a quote from Ezra Taft Benson from 1988, published while he was
> president of the LDS church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
> proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The
> body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy
> Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father." (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).
> 
> Someone wrote here on ARM that the idea of God having sex with Mary was
> 'repugnant', etc. When the entire scope of the theology is laid out, it should
> not be repugnant to Mormons at all, as it ties in completely with the doctrines
> of pre-existence, eternal marriage, deification, plural marriage, etc. With
> the abundance of consistent statements on the subject, from a plethora of LDS
> leaders over the years, it's difficult to dismiss the concept as mere
> 'speculation.' The quote from Harold B. Lee that someone
> furnished is the only one I have seen saying that Mormons should not
> 'speculate' about it. Lee did not deny the concept; he merely advised not to
> discuss it. And as I quote above, church-dispensed lesson manuals have taught
> the same idea since Lee's 1972 death.
Click to expand...


I get it. You think that because we believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, that means God had sex with Mary. Nevermind the testimonies of the virgin birth. 

I was under the impression that all Christians were supposed to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Obviously, I was mistaken.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as I have said before, you are entitled to believe what you want. You and I understand the scriptures very differently. I am not here to try and convince you to believe my way.
> But I have almost given up on your ability to listen properly. You still insist we believe God had sex with Mary. But even though I have already told you that is a lie, you are still insisting on it. I even showed you from the book of mormon where it proves it. You just are blind beyond belief. Or stubborn. Let's just go our separate ways cuz you and I won't get anywhere.
> 
> You can think I am going to hell and that's fine. We will see at the last day won't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They(LDS) change the definition of the word virgin. Mormons feel that they can still use the phrase "virgin birth" because God was an IMMORTAL being who had sex with Mary, not a mere mortal man. And this is exactly what Bruce McConkie, (top LSD theologian, and one of the Mormon 12 Apostles, died in 1985) said:
> 
> "For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being" (The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).
> In other words, if Joseph had sex with Mary she would not have been a virgin, but since God had sex with Mary, she remains a virgin.
> 
> By "Virgin birth", Mormons mean that no mortal human had sex with Mary, but since God had sex with Mary, and He is immortal, she remains a virgin!
> **********
> Here is the statement of BY's that JFS supports:
> "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in
> his own likeness. *He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.* And who is the
> Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he (Christ) took a
> tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, AFTER THE SAME MANNER as
> the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam
> and Eve. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same
> character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."
> (JoD 1:50-51, also "Answers", vol. 5, p. 121).
> 
> To illustrate more clearly that BY meant that Christ's conception was actual
> physical sex, here is another of his statements:
> "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it
> was the result of NATURAL ACTION. He partook of FLESH AND BLOOD--was begotten
> of his father, as we were of our fathers." (JoD, vol. 8, p. 115).
> 
> Here are a few more quotes from the 1962 Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Lesson
> Manual "Gospel Living in the Home," p. 16-17:
> "Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily OFFSPRING; that
> is to say, Elohim is LITERALLY the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and
> also of the BODY in which Jesus Christ performed his mission in the flesh..."
> (as quoted from 'The Articles of Faith' by James E. Talmage, p. 466).
> 
> "We are told in the scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of
> God in the flesh....how are children begotten? I answer, just as Jesus was
> begotten of his Father. The Christian denominations believe that Christ was
> begotten not of God, but of the spirit that overshadowed his mother. THIS IS
> NONSENSE. Why will they not believe the Father when He says that Jesus Christ
> is His Only Begotten Son? Why will they try to EXPLAIN THIS TRUTH AWAY and
> make mystery of it?" (as quoted from Joseph F. Smith, 'Box Elder Times,' Sep.
> 22, 1914).
> 
> "When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the
> world and take a tabernacle, the Father came himself and favored that Spirit
> with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was
> begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same being who is the Father of
> our spirits, AND THAT IS ALL THE ORGANIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JESUS CHRIST AND
> YOU AND ME." (as quoted from 'Discourses of Brigham Young," 1925 edition, p.
> 77).
> 
> "The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, her conception was under that influence, even
> of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of
> Mary....." (as quoted from Joseph Fielding Smith, 'Man: His Origin and
> Destiny), p. 345.)
> 
> To allay any repugnancy from members on the idea of God having actual physical
> relations with the human Mary, some leaders pitched the idea that Mary was one
> of God's polygamous "celestial wives":
> 
> "The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore,
> the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been
> associated in the capacity of husband and wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have
> been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term
> lawful wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that
> He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully........He had a lawful right
> to overshadow the Virgin Mary IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND, and beget a
> Son.......Whether God the Father gave Mary to Joseph for time only, or for time
> and eternity, we are not informed. It may be that He only gave her to be the
> wife of Joseph while in this
> mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as
> one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."
> Apostle Orson Pratt, "The Seer," Oct. 1853, p. 158).
> 
> Pratt's statement is supported by one from Brigham Young: "The man Joseph, the
> husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary
> the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Deseret News, Oct. 10, 1866).
> 
> The same idea is repeated in "The Life and Teachings of Jesus", 1974, p. 29:
> "Joseph was a mortal soul in premortality to be blessed with the signal honor
> of coming to earth and acting as THE LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE SON OF THE ETERNAL
> FATHER IN THE FLESH."
> 
> And another statement from this same 1974 lesson manual, distributed to tens of
> thousands of LDS Institute students: "She, (Mary), heavy with child, traveled
> all that distance on mule-back, guarded and protected as one about to give
> birth to A HALF-DEITY. No other man in the history of this world of ours has
> ever had such an ancestry--God the Father on the one hand and Mary the Virgin
> on the other."
> 
> I repeat a quote from Ezra Taft Benson from 1988, published while he was
> president of the LDS church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
> proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The
> body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy
> Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father." (Teachings of ET Benson, p. 6).
> 
> Someone wrote here on ARM that the idea of God having sex with Mary was
> 'repugnant', etc. When the entire scope of the theology is laid out, it should
> not be repugnant to Mormons at all, as it ties in completely with the doctrines
> of pre-existence, eternal marriage, deification, plural marriage, etc. With
> the abundance of consistent statements on the subject, from a plethora of LDS
> leaders over the years, it's difficult to dismiss the concept as mere
> 'speculation.' The quote from Harold B. Lee that someone
> furnished is the only one I have seen saying that Mormons should not
> 'speculate' about it. Lee did not deny the concept; he merely advised not to
> discuss it. And as I quote above, church-dispensed lesson manuals have taught
> the same idea since Lee's 1972 death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it. You think that because we believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, that means God had sex with Mary. Nevermind the testimonies of the virgin birth.
> 
> I was under the impression that all Christians were supposed to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Obviously, I was mistaken.
Click to expand...


Don't they believe that we're all sons and daughters of god?  Isn't that the rationale for the brotherhood of man philosophy?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> I get it. You think that because we believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, that means God had sex with Mary. Nevermind the testimonies of the virgin birth.
> 
> I was under the impression that all Christians were supposed to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Obviously, I was mistaken.



Did not say the typical or regular Mormon believes this; that the founding prophets did, and preached it.  The foundational principles are not all taught or espoused, as they would scare folks away.  Never the less, strange as they may be, this is what J.S. jr. and B. Y. believed, and they are your founding prophets.



> Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie, in perhaps the most explicit denial of the virgin birth, wrote,
> 
> "Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547)
> You might ask, "How can Mormons who believe this say that Christ was born of a virgin?" This is done by changing the definition of the word "virgin". The virgin Mary did not have sexual relations with a mortal man, they say, but instead was impregnated by an immortal man. Bruce McConkie wrote,
> 
> "Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin, because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father." (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., p. 822)
> 
> When one considers that Mormonism teaches that every human born on earth is a literal spirit child of God, the concept that Jesus was conceived in a natural manner becomes even more blasphemous. Why? Because it means the Jesus of Mormonism was conceived in an incestuous union between Heavenly Father and his spirit-daughter Mary.
> 
> Mormons today are divided over this issue. While some deny that the traditional LDS concept of "virgin" is anything different than the traditional Christian understanding, others find it necessary to state that the Church takes no official position on the "mechanics" of the conception of Christ. Robert Millet, who is seen as the champion of progressive BYU neo-orthodoxy, writes:
> 
> "While Latter-day Saints clearly believe that Jesus is the Son of God the Father, there is no authoritative doctrinal statement within Mormonism that explains how the conception of Jesus was accomplished," (Another Jesus? The Christ of the Latter-day Saints, p. 74)
> 
> Others simply prefer the more traditional Mormon position. Kevin Barney, who is associated with the LDS group Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, writes that he likes the idea of the sexual generation of Jesus. In a post titled, "The Sexual Geneatinon of Jesus", Kevin writes:
> 
> "My usual tack when asked about it is to point out that the idea is not now and never was doctrine; it was a speculation. It is not binding on anyone, and in fact my impression is that it has become very much a minority view in the Church, and that most Mormons do not accept this characterization of the physical generation of the mortal Jesus.
> 
> I will confess, however, that I actually like this idea. Maybe it is because I have a streak of old fashioned Mormonism somewhere inside me. But I find it appealing on several levels. First, there is a certain naturalism to the idea. I presume the mortal Jesus had 46 chromosomes, and that 23 came from Mary, but where did the other 23 come from? As a Mormon, I&#8217;m not big on the idea that they were created ex nihilo for this specific purpose. I like being able to say that Jesus really did have a father, not in a metaphorical sense only (the language of begetting in the creeds doesn&#8217;t mean literal begetting), but in a physical sense. He really was the Son of God.
> 
> I also find it fascinating that people see this idea as being so totally offensive. To me, that speaks not only to our radically different conception of God and man as being of the same species, our literalist notion of divine paternalism and our radical materialism, but also to our Puritan heritage. If it is so disgusting to suggest God sired a son by sexual intercourse, why, I wonder, did God ordain that to be the natural method by which we conceive our own children? Is that just some sort of a cosmic joke? Does God sit in yonder heavens and look down on his creatures and laugh at their disgusting and dirty and ridiculous actions? Isn&#8217;t it possible that, if God ordained sexual intercourse as the means by which we create children, that it is divinely appointed and not disgusting or dirty at all?
> 
> I freely concede that the old fashioned Mormon speculators didn&#8217;t think all the way through this idea, and there are theological loose ends, to be sure. But I am curious: does anyone else here kind of like this old notion, or is it Mormon materialism run amuck?"


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Did not say the typical or regular Mormon believes this; that the founding prophets did, and preached it.  The foundational principles are not all taught or espoused, as they would scare folks away.  Never the less, strange as they may be, this is what J.S. jr. and B. Y. believed, and they are your founding prophets.



And that would be an utter lie and you know it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did not say the typical or regular Mormon believes this; that the founding prophets did, and preached it.  The foundational principles are not all taught or espoused, as they would scare folks away.  Never the less, strange as they may be, this is what J.S. jr. and B. Y. believed, and they are your founding prophets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that would be an utter lie and you know it.
Click to expand...


It's funny how you copy and paste all these easily misunderstood statements from the past. Some of which are not considered doctrine. Prophets and apostles as we have stated for centuries now, are not infallible and have sometimes mispoken, such as the case with Parley P. Pratt's statement. Prophets are not beyond speculation and that is the reason why we have modern revelation, to clarify unrevealed truths from time to time. 

Yes we do believe that Jesus is genetically and physically the son of God, but we do not believe God had sex with Mary.
 He is the child of God by the power of the Holy Ghost.  It wasn't a threesome and it wasn't intercourse. God used the power of the Holy Ghost to place the sperm inside the egg of Mary. Was God physically in the room when it happened? No. 

That is why she remains a virgin. 
Now please stop putting words in the mouths of the people who know better about our own religion than you do. 
You are spending your time copying and pasting from the minds of who knows how many people who will stop at nothing until they can sink their teeth into the Prophet's neck. Why don't you get a life that involves being part of a cause rather than wasting your time trying to tear down someone elses cause. If you think we are wrong or heretical or whatever, why do you feel compelled to wage this battle against someone who is not even your opponent? I just don't get it.

IF THERE WAS EVER A STRAW MAN IT IS YOU.


----------



## Eightball

How About We Let Your Two Major "Straw Men" speak for themselves. 



> *Joseph Smith*
> 
> "God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me to be God to you in His stead, and the elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it" (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, pp 319-320).
> 
> "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I" (D.H C., vol. 6, p. 408-409).
> 
> "The whole Earth shall bear me witness that I, like the towering rock in the midst of the ocean, which has withstood the mighty surges of the warring waves for centuries, am impregnable ... I combat the errors of ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth -- diamond truth; and God is my right hand man." (D.H.C., Vol. 6, p. 78).
> 
> "And I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, ..." (D.H C., vol. 5, p. 394). [This prophecy was made in May of 1843, and the United States government has not been overthrown and wasted.]
> 
> "Here then is eternal life -- to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you..." (Teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, p. 346).
> 
> "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it" (Ibid., p. 349).
> 
> "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead" [Our God of the Bible has forbidden us to have anything to do with the dead (Deut. 18:10,11).
> 
> *Brigham Young*
> 
> "I have never yet preached a sertuon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good a scripture" (Journa1 of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95; also see vol. 13, p. 264).
> 
> "I say, rather than the apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my Bowie knife, and conquer or die. [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put on the line ... If you say it is right, raise your hands [All hands up], let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 83)
> 
> "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins ... This is loving our neighbor as ourselves, if he needs help, help him, and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4,  p. 220). [Many were killed under what is called the "Blood Atonement Doctrine" Leaving Mormonism was one of the sins that the blood of Jesus could not atone for, and a person's own blood must be shed by Mormon priests as an atonement for sin.]
> 
> "I intend to meet them on their own grounds. ... and if any miserable scoundrel comes here, cut their throats." [And they obeyed; a wagon train of innocent men, women, and children were massacred at Mountain Meadows under the orders of Brigham Young. They were passing through Utah, and Brigham thought they were from Illinois where Joseph Smith had been killed. Many more were "atoned."]
> 
> "Gold and silver grow, and so does every other kind of metal, the same as the hair upon my head or the wheat in the field; ..." (JOD., vol. 1, p. 219).
> 
> "Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the Moon? ... So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the Sun. Do you not think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No Question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 219).
> 
> "Do you think we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principal of polygamy? If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269). [The Edmunds Act was passed in 1882 forbidding polygamy in the territory, and only then was Utah allowed to enter the Union. At that point the LDS church officially gave up polygamy. Another false prophecy from the Mormon prophet!]
> 
> "I think these preliminaries will satisfy me, and I feel prepared to take my text. It is the words of Jesus Christ, but where they are in the Bible I cannot tell you now, for I have not taken pains to look at them.  I have had so much to do, that I have not read the Bible for many years. I used to read and study it, but did not understand the spirit and meaning of it ..." (1854 Conference discourse, October 8). [Brigham Young obviously did not understand the Bible, and neither do any of the other Mormon prophets!]



Meets the qualifications of a "Cult" in every way.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> How About We Let Your Two Major "Straw Men" speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Joseph Smith*
> 
> "God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me to be God to you in His stead, and the elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it" (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, pp 319-320).
> 
> "I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I" (D.H C., vol. 6, p. 408-409).
> 
> "The whole Earth shall bear me witness that I, like the towering rock in the midst of the ocean, which has withstood the mighty surges of the warring waves for centuries, am impregnable ... I combat the errors of ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth -- diamond truth; and God is my right hand man." (D.H.C., Vol. 6, p. 78).
> 
> "And I prophesy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted and there will not be so much as a potsherd left, ..." (D.H C., vol. 5, p. 394). [This prophecy was made in May of 1843, and the United States government has not been overthrown and wasted.]
> 
> "Here then is eternal life -- to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you..." (Teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, p. 346).
> 
> "In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it" (Ibid., p. 349).
> 
> "The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead" [Our God of the Bible has forbidden us to have anything to do with the dead (Deut. 18:10,11).
> 
> *Brigham Young*
> 
> "I have never yet preached a sertuon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good a scripture" (Journa1 of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 95; also see vol. 13, p. 264).
> 
> "I say, rather than the apostates should flourish here, I will unsheath my Bowie knife, and conquer or die. [Great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.] Now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put on the line ... If you say it is right, raise your hands [All hands up], let us call upon the Lord to assist us in this, and every good work." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 83)
> 
> "I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins ... This is loving our neighbor as ourselves, if he needs help, help him, and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4,  p. 220). [Many were killed under what is called the "Blood Atonement Doctrine" Leaving Mormonism was one of the sins that the blood of Jesus could not atone for, and a person's own blood must be shed by Mormon priests as an atonement for sin.]
> 
> "I intend to meet them on their own grounds. ... and if any miserable scoundrel comes here, cut their throats." [And they obeyed; a wagon train of innocent men, women, and children were massacred at Mountain Meadows under the orders of Brigham Young. They were passing through Utah, and Brigham thought they were from Illinois where Joseph Smith had been killed. Many more were "atoned."]
> 
> "Gold and silver grow, and so does every other kind of metal, the same as the hair upon my head or the wheat in the field; ..." (JOD., vol. 1, p. 219).
> 
> "Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the Moon? ... So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the Sun. Do you not think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No Question of it; it was not made in vain." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 219).
> 
> "Do you think we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principal of polygamy? If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269). [The Edmunds Act was passed in 1882 forbidding polygamy in the territory, and only then was Utah allowed to enter the Union. At that point the LDS church officially gave up polygamy. Another false prophecy from the Mormon prophet!]
> 
> "I think these preliminaries will satisfy me, and I feel prepared to take my text. It is the words of Jesus Christ, but where they are in the Bible I cannot tell you now, for I have not taken pains to look at them.  I have had so much to do, that I have not read the Bible for many years. I used to read and study it, but did not understand the spirit and meaning of it ..." (1854 Conference discourse, October 8). [Brigham Young obviously did not understand the Bible, and neither do any of the other Mormon prophets!]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meets the qualifications of a "Cult" in every way.
Click to expand...


Hey Straw Guy, How many times do I have to tell you that you are taking things out of context. You don't bother reading what was said before and after those statements were made. You don't even know where those statements originate except for the copied and pasted versions of an anti-mormon website. 
If you insist I tear these strawman ideas down as well, you will have to wait until I have time after work.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Hey Straw Guy, How many times do I have to tell you that you are taking things out of context. You don't bother reading what was said before and after those statements were made. You don't even know where those statements originate except for the copied and pasted versions of an anti-mormon website.
> If you insist I tear these strawman ideas down as well, you will have to wait until I have time after work.



Time is on my side, scripturally, isn't it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Straw Guy, How many times do I have to tell you that you are taking things out of context. You don't bother reading what was said before and after those statements were made. You don't even know where those statements originate except for the copied and pasted versions of an anti-mormon website.
> If you insist I tear these strawman ideas down as well, you will have to wait until I have time after work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time is on my side, scripturally, isn't it?
Click to expand...


You are such a loser that I am not going to waste my time repeating what I have said before.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Straw Guy, How many times do I have to tell you that you are taking things out of context. You don't bother reading what was said before and after those statements were made. You don't even know where those statements originate except for the copied and pasted versions of an anti-mormon website.
> If you insist I tear these strawman ideas down as well, you will have to wait until I have time after work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time is on my side, scripturally, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such a loser that I am not going to waste my time repeating what I have said before.
Click to expand...


----------



## Valerie

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time is on my side, scripturally, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a loser that I am not going to waste my time repeating what I have said before.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You liked that, huh?  The Mormon calling the Christian a loser!  




FTR, I'm behind the Eightball all the way!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Valerie said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a loser that I am not going to waste my time repeating what I have said before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You liked that, huh?  The Mormon calling the Christian a loser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FTR, I'm behind the Eightball all the way!
Click to expand...


You can get behind who ever you want. That is your prerogotive. I really am not trying to persuade you my way. I just don't want 8-ball to spread more and more lies and half truths about us. 
Oh and I wasn't calling 8-ball a name. He really is a loser because he lost in his attempt to destroy our church.  It's a whole lot better than what he called me. "Cultist" "brainwashed" "un-Christian" and "satanic".   Why are you pulling for him anyway? What questions do you have about what we believe and why don't you like us?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> How About We Let Your Two Major "Straw Men" speak for themselves.
> 
> Meets the qualifications of a "Cult" in every way.



What a surprise. Cant respond so you cut and paste something new and out of context.

How about you speak for yourself instead of stealing other peoples work?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You liked that, huh?  The Mormon calling the Christian a loser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FTR, I'm behind the Eightball all the way!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can get behind who ever you want. That is your prerogotive. I really am not trying to persuade you my way. I just don't want 8-ball to spread more and more lies and half truths about us.
> Oh and I wasn't calling 8-ball a name. He really is a loser because he lost in his attempt to destroy our church.  It's a whole lot better than what he called me. "Cultist" "brainwashed" "un-Christian" and "satanic".   Why are you pulling for him anyway? What questions do you have about what we believe and why don't you like us?
Click to expand...


Same old mantra........Mormons hated,,,,,,,,,Christians mean spirited.....

Can't you think for yourself, instead of repeating your church's stale, and overused defensive talking points?

I don't think Mormons have been burned at the stake, fed to lions, hung at witchcraft trials in Salem, Mass., been beheaded by Muslims, nor crucified........Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded by the Romans.  All Apostles were martyred in the "true" sense of martyrdom, except for John who authored epistles,  the book of John and Revelations.

Mormons created their own problems when they accused the Christian church in America of heresy.......That included all denominations and non-denominations.  Your church attacked the validity of the Christian bible, taught your parishoners that it wasn't enough nor complete.  You propagated polygamous marriages.  You claimed that Jesus's "It is Finished!" on the cross was not enough in certain cases, and that blood had to be shed by mortal man against mortal man to atone for sins...........A most blasphemous teaching that attacks the very work of Christ upon Calvary's cross, His burial, His ressurrection.  He wasn't called the Lamb of God by John the Baptist........who said He came to take away the sins of the world.......Your latter day prophets overlook totally John the Baptist's proclamation that Jesus completed the totaly work of atonement for mankind's sins.

There isn't any part or partialing of verses or quotes from your prophets..........that would change where they are coming from.

When you started this thread, under the guise that you wanted people to know about Mormonism, you wanted input or questions.  That is the same approach that your elders, and missionarys use at our doorsteps.  You want us to ask so you can tell..........It is a form of evangelism, and you are perfectly protected by the U.S. Constitution to do so.  In fact I would put my life on the line for your church members or any belief system to protect their right to speak of or even evangelize in the name of their belief system/religion.

Now with that, do expect not only questions, but also expect critiques of your belief system, as the internet is filled with myriads or thousands of pages and web sites exposing or revealing the nature of your doctrines, the actually quotes from your BOM, and other allegedly divinely inspired books and articles.

Mormons for the most part were persecuted because they refuted the basic Judeau/Christian foundation of beliefs of the majority of American citizens back in the 19th and 20th century.

Just because articles come from many biblically or Christian oriented web sites does not mean that they are there in the spirit of hatred, unkindness, nor some plot to hurt a people.  

Paul in the bible told every Christian to be on the watch-out for false teachers.  Your Prophets go against much of biblical teaching in the N.T., and Paul would say to believers nowadays..........Look out.......

It is one thing to "Know about God", and another to "Know God".

Many and elder/bishop stake leader or higher in the LDS church has gotten down very pat, the kJ bible, and have been taught to refute Christians, and even those who are nominal in understanding of the Christian faith with pick and pull verse presentation.

To this day and time.......I've presented unrefutable verses that challenge the premises of the LDS churche's beliefs in being "The Church".

I have on numerous ocassions just posted Jesus' final words on the cross, "It is finished!"

Truth Speaker, what do you think He meant by that?  Did He mean, I'm going to die?  He said "It" is finished; not "I'm finished."; although in a certain way, that was true.  His life was finished, for us, in totality, not in partial attonement.  

I practically get bile in my throat to think that a group can call themselves Christian and deny the total atonement of Christ for all and every one of mankind's sins; past, present, and future.

Also, to teach that God was once a man of flesh as we are, and that we, mortals with finite minds, and creations of an infinite Creator, can assume the level or title of God, is both blasphemous, and insulting, and presumptuous.

I don't know if your parents were or are Mormons, but to break away from Mormonism is a brave, yet freeing experience.  

There are so many strong biblical Christians that are ex-Mormons, that finally realized that they were held bondage within a belief system that was not Christian, nor biblical.  Their love and prayers for their Mormon friends goes without saying.  They have such burdens for their friends and relatives who cannot see or refuse to take a plunge of faith but remain because of fears of being shunned by relatives, friends, community, and even job discrimination where many Mormons hold high positions in companys.

Christians aren't Christians because Mom and Dad were Christians.  It is a relationship with God, that was established Spiritually through faith in Christ's "completed" work at Golgotha.  

Works:  They are part and partial of the Christian life, but they follow salvation, and are not pre-requisite for salvation.  God does the saving 100%, we just cooperate, through repentance, humility, humbleness, and a contrite heart, of realizing our sinful, lost condition(Romans 3:23), and God does the rest.

The Jew's Passover Lamb was the foreshadow of Christ, the ultimate Lamb of God, who was a Priest of sinless standing, who unlike the Levitical Aaronic Priesthood of the OT that required the Priest to offer a burnt offering for his own sins before offering a burnt offering for the people, offered Himself "once" and for all.
"It is finished"  Mr. Smith Jr., what can you add to that statement by the Lamb of God?  What doctrine or ordinances are necessary beyond what Christ has done for us, and through us by our faith in Him and His work?

There is no special priesthood in the Christian faith.  There is no Aaronic, nor Melkisidek Priesthood...........All Christians are Royal Priests/Ambassadors of Christ.  That is Paul's very words.  

There is no hierarchy of believers in the Christian church.  It is a level playing field.  We are all Christians by receiving "unmerited" favor from God through His sacrificing His Son for us. 

The last Prophet needed was John the Baptist.........He proclaimed and introduced in full, the ultimate Priest/Lamb of God.......the ultimate answer to man's anguish and wallowing in sin, and ultimate death in sin.

We don't need mysterious heiroglyphics that have never been recognized by experts as valid, nor do we need an additional gospel.  The bible is clear and concise.  For thousands of years, it has met man's deepest needs, hopes and aspirations.  It has saved kings, peasants, middle class, convicts, teachers, doctors, truck drivers.........you name it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Same old mantra........Mormons hated,,,,,,,,,Christians mean spirited.....

Can't you think for yourself, instead of repeating your church's stale, and overused defensive talking points?It is decidedly unpopular to be a mormon right now and therefore it is a remarkable statement of ones ability to think FOR themselves to be a Mormon.

I don't think Mormons have been burned at the stake, fed to lions, hung at witchcraft trials in Salem, Mass., been beheaded by Muslims, nor crucifiedHow about shot, tarred and feathered, raped, trampled to death, brains stomped out, and yes lynched just like it were a witch hunt, and after some were buried, their bodies were dug up out of the ground, dismembered, mutilated and shot. These things were all done because of their testimony of Jesus.........Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was beheaded by the Romans.  All Apostles were martyred in the "true" sense of martyrdom, except for John who authored epistles,  the book of John and Revelations.

Mormons created their own problems when they accused the Christian church in America of heresyWhat a proposterous lie. No source for that whatsoever. Nowhere. Don't invent crap........That included all denominations and non-denominations.  Your church attacked the validity of the Christian bibleNever attacked the validity of the Bible, another lie., taught your parishoners that it wasn't enough nor completeReading a book is not enough for salvation and history proves it is incomplete. See Nicean creed..  You propagated polygamous marriages.God did, not us. See Abraham etc.  You claimed that Jesus's "It is Finished!" on the cross was not enough in certain cases, and that blood had to be shed by mortal man against mortal man to atone for sinsWe always preached it is enough for the penitent man. And for this we received the said atrocities from people like you............A most blasphemous teaching that attacks the very work of Christ upon Calvary's cross, His burial, His ressurrection.  He wasn't called the Lamb of God by John the Baptist........who said He came to take away the sins of the world.......Your latter day prophets overlook totally John the Baptist's proclamation that Jesus completed the totaly work of atonement for mankind's sins.Uh.... That is just the stupidest thing I've ever heard:"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,


"We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles--that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of His Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come" ("The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles," 1 Jan. 2000). 

There isn't any part or partialing of verses or quotes from your prophets..........that would change where they are coming from.see above

When you started this thread, under the guise that you wanted people to know about Mormonism, you wanted input or questions.  That is the same approach that your elders, and missionarys use at our doorsteps.  You want us to ask so you can tell..........It is a form of evangelism, and you are perfectly protected by the U.S. Constitution to do so.  In fact I would put my life on the line for your church members or any belief system to protect their right to speak of or even evangelize in the name of their belief system/religion.

Now with that, do expect not only questions, but also expect critiques Look man I accept that. Just make your critiques honest ones and not viscious ones that are based on darkness and bias.of your belief system, as the internet is filled with myriads or thousands of pages and web sites supposedlyexposing or revealing the nature of your doctrines, the actually quotes from your BOM, and other allegedly divinely inspired books and articles.You still haven't shown me anything from the BOM or any other article of scripture that puts us down even according to your wild interpretations.

Mormons for the most part were persecuted because they refuted the basic Judeau/Christian foundation of beliefs of the majority of American citizens back in the 19th and 20th century.And How!

Just because articles come from many biblically or Christian oriented web sites does not mean that they are there in the spirit of hatred, unkindness, nor some plot to hurt a people. I am sure those anti mormon sites are just bursting with kind feelings toward us. 

Paul in the bible told every Christian to be on the watch-out for false teachers.  Your Prophets go against much of biblical teaching in the N.T., and Paul would say to believers nowadays..........Look out.......

It is one thing to "Know about God", and another to "Know God"Truer words were never spoken.

Many and elder/bishop stake leader or higher in the LDS church has gotten down very pat, the kJ bible, and have been taught to refute Christians, and even those who are nominal in understanding of the Christian faith with pick and pull verse presentation.

To this day and time.......I've presented unrefutable verses that challenge the premises of the LDS churche's beliefs in being "The Church".

I have on numerous ocassions just posted Jesus' final words on the cross, "It is finished!"

Truth Speaker, what do you think He meant by that? He meant his earthly mission was finished and that the atonement could be fulfilled and resurrection could begin happening. That is why many saints arose from the dead. No one else could rise until Jesus had done it. He was the firstfruits unto God. Then that ushered in the door for ancients and eventually us. Did He mean, I'm going to die?  He said "It" is finished; not "I'm finished."; although in a certain way, that was true.  His life was finished, for us, in totality, not in partial attonement.  

I practically get bile in my throat to think that a group can call themselves Christian and deny the total atonement of Christ for all and every one of mankind's sins; past, present, and future.Me too. I don't know why a Christian would do such a thing. I certainly don't

Also, to teach that God was once a man of flesh as we are, and that we, mortals with finite minds, and creations of an infinite Creator, can assume the level or title of God, is both blasphemous, and insulting, and presumptuous.Not such a big deal when you start to gain an eternal perspective of things. Why do you care anyway if he had a body or not? You act like the body is such a bad thing. That is the main reason why he and we all are better than Satan and his angels, because we have a body and he does not.  That is why Satan is always trying to get one!!!

I don't know if your parents were or are Mormons, but to break away from Mormonism is a brave, yet freeing experience.
On the contrary, I have never been freer because of the knowledge I have gained that has set me free from speculation and spiritual blindness which you suffer from. 

There are so many strong biblical Christians that are ex-MormonsThat's rich. 

There never was a weaker type of person than an ex-mormon. It seems every anti-mormon came from our fold and has nothing else to do with their life except fight against us. What kind of life is that. Their cause is to destroy a cause instead of getting one of their own., that finally realized that they were held bondage within a belief system that was not Christian, nor biblical.  Their love and prayers for their Mormon friends goes without sayingYou trust me on one thing if you ever would on anything, they ain't praying for us, not one word. If they are doing any praying at all it ain't for us..  They have such burdens for their friends and relatives who cannot see or refuse to take a plunge of faith but remain because of fears of being shunned by relatives, friends, community, and even job discrimination where many Mormons hold high positions in companys.

Christians aren't Christians because Mom and Dad were Christians.  It is a relationship with God, that was established Spiritually through faith in Christ's "completed" work at Golgotha.  

Works:  They are part and partial of the Christian life, but they follow salvation, and are not pre-requisite for salvation.  God does the saving 100%, we just cooperate, through repentance, humility, humbleness, and a contrite heart, of realizing our sinful, lost conditionContrarian statement. If he did all the work, we don't need to do any of that good stuff. You have been saying that all along.(Romans 3:23), and God does the restuh... that's what I have been saying all along..

The Jew's Passover Lamb was the foreshadow of Christ, the ultimate Lamb of GodTrue, who was a Priest of sinless standing, who unlike the Levitical Aaronic Priesthood of the OT that required the Priest to offer a burnt offering for his own sins before offering a burnt offering for the people, offered Himself "once" and for all.
"It is finished"  Mr. Smith Jr.Mr. Smith replies"Dude, you are preaching to the choir., what can you add to that statement by the Lamb of God?  What doctrine or ordinances are necessary beyond what Christ has done for us, and through us by our faith in Him and His work?

There is no special priesthood in the Christian faith.  There is no Aaronic, nor Melkisidek Priesthood...........All Christians are Royal Priests/Ambassadors of Christ.  That is Paul's very words.  

There is no hierarchy of believers in the Christian church.  It is a level playing field.  We are all Christians by receiving "unmerited" favor from God through His sacrificing His Son for us. 

The last Prophet needed was John the BaptistJesus was a prophet. According to John the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.The Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy   Joseph had this testimony, I have it as well. You can't say there will not be more prophets to come. Not only do you not know God, you do not really know of his ways either..........He proclaimed and introduced in full, the ultimate Priest/Lamb of God.......the ultimate answer to man's anguish and wallowing in sin, and ultimate death in sin.

We don't need mysterious heiroglyphics that have never been recognized by experts as validHow about heiroglyphs that have :Maya script - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, nor do we need an additional gospel.  The bible is clear and conciseOnly to those who have been guided by the spirit. Unlike you..  For thousands of years, it has met man's deepest needs, hopes and aspirations.  It has saved kings, peasants, middle class, convicts, teachers, doctors, truck drivers.........you name it.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your inspirational message. Now why do you insist on trying to convince me to think your way. It's not going to work. Like I have said countless times, you and i see the scriptures very differently. Stop trying to butt heads with me please.


----------



## Skeptik

Valerie said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a loser that I am not going to waste my time repeating what I have said before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You liked that, huh?  The Mormon calling the Christian a loser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FTR, I'm behind the Eightball all the way!
Click to expand...


Well, if you like the idea of finding biased websites, then cutting and pasting, sure, get behind the eightball.  That's where that type of "discussion" will get you anyway.


----------



## Truthspeaker

That was nice and quippy. I liked it.


----------



## N4mddissent

If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.



Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down. 
My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I love Lord of the Rings though. It is my favorite book and I have read it 3 times. I also read the Silmarillion.


----------



## Eightball

N4mddissent said:


> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.



Hey, I fully appreciate your response, and understand your dilemma.  You are definitely not alone. 

In fact your transparency/openess is very refreshing.


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
> My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
Click to expand...


But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"

I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
> My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"
> 
> I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
Click to expand...


I would agree with you generally, but the LDS organization is a little different. We believe there is one correct interpretation of the scriptures. The leader of the church is Christ, who speaks to His spokesman for the Church, which we claim to be the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson. Or Joseph Smith Jr. before his time. When the prophet has spoken doctrine on an issue it is immediately accepted into the canon. 

Individuals will always take issue with the Prophet's interpretation. But no matter how they spin it, their views are not doctrine or correct. It takes away all the guesswork.  You are right that there will always be conflict when there is no authority to interpret, such as the case of the Nicean creed. The Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who put the rabble together, had as much authority to interpret as any of the sectarian leaders present at the meeting. Yet they haggled and battled by the powers and philosophy of men over which books should be canonized into one official Bible. They also propogated the dogma that only these books should be accepted as doctrine and others dismissed as heretical.
That's rich. A group of blind men making the populous blind and deaf. WHO GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT?

Emperor Constantine: A Pagan who believed in Roman Gods and myths. HELLO!!!

From this creed launched all christian religions down until Joseph Smith's time. His claim was different from all others. He claimed, he got authority from God himself, from Peter, James and John, from John the Baptist, from Elijah the Prophet. No one else claimed to have gotten the laying on of hands from such people. 

So either it's true or there are no true churches.IMO


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
> My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"
> 
> I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree with you generally, but the LDS organization is a little different. We believe there is one correct interpretation of the scriptures. The leader of the church is Christ, who speaks to His spokesman for the Church, which we claim to be the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson. Or Joseph Smith Jr. before his time. When the prophet has spoken doctrine on an issue it is immediately accepted into the canon.
> 
> Individuals will always take issue with the Prophet's interpretation. But no matter how they spin it, their views are not doctrine or correct. It takes away all the guesswork.  You are right that there will always be conflict when there is no authority to interpret, such as the case of the Nicean creed. The Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who put the rabble together, had as much authority to interpret as any of the sectarian leaders present at the meeting. Yet they haggled and battled by the powers and philosophy of men over which books should be canonized into one official Bible. They also propogated the dogma that only these books should be accepted as doctrine and others dismissed as heretical.
> That's rich. A group of blind men making the populous blind and deaf. WHO GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT?
> 
> Emperor Constantine: A Pagan who believed in Roman Gods and myths. HELLO!!!
> 
> From this creed launched all christian religions down until Joseph Smith's time. His claim was different from all others. He claimed, he got authority from God himself, from Peter, James and John, from John the Baptist, from Elijah the Prophet. No one else claimed to have gotten the laying on of hands from such people.
> 
> So either it's true or there are no true churches.IMO
Click to expand...



A condensed version of your reply = If our church doctrine is wrong, then no other churchs' doctrine is right either?

Your Avatar, "Truth Speaker" is rather presumptuous isn't it?"  I thought that the bible speaks of the Christian's life as one of humility and humbleness, based on God's grace which has saved them.  Also John said that if we Christians say we don't sin(lieing is a sin), then the "truth" is not in us.  To be a "Truth Speaker" is a tall order for a mere fallible human being?  Maybe you should put a little disclaimer by your Avatar that says "sometimes". 

Without God's grace realized in our souls, we can and will take a presumptuous route in life.  Grace=unmerited or unearned favor.  I.E. God loved mankind despite mankinds wickedness/sinful nature.  To give His Son in our place, is an act of Grace.

Maybe I should change my avatar to "I speak for Christ".   Naw!  I know that I can screw up and even misrepresent my own Christian faith too.  I don't want to, but it happens.

I don't think anyone could truly have that moniker, but Jesus Christ Himself, who was called the "Truth", the "Word", and of course, "God/Yahweh".

By the way, your defense of Mormon persecution, was interesting in lieu of the Mormon's "Mountain Meadows" massacre of a wagon train of innocent, non-Mormon American citizens on their way to the West Coast in the 1800's.  The U.S. government wasn't too fond of your prophets or the LDS church after investigating that tragedy?

Might you also tell us all on this forum why President Theodore Roosevelt demanded that the American flag/Old Glory be taken down from the Mormon Tabernacle?

Yeah, there was persecution.   **** Wikipedia 



> The Mountain Meadows massacre involved a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows in the Utah Territory by the local Mormon militia in September 1857. It began as an attack, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated on September 11, 1857, in the execution of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender. All of the party were killed, except for a few children under 8 years old. Some infants were killed while in their mothers arms.[1] After the massacre, the corpses of the victims were left decomposing for two years on the open plain[2] , their children were distributed to local Mormon families, and many of their possessions auctioned off at the LDS Cedar City tithing office.[3]
> 
> The Arkansas emigrants were traveling to California shortly before the Utah War started. Mormons throughout the Utah Territory had been mustered to fight the United States Army, which they believed was intending to destroy them as a people.[citation needed]
> 
> The emigrants stopped to rest and regroup their approximately 800 head of cattle at Mountain Meadows, a valley within the Iron County Military District of the Nauvoo Legion (the popular designation for the Mormon militia of the Utah Territory). [4]
> 
> Initially intending to orchestrate an Indian massacre,[5] Isaac C. Haight and John D. Lee, conspired to lead militiamen disguised as Native Americans along with a contingent of Paiute tribesmen in an attack. The emigrants fought back and a siege ensued. When the Mormons discovered that they had been identified as the attacking force by the emigrants, Col. William H. Dame, head of the Iron County Brigade of the Utah militia, ordered their annihilation.[6] Intending to leave no witnesses of Mormon complicity in the siege and also intending to prevent reprisals that would complicate the Utah War, militiamen induced the emigrants to surrender and give up their weapons. After escorting the emigrants out of their hasty fortification, the militiamen and their tribesmen auxiliaries executed approximately 120 men, women and children.[7] Seventeen younger children were spared.
> 
> Investigations, interrupted by the U.S. Civil War, resulted in nine indictments in 1874. Only John D. Lee was tried, and after two trials, he was convicted. On March 23, 1877 a firing squad executed Lee at the massacre site.


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except in my case, I am not trying to prove my side is better than anyones. I believe it is best for me. But who am I to put someone elses faith down.
> My whole purpose has only been to straighten out our official doctrine. And not old wives tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"
> 
> I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree with you generally, but the LDS organization is a little different. We believe there is one correct interpretation of the scriptures. The leader of the church is Christ, who speaks to His spokesman for the Church, which we claim to be the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson. Or Joseph Smith Jr. before his time. When the prophet has spoken doctrine on an issue it is immediately accepted into the canon.
> 
> Individuals will always take issue with the Prophet's interpretation. But no matter how they spin it, their views are not doctrine or correct. It takes away all the guesswork.  You are right that there will always be conflict when there is no authority to interpret, such as the case of the Nicean creed. The Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who put the rabble together, had as much authority to interpret as any of the sectarian leaders present at the meeting. Yet they haggled and battled by the powers and philosophy of men over which books should be canonized into one official Bible. They also propogated the dogma that only these books should be accepted as doctrine and others dismissed as heretical.
> That's rich. A group of blind men making the populous blind and deaf. WHO GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT?
> 
> Emperor Constantine: A Pagan who believed in Roman Gods and myths. HELLO!!!
> 
> From this creed launched all christian religions down until Joseph Smith's time. His claim was different from all others. He claimed, he got authority from God himself, from Peter, James and John, from John the Baptist, from Elijah the Prophet. No one else claimed to have gotten the laying on of hands from such people.
> 
> So either it's true or there are no true churches.IMO
Click to expand...


Well that's sort of what I was referring to.  While you may have a clear doctrine for your church there will not be any resolution which provides clarity that will be universally accepted between denominations.  In other words, your doctrine is official but only in the context of your beliefs being correct.  At least you are aware of the pitfalls in traditional dogma which arise with acknowledgment of the Nicene Creed's role in shaping modern christianity.  I just, and I say this without intending to offend, happen to not believe Joseph Smith either.  I don't believe Muhammed.  I don't believe Buddha.  To me there are no true churches, just as you said.  Because ultimately I can see no reason to accept the veracity of one of these over any other.


----------



## Avatar4321

N4mddissent said:


> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.



except of course, we are dealing with facts.


----------



## Avatar4321

N4mddissent said:


> But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"
> 
> I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.



Not true at all. Official doctrine is based on Divine Revelation. If there is any question it can be clarified by an appeal to the source. At least it can in a living faith.

If all you have is a book and no revelation, then there will always be countless interpretations. When you go to the source, IE God, all contention ceases.


----------



## Avatar4321

N4mddissent said:


> Well that's sort of what I was referring to.  While you may have a clear doctrine for your church there will not be any resolution which provides clarity that will be universally accepted between denominations.  In other words, your doctrine is official but only in the context of your beliefs being correct.  At least you are aware of the pitfalls in traditional dogma which arise with acknowledgment of the Nicene Creed's role in shaping modern christianity.  I just, and I say this without intending to offend, happen to not believe Joseph Smith either.  I don't believe Muhammed.  I don't believe Buddha.  To me there are no true churches, just as you said.  Because ultimately I can see no reason to accept the veracity of one of these over any other.



And that is exactly why Joseph Smith is so revolutionary. Because he provides a reason:



> 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
> 
> 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)



And then he not only encouraged people to go to the Lord and learn from God first hand, but when he had visions and revelations he had witnesses. It wasnt just him seeing things. It were those present. He not only testified of the experiences he had, he helped others have the same experiences.

For example, the revelation called The Vision which became section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants was witnessed by a dozen or so people. Others present felt the power of the Spirit when it was revealed.

And despite all theses witnesses, people learning about the faith arent expected to just take someones word for it. They are expected to go to the Lord and learn from themselves. Because it is only by the power of the Holy Ghost that man can learn the truth.

This is a revolutionary system. I know of no other Church/denomination/religion that actually suggests people go to God to learn for themselves the truth. Which is pretty astounding when the concept is all over the Bible. But no we have certain people who say they believe the Bible while telling us its evil to ask God whether its true. As if just reading it is going to show us the truth and give us a spiritual experience if we have no first hand experience with God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"
> 
> I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you generally, but the LDS organization is a little different. We believe there is one correct interpretation of the scriptures. The leader of the church is Christ, who speaks to His spokesman for the Church, which we claim to be the President of the Church, Thomas S. Monson. Or Joseph Smith Jr. before his time. When the prophet has spoken doctrine on an issue it is immediately accepted into the canon.
> 
> Individuals will always take issue with the Prophet's interpretation. But no matter how they spin it, their views are not doctrine or correct. It takes away all the guesswork.  You are right that there will always be conflict when there is no authority to interpret, such as the case of the Nicean creed. The Pagan Roman Emperor Constantine, who put the rabble together, had as much authority to interpret as any of the sectarian leaders present at the meeting. Yet they haggled and battled by the powers and philosophy of men over which books should be canonized into one official Bible. They also propogated the dogma that only these books should be accepted as doctrine and others dismissed as heretical.
> That's rich. A group of blind men making the populous blind and deaf. WHO GAVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT?
> 
> Emperor Constantine: A Pagan who believed in Roman Gods and myths. HELLO!!!
> 
> From this creed launched all christian religions down until Joseph Smith's time. His claim was different from all others. He claimed, he got authority from God himself, from Peter, James and John, from John the Baptist, from Elijah the Prophet. No one else claimed to have gotten the laying on of hands from such people.
> 
> So either it's true or there are no true churches.IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's sort of what I was referring to.  While you may have a clear doctrine for your church there will not be any resolution which provides clarity that will be universally accepted between denominations.  In other words, your doctrine is official but only in the context of your beliefs being correct.  At least you are aware of the pitfalls in traditional dogma which arise with acknowledgment of the Nicene Creed's role in shaping modern christianity.  I just, and I say this without intending to offend, happen to not believe Joseph Smith either.  I don't believe Muhammed.  I don't believe Buddha.  To me there are no true churches, just as you said.  Because ultimately I can see no reason to accept the veracity of one of these over any other.
Click to expand...


I am never offended when someone doesn't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. From most people's perspectives he had some really wild claims. He said he saw God and Jesus in person. He put forth challenging new christian doctrines. He had several wives, he claimed to have found ancient writings written on gold that no one could translate but him.

I must admit, it really is hard to believe. It is easier for me to believe because I studied and got to know him. You can believe some pretty fantastic things from a person who you truly know is trustworthy and sober and you have known them all your life. Especially if that person has been a positive influence in your life for a long time leading up to his or her fantastic claims. 
That is the way I and a lot of other Mormons feel when asked about the Smith stories. So I respect your opinion wholeheartedly and do not think any less of someone who is skeptical about wild stories.
How about that for not being biased?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"
> 
> I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. Official doctrine is based on Divine Revelation. If there is any question it can be clarified by an appeal to the source. At least it can in a living faith.
> 
> If all you have is a book and no revelation, then there will always be countless interpretations. When you go to the source, IE God, all contention ceases.
Click to expand...

How can you prove that your divine revelation is just that, "divine"?

Paul said beware of people teaching false gospels.

How do you know that your doctrine doesn't fall into that category, of "false gospel".

Paul said that you can't depend on visions, burning bosom experiences, alleged angelic visitations, but only the scriptures to stay on the right path.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" Romans
(Pretty clear instructions from one of Christ's Apostles) author Paul.

Bereans followed suit too, and even when Paul taught/preached to them, they would go to the scriptures to make sure he wasn't teaching "another gospel".

Your church asks folks at the door to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the truth.  That is very dangerous ground.  No where in the bible did Jesus nor His disciples ever teach that.  There are two spiritual worlds unseen to the eye.  One is headed by Satan, and the other by our Creator.  Satan is well qualified to present himself as an angel of light, as Christ and the disciples taught us in the bible scriptures.

Your church hinges it's whole foundations of validity on non-scriptural, post crucifixion/ressurrection/ascension visions, visitations, dreams, and alleged prophecies to dead and living latter day LDS  presidents/prophets.

When one prays and asks God to prove His existence, Lucifer does a great job of hood-winking humanity at that point.  God almost 2,000 years ago laid down a safe and reliable method of knowing when your visitation, vision is of His authorship, or from the "Darkside", namely Satan's principalities.

Sadly, most folks don't realize that a simple prayer, like, "God is Mormonism the truth?", is no guarantee that one's answer will be from God.  That's why God gave us His written Word, and it is still the number one best seller in the world.


----------



## Skeptik

N4mddissent said:


> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.



Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.

It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.  

If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> How can you prove that your divine revelation is just that, "divine"?
> 
> Paul said beware of people teaching false gospels.
> 
> How do you know that your doctrine doesn't fall into that category, of "false gospel".
> 
> Paul said that you can't depend on visions, burning bosom experiences, alleged angelic visitations, but only the scriptures to stay on the right path.
> 
> "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" Romans
> (Pretty clear instructions from one of Christ's Apostles) author Paul.
> 
> Bereans followed suit too, and even when Paul taught/preached to them, they would go to the scriptures to make sure he wasn't teaching "another gospel".
> 
> Your church asks folks at the door to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the truth.  That is very dangerous ground.  No where in the bible did Jesus nor His disciples ever teach that.  There are two spiritual worlds unseen to the eye.  One is headed by Satan, and the other by our Creator.  Satan is well qualified to present himself as an angel of light, as Christ and the disciples taught us in the bible scriptures.
> 
> Your church hinges it's whole foundations of validity on non-scriptural, post crucifixion/ressurrection/ascension visions, visitations, dreams, and alleged prophecies to dead and living latter day LDS  presidents/prophets.
> 
> When one prays and asks God to prove His existence, Lucifer does a great job of hood-winking humanity at that point.  God almost 2,000 years ago laid down a safe and reliable method of knowing when your visitation, vision is of His authorship, or from the "Darkside", namely Satan's principalities.
> 
> Sadly, most folks don't realize that a simple prayer, like, "God is Mormonism the truth?", is no guarantee that one's answer will be from God.  That's why God gave us His written Word, and it is still the number one best seller in the world.



The same way you know the Bible is true. The power of the Holy Spirit.

Ive got another scripture for you:



> 1 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts?
> 
> 2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?
> 
> 3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.
> 
> 4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.
> 
> 5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
> 
> 6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.
> 
> 7 And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.
> 
> 8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.
> 
> 9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul. (2 Nephi 32)



We seem to have two choices here. We can trust God and pray. Or we can condemn those who pray. Which do you think God wants us to do?


----------



## AllieBaba

Skeptik said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.
> 
> It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.
> 
> If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.
Click to expand...



Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.

In case you didn't know.


----------



## Skeptik

AllieBaba said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.
> 
> It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.
> 
> If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.
> 
> In case you didn't know.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I didn't know that.  I thought you were giving an example of a fictional story, saying that the Bible is the same kind of thing.


----------



## rpfargone

that sounds like a lot of churches and religions ive encounter. u ask any one and thay have a diffrent view of what is and what was


----------



## Avatar4321

rpfargone said:


> that sounds like a lot of churches and religions ive encounter. u ask any one and thay have a diffrent view of what is and what was



I hope you dont think this is rude, but it really does help if you quote what you are responding to. Its hard to understand the context of your post without it.


----------



## rpfargone

its funny that you more or less battle with words over WHOS book is right . when it could very well be thay are both wrong or right.. the book of morman was writer by a a farm boy with a golden book and the bible was writen by many authors and brought together by a nation that persicuted them and who leader was a pagon.if you ask me all religion is a angle of light leading you astray from the truth. CHRIST never in any writen word said make a religion and set a bunch of rules for all to follow .
 he more or less wonted all HIS FOLLOWERS  to gather in his name and keep him in our hearts and love one another and not be devided in our faith in god and Jesus christ .  if you are not reading the words in red then your not hearing what Jesus said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! remember this 
     john said to him, teacher we saw a man who was driving out demonds in your name and we told him to stop becouse he dose not belong to are group and jesus told them becouse no one who performs a miracle in my name will  be able to after words say evil things about me .FOR WHOEVER IS NOT AGAINST US IS FOR US........ MARK9:38-40


----------



## Agnapostate

Skeptik said:


> Thanks, I didn't know that.  I thought you were giving an example of a fictional story, saying that the Bible is the same kind of thing.



Large sections of it are.


----------



## rpfargone

No i dont  thank you  i just don t know how


----------



## Agnapostate

Use the quote button at the bottom right hand corner of a user's post.


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.
> 
> It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.
> 
> If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.
Click to expand...


So untrue...........Truthspeaker when pressed by one of the posters said that if his LDS doctrine is false, no other churches are correct/right either.  In other words, he/Truthspeaker will embrace LDS doctrine to the end, and will never consider any other.  That's ok.  That is is God-given free-will in action.
*******
Also, to start a thread alleging to clarify or clear misconceptions of LDS doctrine, is also a covert, but obvious way of evangelizing.  I have no "beefs" about doing it that way, but lets not fool ourselves and accept that Truthspeaker's ultimate goal was to introduce/ or enlighten, Mormonism to posters through this thread and not covertly hoping that it would bring some new members into the LDS fold.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> So untrue...........Truthspeaker when pressed by one of the posters said that if his LDS doctrine is false, no other churches are correct/right either.  In other words, he/Truthspeaker will embrace LDS doctrine to the end, and will never consider any other.  That's ok.  That is is God-given free-will in action.
> *******



I dont believe you are accurate. If your paraphrase of TS is accurate, then what he is saying is if he ever found Mormonism to be false, then he wouldnt believe anything else either.

I can whole heartily agree. If God has lied to me about it being true, then what doctrine could there possibly be from God? And how on earth would anyone know it?

You also falsely assume that he has never considered anything in the past. Ive explored countless religions personally. I am a Latter-day Saint because thats what God has told me.

And thats what it all comes down to isnt it? I believe we can trust God, you would prefer to lean on your own understanding of what God has said in the past. I dont say that to imply that I am better than you or anything, just that we have completely different approaches.




> Also, to start a thread alleging to clarify or clear misconceptions of LDS doctrine, is also a covert, but obvious way of evangelizing.  I have no "beefs" about doing it that way, but lets not fool ourselves and accept that Truthspeaker's ultimate goal was to introduce/ or enlighten, Mormonism to posters through this thread and not covertly hoping that it would bring some new members into the LDS fold.



And what exactly is wrong with enlightening people with the truth? Id love to have everyone embrace the Doctrines of Christ. However, if they are not going to fine. I atleast want them to actually know the doctrines correctly and not the cut and paste nonsense you're posting.

See I want people to see things as they are. I dislike lies. I dislike misdirection. I would make sure that make sure that anyone else also has the right to speak and declare what they actually believe. I would be against the misrepresentation of anyones faith. Clarity is always better than confussion.


----------



## Avatar4321

Couple things I wanted to respond to in this post that I didnt get a chance to since ive been busy lately



rpfargone said:


> its funny that you more or less battle with words over WHOS book is right . when it could very well be thay are both wrong or right..



Im not sure you are completely framing the discussion correctly. The LDS position here is that the Bible and Book of Mormon are both correct. So its no really a battle of whose book is right. We are the ones saying they both are.

The opposing view seems to be that only the Bible can be right. And quite frankly I dont see any justification for this issue. For one, the Bible never claims exclusivity. God never declared that He is done speaking. In fact, the scriptures seem clear that God will continue to be the same till the end of time. So why on earth would He stop speaking and interacting with men? The simple truth is He hasnt. Men may not be listening. But God hasnt stopped His work. 

Now I know the counter argument is that Christ has said "It is finished" No one is disputing that. The only question is _what_ did Christ say was finished. And it's clear from the context that He was declaring His mortal life and ministry, as well as the Atoning sacrifice completely. That doesnt mean God is done interacting with men. If it did there would be no new Testament and we would be forced to throw it out because it shows that God continued to teach the people through His called servants. The people continued to work. The Prophecies are clear that God still has a work to do. He is going to gather Israel together. He is going to come again.

There is no possible way revelation has ceased. Neither have the gifts of the Spirit. God will continue to work until everyone who will be Redeemed is Redeemed. The price may be paid but not everyone has been convinced to accept the gift yet. And until judgment their is work to do.




> the book of morman was writer by a a farm boy with a golden book and the bible was writen by many authors and brought together by a nation that persicuted them and who leader was a pagon.



The Book of Mormon was also written by many authors. It was abridged by another and then Translated by that farmboy.




> if you ask me all religion is a angle of light leading you astray from the truth. CHRIST never in any writen word said make a religion and set a bunch of rules for all to follow



You have the right to opinion. But I dont see how that position can be supported through the Bible or any other scripture. The Sermon on the Mount jumps to my mind of Christ revealing principles for all to follow. The Apostles taught rules. Paul specifically articulated the Doctrines of Christ which is Faith in Christ, Repentence, Baptism and the laying on of hands. There are rules and ordinances to follow. God has been the same since the beginning.




> he more or less wonted all HIS FOLLOWERS  to gather in his name and keep him in our hearts and love one another and not be devided in our faith in god and Jesus christ .  if you are not reading the words in red then your not hearing what Jesus said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! remember this



I dont disagree that He wants His Saints to be gathered and to love one another. He doesnt want contention among those that follow Him.

Of course that demands the question, who really follows Christ? Can you follow Christ and reject what He says today?

On a side note, not every Bible has Christ's statements in red. So your last comment really isnt necessarily true.



> john said to him, teacher we saw a man who was driving out demonds in your name and we told him to stop becouse he dose not belong to are group and jesus told them becouse no one who performs a miracle in my name will  be able to after words say evil things about me .FOR WHOEVER IS NOT AGAINST US IS FOR US........ MARK9:38-40



Again, not seeing a problem here. I hope I was clear in my points.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's the rub isn't it?  "official doctrine"
> 
> I understand the concept of each denomination or group having official doctrine, but in religion a frequent component is that only a specific interpretation is correct and all others are wrong.  Now responses to this conclusion may vary considerably from, "death to the unbelievers" to a moderate but active "conversion to save their souls from hell" to the meek "I believe my interpretation is correct but cannot judge others or say for certainty that they're wrong".  In any of these cases, there is the potential for conflict because "official doctrine" has no point of appeal that makes it "official".  It is all based on various texts and various interpretations of those texts that makes consensus impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all. Official doctrine is based on Divine Revelation. If there is any question it can be clarified by an appeal to the source. At least it can in a living faith.
> 
> If all you have is a book and no revelation, then there will always be countless interpretations. When you go to the source, IE God, all contention ceases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you prove that your divine revelation is just that, "divine"?
> 
> Paul said beware of people teaching false gospels.
> 
> How do you know that your doctrine doesn't fall into that category, of "false gospel".
> 
> Paul said that you can't depend on visions, burning bosom experiences, alleged angelic visitations, but only the scriptures to stay on the right path.
> 
> "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" Romans
> (Pretty clear instructions from one of Christ's Apostles) author Paul.
> 
> Bereans followed suit too, and even when Paul taught/preached to them, they would go to the scriptures to make sure he wasn't teaching "another gospel".
> 
> Your church asks folks at the door to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the truth.  That is very dangerous ground.  No where in the bible did Jesus nor His disciples ever teach that.  There are two spiritual worlds unseen to the eye.  One is headed by Satan, and the other by our Creator.  Satan is well qualified to present himself as an angel of light, as Christ and the disciples taught us in the bible scriptures.
> 
> Your church hinges it's whole foundations of validity on non-scriptural, post crucifixion/ressurrection/ascension visions, visitations, dreams, and alleged prophecies to dead and living latter day LDS  presidents/prophets.
> 
> When one prays and asks God to prove His existence, Lucifer does a great job of hood-winking humanity at that point.  God almost 2,000 years ago laid down a safe and reliable method of knowing when your visitation, vision is of His authorship, or from the "Darkside", namely Satan's principalities.
> 
> Sadly, most folks don't realize that a simple prayer, like, "God is Mormonism the truth?", is no guarantee that one's answer will be from God.  That's why God gave us His written Word, and it is still the number one best seller in the world.
Click to expand...


James chapter 1 verse 5. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God which giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

AllieBaba said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone would like to understand what it is like for an non-believer to follow these sorts of arguments, imagine two people arguing on whether the book version or movie version of Lord of the Rings is better, strictly on the basis of which one is more historically accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.
> 
> It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.
> 
> If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.
> 
> In case you didn't know.
Click to expand...


I am sure that some people have drawn that conclusion and that's fine because Gandalf was kind of a saviour to the people of middle earth and he resurrected from the dead as well, but I don't think Tolkien was really pushing the christian agenda with his tales. Just my opinion though. 
Great book.


----------



## N4mddissent

> Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.
> 
> In case you didn't know.



Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory.  Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all.  As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory.  It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars.  He denied this as well.  Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author.  C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.
> 
> In case you didn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory.  Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all.  As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory.  It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars.  He denied this as well.  Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author.  C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.
Click to expand...


Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:

I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.


----------



## N4mddissent

> Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:
> 
> I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.



I enjoy LotR also.  I don't see any problem with the specifics.  Usually what I've found is that many of the idiosyncracies that distinguish various beliefs have a fairly resonable explanation and logically follow- if you accept the initial premise.  I am afraid I have to get past the larger issue before disputing all the niggling details.


----------



## AllieBaba

Truthspeaker said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker is not trying to convince anyone that one version or the other is the most correct, but to explain just what his version actually is.
> 
> It's quite possible that Mormonism and traditional Christianity are different versions of a kind of "Lord of the Rings" story, and that neither one has any more credibility than such a story.
> 
> If, however, Christianity is true and correct, then it is difficult to see how the original version of it could possibly have survived the Middle Ages without having been restored by the power of prophecy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.
> 
> In case you didn't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that some people have drawn that conclusion and that's fine because Gandalf was kind of a saviour to the people of middle earth and he resurrected from the dead as well, but I don't think Tolkien was really pushing the christian agenda with his tales. Just my opinion though.
> Great book.
Click to expand...


Tolkein said he didn't like allegory, but C.S. Lewis compared The Lord of the Rings to the Odyssey.

"Many times people have tried to interpret The Lord of the Rings as an allegory. Tolkien himself renounced that claim, stating he disliked allegory and that the The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory, which he also explained in the foreword to the book's second edition. Instead of being allegorical, he said that the book had a quality he called "applicability": because it was a story about universal themes and struggles, it could be likened to almost any situation in real life.[1] This universality would result in it often being interpreted as an allegory, sometimes ironically from opposing ideological sides. An example for such an interpretation would be the claim for the book being an allegory of the struggle between Communism and Capitalism."
The Lord of the Rings - Conservapedia


----------



## AllieBaba

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, "Lord of the Rings" is an allegory of the Bible and written by JRR Tolkein, a contemporary of C.S. Lewis (Narnia chronicles) and a good friend of his as well. Both were devout Christians and wrote those books as a way to lead people to Christ.
> 
> In case you didn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory.  Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all.  As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory.  It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars.  He denied this as well.  Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author.  C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:
> 
> I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.
Click to expand...


You damn healthy, civic minded, poor people helping Mormons, stop it, you're messing up the world....and making the government look bad.


----------



## Truthspeaker

AllieBaba said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've never seen any documentation that suggests Tolkein intended LotR as a christian or biblical allegory.  Most of the material I've seen, including old interviews with Tolkein, state that he did not intend LotR to be any sort of allegory at all.  As a matter of fact I think Tolkein's response to such suggestions was that people too often mistake applicability for allegory.  It has also been suggested that it was an allegory for the political and social dynamics leading up to and during the world wars.  He denied this as well.  Anytime one deals with large universal themes like LotR does, people will be able to find portions that seem symbolic or relevant to something they are familiar with, but that does not translate into intent by the author.  C.S. Lewis, however, was writing a blatant allegory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very true words. I couldn't have said it any better. Perhaps I will start a thread about LOTR, my favorite book series. Now about those mormons:
> 
> I am surprised I haven't heard more from people complaining or asking about the tithing we pay or the law of health that we follow. Come on people, I am trying to brush up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You damn healthy, civic minded, poor people helping Mormons, stop it, you're messing up the world....and making the government look bad.
Click to expand...


That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.


----------



## DavidS

Truthspeaker said:


> That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.



What? 

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery??? 

In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.

Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.

The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.


----------



## Truthspeaker

DavidS said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???
> 
> In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.
> 
> Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.
> 
> The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.
Click to expand...


My poor dear David,
you are comparing apples with buffaloes. If you are going to quote the Book of Mormon, you had better know the context of the scriptures. In 3 Nephi chapter 2 verse 14-15 you will read that the curse was lifted from the people and there was no more black skin curse.

That curse has been gone for a long time. 

Why don't you also read the part in 2 Nephi: He [meaning JEHOVAH, who is the Lord God] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile (2 Nephi 26:33).


----------



## Avatar4321

DavidS said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???
> 
> In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.
> 
> Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.
> 
> The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.
Click to expand...


Not sure what the lamanites have to do with slavery. Perhaps you should actually read the Book of Mormon. Because its pretty darn clear that slavery is not acceptable.


----------



## Truthspeaker

DavidS said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???
> 
> In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.
> 
> Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.
> 
> The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.
Click to expand...


Funny that you should be trying to hammer me David. Of all people, the Jews have never had better friends than us. It seems like we are the only ones that like you.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I voted Joseph Smith for president in my poll. He said he would reduce government salaries by 2/3rds and reduce size of government by 2/3rds. He also was in favor of a National Bank.....A great idea these days. He preached ending slavery and freedom from mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery???
> 
> In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.
> 
> Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like them. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.
> 
> The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny that you should be trying to hammer me David. Of all people, the Jews have never had better friends than us. It seems like we are the only ones that like you.
Click to expand...


Glad your church caught up with the 20th-21st century and gave equality to people of the Negroid race. 

Paul said 2,000 years ago that with Christ their is no distinction between nationalities, races, Jew or Gentile........All our one in Christ.

Though your priesthoods are unbiblical, and create a type of heirarchy amongst Mormon believers, it's nice to know that Africa Americans finally were allowed equal access to your priesthood.

It amazes me that any people of the black race would have anything to do with Mormonism back in the near past when they were considered cursed and from Caine's lineage.

How convenient that when the LDS church came under fire for this violation of human rights that your presiding president/prophet had an epiphany/vision/revelation that the banning of black members from the priesthood no longer was in effect?

To call the American Indian part of the tribes of Isael, is both insulting to the Jews as well as the indigenous American Indians.

DNA studies positively prove that the pure American Indian, is of Asian ancestry that does not connect in anyway with the 13, yes, 13 tribes of Israel(Check it out in the O.T..book of Numbers.....13 tribes not 12).

Why sure you can take DNA lineage of every man and woman back to Adam and Eve, by just saying that we are all of human species DNA-wise.
******
Truthspeaker......Though you overtly present an "innocent" image of just imforming us infidels of who the real church is, you have been taught from day one in your church to use covert methods to evangelize, yet disguise it as "inform" people.

Jehovah's Witnesses use the same methodology as your missionarys do at the door.  
******
The number one trait of the occult and of Christian cults is how they change the nature of Christ from how the Holy bible reveals His identity, and nature.
*****
The Celestial sexual intercourse after death for the most righteous of Mormon males, hints so closely of the fleshly, humanistic, manmade religion of Islam that promises beautiful virgins in heaven for all good Muslim men.

The gall, that a belief system would give the male species the power to ressurrect their wives, is blasphemous.

Oh, friend of the Jews.........Your religion is most, male biased and based in your favor.  Women must be subservient, though Jesus said in heaven, that their is no marriage, yet the relationship between saved believers will trump any and all earthly relationships beyond belief.  No where in the bible is sexual intercourse after death indicated, nor did Paul teach that we could somehow baptize those who have died.  Jesus gave a very direct parable/story of a rich man(not his friend who had sisters Mary and Martha), but a fictitional man who lived a life of selfish greed, and ignored the pleadings of a suffering man(Lazarus) at his doorstep.  Jesus said that the vast "gulf" would separate this rich man from the poor man/Lazarus in heaven who would be mercifully loved, and nourished by God.  The rich man pleaded for just a drop of water that the poor man/Lazarus was receiving, and Jesus said........."Nope!".   "What the rich man did while on planet earth, sealed his fate.".  "The unloving, unmerciful rich man wasn't even given permission to warn his still-living relatives of what fate trully lie ahead for the unrighteous.".  No, baptising the rich man in the name of Jesus after his departing earthly bounds would not change his fate......Author Jesus Christ.

Mormonism just exudes of manmade, fleshly, ideas, and directions of living, that do not enhance or help one to see the humility, nor the humbleness that exemplifies the true biblical, Christian life while on earth.

J.S. jr. and Brigham Young both preached sermons that diametrically opposed God's very clear and emphatic teachings both by Jesus Himself and His disciples who wrote numerous epistles.

Polygamy was not approved of by God, though some of the well known folks of the O.T. did it anyway.  Interestingly, they all seemed to fall into polygamy at times when they were straying from God's commandments, were making decisions without including God's help, and started to worship pagan dietys.  Solomon was a monogamous man, until he fell into temptation and married the Non-Jewish Queen of Sheba.  From thence onward he allowed her polytheistic beliefs to be observed in Israel.  Outcome:  Solomon's life became hellish, and you just have to read the book of Ecclesiastes to understand how he so much regretted his back-slide of faith from Jehovah.
*****
Joseph and Brigham lived lives that were not even close to the exemplary lives of the prophets of the O.T..  They taught fleshly humanistic teachings that fed the fleshly side of humanity, rather than the Spiritual.  It of course was popular, as the human race likes validation for sin, and fleshly, and unGodly living.
*******


----------



## ABikerSailor

Interesting.........Moronism is a cult based on racial beliefs..........

And people say they are such nice folks........


----------



## ABikerSailor

Interesting.........Moronism is a cult based on racist beliefs..........

And people say they are such nice folks........


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, preached ending slavery??? He sure did. The book of mormon denounces slavery.
> 
> In the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 5:21. It is said that God cursed the Lamanites with black skin so they would not be enticing unto the Nephites.Not sure what your point is but in 3 Nephi 2:14-18 That curse was removed forever.
> 
> Even though Alma 17:14 describes the Lamanites as being a wild, ferocious, plundering, robbing, and murdering people, God felt the need to change their skin color to make them not enticing to the Nephites ... as if their immoral acts were not sufficient enough to deter the Nephites into wanting to become like themWe all know good girls have a thing for bad guys. It is also stated in 2 Nephi 5:23 that the Nephites would also be cursed with the dark skin if they married with the Lamanites.True, but like I said the curse was taken away.
> 
> The Lamanite babies that were born to the dark-skinned Lamanaties also had the sign of this curse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that you should be trying to hammer me David. Of all people, the Jews have never had better friends than us. It seems like we are the only ones that like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad your church caught up with the 20th-21st century and gave equality to people of the Negroid race. Oh really, why don't you tell us all of the benevolence of white southern churches to blacks even up to this day, let alone before 1978.
> 
> Paul said 2,000 years ago that with Christ their is no distinction between nationalities, races, Jew or Gentile........All our one in Christ.The same thing is said in the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi chapter 28
> 
> Though your priesthoods are unbiblicalMelchizedek and Aaron are two pretty well known Biblical names., and create a type of heirarchy amongst Mormon believers, it's nice to know that Africa Americans finally were allowed equal access to your priesthood.Not just african americans but all blacks.
> 
> It amazes me that any African Americans would have anything to do with your church.Maybe they know something you don't. Why don't you ask them.Black LDS Mormons
> 
> How convenient that when the LDS church came under fire for this violation of human rights Priesthood is not a right.that your presiding president/prophet had an epiphany/vision/revelation that the banning of black members from the priesthood no longer was in effect?Yes I would say it was extremely convenient. Thank God.  What I find inconvenient is that we had to suffer criticism for so long from a bunch of people who don't understand context and the wisdom of God like you.
> 
> To call the American Indian part of the tribes of Isael, is both insulting to the Jews as well as the indigenous American Indians.Why would either of them be insulted? Maybe some but not all.  When they find out some of them are related they will not be.
> 
> DNA studiesThere are no conclusive studies and you can't show them to me because they all are in the end speculative. positively prove that the pure American Indian, is of AsianWe have been saying that all along. The Jaredites were of Asiatic origins. ancestry that does not connect in anyway with the 13, yes, 13 tribes of Israel(Check it out in the O.T..book of Numbers.....13 tribes not 12).I am sure there are more tribes too.
> 
> Why sure you can take DNA lineage of every man and woman back to Adam and Eve, by just saying that we are all of human species DNA-wise.But you are wrong in your assumption. I am clarifying misunderstandings as usual.
> ******
> Truthspeaker......Though you overtly present an "innocent" image of just imforming us infidelsWe don't use the term infadel. It's an arabic term. of who the real church is, you have been taught from day one in your church to use covert methods to evangelize, yet disguise it as "inform" people..But you are wrong in your assumption. I am clarifying misunderstandings as usual.
> 
> 
> Jehovah's Witnesses use the same methodology as your missionarys do at the door. We are way nicer than those guys.
> ******
> The number one trait of the occult and of Christian cults is how they change the nature of Christ from how the Holy bible reveals His identity, and nature.Whatever
> *****
> The Celestial sexual intercourse after death for the most righteous of Mormon males, hints so closely of the fleshly, humanistic, manmade religion of Islam that promises beautiful virgins in heaven for all good Muslim men.Way different. Because you aren't required to be a martyr.
> 
> The gall, that a belief system would give the male species the power to ressurrect their wives, is blasphemous.Christ gives the power.
> 
> Oh, friend of the Jews.........Your religion is most, male biased and based in your favor.  Women must be subservientThe Bible is a lot harder on women than we are. At least it would seem that way without prophetic interpretation. How about Paul telling women they are to be silent and if they will learn anything they must ask their husbands in the home. For it is a shame for women to speak in the church., though Jesus said in heaven, that their is no marriage,No it doesn't yet the relationship between saved believers will trump any and all earthly relationships beyond belief.  No where in the bible is sexual intercourse after death indicatedThere is not much at all that is told about what happens on the other side. So we should just assume nothing happens then right?, nor did Paul teach that we could somehow baptize those who have diedYes he did in 1st Corinthians15:29.  Jesus gave a very direct parable/story of a rich man(not his friend who had sisters Mary and Martha), but a fictitional man who lived a life of selfish greed, and ignored the pleadings of a suffering man(Lazarus) at his doorstep.  Jesus said that the vast "gulf" would separate this rich man from the poor man/Lazarus in heaven who would be mercifully loved, and nourished by God.  The rich man pleaded for just a drop of water that the poor man/Lazarus was receiving, and Jesus said........."Nope!".   "What the rich man did while on planet earth, sealed his fate.".  "The unloving, unmerciful rich man wasn't even given permission to warn his still-living relatives of what fate trully lie ahead for the unrighteous.".  No, baptising the rich man in the name of Jesus after his departing earthly bounds would not change his fate......Author Jesus Christ.I agree with you. Are you trying to argue with me?
> 
> Mormonism just exudes of manmade, fleshly, ideas, and directions of living, that do not enhance or help one to see the humility, nor the humbleness that exemplifies the true biblical, Christian life while on earth.
> 
> J.S. jr. and Brigham Young both preached sermons that diametrically opposed God's very clear and emphatic teachings both by Jesus Himself and His disciples who wrote numerous epistles.Only according to your interpretation.
> 
> Polygamy was not approved of by God,Where is it denounced in the Bible?The only scripture you will find that denounces it is in the Book of Mormon Jacob chapter 2. The mind of God is explained on the matter. though some of the well known folks of the O.T. did it anyway.  Interestingly, they all seemed to fall into polygamy at times when they were straying from God's commandmentsThat is speculation at best., were making decisions without including God's help, and started to worship pagan dietys.  Solomon was a monogamous man, until he fell into temptation and married the Non-Jewish Queen of ShebaShe assimilated, he didn't. Polygamy was endorsed at this time among God's people..  From thence onward he allowed her polytheistic beliefs to be observed in Israel.  Outcome:  Solomon's life became hellish, and you just have to read the book of Ecclesiastes to understand how he so much regretted his back-slide of faith from Jehovah.
> *****
> Joseph and Brigham lived lives that were not even close to the exemplary lives of the prophets of the O.T..  They taught fleshly humanistic teachings that fed the fleshly side of humanity, rather than the Spiritual.  It of course was popularIt was decidedly unpopular, even among the leaders of the Church who were only doing as the Lord instructed. Joseph and Brigham both were reluctant to do their duties in this case., as the human race likes validation for sin, and fleshly, and unGodly living.
> *******
Click to expand...


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know....I really like wikipedia......

Joseph Smith never went to church as a child, but did study "folk religion".....



> Early years
> 
> Main article: Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.
> 
> Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont to Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith, a poor farm family. After Joseph's birth, they moved to western New Yorka region of intense religious activity during the Second Great Awakeningwhere they continued to farm just outside the town of Palmyra. Although Smith never joined a church during his youth, he did read the Bible and was also influenced by the folk religion of that time and place.[1]



He couldn't keep his stories straight concerning his "first vision", which incidentally, I think was one of his first cons.........



> First Vision
> 
> Main article: First Vision
> 
> In 1832 (when he first recorded the experience), Smith said that as a fourteen-year-old in 1820, he had received a theophany, an appearance of God to man, an event that Latter Day Saints commonly call the First Vision. Smith recorded several accounts of this experience,[2] and the version later canonized by the LDS Church was first publicly revealed in 1838.[3]
> 
> Smith said that he had been concerned about what denomination to join and prayed in a nearby woods (now called the Sacred Grove). There he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings of flesh and bone. They told him that no contemporary church was correct in its teachings, and that he should join none of them.[4]



And.....if he was a mostly unsuccessful seer, then how in the fuck did he all of a sudden get it right?



> Golden Plates
> 
> Main article: Golden plates
> 
> Meanwhile Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."[5]Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer", using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. [6] Smith's contemporaries describe his process for finding treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[7] His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg,[8] found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[9]
> 
> During this period Smith said he experienced a visitation from an angel named Moroni[10] who directed him to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. This record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and what Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said that after four years of waiting and preparation, the angel allowed him to take possession of the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter local people tried to discover where the plates were hidden.[11]
> 
> Smith left his family farm in October 1825 and was hired by Josiah Stowall, of nearby Chenango county, to search for a Spanish silver mine by gazing at seer stones.[12] In March 1826, Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person and an impostor" by a court in nearby Bainbridge.[13]
> 
> Smith also met Emma Hale during this period and married her on January 18, 1827. Emma eventually gave birth to seven children, three of whom died shortly after birth. The Smiths also adopted twins.[14](See Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.)



Joseph Smith, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So.........with just this little bit of information, how in the hell can (what I would presume is a reasonably intelligent person), fall for such a fraud?


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> You know....I really like wikipedia......
> 
> Joseph Smith never went to church as a child, but did study "folk religion".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early years
> 
> Main article: Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.
> 
> Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont to Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith, a poor farm family. After Joseph's birth, they moved to western New Yorka region of intense religious activity during the Second Great Awakeningwhere they continued to farm just outside the town of Palmyra. Although Smith never joined a church during his youth, he did read the Bible and was also influenced by the folk religion of that time and place.[1]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He couldn't keep his stories straight concerning his "first vision", which incidentally, I think was one of his first cons.........When you tell stories more than once to a friend, there are bound to be a few differences in the words used. You usually get better at expaining the story over time as you get a better grip on your vocabulary. Just because different accounts were written doesn't mean there was contradiction in the subject matter. If there was show me the contradictions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Vision
> 
> Main article: First Vision
> 
> In 1832 (when he first recorded the experience), Smith said that as a fourteen-year-old in 1820, he had received a theophany, an appearance of God to man, an event that Latter Day Saints commonly call the First Vision. Smith recorded several accounts of this experience,[2] and the version later canonized by the LDS Church was first publicly revealed in 1838.[3]Show me the contradictory statements
> 
> Smith said that he had been concerned about what denomination to join and prayed in a nearby woods (now called the Sacred Grove). There he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings of flesh and bone. They told him that no contemporary church was correct in its teachings, and that he should join none of them.[4]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And.....if he was a mostly unsuccessful seer, then how in the fuck did he all of a sudden get it right?He never got it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golden Plates
> 
> Main article: Golden plates
> 
> Meanwhile Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."[5]Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer", using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. [6] Smith's contemporaries describe his process for finding treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[7] His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg,[8] found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[9]
> 
> During this period Smith said he experienced a visitation from an angel named Moroni[10] who directed him to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. This record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and what Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said that after four years of waiting and preparation, the angel allowed him to take possession of the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter local people tried to discover where the plates were hidden.[11]
> 
> Smith left his family farm in October 1825 and was hired by Josiah Stowall, of nearby Chenango county, to search for a Spanish silver mine by gazing at seer stones.[12] In March 1826, Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person and an impostor" by a court in nearby Bainbridge.[13]
> 
> Smith also met Emma Hale during this period and married her on January 18, 1827. Emma eventually gave birth to seven children, three of whom died shortly after birth. The Smiths also adopted twins.[14](See Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So.........with just this little bit of information, how in the hell can (what I would presume is a reasonably intelligent person), fall for such a fraud?
Click to expand...


I answered the question of the seer stones in Bible vs Book of Mormon thread.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You are blinded from reading by the myopic stupidity that you keep between your ears.

Listed dude......I just pulled it off of Wiki, because you were sounding like you were pretty full up on shit, and I wanted to see what was REALLY going on.

But.....if you can't accept wiki as a good reference site, just your Moronisim beliefs, hey.....

Be happy in your ignorance.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You are blinded from reading by the myopic stupidity that you keep between your ears.

Listed dude......I just pulled it off of Wiki, because you were sounding like you were pretty full up on shit, and I wanted to see what was REALLY going on.

But.....if you can't accept wiki as a good reference site, just your Moronisim beliefs, hey.....

Be happy in your ignorance.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> You are blinded from reading by the myopic stupidity that you keep between your ears.
> 
> Listed dude......I just pulled it off of Wiki, because you were sounding like you were pretty full up on shit, and I wanted to see what was REALLY going on.
> 
> But.....if you can't accept wiki as a good reference site, just your Moronisim beliefs, hey.....
> 
> Be happy in your ignorance.



I never said Wiki wasn't a good reference. I just repeated what they repeated. They are a neutral site. They don't take sides. They reported what his "contemporaries" and "some" claimed, to use their own words. 
Why don't you rev up your Honda and go drive off an aircraft carrier.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are blinded from reading by the myopic stupidity that you keep between your ears.
> 
> Listed dude......I just pulled it off of Wiki, because you were sounding like you were pretty full up on shit, and I wanted to see what was REALLY going on.
> 
> But.....if you can't accept wiki as a good reference site, just your Moronisim beliefs, hey.....
> 
> Be happy in your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said Wiki wasn't a good reference. I just repeated what they repeated. They are a neutral site. They don't take sides. They reported what his "contemporaries" and "some" claimed, to use their own words.
> Why don't you rev up your Honda and go drive off an aircraft carrier.
Click to expand...


No, you did not "just repeated what they repeated".  You said that they were wrong, because you stated (in the wiki reference I might add), that Smith didn't get the stones until AFTER he found the gold tablets.

Wiki says before.

I trust them over you.


----------



## Eightball

ABikerSailor said:


> You know....I really like wikipedia......
> 
> Joseph Smith never went to church as a child, but did study "folk religion".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early years
> 
> Main article: Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.
> 
> Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont to Joseph and Lucy Mack Smith, a poor farm family. After Joseph's birth, they moved to western New York&#8212;a region of intense religious activity during the Second Great Awakening&#8212;where they continued to farm just outside the town of Palmyra. Although Smith never joined a church during his youth, he did read the Bible and was also influenced by the folk religion of that time and place.[1]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He couldn't keep his stories straight concerning his "first vision", which incidentally, I think was one of his first cons.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Vision
> 
> Main article: First Vision
> 
> In 1832 (when he first recorded the experience), Smith said that as a fourteen-year-old in 1820, he had received a theophany, an appearance of God to man, an event that Latter Day Saints commonly call the First Vision. Smith recorded several accounts of this experience,[2] and the version later canonized by the LDS Church was first publicly revealed in 1838.[3]
> 
> Smith said that he had been concerned about what denomination to join and prayed in a nearby woods (now called the Sacred Grove). There he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings of flesh and bone. They told him that no contemporary church was correct in its teachings, and that he should join none of them.[4]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And.....if he was a mostly unsuccessful seer, then how in the fuck did he all of a sudden get it right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Golden Plates
> 
> Main article: Golden plates
> 
> Meanwhile Smith participated in a "craze for treasure hunting."[5]Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was paid to act as a "seer", using seer stones in mostly unsuccessful attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure. [6] Smith's contemporaries describe his process for finding treasure as placing the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[7] His preferred stone, which some said he also used later to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg,[8] found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[9]
> 
> During this period Smith said he experienced a visitation from an angel named Moroni[10] who directed him to a long-buried book, inscribed on golden plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. This record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and what Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith said that after four years of waiting and preparation, the angel allowed him to take possession of the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter local people tried to discover where the plates were hidden.[11]
> 
> Smith left his family farm in October 1825 and was hired by Josiah Stowall, of nearby Chenango county, to search for a Spanish silver mine by gazing at seer stones.[12] In March 1826, Smith was charged with being a "disorderly person and an impostor" by a court in nearby Bainbridge.[13]
> 
> Smith also met Emma Hale during this period and married her on January 18, 1827. Emma eventually gave birth to seven children, three of whom died shortly after birth. The Smiths also adopted twins.[14](See Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> So.........with just this little bit of information, how in the hell can (what I would presume is a reasonably intelligent person), fall for such a fraud?
Click to expand...


*They just do*, because they often have parents, grandparents, and great grandparents that follwed, the "Principle", and they believe because their loved one's and ancestors did.

They don't want to know the real Joseph Smith Jr. nor the real Brigham Young, nor any of the sorly characters that make up the founding prophets, of the LDS church.  

People are sucked into modern day Mormonism because it projects this image of "leave to beaver" family life, apple pie, and the American flag.  That's all and nice, but that isn't what makes up believing in God.

Having a bonafide relationship with God, is clearly explained in the bible.  It is a very clearly written, communicated book.  It doesn't need additional books to make it accurate or more clear.  The Book of Mormon is just loaded with plagarism from the bible with changes of names of the book titles..........It is the ramblings of a most intelligent man, Joseph Smith Jr..  It takes great intelligence to dupe thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of people into accepting what you teach as the "truth".

One of the many attributes of Christ was His humbleness and humility.  Also His true followers or those that are trully converted by the work of the Holy Spirit, also will reveal in their behaviours more and more Christlike attitudes, outward and inward.  God's sanctifying process starts on day one of any person who becomes a true Christian.  One's conscience become more sensitive to sin, and the things that embarrass or bring a bad name to God.  It is a life long process in a Christian's life.  God is in the business of making His Children more Christlike so that they will bring glory to Him and His beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

Truthspeaker's name exudes pride..........."I have the truth".  No Christian abiding in Christ, and following the leading of God's Spirit would banter that name on any forum, as it exudes big letter "P" pride in one's self.  

God is in the business of removing the fleshly "self" and fleshly "pride" in His children, and replacing it with the love, patience, peace, joy, long-suffering, and passion of His Spirit or Life.

This can't be said for Truthspeaker, nor the basically tenents of LDS doctrine.  It is a doctrine of selt adulation, via a type of legalism, that see's God as a "Sugar Daddy" whom they will spend a lifetime trying to please inorder to work towards their own male godhood.

God said plainly that their will and never has been any other gods before "Me".   Not so with the LDS doctrine.  All male Mormons who live a life in good standing can have a shot at becoming Saviours and or god's of their own earths.  They also get to pro-create their own races of humans.

Also........Mormons believe that every child born was or was a little spiritual being waiting to get a body one day......i.e........get born on earth.   This has all been hatched from the wildly imaginative mind of Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Y. and other notable early Mormons.
******
You mentioned the Golden plates.  Ever wonder why God would present them with a language that wasn't American english, but some alleged reformed Egyptian heiroglyphics?  

Even Moses got tablets from God at Mt. Sinai that were in the Israelites language of understanding.  No translation needed!

Joseph Smith Jr. stuck his head in the noose of liars when he gave the dimensions of the golden plates.  When he did that, he also gave the approximate weight of these plates, at roughly 230 lbs.!  Now it is recorded that Joseph Smith Jr. ran a great distance with these very heavy plates.  It is also recorded that J.S. Jr. had a bad leg/knee that affected his ability to have a normal human gate or walk.  So he ran a long distance carrying 1/8th of a ton of gold.  This is one amazing man!

Our on forum Mormons want to defend polygamy by stating that God never spoke against it.  He didn't have to!  In every case of polygamy it resulted in family discord, disfunction, and usually ocurred when the husband abandoned His trust in God, and resorted to his own will to live out his life.

Don't get me wrong.  Mormons project wonderful, clean living lives, but scratch the surface and find out what drives that life and you will find that Mormons have the highest per-capita rate of alcoholism of any religious group in this country!  Now remember, that few Mormons drink alcohol, but per capita means those that do drink or what us non-truth bearers would call, "Jack Mormons". 

Mormons are driven by their faith, not in a healthy way, but in a way, that isn't that different from many other cults, and occult groups.  They must "perform" in order to maintain their position or place before their "exacting" god.  They must tithe at incredible rates, regardless of their financial means/state.  

Also, you will find that the Mormon church is very much involved in the monetary motive, of earthly gain, via their many secular, corporate holdings.......Last time I recalled, the Marriot chain of hotels was owned by the LDS church.  Where is the Christian ministry or outreach to evangelize the world in that endeavor?  It is just a corporate venture putting millions into the church's coffers.

I do admitt their are some Christian denominations that have strayed and gone into the corporate, secular realm to raise funds, and that is not right IMO.

The church stands or falls on the merit, of it's founder, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  The true "church" is the body of believers, regardless of whether they are Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentacostals, or non-denominational.  Christ's church is people.  They are the arms, legs, hands, fingers, feet, and Jesus is the "Head".  These believers have a common unity and bond.   It is the Holy Spirit that was given to each of them upon their salvation.  Because of the Holy Spirit, there is a bond that crosses denominations and non-denominations.  It is a the Spirit of unity, in Christ, and all that He is and all that He has taught through the Word.

Living a "Leave To Beaver" family life is going to gain any Brownie Points with God.  He doesn't want your actions of niceness.  He wants your lives of total surrender.  Afterall, "Lord" is His title.  Lord means He is or should be in charge.  Mormons misconstrue works of niceness and clean living as the means or way to appease or please God, and make, "Heavenly Father" happy with them.

Sadly, the scriptures say that when we became Christians, our Heavenly Father was and is most pleased with us.  If we sit on our fat butts and fail to allow Him to work His sanctifying work in us, then we are the losers, as we will miss out on so much adventure of life being used by Him to further His kingdom.  Never the less, every one of His children are in His fold, and can't be snatched away.

Mormons must do their missions, they must strive, strive, strive in order to "be".  Bible Christians don't strive to "be".   They already have the "be" taken care of.  It's called a relationship, or identity.  They can call God, "daddy" "father" "Poppa"........and it is fitting because they are His children from day-one of their salvation.

Getting back to the high alcoholism rate; that is part and partial of the inherent guilt that runs through the LDS congregation, that perfections and pleasing is part and partial to have that relationship in good standing with their god.  It's an impossibility, just like Paul said that no one can meet the Law, and therefore Christ fullfilled it, and we can live by "grace" and rest in that position before God, who has totally accepted us on Jesus' merit, not our own.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> Interesting.........Moronism is a cult based on racist beliefs..........
> 
> And people say they are such nice folks........



Which, of course, is why when we turn to the Book of Mormon we find the following clearly taught:



> 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> You are blinded from reading by the myopic stupidity that you keep between your ears.
> 
> Listed dude......I just pulled it off of Wiki, because you were sounding like you were pretty full up on shit, and I wanted to see what was REALLY going on.
> 
> But.....if you can't accept wiki as a good reference site, just your Moronisim beliefs, hey.....
> 
> Be happy in your ignorance.



Not many people do accept wiki for scholarly insight. Because it can be editted by anyone. It might be nice for an overview, but its hardly conclusive and reliable for everything said.

Most people when they want to learn facts, go to the source. That would be the Book of Mormon and the revelations revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. To a lesser extend to the recent Conference addresses.

Ive read countless books  both pro and con to mormonism. Ive visited countless websites for and against it. Ive been studying it longer than my adult life. And you think you can convince me with a reference to wiki?

The only reason I even started believing it was because the critics accounts were so different from reality and because they produced such easily disputed criticisms that there had to be some reason they couldnt just be honest about the facts and put Mormonism down. It caused me to investigate and find out for myself.

So you might convince people here who havent studied. And that might satisfy yourself completely. I understand that. You think its bunk. I get that. But if you think Im just going to start agreeing with you because youve said so then you're mistaken. I dont expect people to believe something because I say so. I expect them to do research and learn. So im not going to just believe someone else because they say so.

I think thats only fair.


----------



## Avatar4321

ABikerSailor said:


> No, you did not "just repeated what they repeated".  You said that they were wrong, because you stated (in the wiki reference I might add), that Smith didn't get the stones until AFTER he found the gold tablets.
> 
> Wiki says before.
> 
> I trust them over you.



Cause of course some random website always knows more about what someone believes than that individual does. Of course.

Not that it matters, but Joseph recieved the Urim and Thumim with the plates.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are blinded from reading by the myopic stupidity that you keep between your ears.
> 
> Listed dude......I just pulled it off of Wiki, because you were sounding like you were pretty full up on shit, and I wanted to see what was REALLY going on.
> 
> But.....if you can't accept wiki as a good reference site, just your Moronisim beliefs, hey.....
> 
> Be happy in your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said Wiki wasn't a good reference. I just repeated what they repeated. They are a neutral site. They don't take sides. They reported what his "contemporaries" and "some" claimed, to use their own words.
> Why don't you rev up your Honda and go drive off an aircraft carrier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you did not "just repeated what they repeated".  You said that they were wrong, because you stated (in the wiki reference I might add), that Smith didn't get the stones until AFTER he found the gold tablets.
> 
> Wiki says before.
> 
> I trust them over you.
Click to expand...


You know what, I just learned something; after doing a little more research, I found that Joseph did find two seer stones aside from the ones buried with the plates. The difference between them was that they were two individual stones, one whitish and one chocolate colored.  
Whereas the Urim and Thummim were clear stones set in a spectacle-like rim but bigger than normal glasses. He did use them as well I found. I see no problem with it since he was authorized of God to see such things. 
Even so, I don't know why it's a big issue. Thanks for the Wiki reference; It showed me more cool stuff about the Prophet that I didn't know before


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> You know what, I just learned something; after doing a little more research, I found that Joseph did find two seer stones aside from the ones buried with the plates. The difference between them was that they were two individual stones, one whitish and one chocolate colored.
> Whereas the Urim and Thummim were clear stones set in a spectacle-like rim but bigger than normal glasses. He did use them as well I found. I see no problem with it since he was authorized of God to see such things.
> Even so, I don't know why it's a big issue. Thanks for the Wiki reference; It showed me more cool stuff about the Prophet that I didn't know before



I believe the seer stone (IE not the Urim and Thumim) is actually in Salt Lake as we speak.


----------



## DavidS

I see Truthspeaker is completely ignoring my posts. How interesting.


----------



## Truthspeaker

*They just do*, because they often have parents, grandparents, and great grandparents that follwedJust because we are exposed to it doesn't mean we should reject it. We still have to think for ourselves if we are going to live such a rigid life. I would think willingness to abstain from the things we do would be evidence of our own independant thought, since most of those substances induce loss of self control., the "Principle", and they believe because their loved one's and ancestors did.

They don't want to know the real Joseph Smith Jr.Oh believe me there isn't the dirtiest darkest secret you could bring up about Joseph that I haven't heard. I have learned to sift through what is believable and what is not. nor the real Brigham Young, nor any of the sorly charactershah, as if you really know them. I study them, you don't. You may look up negative press about them but you don't read their books cover to cover like I do so you are missing substance that I have. Anybody can read just one side of the story, but it takes true unbias to read both sides. that make up the founding prophets, of the LDS church.  

People are sucked You say that like we don't have a choice or we are hoodwinked somehow.into modern day Mormonism because it projects this image of "leave to beaver" family life, apple pie, and the American flagWhat a bigoted statement.  That's all and nice, but that isn't what makes up believing in God.

Having a bonafide relationship with God, is clearly explained in the bible.  It is a very clearly written, communicated book.  It doesn't need additional books to make it accurate or more clear.  The Book of Mormon is just loaded with plagarism quoting is not plagiarism smarty pantsfrom the bible with changes of names of the book titles..........It is the ramblings of a most intelligent man, Joseph Smith Jr..  It takes great intelligence to dupe thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of people into accepting what you teach as the "truth".

One of the many attributes of Christ was His humbleness and humilityJews against him thought he was proud and arrogant too. Not to mention blasphemous. They jumped to the same conclusions about him that you do about Joseph..  Also His true followers or those that are trully converted by the work of the Holy Spirit, also will reveal in their behaviours more and more Christlike attitudes, outward and inward.  God's sanctifying process starts on day one of any person who becomes a true Christian.  One's conscience become more sensitive to sin, and the things that embarrass or bring a bad name to God.  It is a life long process in a Christian's life.  God is in the business of making His Children more Christlike so that they will bring glory to Him and His beloved Son, Jesus Christ.No arguments here.

Truthspeaker's name exudes pride..........."I have the truth".  No Christian abiding in Christ, and following the leading of God's Spirit would banter that name on any forum, as it exudes big letter "P" pride in one's self.  When Jesus said he was the great I AM, they thought that was pretty prideful too. So they crucified him. They would have joined the mob that murdered Joseph too.

God is in the business of removing the fleshly "self" and fleshly "pride" in His children, and replacing it with the love, patience, peace, joy, long-suffering, and passion of His Spirit or Life.

This can't be said for TruthspeakerAs if you know how I lead my life. That's rich., nor the basically tenents of LDS doctrine.The doctrine is rock solid in the faith of Christ but we've been here before, you just ignore it.  It is a doctrine of selt adulation, via a type of legalism, that see's God as a "Sugar Daddy" whom they will spend a lifetime trying to please inorder to work towards their own male godhood.And female godesses too

God said plainly that their will and never has been any other gods before "Me"True there are none and we don't put any before him either..   Not so with the LDS doctrine.  All male Mormons who live a life in good standing can have a shot at becoming Saviours and or god's of their own earths.  They also get to pro-create their own races of humans.
So what, we still worship God, he just explained the reward to us...Don't be jealous.
Also........Mormons believe that every child born was or was a little spiritual being waiting to get a body one day......i.e........get born on earth.   This has all been hatched from the wildly imaginative mind of Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Y. and other notable early Mormons.
******
You mentioned the Golden plates.  Ever wonder why God would present them with a language that wasn't American englishSure do, because God shows things as they really are and not as you want them to be. The people who lived back then didn't speak english, so God helped Joseph translate them., but some alleged reformed Egyptian heiroglyphics?  

Even Moses got tablets from God at Mt. Sinai that were in the Israelites language of understanding.  No translation needed!
How stupid is this comment of yours? the book of mormon wasn't written by the finger of God. It was written by inspired men in ancient days like the bible. 
Joseph Smith Jr. stuck his head in the noose of liars when he gave the dimensions of the golden plates.  When he did that, he also gave the approximate weight of these plates, at roughly 230 lbs.!  Now it is recorded that Joseph Smith Jr. ran a great distance with these very heavy plates.  It is also recorded that J.S. Jr. had a bad leg/knee that affected his ability to have a normal human gate or walk.  So he ran a long distance carrying 1/8th of a ton of gold.  This is one amazing man![/COLOR]I'll second that! Soldiers in times of war have gone such a distance while hauling deadweigted soldiers on their shoulders. something a little heavier and much more compact would be easier to do than that.[/COLOR]

Our on forum Mormons want to defend polygamy by stating that God never spoke against it.  He didn't have to!  In every case Baloney. just because one marriage doesn't work doesn't mean others haven't. It's up to the individuals involved. And like all marriages other than your own.... It's none of your business.of polygamy it resulted in family discord, disfunction, and usually ocurred when the husband abandoned His trust in God, and resorted to his own will to live out his life.

Don't get me wrong.  Mormons project wonderful, clean living lives, but scratch the surface and find out what drives that life and you will find that Mormons have the highest per-capita rate of alcoholism I've heard these wild claims before but have never seen any good sources.of any religious group in this country!  Now remember, that few Mormons drink alcohol, but per capita means those that do drink or what us non-truth bearers would call, "Jack Mormons". Jack Mormons are not mormons. They have abandoned the religion and are no longer affiliated with us.

Mormons are driven by their faith, not in a healthy way, but in a way, that isn't that different from many other cults, and occult groups.  They must "perform" in order to maintain their position or place before their "exacting" god.http://declan10.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/throw-up1.jpg  They must tithe at incredible rates, regardless of their financial means/state.  

Also, you will find that the Mormon church is very much involved in the monetary motive, of earthly gain, via their many secular, corporate holdings.......Last time I recalled, the Marriot chain of hotels was owned by the LDS churchNo just a Mormon guy, Marriott himself.  Where is the Christian ministry or outreach to evangelize the world in that endeavor?  It is just a corporate venture putting millions into the church's coffers.You do know that no individuals are paid right? The money is 100% tracked and accounted for in it's religious applications and programs.

I do admitt their are some Christian denominations that have strayed and gone into the corporate, secular realm to raise funds, and that is not right IMO.

The church stands or falls on the merit, of it's founder, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.  The true "church" is the body of believers, regardless of whether they are Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, Pentacostals, or non-denominational.They all teach doctrines that conflict with the other. God is not the author of this.  Christ's church is people.  They are the arms, legs, hands, fingers, feet, and Jesus is the "Head".  These believers have a common unity and bond.   It is the Holy Spirit that was given to each of them upon their salvation.  Because of the Holy Spirit, there is a bond that crosses denominations and non-denominations.  It is a the Spirit of unity, in Christ, and all that He is and all that He has taught through the Word.

Living a "Leave To Beaver" family life is going to gain any Brownie Points with God.  He doesn't want your actions of niceness.Yes he does. See parable of good Samaritan  He wants your lives of total surrender.  Afterall, "Lord" is His title.  Lord means He is or should be in charge.  Mormons misconstrue works of niceness and clean living as the means or way to appease or please God, and make, "Heavenly Father" happy with them.Darn skippy

Sadly, the scriptures say that when we became Christians, our Heavenly Father was and is most pleased with us.  If we sit on our fat buttsyour fat butts. and fail to allow Him to work His sanctifying work in us, then we are the losers, as we will miss out on so much adventure of life being used by Him to further His kingdom.  Never the less, every one of His children are in His fold, and can't be snatched away.

Mormons must do their missions, they must strive, strive, strive in order to "be".  Bible Christians don't strive to "be".Well I'd rather BE somebody in Hell than a nobody in Heaven   They already have the "be" taken care of.  It's called a relationship, or identity.  They can call God, "daddy" "father" "Poppa"........and it is fitting because they are His children from day-one of their salvation.

Getting back to the high alcoholism rate;ggetting back to those sources​ that is part and partial of the inherent guilt that runs through the LDS congregation, that perfections and pleasing is part and partial to have that relationship in good standing with their god.  It's an impossibility, just like Paul said that no one can meet the Law, and therefore Christ fullfilled it, and we can live by "grace" and rest in that position before God, who has totally accepted us on Jesus' merit, not our own.[/QUOTE]


You never cease to amaze me pool ball. You would rather be the 8-ball and I would rather be the white ball smackin you into the hole you belong in.


----------



## Truthspeaker

DavidS said:


> I see Truthspeaker is completely ignoring my posts. How interesting.



Really, well maybe I should; But I didn't think I needed to repeat what others have said. What issue would you like me to address?


----------



## Avatar4321

DavidS said:


> I see Truthspeaker is completely ignoring my posts. How interesting.



*scratching my head*

how exactly do you figure that? He has been responding to your posts almost immediately after them. not that youve had tons in this thread.


----------



## Truthspeaker




----------



## ABikerSailor

I think I'm gonna read the book of Moronisim.

Let's see what kind of crap they're REALLY spewing...........


----------



## ABikerSailor

I think I'm gonna read the book of Moronisim.

Let's see what kind of crap they're REALLY spewing...........


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> I think I'm gonna read the book of Moronisim.
> 
> Let's see what kind of crap they're REALLY spewing...........



Do you really mean that? Let me know how that goes.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Yeah.....I did........my roomie has a copy.  She used to be married to a follower of Moronism.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.....I did........my roomie has a copy.  She used to be married to a follower of Moronism.



I'm touched. Now don't come back converted... It simply wouldn't do.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Truthspeaker said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....I did........my roomie has a copy.  She used to be married to a follower of Moronism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm touched. Now don't come back converted... It simply wouldn't do.
Click to expand...


Sorry.......not like Sunnidiot either....

I don't convert to fucked up theologies.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ABikerSailor said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....I did........my roomie has a copy.  She used to be married to a follower of Moronism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm touched. Now don't come back converted... It simply wouldn't do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry.......not like Sunnidiot either....
> 
> I don't convert to fucked up theologies.
Click to expand...


----------



## ABikerSailor

Okay prick......pick one that is messed up, as I have 3 under my belt.

Tao, Christianity and Judaism.

ALL THREE are better than your fucked up prophet and screwball belief system.

Try again loser.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Okay prick......pick one that is messed up, as I have 3 under my belt.

Tao, Christianity and Judaism.

ALL THREE are better than your fucked up prophet and screwball belief system.

Try again loser.


----------



## Truthspeaker

That's rich
 Can I hear some more? I'll be waiting.......


----------



## Avatar4321

maybe someday we can have some real discussion again.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> maybe someday we can have some real discussion again.



I don't think there are any more intelligent questions out there on this board. Just futile attempts to insult me into oblivion. I don't know why people find themselves compelled to launch attack after attack. It's like cyber-Missouri


----------



## Shogun

hey now.. don't be bitter because people from my state kicked your asses farther west.  I happen to be REAL GLAD my state doesn't resemble Utah.


I have a niece that is engaged to a mormon from Utah.  She went to college out there and, wouldn't you know it, brought back a mormon boyfriend like abikersailer bringing back the clap after shore leave.  Nice guy.  We took him camping and he was shocked at how loud the bugs are at night.  I had a lot of fun drinking beers, smoking bowls and picking his brain.  It's all fictional to me so I have no dog in the little race you and ABSailer seem to be sprinting.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> hey now.. don't be bitter because people from my state kicked your asses farther west.  I happen to be REAL GLAD my state doesn't resemble Utah.



Not bitter at all. Although I find it mildly disturbing to see such joy over the the only state authorized religious genocide in United States History. Mostly because as a psuedo historian I realize that history has a tendency to repeat itself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> hey now.. don't be bitter because people from my state kicked your asses farther west.  I happen to be REAL GLAD my state doesn't resemble Utah.



Wow..... So you are proud of the extermination order against our people? You are proud that our men were slaughtered and our wives raped and children butchered? You are proud that Joseph was tarred and feathered despite not harming another Missourians head? I guess you are also proud that many of the men's bodies were dug up from their graves and hacked to pieces? 
They couldn't go paint-ballin or cow tippin', so they went "Mormon-diggin"? All because we were ****** lovin demons of Joe Smith. 
Congratulations on being proud of that you slime.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey now.. don't be bitter because people from my state kicked your asses farther west.  I happen to be REAL GLAD my state doesn't resemble Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bitter at all. Although I find it mildly disturbing to see such joy over the the only state authorized religious genocide in United States History. Mostly because as a psuedo historian I realize that history has a tendency to repeat itself.
Click to expand...



Lets not pretend that mormon hands are lacking blood on them, eh dude?  And joy?  Sure, why not.  It was probably better than mormonism sprouted in a location WITHOUT a dominant religion already so you could go on to mold Utah into what it is without having to rake Missouri through the talons of your faith.  I'll keep Missouri's heritage over yours, thanks.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey now.. don't be bitter because people from my state kicked your asses farther west.  I happen to be REAL GLAD my state doesn't resemble Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bitter at all. Although I find it mildly disturbing to see such joy over the the only state authorized religious genocide in United States History. Mostly because as a psuedo historian I realize that history has a tendency to repeat itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not pretend that mormon hands are lacking blood on them, eh dude?  And joy?  Sure, why not.  It was probably better than mormonism sprouted in a location WITHOUT a dominant religion already so you could go on to mold Utah into what it is without having to rake Missouri through the talons of your faith.  I'll keep Missouri's heritage over yours, thanks.
Click to expand...


If there were some imperfect rogue individual actions by members of our church, at least we're not proud of them. You are sick.


----------



## Shogun

*Wow..... So you are proud of the extermination order against our people? You are proud that our men were slaughtered and our wives raped and children butchered? You are proud that Joseph was tarred and feathered despite not harming another Missourians head? I guess you are also proud that many of the men's bodies were dug up from their graves and hacked to pieces?
They couldn't go paint-ballin or cow tippin', so they went "Mormon-diggin"? All because we were ****** lovin demons of Joe Smith.
Congratulations on being proud of that you slime.*


Hey, tell it to the Fancher-Baker wagon train, dude.  The mellodrama is a little over the top.  But, yes, I AM glad that mormons were sent packing.  I'd hate to think of this state as a land of 3.2 beer and holy underoos.  You are better off where you are then where you could have been.  The Show Me state would have shown you how difficult it would have been to mold this place into your little idealistic mormonville.


DAS BOOT, mormon!


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not bitter at all. Although I find it mildly disturbing to see such joy over the the only state authorized religious genocide in United States History. Mostly because as a psuedo historian I realize that history has a tendency to repeat itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not pretend that mormon hands are lacking blood on them, eh dude?  And joy?  Sure, why not.  It was probably better than mormonism sprouted in a location WITHOUT a dominant religion already so you could go on to mold Utah into what it is without having to rake Missouri through the talons of your faith.  I'll keep Missouri's heritage over yours, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there were some imperfect rogue individual actions by members of our church, at least we're not proud of them. You are sick.
Click to expand...


yea right, dude... Hell, how many years AFTER THE FACT did you bitches FINALLY stop denying that massacre?  Lord knows I won't even TOUCH (hehehe) the polygamy lifestyle.  Hell, we have plenty of mononites who ACTUALLY practice their faith without having to mold everything into what became salt lake city.  I highly doubt you people would have managed the same personal faith as the menonites we still have today.  Again, it's best that you moved on.  Think of it as a steel toed sign from moroni.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> Lets not pretend that mormon hands are lacking blood on them, eh dude?  And joy?  Sure, why not.  It was probably better than mormonism sprouted in a location WITHOUT a dominant religion already so you could go on to mold Utah into what it is without having to rake Missouri through the talons of your faith.  I'll keep Missouri's heritage over yours, thanks.



I dont have to pretend anything. Mormon hands are lacking blood on them.


----------



## Godboy

> are proud that Joseph was tarred and feathered despite not harming another Missourians head?



Long before he learned how to use religion to make money, the guy was a con artist (and he has the arrest record to prove it) that duped MANY people into spending their money on his "treasure hunting" magical powers and divining rods. The guy was a snake that ruined MANY innocent peoples lives, leaving them dead broke. The part that amazes me the most is the stupidity of the people who bought into his garbage.

I love the story where he was having that dude write down the words he spoke as he stuck his head into an upsidedown hat. Then when this secretarys wife didnt believe Joseph was telling the truth, she came up with a brilliant idea.... she had him go back and tell Joseph that he lost ALL the transcripts and that theyd have to start over. Since Joseph Smith claimed he was actually reading Gods written words in his seer stones, every word he spoke should match all the previous transcripts they lied about losing, exactly, word for word. Of course Joseph was a conman and he knew he wasnt going to be able to duplicate it because he had just been saying crap off of the top of his head for weeks. So then he made up a story about god getting angry, and now the seer stones wont work anymore, and hed have to write an entirely different bible now. Classic.

Im convinced that Joseph Smith wasnt even a good con man, he was just lucky enough to find a town full of suckers.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not pretend that mormon hands are lacking blood on them, eh dude?  And joy?  Sure, why not.  It was probably better than mormonism sprouted in a location WITHOUT a dominant religion already so you could go on to mold Utah into what it is without having to rake Missouri through the talons of your faith.  I'll keep Missouri's heritage over yours, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were some imperfect rogue individual actions by members of our church, at least we're not proud of them. You are sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yea right, dude... Hell, how many years AFTER THE FACT did you bitches FINALLY stop denying that massacre?  Lord knows I won't even TOUCH (hehehe) the polygamy lifestyle.  Hell, we have plenty of mononites who ACTUALLY practice their faith without having to mold everything into what became salt lake city.  I highly doubt you people would have managed the same personal faith as the menonites we still have today.  Again, it's best that you moved on.  Think of it as a steel toed sign from moroni.
Click to expand...


We never denied the massacre happened otherwise no one would have found out about it. The only ones who lived to tell the tale were MORMONS. You are not even sick. You are glad we are gone but there are over 4 million of us back in your state and guess how many of you we killed? 0. You hate our religion so much that you justify slaughtering those with a different perspective than you. You are evil and proud of it. You have definitely "Shown Me" all there is about an old wretched Missourian like yourself.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe someday we can have some real discussion again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think there are any more intelligent questions out there on this board. Just futile attempts to insult me into oblivion. I don't know why people find themselves compelled to launch attack after attack. It's like cyber-Missouri
Click to expand...



Again, your playing the typical Mormon role of the "victim" or the "martyr" for your beliefs.

People have brought up legitimate critiques of your system of beliefs, and in most cases you blew them off by saying you answered that question.

There are so many unanswered questions about Mormonism, and it especially goes back to it's founders who either make or break your church.

As long as you venerate a known con man, and bible plagarist, Joseph Smith Jr., and buy into your church's unfounded belief that he is/was a martyr, when in fact he was a law breaker, a con man of the nth degree while living in New York.

Joseph Smith Jr. condemned the Christian church as a whole, bar none, no exceptions.  Then he proceeded to propound that his alleged revelations were from God, and that God told him, that he/Joseph Smith Jr, would be endowed or given the uncorrupted truth.

Your church also redefines the attributes of God.  Now God is either in control of all things or He's not God.  The very definition of God is all powerful, fulling in control, yet His ways are mysterious as there is much that happens on planet earth that seems to say, "God where are you!".  Assuredly, God is here and everywhere, but there is one thing that never changes...........That is God.  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Also, the bible has been miraculously substantiated via the Dead Sea scrolls as staying UNCORRUPTED!  The nearly 100% Isaiah Black sea scroll validates the bible incredibly!  The current translations of the O.T.'s Isaiah are exactly the same as the nearly 2,000 year old Black Sea scroll.  Yet, Joseph S.  was told by this angle Moroni, and god himself, that the bible is not to be trusted, and therefore we have to have this new revelation presented on Golden Plates.

Interestingly, Moses received God's commandments on stone tablets, not gold one's.  Interestingly, God wrote upon the stone tablets His communications to man in the language of that day.  Interestingly, J.S. Jr. received alleged golden plates with and communications from within his seers stone and top hat that were of Egyptian reformed Heiroglyphics.  Interestingly, there is no reformed Heiroglyphics known to man or Egyptologists.

There are so many "holes" in your church's foundations.  Your Book of Mormon mentiones that metalurgy was in use in the Americas thousands of years before Columbus.  It would easily have been substantiated via archeology, but there is not any evidence of a copper, bronze, or iron age in the Americas.  Yet, the metalurgy age is easily substantiated throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa.

It is one thing to say you have faith and that holds you alone, against all the evidence that demands a verdict and goes contrary in the face of your church's foundations, and to have faith that is substantiated by eye-witnesses that were not or sordid/questionable character.

When one goes to any of the Mormon historical sites from New York to Utah, the underlying message is "persecution".  Ever wonder why?
Jesus was persecuted because He brought conviction of the soul upon mankind, as well as His disciples after Pentacost.  Man either humbly accepts his state of soul as Jesus says, or rejects it.  There is no middle ground.  Christ says He has one sheep fold, and that fold He will protect with out loss of one soul.

Why were Mormons persecuted?  First of all the Mormons propounded to both Catholics, Protestant, and non-denominationa bible Christians that they were all "lost", and that he Smith, had the way or answer and true church.  Secondly, when local press in Illinois printed articles critical of his/Smith's band of followers and their beliefs and ways, he/Smith took it upon his own hands to break into the local news press office and attempt to destroy it.  He was summarily jailed for it, and it is documented in offical records, that differ completely from the Mormon church's revised version.

It is true that Smith Jr. was shot dead at the jail, but where the church goes off on it's revised romantic tale of martyrdom, the real report at the scene as documented was that Smith was slipped a gun to fight off the angry mob that came to his jail to do to him, who knows what.  The ensuing gun battle between smith and the mob, resulted not only in Smith being shot, but in Smith also shooting some folks.  

Now Truthspeaker, you have tried in vain to redefine what a martyr is so that J.S. Jr. will fill the role, but sadly, you are in conflict with all know english definitions or vernacular of what Martyrdom means.

Smith Jr. did not go quietly to his death, being lynched or shot for his beliefs, but instead, fought for his dear life.  If Smith's death was martyrdom, then it is a slap in the collective faces of every Christian that Nero, and many other dictators, have executed.

Conclusion:  Truthspeaker, if you bow out of this thread cause folks question the validity of your churchs' beliefs, and it's foundations of doctrine, and the people who established these doctrines, by taking the "persecuted" role, you will have completely fullfilled the tenents of what your church teaches you.  

The amount of persecution that your church has endured is but a smidgeon of what Christians endured for nearly 2000 years.  Many folks have done terrible things in the name of Christ, yet they only proved that they were not Christians by relationship with God, but by man's traditions, and familial connections; all of which are not trully converted people, or true Christian.

Can't you see that your doctrine is the hatchings of a very smart, con job, of a man who needed to control a group of people, and was most likely deluded himself?  Your doctrine has little bits of Islamic heaven, with celestial sexual intercourse, mixed with Ron Hubbard's planetary races of humans with their own Jesus's and saviours for each planet.  It is a regular mishmash of so many beliefs, topped off with a big does of legalistic do's and don'ts in order to be pleasing to your god.


----------



## Avatar4321

Godboy said:


> The guy was a con artist (and he has the arrest record to prove it) that duped MANY people into spending their money on his "treasure hunting" magical powers and divining rods. The guy was a snake. The part that amazes me the most is the stupidity of the people who bought into his garbage.
> 
> I love the story where he was having that dude write down the words he spoke as he stuck his head into an upsidedown hat. Then when this secretarys wife didnt believe Joseph was telling the truth, she came up with a brilliant idea.... she had him go back and tell Joseph that he lost ALL the transcripts and that theyd have to start over. Since Joseph Smith claimed he was actually reading the written words in his seer stones, every word he spoke should match all the transcripts they lied about losing, exactly, word for word. Of course Joseph was a conman and he knew he wasnt going to be able to duplicate it because he had just been saying crap off of the top of his head for weeks. So then he made up a story about god getting angry, and now the seer stones wont work anymore, and hed have to write an entirely different bible now. Classic.
> 
> Im convinced that Joseph Smith wasnt even a good con man, he was just lucky enough to find a town full of suckers.



Being repeatedly discharged from jail without being found guilty of anything hardly creates proof of anything. Jesus Christ was arrested and put to death. Somehow, I dont think you would be arguing that Christ had a criminal record and that somehow proves He is a conman. 

So your proposition is that Joseph Smith just said stuff off the top of his head. Yet, Martin Harris, who translated the pages you mentioned, not only failed to notice a difference between the old and the newer texts, he went to his dying day testifying that he saw the plates and heard the Angel testify to Him, despite being excommunicated at one point. (He was later rebaptized).

We are supposed to disbelieve the person who was actually there, and conclude that you know better. He was just a conman who suckered poor Martin into thinking that he (Martin) somehow saw an angel and gold plates. And then of course suckered 10 other people into believing they say the plates.

And somehow he did this by saying stuff off the top of his head in a period of two months that is completely coherent and internally consistent? Do you realize how difficult it is to write a 500+ page book in a years time? Let alone in two months. 

Do you know how much more improbable it would be to include accurate descriptions of a path through Arabia including correct names and descriptions of the places involved that were completely unknown in the 19th century? Or include accurate ancient middle eastern names that were completely unknown to a farm boy on the frontier? Or include Hebraic poetry that wasnt known to exist until a century after?

Yet Joseph is clearly just a poor conman who managed to do all these things. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet, or he was a freakin genius.


----------



## Godboy

Since i am an Atheist, i can honestly say that i am unbiased in my rejection of all religions. With that said, the Mormon faith is second only to scientology for being the dumbest religion on earth. 

To quote Hillary, "It requires the willing suspension of disbelief".


----------



## Godboy

Avatar4321 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy was a con artist (and he has the arrest record to prove it) that duped MANY people into spending their money on his "treasure hunting" magical powers and divining rods. The guy was a snake. The part that amazes me the most is the stupidity of the people who bought into his garbage.
> 
> I love the story where he was having that dude write down the words he spoke as he stuck his head into an upsidedown hat. Then when this secretarys wife didnt believe Joseph was telling the truth, she came up with a brilliant idea.... she had him go back and tell Joseph that he lost ALL the transcripts and that theyd have to start over. Since Joseph Smith claimed he was actually reading the written words in his seer stones, every word he spoke should match all the transcripts they lied about losing, exactly, word for word. Of course Joseph was a conman and he knew he wasnt going to be able to duplicate it because he had just been saying crap off of the top of his head for weeks. So then he made up a story about god getting angry, and now the seer stones wont work anymore, and hed have to write an entirely different bible now. Classic.
> 
> Im convinced that Joseph Smith wasnt even a good con man, he was just lucky enough to find a town full of suckers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being repeatedly discharged from jail without being found guilty of anything hardly creates proof of anything. Jesus Christ was arrested and put to death. Somehow, I dont think you would be arguing that Christ had a criminal record and that somehow proves He is a conman.
> 
> So your proposition is that Joseph Smith just said stuff off the top of his head. Yet, Martin Harris, who translated the pages you mentioned, not only failed to notice a difference between the old and the newer texts, he went to his dying day testifying that he saw the plates and heard the Angel testify to Him, despite being excommunicated at one point. (He was later rebaptized).
> 
> We are supposed to disbelieve the person who was actually there, and conclude that you know better. He was just a conman who suckered poor Martin into thinking that he (Martin) somehow saw an angel and gold plates. And then of course suckered 10 other people into believing they say the plates.
> 
> And somehow he did this by saying stuff off the top of his head in a period of two months that is completely coherent and internally consistent? Do you realize how difficult it is to write a 500+ page book in a years time? Let alone in two months.
> 
> Do you know how much more improbable it would be to include accurate descriptions of a path through Arabia including correct names and descriptions of the places involved that were completely unknown in the 19th century? Or include accurate ancient middle eastern names that were completely unknown to a farm boy on the frontier? Or include Hebraic poetry that wasnt known to exist until a century after?
> 
> Yet Joseph is clearly just a poor conman who managed to do all these things. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet, or he was a freakin genius.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but almost all of what you said is untrue. You could also claim Joseph wore a cape and flew around stopping super villians, but we arent going to believe that crap either.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> are proud that Joseph was tarred and feathered despite not harming another Missourians head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long before he learned how to use religion to make money, the guy was a con artist (and he has the arrest record to prove it) that duped MANY people into spending their money on his "treasure hunting" magical powers and divining rods. The guy was a snake that ruined MANY innocent peoples lives, leaving them dead broke. The part that amazes me the most is the stupidity of the people who bought into his garbage.
> 
> I love the story where he was having that dude write down the words he spoke as he stuck his head into an upsidedown hat. Then when this secretarys wife didnt believe Joseph was telling the truth, she came up with a brilliant idea.... she had him go back and tell Joseph that he lost ALL the transcripts and that theyd have to start over. Since Joseph Smith claimed he was actually reading Gods written words in his seer stones, every word he spoke should match all the previous transcripts they lied about losing, exactly, word for word. Of course Joseph was a conman and he knew he wasnt going to be able to duplicate it because he had just been saying crap off of the top of his head for weeks. So then he made up a story about god getting angry, and now the seer stones wont work anymore, and hed have to write an entirely different bible now. Classic.
> 
> Im convinced that Joseph Smith wasnt even a good con man, he was just lucky enough to find a town full of suckers.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a class 5 ignoramus. There isn't a man in the history of the world who could "spout off" the complex makeup of the book. Look you can think what you want of Joseph but I noticed you had no problem with violence against him or his people. You could think he is a total wacko, but does that condone the violence? Was he ever aggressive towards people not of his faith? You can't show a single instance of it. He was a kind person.

But what do we do with wacko's normally? Just ignore them right? Do you beat homeless wacko's to death because they are mentally ill? For some reason people couldn't ignore Joseph. Maybe it's because they didn't like the doctrine he preached. Fine, would that make you angry to the point of killing him? What makes people anger to the point of murder is usually because someone is denouncing the evil things they do. So to make it stop, they kill the person if they can.


You answer me all those questions and don't dodge em. I'll be waiting


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were some imperfect rogue individual actions by members of our church, at least we're not proud of them. You are sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea right, dude... Hell, how many years AFTER THE FACT did you bitches FINALLY stop denying that massacre?  Lord knows I won't even TOUCH (hehehe) the polygamy lifestyle.  Hell, we have plenty of mononites who ACTUALLY practice their faith without having to mold everything into what became salt lake city.  I highly doubt you people would have managed the same personal faith as the menonites we still have today.  Again, it's best that you moved on.  Think of it as a steel toed sign from moroni.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We never denied the massacre happened otherwise no one would have found out about it. The only ones who lived to tell the tale were MORMONS. You are not even sick. You are glad we are gone but there are over 4 million of us back in your state and guess how many of you we killed? 0. You hate our religion so much that you justify slaughtering those with a different perspective than you. You are evil and proud of it. You have definitely "Shown Me" all there is about an old wretched Missourian like yourself.
Click to expand...


When I brought up the treatment of African Americans in your church, you immediately went to the old, "Look what the Southern Christian churches did to the blacks?".

What those folks did to the blacks in the South was totally unbiblical, uncivil, and evil.

What your church did to the blacks was doctrinal, until a few years ago.

Your the church that propounds that you have the "truth", yet many years after Martin Luther King's legacy, your church continued to deny the Mormon priesthood to black members.  What a travesty.

Again, those Southern Christian crackers churches were wrong, and unscriptural.

Your church discriminated based on doctrine.  You were being doctrinal...........until your prophet/president had an "epiphany/revelations" conveniently co-inciding with public scrutiny of your churchs' discrimination.  

Seems like if there's a church that's in need of new and improved revelation it's the LDS church.  When the U.S. church's abhorred polygamy, your new revelations church was condoning it as doctrinal.

I think it's time to question Moroni as a true angel of God........at least of the God of the bible.  

Faith, by it's very definition is based on facts or a multitude of facts.

Just as a person sits down on a chair, that person exercises faith in the chair-builder to have built a strong chair.  Christian base their faith on the work of the God-Man Jesus Christ.  Christians base their faith on the eye witness reports of multitudes of both Jews and gentiles as recorded in the bible.  

Now you base your faith on a very questionable "chair maker" indeed; Joseph Smith Jr..  His chair making credentials are sketchy, his reputations in great question, his deeds of great strangeness, and mysterious at most.

His early life background lacks a true desire to have a relationship with God, but reeks of using people for personal gain.

Even the prophet Samuel was dedicated to God by his mother when he was but a little child.  Joseph Smiths early life does not exude of holy or righteous living at all.

Even the apostle Paul was a very learned man in the Talmud, before his Christian conversion.  Though he was feared by the church, he was a man who knew the scriptures, yet lacked the Spirit there-in to understand them in the light of God's love, and Jesus Messiahship.

Saul of Tarsus, who became Saul, was met dramatically by the ascended Jesus on the road to Damascus, and there after was a changed man of contrite, and humble heart.

Humility, and humbleness seems very absent from your posts Truthspeaker?  Why is that?  Why does your sign-on name reek of the anti-thesis of humility.

We Christians are given the truth through God's Word, yet we don't always live out those truths, as we war with the temptations through the flesh, and sin, and must wait one day for that glorious ressurrection promised when Christ returns.  Then we will see Him a-new in all His glory.

Truthspeaker:  Your a very intelligent gent, yet I know that many here don't bite the bait and hook of your Mormon doctrine.  One thing important in Christianity.  It is Christ's life that must exude and be visible to the world in each and every true Christian.  Not a haughty, "I know the truth", attitude, that looks down on all others as a type of poor lost infidel, that will miss out on godhood.

Might as well finish off with the most unusual and out of context practice of your church.  Baptizing the dead.  Jesus said, if you don't accept me when you were alive and living on planet earth, you've no more chance..............Period.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets not pretend that mormon hands are lacking blood on them, eh dude?  And joy?  Sure, why not.  It was probably better than mormonism sprouted in a location WITHOUT a dominant religion already so you could go on to mold Utah into what it is without having to rake Missouri through the talons of your faith.  I'll keep Missouri's heritage over yours, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have to pretend anything. Mormon hands are lacking blood on them.
Click to expand...


hehehe.. whatever you say, dude.  

Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Godboy

> But what do we do with wacko's normally? Just ignore them right? Do you beat homeless wacko's to death because they are mentally ill? For some reason people couldn't ignore Joseph.



People didnt ignore David Koresh and Jim Jones either, yet they were absolutely insane. Someone should have put a bullet in their heads and saved alot of grief.


----------



## Godboy

> But what do we do with wacko's normally? Just ignore them right? Do you beat homeless wacko's to death because they are mentally ill? For some reason people couldn't ignore Joseph.



People didnt ignore David Koresh and Jim Jones either, yet they were absolutely insane. Someone should have put a bullet in their heads and saved alot of grief.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were some imperfect rogue individual actions by members of our church, at least we're not proud of them. You are sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea right, dude... Hell, how many years AFTER THE FACT did you bitches FINALLY stop denying that massacre?  Lord knows I won't even TOUCH (hehehe) the polygamy lifestyle.  Hell, we have plenty of mononites who ACTUALLY practice their faith without having to mold everything into what became salt lake city.  I highly doubt you people would have managed the same personal faith as the menonites we still have today.  Again, it's best that you moved on.  Think of it as a steel toed sign from moroni.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We never denied the massacre happened otherwise no one would have found out about it. The only ones who lived to tell the tale were MORMONS. You are not even sick. You are glad we are gone but there are over 4 million of us back in your state and guess how many of you we killed? 0. You hate our religion so much that you justify slaughtering those with a different perspective than you. You are evil and proud of it. You have definitely "Shown Me" all there is about an old wretched Missourian like yourself.
Click to expand...


We both know damn well that the mormon church initially denied any involvment, dude.  The martyr routine doesn't impress me.  You people are no different than anyone else and, yes, your hands are just as red as mine.  Hell, how many natives did Brigham Young try to recruit to fuck with "Americans"?

EVIL AND PROUD OF IT!



Again, it's a good thing you all got the fuck out of dodge then, eh?  'Cause, we are not about to mold our state around your bullshit theology like you've been able to do in Utah.  What is HILARIOUS about this exchange is that you threw the first stone talking shit about Missouri.  YOU ARE BITTER ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT BEYOND WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE CHICK TRACTS OF MORMONISM!  classic.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sesiFBzNZb0]YouTube - Danzig - Evil Thing[/ame]



Be glad, dude.  Your little sect would not have become what it is now had you stayed here.  THAT is a fact.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea right, dude... Hell, how many years AFTER THE FACT did you bitches FINALLY stop denying that massacre?  Lord knows I won't even TOUCH (hehehe) the polygamy lifestyle.  Hell, we have plenty of mononites who ACTUALLY practice their faith without having to mold everything into what became salt lake city.  I highly doubt you people would have managed the same personal faith as the menonites we still have today.  Again, it's best that you moved on.  Think of it as a steel toed sign from moroni.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We never denied the massacre happened otherwise no one would have found out about it. The only ones who lived to tell the tale were MORMONS. You are not even sick. You are glad we are gone but there are over 4 million of us back in your state and guess how many of you we killed? 0. You hate our religion so much that you justify slaughtering those with a different perspective than you. You are evil and proud of it. You have definitely "Shown Me" all there is about an old wretched Missourian like yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We both know damn well that the mormon church initially denied any involvment, dude.  The martyr routine doesn't impress me.  You people are no different than anyone else and, yes, your hands are just as red as mine.  Hell, how many natives did Brigham Young try to recruit to fuck with "Americans"?
> 
> EVIL AND PROUD OF IT!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's a good thing you all got the fuck out of dodge then, eh?  'Cause, we are not about to mold our state around your bullshit theology like you've been able to do in Utah.  What is HILARIOUS about this exchange is that you threw the first stone talking shit about Missouri.  YOU ARE BITTER ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT BEYOND WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE CHICK TRACTS OF MORMONISM!  classic.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sesiFBzNZb0]YouTube - Danzig - Evil Thing[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> Be glad, dude.  Your little sect would not have become what it is now had you stayed here.  THAT is a fact.
Click to expand...


How about the 5 million Mormons back in Missouri now? Why don't you go paint yourself black and joined the black painted mob to go kill the Mormons that live there now? Take a look at your state and realize that we're back. Your sources are non existent. We all know the mountain meadows massacre. You are a liar by nature so you claim that only your side of the story is true. 

If it weren't for Mormons there would have been a cover up and no one would have known who killed the arkansas wagon train. 
You admit your hands are red...... Well mine ain't because I have no intentions of hurting people. Our "little sect: of 14 million people is growing quite well thank you and we don't mold governments to our religion. How about your state getting flooded with Mormons nowaday's. How ironic.


Oh and about me not knowing anything of Missourian history, I gotta put my foot in your mouth because you don't even know that it was legal to kill a Mormon in your state untill 1977. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Beeyotch!


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> We never denied the massacre happened otherwise no one would have found out about it. The only ones who lived to tell the tale were MORMONS. You are not even sick. You are glad we are gone but there are over 4 million of us back in your state and guess how many of you we killed? 0. You hate our religion so much that you justify slaughtering those with a different perspective than you. You are evil and proud of it. You have definitely "Shown Me" all there is about an old wretched Missourian like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both know damn well that the mormon church initially denied any involvment, dude.  The martyr routine doesn't impress me.  You people are no different than anyone else and, yes, your hands are just as red as mine.  Hell, how many natives did Brigham Young try to recruit to fuck with "Americans"?
> 
> EVIL AND PROUD OF IT!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's a good thing you all got the fuck out of dodge then, eh?  'Cause, we are not about to mold our state around your bullshit theology like you've been able to do in Utah.  What is HILARIOUS about this exchange is that you threw the first stone talking shit about Missouri.  YOU ARE BITTER ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT BEYOND WHAT AMOUNTS TO THE CHICK TRACTS OF MORMONISM!  classic.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sesiFBzNZb0]YouTube - Danzig - Evil Thing[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> Be glad, dude.  Your little sect would not have become what it is now had you stayed here.  THAT is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about the 5 million Mormons back in Missouri now? Why don't you go paint yourself black and joined the black painted mob to go kill the Mormons that live there now? Take a look at your state and realize that we're back. Your sources are non existent. We all know the mountain meadows massacre. You are a liar by nature so you claim that only your side of the story is true.
> 
> If it weren't for Mormons there would have been a cover up and no one would have known who killed the arkansas wagon train.
> You admit your hands are red...... Well mine ain't because I have no intentions of hurting people. Our "little sect: of 14 million people is growing quite well thank you and we don't mold governments to our religion. How about your state getting flooded with Mormons nowaday's. How ironic.
> 
> 
> Oh and about me not knowing anything of Missourian history, I gotta put my foot in your mouth because you don't even know that it was legal to kill a Mormon in your state untill 1977. Put that in your pipe and smoke it Beeyotch!
Click to expand...


Those 5mil mormons have yet to turn the Show Me State into a bastion of 3.5 beer (IF you belong to the club) and holy underoos.  If only that was what you people had in mind back then, eh?  You know, INSTEAD of carving mormonville out of Liberty, Missouri.  You are not "back" in ANY sense that the original troupe wanted back in the day, dude.  You see, WE here in the SHOW ME STATE are not prone to turning our back yards into moroni's playland.


But, hey, DENY the massacre all you need to!  Lord fucking knows we haven't seen THAT before!

and, again, you can disregard history if you want to..  but there are enough non-lds sources that indicate just how militant the origin of your church was...  par for the course, really


FLOODED with mormons?  HA!  don't be silly.  You lost your grasp on this state long ago, sir.  Accept it and enjoy Utah.  After all, we sure did see widescale mormon lynchings up until 1977!  




i tellya..  dogma junkies never seem to stray from the same turd polishing path..


----------



## Shogun

The religious affiliations of the people of Missouri according to the American Religious Identification Survey:[21]

    * Christian &#8211; 77%
          o Protestant
                + Baptist &#8211; 22%
                + Methodist &#8211; 7%
                + Episcopal &#8211; 4%
                + Lutheran &#8211; 4%
                + Other Protestant &#8211; 12%
          o Roman Catholic &#8211; 19%
*     o Latter-Day Saint &#8211; 1%**
          o Other or unspecified Christian &#8211; 8%
    * Other religions &#8211; 2%
    * Not religious &#8211; 15%
    * No answer &#8211; 5%
Missouri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




IMPRESSIVE!


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker & Avatar:

Here is a webpage with the testimonies of many of your ex-LDS brethren.

Of course they've been co-erced or brainwashed or were never "good" Mormons, right?  They just miss out on the celestial kingdom, right?

Only the brave, and free-thinking Mormon will click and honestly check out that web site.  Boy if your elders or bishops or stake leaders knew you were on that page......Wooh. Look out!

Ex Mormons for Jesus Home Page


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Again, your playing the typical Mormon role of the "victim" or the "martyr" for your beliefs.
> 
> People have brought up legitimate critiques of your system of beliefs, and in most cases you blew them off by saying you answered that question.



Um we have answered the question. For example, the question of the doctrine of Diefication which you keep bringing up as some blasphemy we've answered about a dozen times using the Bible and other sources. You keep ignoring it pretending as though we have no accusation for the doctrine that men can become gods through the Atonement of Christ.



> There are so many unanswered questions about Mormonism, and it especially goes back to it's founders who either make or break your church.



Which is why you havent really come up with any question that hasnt been answered multiple times by multiple people decades ago.



> As long as you venerate a known con man, and bible plagarist, Joseph Smith Jr., and buy into your church's unfounded belief that he is/was a martyr, when in fact he was a law breaker, a con man of the nth degree while living in New York.



He _was_ a martyr. He was slaughtered for his belief. Here is an eye witness account of what happened. Go to any common dictionary and you will find it clearly fits the definition of Martyr.

He was accused of crimes repeatedly but never convicted. However, I cant help but notice our Lord and Savior was condemned and sentenced to death for a crime. That doesnt stop you from professing faith in Him. And why should it? Should we dismiss Christ simply because He was accused and convicted? If the only perfect man to ever walk the earth was convicted of a crime, do you think anyone else can escape accusation?

As for being a bible plagarist: Plagarism is _impossible_ when you cite the sources.



> Joseph Smith Jr. condemned the Christian church as a whole, bar none, no exceptions.  Then he proceeded to propound that his alleged revelations were from God, and that God told him, that he/Joseph Smith Jr, would be endowed or given the uncorrupted truth.



What Christian Church? There are thousands of Christian Churches! All of them teaching different doctrine. Most of them denying Divine revelation. If Christ appeared to half of them and proclaimed His Gospel, they would declare Him of the devil. 

This is what we get when man trust in their understanding of the Bible rather than listen to the Revelations of God. This is precisely why God would provide multiple witnesses for His Gospel. Because He knew in the last days that people would disbelieve the Bible alone because of all the confusion found in modern Christianity.



> Your church also redefines the attributes of God.  Now God is either in control of all things or He's not God.  The very definition of God is all powerful, fulling in control, yet His ways are mysterious as there is much that happens on planet earth that seems to say, "God where are you!".  Assuredly, God is here and everywhere, but there is one thing that never changes...........That is God.  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Also, the bible has been miraculously substantiated via the Dead Sea scrolls as staying UNCORRUPTED!  The nearly 100% Isaiah Black sea scroll validates the bible incredibly!  The current translations of the O.T.'s Isaiah are exactly the same as the nearly 2,000 year old Black Sea scroll.  Yet, Joseph S.  was told by this angle Moroni, and god himself, that the bible is not to be trusted, and therefore we have to have this new revelation presented on Golden Plates.



You are absolutely right, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In every age of man, He has spoken through revelation. He has called Prophets, sent Apostles, Ordained Priests. He has spoken to them through the power of the Holy Ghost. They havent had a Bible. 

Yet, we are blessed with the historical interactions with God and you want to claim that God is now silent. There can be no more Word of God, for we have enough. This while claiming God is the same? How can God  be the same while at the same time you claim He was talkative in the past and is now completely silent in these last days. Especially when we need Him to speak more than ever before?

You claim the Bible is enough. We point out that the Bible never makes that claim and God has given us more. So who the heck are we to tell God He cant do whatever He pleases? If He wants to reveal more information, if He wants to clarify doctrines people misunderstand, we should be grateful God is willing to share this knowledge with us, not telling Him to go to hell.




> Interestingly, Moses received God's commandments on stone tablets, not gold one's.  Interestingly, God wrote upon the stone tablets His communications to man in the language of that day.  Interestingly, J.S. Jr. received alleged golden plates with and communications from within his seers stone and top hat that were of Egyptian reformed Heiroglyphics.  Interestingly, there is no reformed Heiroglyphics known to man or Egyptologists.



If you want to know what they said in English, you can pick up a Book of Mormon anywhere for absolutely free. Its not exactly being hid from you. In fact, we are encouraging you to study it out.



> There are so many "holes" in your church's foundations.  Your Book of Mormon mentiones that metalurgy was in use in the Americas thousands of years before Columbus.  It would easily have been substantiated via archeology, but there is not any evidence of a copper, bronze, or iron age in the Americas.  Yet, the metalurgy age is easily substantiated throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa.



Now that couldnt possibly be because the Spanish came in, melted everything down and shipped it all to Europe, could it? I mean its not like we have countless records of them doing such things. That couldnt possibly account for the lack of metal items found.

What exactly were the Spanish melting down and shipping back to Europe if it wasnt precious metal?

Id provide news links but apparent my links are out of date. See the information was on abc, cbs, and other news sources, about 7 years ago. They dont keep the information on indefinitely.



> It is one thing to say you have faith and that holds you alone, against all the evidence that demands a verdict and goes contrary in the face of your church's foundations, and to have faith that is substantiated by eye-witnesses that were not or sordid/questionable character.



Well looks like there is some progress being made. You are at least admitting that there are eye-witnesses. I wonder how it must have sounded when 12 men preached that they saw someone raised from the dead. Somehow, it's easy to believe that, and yet to believe that God could show them a metal book is unbelievable.

I am completely confident that the more we learn the more the Book of Mormon and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be verified. Because the more we do learn the more it is verified. If it's all some hoax, if Joseph made it all up, there should be absolutely zero evidence. 

But there is evidence. and unlikely evidences. Joseph got lots of obscure facts absolutely correct. Now we could expect a con man to maybe by luck get one or two unknown facts right. But at what point do we have to start taking the evidence seriously? Especially considering there shouldnt be any.

Its the details that proclaim the truth of the matter.




> When one goes to any of the Mormon historical sites from New York to Utah, the underlying message is "persecution".  Ever wonder why?



No, it's been pretty obvious. The idea that God speaks scares the crap out of alot of people. And some of the early saints were a bit cocky. Course, that doesnt justify murder, rape, and persecution.



> Jesus was persecuted because He brought conviction of the soul upon mankind, as well as His disciples after Pentacost.  Man either humbly accepts his state of soul as Jesus says, or rejects it.  There is no middle ground.  Christ says He has one sheep fold, and that fold He will protect with out loss of one soul.



There is no middle ground with Mormonism either. Either Christ restored His Church or He didnt. Either the Book of Mormon is true or it isnt. 



> Why were Mormons persecuted?  First of all the Mormons propounded to both Catholics, Protestant, and non-denominationa bible Christians that they were all "lost", and that he Smith, had the way or answer and true church.



Christ is the only way is He not? Do you honestly think you are not lost if you refuse to listen to what He says now?



> Secondly, when local press in Illinois printed articles critical of his/Smith's band of followers and their beliefs and ways, he/Smith took it upon his own hands to break into the local news press office and attempt to destroy it.  He was summarily jailed for it, and it is documented in offical records, that differ completely from the Mormon church's revised version.



This is just ridiculous. Mormons were persecuated for almost 15 years prior to this happening. He was also acquitted of any wrong doing  by a non-mormon judge because the City Council had legal standing to destroy any nuisances. And stirring up a mob is a nuisance.



> It is true that Smith Jr. was shot dead at the jail, but where the church goes off on it's revised romantic tale of martyrdom, the real report at the scene as documented was that Smith was slipped a gun to fight off the angry mob that came to his jail to do to him, who knows what.  The ensuing gun battle between smith and the mob, resulted not only in Smith being shot, but in Smith also shooting some folks.



He was a martyr. I suggest you actually look up the definition of a martyr. blindly shooting into a hall way to bide enough time to jump out the window and save his friends is hardly a gun battle. One gun that misfires is hardly going to be effective against a mob of fifty with rifles. 



> Now Truthspeaker, you have tried in vain to redefine what a martyr is so that J.S. Jr. will fill the role, but sadly, you are in conflict with all know english definitions or vernacular of what Martyrdom means.



You mean he used the dictionaries definition.

Smith Jr. did not go quietly to his death, being lynched or shot for his beliefs, but instead, fought for his dear life.  If Smith's death was martyrdom, then it is a slap in the collective faces of every Christian that Nero, and many other dictators, have executed.



> Conclusion:  Truthspeaker, if you bow out of this thread cause folks question the validity of your churchs' beliefs, and it's foundations of doctrine, and the people who established these doctrines, by taking the "persecuted" role, you will have completely fullfilled the tenents of what your church teaches you.



We want people to question! That's the whole point of the thread! That's the whole point of going out there and sharing what we believe. 

And contrary to your opinions. We arent taught to be victims. we are taught to act, not be acted upon. We are taught to follow Christ. 



> The amount of persecution that your church has endured is but a smidgeon of what Christians endured for nearly 2000 years.  Many folks have done terrible things in the name of Christ, yet they only proved that they were not Christians by relationship with God, but by man's traditions, and familial connections; all of which are not trully converted people, or true Christian.



Its a given that the amount of persecution our church has endured is a smidgeon of what Christians have endured for nearly 2000 years. First, 200 years is alot shorter than 2000. Second, it's a subset of Christianity. Any persecution we suffer adds to the aggregate persecution all Christians have suffered. It seems a no brainer.



> Can't you see that your doctrine is the hatchings of a very smart, con job, of a man who needed to control a group of people, and was most likely deluded himself?  Your doctrine has little bits of Islamic heaven, with celestial sexual intercourse, mixed with Ron Hubbard's planetary races of humans with their own Jesus's and saviours for each planet.  It is a regular mishmash of so many beliefs, topped off with a big does of legalistic do's and don'ts in order to be pleasing to your god.



So you're claiming its a smart con. The last guy was complaining that its an obvious con. I wish you people would stay consistant. 

And this probably isnt the last time ill say this, but it isnt about do's and don'ts. It's about becoming more than the natural man through the Atonement.  It's about changing human nature through Christ and building a community of Saints to be prepared for the Lord's coming.

But you probably wont read a thing I just said. Its probably just going to be another cut and paste job.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> hehehe.. whatever you say, dude.
> 
> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Whats your point? a bunch of people disobeyed Brigham Young and got excommunicated and some executed for it. Seriously, what does this prove?


----------



## Sunni Man

Brigham Young second President and Prophet:

You see some classes of the human family that are *Black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence* that is generally bestowed upon mankind. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and *the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin.* Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses,  7:290


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> hehehe.. whatever you say, dude.
> 
> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your point? a bunch of people disobeyed Brigham Young and got excommunicated and some executed for it. Seriously, what does this prove?
Click to expand...


It proves that you people are no more inherently righteous than anyone else.  You bitch and cry like a bleeding pussy about your treatment in Missouri after moving here from the east coast.... and then, IRONICALLY, have yourself a nice "kill the settlers" fest by killing your OWN westward moving easterners.  And no, we didn't see ANYTHING other than LDS denial from day fucking one until it eventually dawned on you silly bastards that you were wrong.  Sure, NOW you admit it.. but it's the immediate denial and eventual admission that is like the calling card of dogma junkies on a self-righteous kick.


so, i'll say it again:  IM GLAD YOU MORMON MOTHERFUCKERS WERE KICKED OUT OF THE SHOW ME STATE SO I DONT HAVE TO LIVE AMONGST YOUR LITTLE BASTARDIZED, INBRED, DOGMA JUNKIE CULTURE.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your playing the typical Mormon role of the "victim" or the "martyr" for your beliefs.
> 
> People have brought up legitimate critiques of your system of beliefs, and in most cases you blew them off by saying you answered that question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um we have answered the question. For example, the question of the doctrine of Diefication which you keep bringing up as some blasphemy we've answered about a dozen times using the Bible and other sources. You keep ignoring it pretending as though we have no accusation for the doctrine that men can become gods through the Atonement of Christ.
> 
> The atonement of Christ was not for men and women to attain godhood.....that is a crock, and not found in the bible.  That's a manmade desire, that comes from the very fallen nature of man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many unanswered questions about Mormonism, and it especially goes back to it's founders who either make or break your church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you havent really come up with any question that hasnt been answered multiple times by multiple people decades ago.
> 
> Your answers and the answers of the past fall back on questionable sources from people of questionable character.
> 
> 
> 
> He _was_ a martyr. He was slaughtered for his belief. Here is an eye witness account of what happened. Go to any common dictionary and you will find it clearly fits the definition of Martyr.
> 
> He was accused of crimes repeatedly but never convicted. However, I cant help but notice our Lord and Savior was condemned and sentenced to death for a crime. That doesnt stop you from professing faith in Him. And why should it? Should we dismiss Christ simply because He was accused and convicted? If the only perfect man to ever walk the earth was convicted of a crime, do you think anyone else can escape accusation?
> 
> Yep, Jesus Jumped off that cross and killed all those Roman soldiers, and those mean old Jews that railed and spit at Him.  He was scared and didn't want to die, and He made every attempt to escape, as J.S. Jr. did.  Yep, J.S. jr. is a picture perfect copy of true martyrdom.
> 
> As for being a bible plagarist: Plagarism is _impossible_ when you cite the sources.
> 
> "Word for word sentences/verses from the bible are in the BOM. Yep, new revelations.  Then the books are even renamed."
> 
> 
> 
> What Christian Church? There are thousands of Christian Churches! All of them teaching different doctrine. Most of them denying Divine revelation. If Christ appeared to half of them and proclaimed His Gospel, they would declare Him of the devil.
> 
> That's presumption and opinion.  Paul said their would be many anti-christs, before the second coming........That's false Jesus's.  Appears that your founding prophet met up with one of the false ones before the next coming of Christ to judge the world.
> 
> Devine revelations?  From treasure digger, con man J.S. Jr.?
> 
> This is what we get when man trust in their understanding of the Bible rather than listen to the Revelations of God. This is precisely why God would provide multiple witnesses for His Gospel. Because He knew in the last days that people would disbelieve the Bible alone because of all the confusion found in modern Christianity.
> 
> That's the weakness of your rebuttal.......Revelations.  Paul said, "stick to the scriptures and you won't be mislead, by false prophets claiming......"I saw Jesus", or " I had a visitation, and thus sayeth the Lord from that visitation.".
> 
> Your church falls right in to Satan's trap; relying on dreams, visitations, etc.. and going head-strong ahead and claiming them to be divine revelations.  That is the pitfall of straying from Gods Word.  Many will say, "Here He is!" and if possible even fool the Elect(true Christians).
> 
> Systems of faith or religion that depend solely upon personal divine revelations are walking towards a nasty bear trap.
> 
> This is no different that those that see a cloud formation or a shadow on a building that looks like some biblical personality, and claims this is a message from God.  Whats the message.
> 
> Burning bosom experiences are most suspect, because when they validate Mormonism, it is often a dream of some long dead relative that says, "Mormonism is the truth".   Paul would lamblast anyone that decided to just pray to find out if something is the truth, and disregard God's Word for validation of whatever supposed answer came out of that prayer.
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In every age of man, He has spoken through revelation. He has called Prophets, sent Apostles, Ordained Priests. He has spoken to them through the power of the Holy Ghost. They havent had a Bible.  Yes indeed, the Mormons who have been called didn't need a bible.  Their Santa Claus(Satan) fullfilled there deepest fleshly desires.
> 
> Yet, we are blessed with the historical interactions with God and you want to claim that God is now silent. There can be no more Word of God, for we have enough. This while claiming God is the same? How can God  be the same while at the same time you claim He was talkative in the past and is now completely silent in these last days. Especially when we need Him to speak more than ever before?
> 
> God had never been silent.  He speaks clearly through His Word, the bible, and confirms His presence and truth in true believers through the H.S. that agrees with God's Word the bible.
> You claim the Bible is enough. We point out that the Bible never makes that claim and God has given us more. So who the heck are we to tell God He cant do whatever He pleases? If He wants to reveal more information, if He wants to clarify doctrines people misunderstand, we should be grateful God is willing to share this knowledge with us, not telling Him to go to hell.
> 
> If God wanted to reveal additional information, what makes you think that your church has exclusive rights to divine revelation?  That is extremely prideful and very presumptuous, and that's what irks people when talking to your door to door missionarys and even you and Truthspeaker.  You exude this prideful......"I have the truth", "Sorry, but you have to believe that J.S. Jr. is a legitimate prophet of God" or your out of the loop.
> 
> What makes your church correct?  So far it's based on crazy, revelations of Jesus visitations to the American Indians, a strange visitation by an angel to a man why was hardly seeking God, but was living a life of personal, monetary gain.  Your BOM lacks even 1 smidge of archeological validation.........
> 
> If you want to know what they said in English, you can pick up a Book of Mormon anywhere for absolutely free. Its not exactly being hid from you. In fact, we are encouraging you to study it out.
> 
> Yeah, well, Moroni and your god seemed to think that J.S. Jr. was an Egyptologist, and expert in ancient Egyptian language/writing.  A most strange, way to communicate to American mankind in the 19th century.  God doesn't communicate His revelations through mystical rites, handshakes, and magic underware.  This is all very bazaar to a world that needs the simplicity of the Gospel.  Man is the author of secret words, secret societies, and exclusivity of one group over another.  Joseph S.'s Freemason occult background is totally plagarized in your temple rites/ceremonies.
> 
> True Christians know that with God it is a "level" playing field.  Those that teach or preach are no higher on the "God's special child" scale than the Christian that mops up bathrooms at his church.  In fact those that aspire to lead or teach will be held to an even greater accountability than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that couldnt possibly be because the Spanish came in, melted everything down and shipped it all to Europe, could it? I mean its not like we have countless records of them doing such things. That couldnt possibly account for the lack of metal items found.
> 
> What exactly were the Spanish melting down and shipping back to Europe if it wasnt precious metal?
> 
> Again, you stumble and give half answers to full questions.  There are no evidences of any metal forging, refining in the America's before European man stepped on the N. American continent.  How hard is that, to comprehend?
> 
> Before the time of European man, indigenous N. Americans found gold in it's pure, form, and fashioned jewlry, funerary masks, and other implements for royalty and rituals.  They did not have foundrys, nor any industry to smelt gold.
> 
> However you overlook the lack of copper, bronze, and iron, in N. America, yet your church espouses that these N. American civilizations were advance..........but conveninently lost or gone now.
> 
> That is the case with myriads of ancient Asian, European, and African societies, yet evidences of their existence is readily found in the form of metalurgy, swords, pots, spears, etc....  Not so in N. America.  Why would God hide these evidences from us in N. America and not in the rest of the world?
> 
> Id provide news links but apparent my links are out of date. See the information was on abc, cbs, and other news sources, about 7 years ago. They dont keep the information on indefinitely.
> 
> Well looks like there is some progress being made. You are at least admitting that there are eye-witnesses. I wonder how it must have sounded when 12 men preached that they saw someone raised from the dead. Somehow, it's easy to believe that, and yet to believe that God could show them a metal book is unbelievable.
> 
> Sadly, you overlook Pauls statement in his epistle that hundreds saw the ressurrected Christ.........not just his 12 Apostles.  Hundreds saw Him.........  Thats not 12.
> 
> Your eye witness is a very questionable person indeed(J.S. Jr.).  That's your witness.........Yep..........Your witness.
> 
> I am completely confident that the more we learn the more the Book of Mormon and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will be verified. Because the more we do learn the more it is verified. If it's all some hoax, if Joseph made it all up, there should be absolutely zero evidence.
> 
> You are confident, based on what?  Your hope?  Your need to be right?  Your hope that Joseph Smith isn't what thousands of pieces of evidence says that contridicts the LDS churchs' take?
> 
> But there is evidence. and unlikely evidences. Joseph got lots of obscure facts absolutely correct. Now we could expect a con man to maybe by luck get one or two unknown facts right. But at what point do we have to start taking the evidence seriously? Especially considering there shouldnt be any.
> 
> Oh, we have a prophet here that got some things right.......Well, lets check and see what happens alleged prophets that prophesy just one false prophesy............God says their false prophets........Flee from them.  Also the Israelites were told to execute them.  God isn't sometimes right, nor will he allow His spokesman to be sometimes correct.
> 
> Its the details that proclaim the truth of the matter.
> 
> God doesn't communicate in little details........He makes Himself and His attributes and desires for mankind very clear, and He repeats it over and over so that there is no doubt as to what He communicates.
> 
> If you have to search the details to prove that your on the right track then you are missing the big, big, giant picture that God had given you.  Romans Chapter 1 clearly states that man is without excuse, because all he has to do is just look at the heavens, and all of creation and realize that there is a Creator.  He doesn't need a con man from New York to lead the flock, although Satan can sure use folks like J.S. Jr. to good measure.
> 
> No, it's been pretty obvious. The idea that God speaks scares the crap out of alot of people. And some of the early saints were a bit cocky. Course, that doesnt justify murder, rape, and persecution.
> 
> Man wants to hear God speak to him.  Sadly, man trips over one of the greatest jewels of knowledge about God, His message, and attributes, the bible.
> 
> Joseph Smith Jr. fed into the humanistic, fleshly side, of fallen man's nature, by giving/duping people into believing that he had the new and improved message, replacing God's antequated, and inept communications.
> 
> Can you get it into your parameters of thinking that "It is finished!" proclaimed at Calvary, was the completion of God's redemptive work for mankind?  There is not extra attonement beyond Christs.  No man is ordained or directed to spill another man's blood and do what Christ did 2,000 years ago.  That is a mockery and a lie being taught by the LDS church.  It totally negates Christ's complete, redemptive work on the Cross.  If Christ wasn't capable of complete attonement for mankind's sins past, present, future, how could sinful man ad or complete the work.  That is utter nonsense to the clear thinking mind!
> 
> There is no middle ground with Mormonism either. Either Christ restored His Church or He didnt. Either the Book of Mormon is true or it isnt.
> 
> It is so easy to separate the BOM from the bible, and also the LDS church from mainstream biblical Christianity.  The middle ground with the LDS church is that the bible is not enough.  That creates an exclusivity with your church, and flies in the face of great theologians, Martin Luther, Wesley, Spurgeon, Towser, etc...
> 
> Your church has built a massive religion on half truths, and lousy homeletics.
> 
> One can make the bible say whatever they want it to say in order to prove their side or orthodoxy.  That is when we pick and pull scriptures out of context, or lack understanding of the cultural implications that also influenced scripture.
> 
> To just let the bible speak, in context, and accept what it says, and trust God to reveal what He deems one should hear, is not man's way of thinking.  If man wants polygamy to be validated, he can open the bible and say, "Abraham had a slave for a second wife/concubine" or "Solomon had a fistful of wives" or even David and his many wives.  The bible, when misused can be a used as Satans tool.  To look at the whole picture presented in scripture is to go back to the very nature of God..........The 10 commandments is a good starting point, yet, even in the garden of Eden, God made very clear is nature.  God didn't give Adam, several female partners, did He?
> 
> Christ is the only way is He not? Do you honestly think you are not lost if you refuse to listen to what He says now?
> 
> Your doctrine of blood attonement by man's hands, negates your above statement; clear and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just ridiculous. Mormons were persecuated for almost 15 years prior to this happening. He was also acquitted of any wrong doing  by a non-mormon judge because the City Council had legal standing to destroy any nuisances. And stirring up a mob is a nuisance.
> 
> His life was not Godly in any sense, as we observe with the prophets of the bible.......Samuel, Elijah, Guideon, etc.....
> 
> He was a martyr. I suggest you actually look up the definition of a martyr. blindly shooting into a hall way to bide enough time to jump out the window and save his friends is hardly a gun battle. One gun that misfires is hardly going to be effective against a mob of fifty with rifles.
> 
> One gun, defective or not, to defend one from death is hardly the life of a martyr when we used the Jesus's death as the template.
> 
> You mean he used the dictionaries definition.
> 
> Smith Jr. did not go quietly to his death, being lynched or shot for his beliefs, but instead, fought for his dear life.  If Smith's death was martyrdom, then it is a slap in the collective faces of every Christian that Nero, and many other dictators, have executed.
> 
> We want people to question! That's the whole point of the thread! That's the whole point of going out there and sharing what we believe.
> 
> Share away my friend.  Expect questions and critiques, and don't align yourselves with the persecuted of the Christian church, because you get flak in this thread.  This is hardly persecution, but definitive questions, and information thrown back at you that you summarily refuse to accept.
> 
> And contrary to your opinions. We arent taught to be victims. we are taught to act, not be acted upon. We are taught to follow Christ.
> 
> One big misconception.  Your are taught that we, the secular in your opinion have rewritten history about your churchs' founders because we are mislead by the unrestored church.  We are the duped, and you are the elect.  It's ok to believe that, but expect scrutiny, and expect that we want solid answers that make sense, and aren't flippant, and ignored for the most part.
> 
> And yes all of your missionarys when pressed to answer for their churchs' stance often fall back on previous alleged persecutions while traveling Westward to Utah.
> 
> Sadly, many persecutions are only onsided.....i.e.  Sadaam and his Republican Army no doubt felt persecuted during the Gulf war.
> 
> Persecution is not necessarily the sign that one is suffering for righteousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The amount of persecution that your church has endured is but a smidgeon of what Christians endured for nearly 2000 years.  Many folks have done terrible things in the name of Christ, yet they only proved that they were not Christians by relationship with God, but by man's traditions, and familial connections; all of which are not trully converted people, or true Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a given that the amount of persecution our church has endured is a smidgeon of what Christians have endured for nearly 2000 years. First, 200 years is alot shorter than 2000. Second, it's a subset of Christianity. Any persecution we suffer adds to the aggregate persecution all Christians have suffered. It seems a no brainer.
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't align your persecution with the 2,000 years of persecution of the church.  Remember, they are mislead and not correct.  Only your persecution is for the right reasons.  As a Christian, I find it appalling and do not invite or want any Mormon church persecution added to what Christ's church has endured.  It is a blasphemy.  As stated above, your church was persecuted for it's unbiblical stances that went cross grain with 19th century Christian America,.. that included Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentacostals, etc.....
> 
> By attempting to include your church's suffering with the 2,000 years of biblical church suffering, is to go against your own doctrine.  Now you are trying to be inclusive with the biblical church that started in 33 A.D. (book of Act - author Luke)
> 
> Can't you see that your doctrine is the hatchings of a very smart, con job, of a man who needed to control a group of people, and was most likely deluded himself?  Your doctrine has little bits of Islamic heaven, with celestial sexual intercourse, mixed with Ron Hubbard's planetary races of humans with their own Jesus's and saviours for each planet.  It is a regular mishmash of so many beliefs, topped off with a big does of legalistic do's and don'ts in order to be pleasing to your god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're claiming its a smart con. The last guy was complaining that its an obvious con. I wish you people would stay consistant.
> 
> Seems very consistent; a smart and obvious con to those that want to see for what it was.
> 
> And this probably isnt the last time ill say this, but it isnt about do's and don'ts. It's about becoming more than the natural man through the Atonement.  It's about changing human nature through Christ and building a community of Saints to be prepared for the Lord's coming.
> 
> You don't become more than a natural man through your LDS definition of attonement.  It is God who takes the soul of natural man and makes him a new creature/creation in Christ Jesus.  All the attoning was done and completed by Christ.  To continue to attone is to covertly or overtly tell the world that Jesus' death was not enough.
> But you probably wont read a thing I just said. Its probably just going to be another cut and paste job.
Click to expand...


I've done very little cut-paste, and have cramped my fingers typing my thoughts based on the bible, and or Christian doctrine.  I've attempted to reason with you, and show you blatant inconsistencies in your churchs' doctrine.

And all you can do is tell me that I cut and paste too much.  Sadly that's a convenient cop-out from facing my rebuttals.

Also find that contrary to what the bible says is Jesus-like attributes, you and your tag-team buddy Truthspeaker, go for the personal when rebuttalling, when pressed about your belief system. 

There is nothing personal that I harbor towards Mormons.  In fact I worked with ex-Mormons for Jesus while in bible college.  I have extensive Mormon background on my father's side.  

God loves Mormons, buddists, agnostics, atheists alike.  He desires that they will all come before the cross, and kneel in total surrender to the Lord of Lords, and spill out their guts, in repentance, and call out to Jesus for mercy.  God meets all who seek Him with total contrite hearts, not those with stipulations, disclaimers, and no transparency of their souls.  God is a gentleman.  He doesn't force Himself on anyone's soul.  He does however receive all who come to Him that have relinquished their rights to govern/control their own destinys or lives.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> hehehe.. whatever you say, dude.
> 
> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your point? a bunch of people disobeyed Brigham Young and got excommunicated and some executed for it. Seriously, what does this prove?
Click to expand...


Your church history that is very suspect may say that "they" were disobedient to Brigham Young.  What does historical records say that aren't from your churchs' source?

What does it prove?  A lot!  It determines whether Brigham Young, an LDS co-founder/prophet was a false prophet, and also a very evil man.


----------



## Shogun

I would not use a term like EVIL to describe Young OR Missourians.  this type of cultural conflict really is no different regardless of who is the killer and who is the killee.  One group percieves a threat and reacts violently to another encroaching group.  EVIL?  no.  commonly HUMAN?  yes.


----------



## catzmeow

Shogun said:


> It proves that you people are no more inherently righteous than anyone else.  You bitch and cry like a bleeding pussy about your treatment in Missouri after moving here from the east coast.... and then, IRONICALLY, have yourself a nice "kill the settlers" fest by killing your OWN westward moving easterners.  And no, we didn't see ANYTHING other than LDS denial from day fucking one until it eventually dawned on you silly bastards that you were wrong.  Sure, NOW you admit it.. but it's the immediate denial and eventual admission that is like the calling card of dogma junkies on a self-righteous kick.
> 
> 
> so, i'll say it again:  IM GLAD YOU MORMON MOTHERFUCKERS WERE KICKED OUT OF THE SHOW ME STATE SO I DONT HAVE TO LIVE AMONGST YOUR LITTLE BASTARDIZED, INBRED, DOGMA JUNKIE CULTURE.



Simply beautiful rant.


----------



## Godboy

> God loves Mormons, buddists, agnostics, atheists alike. He desires that they will all come before the cross, and kneel in total surrender to the Lord of Lords, and spill out their guts, in repentance, and call out to Jesus for mercy



This is what i dont get about you religious people. Isnt Jesus above all that petty stuff, and evil in general? Why the fuck does he require you to kneel and beg for mercy before him? Who the fuck are you people worshipping? Sounds like a pompous asshole. Id spit in that fuckers face and kick him in the balls if he tried that nonsense with me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> hehehe.. whatever you say, dude.
> 
> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your point? a bunch of people disobeyed Brigham Young and got excommunicated and some executed for it. Seriously, what does this prove?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your church history that is very suspect may say that "they" were disobedient to Brigham Young.  What does historical records say that aren't from your churchs' source?
> 
> What does it prove?  A lot!  It determines whether Brigham Young, an LDS co-founder/prophet was a false prophet, and also a very evil man.
Click to expand...



The quality of your arguments is very low. Like I said a long time ago in the very first page of the thread. I am not here to change your mind regarding conclusions you have drawn. I think they are premature at best since you haven't read the Book of Mormon all the way through or any of our other standard works. You haven't read Dr. Nibley's "Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites", nor have you read Anthropologist John L. Sorenson's "An Ancient Setting for The Book of Mormon"; Both which chronicle thousands of archaeological, anthropologic, historical and linguistic evidences. You probably haven't watched every single show on History Channel about ancient Meso American civilization like I have, or poured over every National Geographic Magazine relating to said civlization.

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your conclusions based on the logic in your own mind. All fine and well. What amazes me is that you seem to not want to allow others to come to a different conclusion. As if somehow the matter has been decided. The debate will be eternal and as I said before I know what I know and if you feel the same way, why don't you just stop the attack and engage in your own positive cause. If you know we are so wrong, and we won't change our minds then allow us to be wrong.

I have a different understanding because of the things I have learned spiritually first then supported with secular evidences. I would die before I renounced those beliefs. Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. No one can take that from me. So why don't we part ways if you don't have any questions for me?
And I might add, if you do have any more legitimate questions, please ask them one at a time so order can be restored here and I can deal with one issue at a time. 
Thanks


----------



## Shogun

*Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost.*


if ONLY you were the first person to have claimed to have a conversation with god.  for real, dude.


----------



## Shogun

*Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost.*


if ONLY you were the first person to have claimed to have a conversation with god.  for real, dude.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It proves that you people are no more inherently righteous than anyone else.  You bitch and cry like a bleeding pussy about your treatment in Missouri after moving here from the east coast.... and then, IRONICALLY, have yourself a nice "kill the settlers" fest by killing your OWN westward moving easterners.  And no, we didn't see ANYTHING other than LDS denial from day fucking one until it eventually dawned on you silly bastards that you were wrong.  Sure, NOW you admit it.. but it's the immediate denial and eventual admission that is like the calling card of dogma junkies on a self-righteous kick.
> 
> 
> so, i'll say it again:  IM GLAD YOU MORMON MOTHERFUCKERS WERE KICKED OUT OF THE SHOW ME STATE SO I DONT HAVE TO LIVE AMONGST YOUR LITTLE BASTARDIZED, INBRED, DOGMA JUNKIE CULTURE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply beautiful rant.
Click to expand...


meh!. It's pretty pathetic and highly illogical for anyone to assume that this was the will of the Mormons, even at the time it happened. Brigham Young wept like a child when he learned of the massacre. But you can't show one source where he covered it up. Sure people want to think he did, because they didn't like him for other reasons. It was just a chance to crucify a truly great man. 
Why don't you get a look at the unbiased account. See how responsibility was owned by those who did it. Commentary - LDS Newsroom


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> *Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost.*
> 
> 
> if ONLY you were the first person to have claimed to have a conversation with god.  for real, dude.



Then what?


----------



## Shogun

yea dude.. Young sure did cry like a baby!    Or, better yet, YOU'd THINK SO just to keep him canonized in your own mind.  After all.. nothing says WEEPED FOR THE DEAD quite like denying it for years.


and, did you REALLY just talk about an "unbiased" account right before posting a link to.. a mormon source?  


come on, dude.  I'm starting to feel like Saul here.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost.*
> 
> 
> if ONLY you were the first person to have claimed to have a conversation with god.  for real, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what?
Click to expand...


well, THEN you'd be living in a deeper fantasy world than you already do.  You are not the first person to claim to have gods email address in your head.  From stone age mythology to new age alien crap there is nothing rare about someone who claims to have personal enlightenment from a higher power.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> yea dude.. Young sure did cry like a baby!    Or, better yet, YOU'd THINK SO just to keep him canonized in your own mind.  After all.. nothing says WEEPED FOR THE DEAD quite like denying it for years.
> 
> 
> and, did you REALLY just talk about an "unbiased" account right before posting a link to.. a mormon source?
> 
> 
> come on, dude.  I'm starting to feel like Saul here.



I can see you didn't read the source. Just because it's on a mormon site doesn't mean it's biased. You can prejudge it but you really can't say anything till you read it. First rule of debate, know your sources before you spout off.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost.*
> 
> 
> if ONLY you were the first person to have claimed to have a conversation with god.  for real, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, THEN you'd be living in a deeper fantasy world than you already do.  You are not the first person to claim to have gods email address in your head.  From stone age mythology to new age alien crap there is nothing rare about someone who claims to have personal enlightenment from a higher power.
Click to expand...


Sounds good to me


----------



## Sunni Man

*Wild Bill Hickman  
and the Mormon Frontier * 

Author HOPE A. HILTON  


William Adams ("Wild Bill") Hickman was one of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier. As a bodyguard and spy for Mormon church presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, he was popularly known as a "destroying angel." However, a matter of disagreement among historians is whether he acted more often in his church's interest or independently as a true renegade.  

Hickman obeyed the Mormon teaching of polygamy and was husband to ten wives and father to thirty-five children. During the Utah War of 1857-58, he rallied with his fellow Mormons and was one of the most effective guerillas in the hit-and-run attacks that wore down the attacking U.S. Army. When he was later arrested and jailed for murdering a government arms dealer during the war, his troubles multiplied when he implicated Brigham Young. 

When he died in Wyoming in 1883, his reputation in three states forced many of his relatives to change their name to escape the social stigma of family ties, while the residents of the small town in which he died refused to bury him in the city cemetery. Still, whatever one thinks of his motives or degree of loyalty, Hickman left an indelible impact on the history and myth of the West as a rough, undisciplined frontiersman who nevertheless helped to establish the Rocky Mountain kingdom of Mormons. 

William Adams Hickman - A Mormon Bodyguard and Spy - One of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, THEN you'd be living in a deeper fantasy world than you already do.  You are not the first person to claim to have gods email address in your head.  From stone age mythology to new age alien crap there is nothing rare about someone who claims to have personal enlightenment from a higher power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me
Click to expand...


Im sure it does.  Hell, i'm sure it does wonders for your ego.. if not for the truth.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> meh!. It's pretty pathetic and highly illogical for anyone to assume that this was the will of the Mormons, even at the time it happened. Brigham Young wept like a child when he learned of the massacre.



I've actually been to this area where the massacre occurred.  Have you?


----------



## catzmeow

Shogun said:


> yea dude.. Young sure did cry like a baby!    Or, better yet, YOU'd THINK SO just to keep him canonized in your own mind.  After all.. nothing says WEEPED FOR THE DEAD quite like denying it for years.
> 
> 
> and, did you REALLY just talk about an "unbiased" account right before posting a link to.. a mormon source?
> 
> 
> come on, dude.  I'm starting to feel like Saul here.



It's pretty funny what an orthodox LDS believer thinks is an "unbiased" source, innit?


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea dude.. Young sure did cry like a baby!    Or, better yet, YOU'd THINK SO just to keep him canonized in your own mind.  After all.. nothing says WEEPED FOR THE DEAD quite like denying it for years.
> 
> 
> and, did you REALLY just talk about an "unbiased" account right before posting a link to.. a mormon source?
> 
> 
> come on, dude.  I'm starting to feel like Saul here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you didn't read the source. *Just because it's on a mormon site doesn't mean it's biased.* You can prejudge it but you really can't say anything till you read it. First rule of debate, know your sources before you spout off.
Click to expand...



dude.  come the fuck on.  I'm not interested in making excuses for the isnight on racism found at niggermania dot com.  If you can't find a source that is NOT a bunch of mormons jacking off over mormon beliefs then perhaps you should reconsider why your quiver is empty in this thread.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats your point? a bunch of people disobeyed Brigham Young and got excommunicated and some executed for it. Seriously, what does this prove?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your church history that is very suspect may say that "they" were disobedient to Brigham Young.  What does historical records say that aren't from your churchs' source?
> 
> What does it prove?  A lot!  It determines whether Brigham Young, an LDS co-founder/prophet was a false prophet, and also a very evil man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The quality of your arguments is very low. Like I said a long time ago in the very first page of the thread. I am not here to change your mind regarding conclusions you have drawn. I think they are premature at best since you haven't read the Book of Mormon all the way through or any of our other standard works. You haven't read Dr. Nibley's "Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites", nor have you read Anthropologist John L. Sorenson's "An Ancient Setting for The Book of Mormon"; Both which chronicle thousands of archaeological, anthropologic, historical and linguistic evidences. You probably haven't watched every single show on History Channel about ancient Meso American civilization like I have, or poured over every National Geographic Magazine relating to said civlization.
> 
> Nonetheless, you are entitled to your conclusions based on the logic in your own mind. All fine and well. What amazes me is that you seem to not want to allow others to come to a different conclusion. As if somehow the matter has been decided. The debate will be eternal and as I said before I know what I know and if you feel the same way, why don't you just stop the attack and engage in your own positive cause. If you know we are so wrong, and we won't change our minds then allow us to be wrong.
> 
> I have a different understanding because of the things I have learned spiritually first then supported with secular evidences. I would die before I renounced those beliefs. Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. No one can take that from me. So why don't we part ways if you don't have any questions for me?
> And I might add, if you do have any more legitimate questions, please ask them one at a time so order can be restored here and I can deal with one issue at a time.
> Thanks
Click to expand...


I've asked a myriad of questions, and you've answered them.........by divine revelations?

You see, Truthspeaker, your whole doctrine or where your coming from doesn't allow for logical, or objective debate/discussion.

J.S. Jr. or Brigham Y. said it or one of your President/Prophets, and thats the end of it.  You totally ignore one big old LDS filled warehouse of legitimate questions.

The Massacre at Mountain meadows got the "green light" from your higher-ups in the church at the time.

Here's a question?  Why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand that the American flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake?  There was something very unAmerican going on in Salt Lake..............and it centered around your church..........?

Here's another?  How can you baptize people who are dead, when the Lord's baptism with water representing the co-death, co-burial, and co-ressurrection of the living or alive at the time, true, saved Christian believer in Christ?

Your church has taken Paul's mention of the baptism of the dead totally out of context.  Christian theologians to a person agree that Paul wasn't referring to proxy baptisms of dead people by baptizing live people in their name.  Again, a very weird, and bazaar thing.

How about magic underware with it's little occult symbols:  What does that have to do with Christianity?

Why can't non-Mormons attend their Mormon friend's wedding in the temple?  

Biblical Christians welcome anyone of any faith or non-faith to come and celebrate with the bride and grooms nuptials in a church, or anywhere.

Where does the bible say that marriage will continue in heaven?  The bible does however say that the relationships between believers in heaven will be greater than any earthly bonds..........We will know our believer wives in an even stronger bond of love than we can experience here on earth.  Christ will be the center and the Light of heaven.  All will focus on God, and Christ, and will not be spending their time having sex with multiple wives........a most base, and earthy, manmade, convolution.  

Where does the bible talk about celestial sexual intercourse, or spirit babies?

You want questions.  I bet you have to go back to sources other than the bible?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sunni Man said:


> *Wild Bill Hickman
> and the Mormon Frontier *
> 
> Author HOPE A. HILTON
> 
> 
> William Adams ("Wild Bill") Hickman was one of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier. As a bodyguard and spy for Mormon church presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, he was popularly known as a "destroying angel." However, a matter of disagreement among historians is whether he acted more often in his church's interest or independently as a true renegade.
> 
> Hickman obeyed the Mormon teaching of polygamy and was husband to ten wives and father to thirty-five children. During the Utah War of 1857-58, he rallied with his fellow Mormons and was one of the most effective guerillas in the hit-and-run attacks that wore down the attacking U.S. Army. When he was later arrested and jailed for murdering a government arms dealer during the war, his troubles multiplied when he implicated Brigham Young.
> 
> When he died in Wyoming in 1883, his reputation in three states forced many of his relatives to change their name to escape the social stigma of family ties, while the residents of the small town in which he died refused to bury him in the city cemetery. Still, whatever one thinks of his motives or degree of loyalty, Hickman left an indelible impact on the history and myth of the West as a rough, undisciplined frontiersman who nevertheless helped to establish the Rocky Mountain kingdom of Mormons.
> 
> William Adams Hickman - A Mormon Bodyguard and Spy - One of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier



Ol Billy had a screw loose. So what?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, THEN you'd be living in a deeper fantasy world than you already do.  You are not the first person to claim to have gods email address in your head.  From stone age mythology to new age alien crap there is nothing rare about someone who claims to have personal enlightenment from a higher power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im sure it does.  Hell, i'm sure it does wonders for your ego.. if not for the truth.
Click to expand...


Sure why not?


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> meh!. It's pretty pathetic and highly illogical for anyone to assume that this was the will of the Mormons, even at the time it happened. Brigham Young wept like a child when he learned of the massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've actually been to this area where the massacre occurred.  Have you?
Click to expand...


I see this is a loaded question, get to your point.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea dude.. Young sure did cry like a baby!    Or, better yet, YOU'd THINK SO just to keep him canonized in your own mind.  After all.. nothing says WEEPED FOR THE DEAD quite like denying it for years.
> 
> 
> and, did you REALLY just talk about an "unbiased" account right before posting a link to.. a mormon source?
> 
> 
> come on, dude.  I'm starting to feel like Saul here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty funny what an orthodox LDS believer thinks is an "unbiased" source, innit?
Click to expand...


I guess then in your eyes, the stories on your side of the fence would be unbiased?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> yea dude.. Young sure did cry like a baby!    Or, better yet, YOU'd THINK SO just to keep him canonized in your own mind.  After all.. nothing says WEEPED FOR THE DEAD quite like denying it for years.
> 
> 
> and, did you REALLY just talk about an "unbiased" account right before posting a link to.. a mormon source?
> 
> 
> come on, dude.  I'm starting to feel like Saul here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you didn't read the source. *Just because it's on a mormon site doesn't mean it's biased.* You can prejudge it but you really can't say anything till you read it. First rule of debate, know your sources before you spout off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude.  come the fuck on.  I'm not interested in making excuses for the isnight on racism found at niggermania dot com.  If you can't find a source that is NOT a bunch of mormons jacking off over mormon beliefs then perhaps you should reconsider why your quiver is empty in this thread.
Click to expand...

You are such a retard. Read the source then come back at me with problems you have with the article. Show me what problem you have. Get rid of your ridiculous little smoke screen and speak english rather than the crap that comes from your mouth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your church history that is very suspect may say that "they" were disobedient to Brigham Young.  What does historical records say that aren't from your churchs' source?
> 
> What does it prove?  A lot!  It determines whether Brigham Young, an LDS co-founder/prophet was a false prophet, and also a very evil man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The quality of your arguments is very low. Like I said a long time ago in the very first page of the thread. I am not here to change your mind regarding conclusions you have drawn. I think they are premature at best since you haven't read the Book of Mormon all the way through or any of our other standard works. You haven't read Dr. Nibley's "Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites", nor have you read Anthropologist John L. Sorenson's "An Ancient Setting for The Book of Mormon"; Both which chronicle thousands of archaeological, anthropologic, historical and linguistic evidences. You probably haven't watched every single show on History Channel about ancient Meso American civilization like I have, or poured over every National Geographic Magazine relating to said civlization.
> 
> Nonetheless, you are entitled to your conclusions based on the logic in your own mind. All fine and well. What amazes me is that you seem to not want to allow others to come to a different conclusion. As if somehow the matter has been decided. The debate will be eternal and as I said before I know what I know and if you feel the same way, why don't you just stop the attack and engage in your own positive cause. If you know we are so wrong, and we won't change our minds then allow us to be wrong.
> 
> I have a different understanding because of the things I have learned spiritually first then supported with secular evidences. I would die before I renounced those beliefs. Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. No one can take that from me. So why don't we part ways if you don't have any questions for me?
> And I might add, if you do have any more legitimate questions, please ask them one at a time so order can be restored here and I can deal with one issue at a time.
> Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've asked a myriad of questions, and you've answered them.........by divine revelations?
> 
> You see, Truthspeaker, your whole doctrine or where your coming from doesn't allow for logical, or objective debate/discussion.
> 
> J.S. Jr. or Brigham Y. said it or one of your President/Prophets, and thats the end of it.  You totally ignore one big old LDS filled warehouse of legitimate questions.
> 
> The Massacre at Mountain meadows got the "green light" from your higher-ups in the church at the time.
> 
> Here's a question?  Why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand that the American flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake?  There was something very unAmerican going on in Salt Lake..............and it centered around your church..........?
> 
> Here's another?  How can you baptize people who are dead, when the Lord's baptism with water representing the co-death, co-burial, and co-ressurrection of the living or alive at the time, true, saved Christian believer in Christ?
> 
> Your church has taken Paul's mention of the baptism of the dead totally out of context.  Christian theologians to a person agree that Paul wasn't referring to proxy baptisms of dead people by baptizing live people in their name.  Again, a very weird, and bazaar thing.
> 
> How about magic underware with it's little occult symbols:  What does that have to do with Christianity?
> 
> Why can't non-Mormons attend their Mormon friend's wedding in the temple?
> 
> Biblical Christians welcome anyone of any faith or non-faith to come and celebrate with the bride and grooms nuptials in a church, or anywhere.
> 
> Where does the bible say that marriage will continue in heaven?  The bible does however say that the relationships between believers in heaven will be greater than any earthly bonds..........We will know our believer wives in an even stronger bond of love than we can experience here on earth.  Christ will be the center and the Light of heaven.  All will focus on God, and Christ, and will not be spending their time having sex with multiple wives........a most base, and earthy, manmade, convolution.
> 
> Where does the bible talk about celestial sexual intercourse, or spirit babies?
> 
> You want questions.  I bet you have to go back to sources other than the bible?
Click to expand...


Now we're almost talking. 1 at a time please. Which one do you want me to answer first?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> meh!. It's pretty pathetic and highly illogical for anyone to assume that this was the will of the Mormons, even at the time it happened. Brigham Young wept like a child when he learned of the massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've actually been to this area where the massacre occurred.  Have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see this is a loaded question, get to your point.
Click to expand...


Good patent, dodge of a reply..........What's your question?  He asked if you've been there?.........If Brigham cried, it was most likely crocodile tears to impress the U.S. Government military inspectors.

Must we translate for you?

Brigham, and Smith were very calloused men.........not the crying type except when cornered with their hands in the cookie jar, and did they ever have a lot of cookie jar scenarios happen!

By the way.........Truthspeaker...........Your revelations from the holy spirit.............how do you confirm that the message was from the holy spirit, and not some other counterfeit spirit, sent by Satan, the great counterfeiter of all?

Christians go back to the bible as directed by Jesus' apostle Paul.

Do you go back to the bible to confirm that your revelation agrees with God's Word the bible?


----------



## Truthspeaker

All..... I will have to reply later tonight, I need to get my work done. We do work here in San Francisco. It's not all play and blogging. Keep it coming..........


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The quality of your arguments is very low. Like I said a long time ago in the very first page of the thread. I am not here to change your mind regarding conclusions you have drawn. I think they are premature at best since you haven't read the Book of Mormon all the way through or any of our other standard works. You haven't read Dr. Nibley's "Lehi in the Desert and the World of the Jaredites", nor have you read Anthropologist John L. Sorenson's "An Ancient Setting for The Book of Mormon"; Both which chronicle thousands of archaeological, anthropologic, historical and linguistic evidences. You probably haven't watched every single show on History Channel about ancient Meso American civilization like I have, or poured over every National Geographic Magazine relating to said civlization.
> 
> Nonetheless, you are entitled to your conclusions based on the logic in your own mind. All fine and well. What amazes me is that you seem to not want to allow others to come to a different conclusion. As if somehow the matter has been decided. The debate will be eternal and as I said before I know what I know and if you feel the same way, why don't you just stop the attack and engage in your own positive cause. If you know we are so wrong, and we won't change our minds then allow us to be wrong.
> 
> I have a different understanding because of the things I have learned spiritually first then supported with secular evidences. I would die before I renounced those beliefs. Christ has made it known to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. No one can take that from me. So why don't we part ways if you don't have any questions for me?
> And I might add, if you do have any more legitimate questions, please ask them one at a time so order can be restored here and I can deal with one issue at a time.
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked a myriad of questions, and you've answered them.........by divine revelations?
> 
> You see, Truthspeaker, your whole doctrine or where your coming from doesn't allow for logical, or objective debate/discussion.
> 
> J.S. Jr. or Brigham Y. said it or one of your President/Prophets, and thats the end of it.  You totally ignore one big old LDS filled warehouse of legitimate questions.
> 
> The Massacre at Mountain meadows got the "green light" from your higher-ups in the church at the time.
> 
> Here's a question?  Why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand that the American flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake?  There was something very unAmerican going on in Salt Lake..............and it centered around your church..........?
> 
> Here's another?  How can you baptize people who are dead, when the Lord's baptism with water representing the co-death, co-burial, and co-ressurrection of the living or alive at the time, true, saved Christian believer in Christ?
> 
> Your church has taken Paul's mention of the baptism of the dead totally out of context.  Christian theologians to a person agree that Paul wasn't referring to proxy baptisms of dead people by baptizing live people in their name.  Again, a very weird, and bazaar thing.
> 
> How about magic underware with it's little occult symbols:  What does that have to do with Christianity?
> 
> Why can't non-Mormons attend their Mormon friend's wedding in the temple?
> 
> Biblical Christians welcome anyone of any faith or non-faith to come and celebrate with the bride and grooms nuptials in a church, or anywhere.
> 
> Where does the bible say that marriage will continue in heaven?  The bible does however say that the relationships between believers in heaven will be greater than any earthly bonds..........We will know our believer wives in an even stronger bond of love than we can experience here on earth.  Christ will be the center and the Light of heaven.  All will focus on God, and Christ, and will not be spending their time having sex with multiple wives........a most base, and earthy, manmade, convolution.
> 
> Where does the bible talk about celestial sexual intercourse, or spirit babies?
> 
> You want questions.  I bet you have to go back to sources other than the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're almost talking. 1 at a time please. Which one do you want me to answer first?
Click to expand...


Don't play games..........just answer!


----------



## Sunni Man

*History of Beer in Utah*

In 1833, Joseph Smith received a "revelation" known as the Word of Wisdom: the famed doctrine that prohibited members of the LDS faith to intake wine, hot drinks, tobacco and&#8212; strangely&#8212; the flesh of wild animals (which could only consumed in times of winter cold and famine). In Volume 12 of Brigham Young&#8217;s Journal of Discourses, Young describes how early church meetings were held at Joseph Smith&#8217;s house, the elder converts often chewing and smoking tobacco, occasionally spitting on Smith&#8217;s floor. Not pleased with the lingering "cloud of tobacco smoke" that he usually found himself in (coupled with his wife&#8217;s complaints of having to clean a tobacco-riddled floor afterwards), caused Smith to make an "inquiry" to the Lord, eventually leading to the Word of Wisdom. Today, Church members adhere to this doctrine quite strictly &#8230; but it wasn&#8217;t always that way. Back when Salt Lake City was in its infancy, the church and its members proved to be both active and vital in the movement to keep Utah soaked in booze. Economically, it was a great way to attract people to Utah&#8217;s ever-growing populace.

A Mormon (one that was oft accused of killing people) started the first Utah brewery. Indeed, the infamous Orrin Porter Rockwell established the Hot Springs Brewery Hotel in 1856 (Valley Tan; November 6, 1858). Rockwell himself was a colorful character: he was the personal bodyguard to both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and with his Manson-like beard and intense, thunderous eyes, he turned out to be as intimidating as he looked. During a speech given by Vice President Schuyler Colfax in 1869, Porter was noted as to have blurted out "I never killed anyone who didn&#8217;t need killing." This certainly makes sense when you take into account the fact that he was arrested for the murders and attempted murders of multiple men,

Though we can only theorize about what motivated Young&#8217;s wheelings and dealings , it&#8217;s safe to make the assumption that Young &#8211; already known as a smart businessman &#8211; was in it for the money. The whole point of establishing Utah breweries (and cotton missions and factories) in the first place was to cultivate business and &#8211; more importantly &#8211; to prevent Utah from wasting money by importing valuable items like beer, whisky and fabrics. Young saw an economic opportunity and immediately seized it, even though he never drank the stuff. So, in an unofficial sense, the Church controlled all of the liquor in Utah; an 1874 edition of The Gazetteer of Utah even has a listing for the Salt Lake City Brewery being housed in Salt Lake&#8217;s Tenth Ward! Yet beer and whisky weren&#8217;t the only dealings that the Church had with "spirituous liquors". It wasn&#8217;t very long until the Valley was swarming with beer and wine. There was so much, in fact, that some Mormons actually began paying their tithing in wine (a report from the St. George Tithing Office [later republished Leonard J. Arrington&#8217;s 1966 book Desert Saints] showed that the office had collected more than 7000 gallons of wine by early 1887). Everyone had their own idea of how much wine constituted a full tithing payment, eventually leading a Church tithing-clerk to issue instructions on how to standardize the wine/tithing process in a letter dated September 20, 1879.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the abundance of Utah breweries were gradually leading to frequent displays of public drunkenness, and soon the Church was growing worried about the affect that mass public intoxication was having on its image. According to Jerald & Sandra Tanner&#8217;s 1979 book, The Changing World of Mormonism, it wasn&#8217;t until 1887 that the church stopped making its own wine, soon followed by a greater pressure for people to adhere to the Word of Wisdom, a move, which would no doubt quell the drunkenness among Church members. The Church&#8217;s saving grace came in 1919, when Utah ratified the Eighteenth Amendment, putting prohibition into full effect. In 1921, it was Heber J. Grant that ultimately made adherence to the Word of Wisdom a strict requirement to enter the Temple, thus forcing many faithful members to clean up their acts whether they liked it or not.

SLUG Magazine | History of Beer in Utah


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey Sunnidiot.........doesn't YOUR religion ban alcohol?

What's even more........if you don't drink beer, then you're just a HOG poser biker.

If you do, you're a muslim hypocrite.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hey Sunnidiot.........doesn't YOUR religion ban alcohol?

What's even more........if you don't drink beer, then you're just a HOG poser biker.

If you do, you're a muslim hypocrite.


----------



## Sunni Man

Truthspeaker said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wild Bill Hickman
> and the Mormon Frontier *
> 
> Author HOPE A. HILTON
> 
> 
> William Adams ("Wild Bill") Hickman was one of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier. As a bodyguard and spy for Mormon church presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, he was popularly known as a "destroying angel." However, a matter of disagreement among historians is whether he acted more often in his church's interest or independently as a true renegade.
> 
> Hickman obeyed the Mormon teaching of polygamy and was husband to ten wives and father to thirty-five children. During the Utah War of 1857-58, he rallied with his fellow Mormons and was one of the most effective guerillas in the hit-and-run attacks that wore down the attacking U.S. Army. When he was later arrested and jailed for murdering a government arms dealer during the war, his troubles multiplied when he implicated Brigham Young.
> 
> When he died in Wyoming in 1883, his reputation in three states forced many of his relatives to change their name to escape the social stigma of family ties, while the residents of the small town in which he died refused to bury him in the city cemetery. Still, whatever one thinks of his motives or degree of loyalty, Hickman left an indelible impact on the history and myth of the West as a rough, undisciplined frontiersman who nevertheless helped to establish the Rocky Mountain kingdom of Mormons.
> 
> William Adams Hickman - A Mormon Bodyguard and Spy - One of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ol Billy had a screw loose. So what?
Click to expand...

He was the personal hand picked body guard of both Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Hickman is said to have killed some 54 men under direct orders from Brigham Young.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good to me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure it does.  Hell, i'm sure it does wonders for your ego.. if not for the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure why not?
Click to expand...


Indeed, Jim Jones, why NOT?


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see you didn't read the source. *Just because it's on a mormon site doesn't mean it's biased.* You can prejudge it but you really can't say anything till you read it. First rule of debate, know your sources before you spout off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude.  come the fuck on.  I'm not interested in making excuses for the isnight on racism found at niggermania dot com.  If you can't find a source that is NOT a bunch of mormons jacking off over mormon beliefs then perhaps you should reconsider why your quiver is empty in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are such a retard. Read the source then come back at me with problems you have with the article. Show me what problem you have. Get rid of your ridiculous little smoke screen and speak english rather than the crap that comes from your mouth.
Click to expand...


No, I think i'll go ahead and hold you to the same standard I apply to everyone else.  If you can't find an unbiased source then it looks like you fail.. Again.. (I count making silly statements about droves of mormons in missouri despite being a meager 1% of the population)


oh, and I'll use the nomenclature I want.  Be glad i'm not treating you like abiker(gay)sailor


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've actually been to this area where the massacre occurred.  Have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see this is a loaded question, get to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good patent, dodge of a reply..........What's your question?  He asked if you've been there?.........If Brigham cried, it was most likely crocodile tears to impress the U.S. Government military inspectors.
> 
> Must we translate for you?
> 
> Brigham, and Smith were very calloused men.........not the crying type except when cornered with their hands in the cookie jar, and did they ever have a lot of cookie jar scenarios happen!
> 
> By the way.........Truthspeaker...........Your revelations from the holy spirit.............how do you confirm that the message was from the holy spirit, and not some other counterfeit spirit, sent by Satan, the great counterfeiter of all?
> 
> Christians go back to the bible as directed by Jesus' apostle Paul.
> 
> Do you go back to the bible to confirm that your revelation agrees with God's Word the bible?
Click to expand...


there's a good question. Actually I did go back to the Bible. Matthew say "by their fruits ye shall know them." In Galatians chapter 5 the fruits of the flesh and the fruits of the spirit are defined thus:

5:17  For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one other, that you may not do the things that you desire. 

5:18  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 

5:19  Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, 

5:20  idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, 

5:21  envyings, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. 

5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 

5:23  gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 

5:24  Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. 

5:25  If we live by the Spirit, let's also walk by the Spirit. 

5:26  Let's not become conceited, provoking one another, and envying one another.When I prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true, I felt joy, I felt peace. All through the pages of the book there was goodness and teachings of the like that would lead people to gain the fruits of the spirit. 

Also notice how many of the fruits of the Spirit are actions, like exhibiting patience, self-control, gentleness, faithfulness. These are indicators that one is being led by God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't play games..........just answer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you.... 1 at a time. This is my thread and I will answer you in an orderly manner. 1 at a time please, pick a question any question.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sunni Man said:


> *History of Beer in Utah*
> 
> In 1833, Joseph Smith received a "revelation" known as the Word of Wisdom: the famed doctrine that prohibited members of the LDS faith to intake wine, hot drinks, tobacco and strangely the flesh of wild animals (which could only consumed in times of winter cold and famine). In Volume 12 of Brigham Youngs Journal of Discourses, Young describes how early church meetings were held at Joseph Smiths house, the elder converts often chewing and smoking tobacco, occasionally spitting on Smiths floor. Not pleased with the lingering "cloud of tobacco smoke" that he usually found himself in (coupled with his wifes complaints of having to clean a tobacco-riddled floor afterwards), caused Smith to make an "inquiry" to the Lord, eventually leading to the Word of Wisdom. Today, Church members adhere to this doctrine quite strictly  but it wasnt always that way. Back when Salt Lake City was in its infancy, the church and its members proved to be both active and vital in the movement to keep Utah soaked in booze. Economically, it was a great way to attract people to Utahs ever-growing populace.
> 
> A Mormon (one that was oft accused of killing people) started the first Utah brewery. Indeed, the infamous Orrin Porter Rockwell established the Hot Springs Brewery Hotel in 1856 (Valley Tan; November 6, 1858). Rockwell himself was a colorful character: he was the personal bodyguard to both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and with his Manson-like beard and intense, thunderous eyes, he turned out to be as intimidating as he looked. During a speech given by Vice President Schuyler Colfax in 1869, Porter was noted as to have blurted out "I never killed anyone who didnt need killing." This certainly makes sense when you take into account the fact that he was arrested for the murders and attempted murders of multiple men,
> 
> Though we can only theorize about what motivated Youngs wheelings and dealings , its safe to make the assumption that Young  already known as a smart businessman  was in it for the money. The whole point of establishing Utah breweries (and cotton missions and factories) in the first place was to cultivate business and  more importantly  to prevent Utah from wasting money by importing valuable items like beer, whisky and fabrics. Young saw an economic opportunity and immediately seized it, even though he never drank the stuff. So, in an unofficial sense, the Church controlled all of the liquor in Utah; an 1874 edition of The Gazetteer of Utah even has a listing for the Salt Lake City Brewery being housed in Salt Lakes Tenth Ward! Yet beer and whisky werent the only dealings that the Church had with "spirituous liquors". It wasnt very long until the Valley was swarming with beer and wine. There was so much, in fact, that some Mormons actually began paying their tithing in wine (a report from the St. George Tithing Office [later republished Leonard J. Arringtons 1966 book Desert Saints] showed that the office had collected more than 7000 gallons of wine by early 1887). Everyone had their own idea of how much wine constituted a full tithing payment, eventually leading a Church tithing-clerk to issue instructions on how to standardize the wine/tithing process in a letter dated September 20, 1879.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, however, that the abundance of Utah breweries were gradually leading to frequent displays of public drunkenness, and soon the Church was growing worried about the affect that mass public intoxication was having on its image. According to Jerald & Sandra Tanners 1979 book, The Changing World of Mormonism, it wasnt until 1887 that the church stopped making its own wine, soon followed by a greater pressure for people to adhere to the Word of Wisdom, a move, which would no doubt quell the drunkenness among Church members. The Churchs saving grace came in 1919, when Utah ratified the Eighteenth Amendment, putting prohibition into full effect. In 1921, it was Heber J. Grant that ultimately made adherence to the Word of Wisdom a strict requirement to enter the Temple, thus forcing many faithful members to clean up their acts whether they liked it or not.
> 
> SLUG Magazine | History of Beer in Utah



So what is your point? Thanks for the history lesson though


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sunni Man said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Wild Bill Hickman
> and the Mormon Frontier *
> 
> Author HOPE A. HILTON
> 
> 
> William Adams ("Wild Bill") Hickman was one of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier. As a bodyguard and spy for Mormon church presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, he was popularly known as a "destroying angel." However, a matter of disagreement among historians is whether he acted more often in his church's interest or independently as a true renegade.
> 
> Hickman obeyed the Mormon teaching of polygamy and was husband to ten wives and father to thirty-five children. During the Utah War of 1857-58, he rallied with his fellow Mormons and was one of the most effective guerillas in the hit-and-run attacks that wore down the attacking U.S. Army. When he was later arrested and jailed for murdering a government arms dealer during the war, his troubles multiplied when he implicated Brigham Young.
> 
> When he died in Wyoming in 1883, his reputation in three states forced many of his relatives to change their name to escape the social stigma of family ties, while the residents of the small town in which he died refused to bury him in the city cemetery. Still, whatever one thinks of his motives or degree of loyalty, Hickman left an indelible impact on the history and myth of the West as a rough, undisciplined frontiersman who nevertheless helped to establish the Rocky Mountain kingdom of Mormons.
> 
> William Adams Hickman - A Mormon Bodyguard and Spy - One of the most notorious outlaws of the nineteenth-century American frontier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ol Billy had a screw loose. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was the personal hand picked body guard of both Presidents Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
> 
> Hickman is said to have killed some 54 men under direct orders from Brigham Young.
Click to expand...


Fine by me. Some people have murderous intentions and I have no problem getting them before they get me. I'd like to see the sources though as to who was killed and why.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure it does.  Hell, i'm sure it does wonders for your ego.. if not for the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, Jim Jones, why NOT?
Click to expand...


Indeed Governor Boggs why Not?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude.  come the fuck on.  I'm not interested in making excuses for the isnight on racism found at niggermania dot com.  If you can't find a source that is NOT a bunch of mormons jacking off over mormon beliefs then perhaps you should reconsider why your quiver is empty in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a retard. Read the source then come back at me with problems you have with the article. Show me what problem you have. Get rid of your ridiculous little smoke screen and speak english rather than the crap that comes from your mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I think i'll go ahead and hold you to the same standard I apply to everyone else.  If you can't find an unbiased source then it looks like you fail.. Again.. (I count making silly statements about droves of mormons in missouri despite being a meager 1% of the population)
> 
> 
> oh, and I'll use the nomenclature I want.  Be glad i'm not treating you like abiker(gay)sailor
Click to expand...


If that 1% is 5 million people, it ain't too shabby. By the way you have to prove how my source is unbiased by reading it. See for yourself that it's fair and accurate. If you can't show otherwise.... Then you fail...for the 43rd time. I haven't failed yet.


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Sunnidiot.........doesn't YOUR religion ban alcohol?
> 
> What's even more........if you don't drink beer, then you're just a HOG poser biker.


So you have to drink alcohol to ride a Harley?

I never knew that.

I have always just rode mine for pleasure.

But you seem to have yours for a sense of identity and needing to adopt a lifestyle. 

Kind of figures. 

You post like a lost follower in search of a cause.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you.... 1 at a time. This is my thread and I will answer you in an orderly manner. 1 at a time please, pick a question any question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good bit of dancing their Truthspeaker.... So far you haven't attempted to answer anything.
> 
> As for turning the other cheek.......Did J.S. jr. or B.Y. forget that important statement by Jesus Christ?
> 
> Killing off 54 people in the name of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see this is a loaded question, get to your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good patent, dodge of a reply..........What's your question?  He asked if you've been there?.........If Brigham cried, it was most likely crocodile tears to impress the U.S. Government military inspectors.
> 
> Must we translate for you?
> 
> Brigham, and Smith were very calloused men.........not the crying type except when cornered with their hands in the cookie jar, and did they ever have a lot of cookie jar scenarios happen!
> 
> By the way.........Truthspeaker...........Your revelations from the holy spirit.............how do you confirm that the message was from the holy spirit, and not some other counterfeit spirit, sent by Satan, the great counterfeiter of all?
> 
> Christians go back to the bible as directed by Jesus' apostle Paul.
> 
> Do you go back to the bible to confirm that your revelation agrees with God's Word the bible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> there's a good question. Actually I did go back to the Bible. Matthew say "by their fruits ye shall know them." In Galatians chapter 5 the fruits of the flesh and the fruits of the spirit are defined thus:
> 
> 5:17  For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one other, that you may not do the things that you desire.
> 
> 5:18  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
> 
> 5:19  Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness,
> 
> 5:20  idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
> 
> 5:21  envyings, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
> 
> 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
> 
> 5:23  gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
> 
> 5:24  Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.
> 
> 5:25  If we live by the Spirit, let's also walk by the Spirit.
> 
> 5:26  Let's not become conceited, provoking one another, and envying one another.When I prayed to know if the Book of Mormon was true, I felt joy, I felt peace. All through the pages of the book there was goodness and teachings of the like that would lead people to gain the fruits of the spirit.
> 
> Also notice how many of the fruits of the Spirit are actions, like exhibiting patience, self-control, gentleness, faithfulness. These are indicators that one is being led by God.
Click to expand...


Thats called "feelings based" faith or belief.......It is totally subjective, as it ignores scriptural confirmation, that would determine if your answer to prayer was an objective fact of truth.

Romans says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

LDS - Interpretation would change this famous Romans verse to:
Faith cometh by "feelings", and "feelings" verify the truth.

What a totally scarey, way to seek out God's will or validation!  Satan goes about the earth misleading and leading away human beings from the Truth, by the very methodology that you utilize to validate your faith as true Christianity.  

I have no doubt that Satan just loves it when Mormons or potential LDS converts are asked to pray and ask God to validate Mormonism as the truth and true Church of God.  Talk about walking into a big old snare trap........

Oogly feelings don't mean its from God.  Satan gives oogly feelings to Satanists who pray to Satan.  Wicca folks get oogly feelings when they pray and try to raise up spirits or invoke mediums.

To rely on feeling good is to live with the potential of great disappointment.  God does indeed speak to us through the H.S., but bar none, He will not allow His children to become addicted to a feelings based type of faith.  

True Christianity is believing when your feelings argue with your mind, and your mind says that proceeding is biblical and God's will.  Feelings are a blessing bestowed upon humanity, by our Creator, but it is not the compass that we depend on to no God's will.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Sunni Man said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Sunnidiot.........doesn't YOUR religion ban alcohol?
> 
> What's even more........if you don't drink beer, then you're just a HOG poser biker.
> 
> 
> 
> So you have to drink alcohol to ride a Harley?
> 
> I never knew that.
> 
> I have always just rode mine for pleasure.
> 
> But you seem to have yours for a sense of identity and needing to adopt a lifestyle.
> 
> Kind of figures.
> 
> You post like a lost follower in search of a cause.
Click to expand...


You're probably a member of HOG, ain't ya?  Just nothing more than a bunch of biker wannbes who trailer their scooter to Sturgis, and then practice being a biker.

Saw a lot o wrecks that way.

Ever been to Sturgis, riding your own bike pussy?


----------



## Sunni Man

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Sunnidiot.........doesn't YOUR religion ban alcohol?
> 
> What's even more........if you don't drink beer, then you're just a HOG poser biker.
> 
> 
> 
> So you have to drink alcohol to ride a Harley?
> 
> I never knew that.
> 
> I have always just rode mine for pleasure.
> 
> But you seem to have yours for a sense of identity and needing to adopt a lifestyle.
> 
> Kind of figures.
> 
> You post like a lost follower in search of a cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably a member of HOG, ain't ya?  Just nothing more than a bunch of biker wannbes who trailer their scooter to Sturgis, and then practice being a biker.
Click to expand...

Nope. never joined the H.O.G.

Mainly ride on weekends. Sundays and sometimes to work. 

Have owned Sportsters, Wide Glides, Super Glides, and a Soft Tail. Shovels and an Evo

Personally know several bikers. But I usually ride alone.

I love to ride, but am Not looking for a lifestyle.

Most bikers dress alike, look alike, talk and act alike. It's like a group copy cat club.

Then they talk about being an individual and doing their own thing. 

Give me a break!!!


----------



## Truthspeaker

I noticed that Sunni never brought up his black questions here. I noticed that everybody on that stupid thread of his just ignored all the answers I gave on this forum and went and wasted their timer repeating the same crap over and over. Quite queer really don't you think?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hmmmmmm.......Truth(non)Speaker is talking about queer things........

Finally out of the closet eh?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hmmmmmm.......Truth(non)Speaker is talking about queer things........

Finally out of the closet eh?


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a retard. Read the source then come back at me with problems you have with the article. Show me what problem you have. Get rid of your ridiculous little smoke screen and speak english rather than the crap that comes from your mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think i'll go ahead and hold you to the same standard I apply to everyone else.  If you can't find an unbiased source then it looks like you fail.. Again.. (I count making silly statements about droves of mormons in missouri despite being a meager 1% of the population)
> 
> 
> oh, and I'll use the nomenclature I want.  Be glad i'm not treating you like abiker(gay)sailor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that 1% is 5 million people, it ain't too shabby. By the way you have to prove how my source is unbiased by reading it. See for yourself that it's fair and accurate. If you can't show otherwise.... Then you fail...for the 43rd time. I haven't failed yet.
Click to expand...


sorry, I don't have to prove shit.  Thats your job.  Mormon sites are not unbiased.  I hate to be so copernican on you but thats just the nature of this beast we call evidence.  If you can't find anything else i'm afraid im going to have to go ahead and stop pummeling you before I do some serious damage.

1% impresses you?  ooook.    It's a proverbial fucking tidal wave of mormons out here, lemme tellya!


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> I noticed that Sunni never brought up his black questions here. I noticed that everybody on that stupid thread of his just ignored all the answers I gave on this forum and went and wasted their timer repeating the same crap over and over. Quite queer really don't you think?



Queer = strange, odd, out of the ordinary:  No, not at all.  Many on internet forums like to spend time repeating the same crap over and over, while ignoring answers.

Queer = homosexual?  No, I don't see how that fits at all.  You must have meant the other definition.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think i'll go ahead and hold you to the same standard I apply to everyone else.  If you can't find an unbiased source then it looks like you fail.. Again.. (I count making silly statements about droves of mormons in missouri despite being a meager 1% of the population)
> 
> 
> oh, and I'll use the nomenclature I want.  Be glad i'm not treating you like abiker(gay)sailor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that 1% is 5 million people, it ain't too shabby. By the way you have to prove how my source is unbiased by reading it. See for yourself that it's fair and accurate. If you can't show otherwise.... Then you fail...for the 43rd time. I haven't failed yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, I don't have to prove shit.  Thats your job.  Mormon sites are not unbiased.  I hate to be so copernican on you but thats just the nature of this beast we call evidence.  If you can't find anything else i'm afraid im going to have to go ahead and stop pummeling you before I do some serious damage.
> 
> 1% impresses you?  ooook.    It's a proverbial fucking tidal wave of mormons out here, lemme tellya!
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true escape artist: You are beaten. It's over. You can't save face by lashing out any more. Your cries for help have been heard.... And ignored. 
You call that a pummelling? You put Missourians to shame. They know how to give a good pummelling. You sound more like an immigrant from Tennesse. You've gotta flame a little harder to impress me. 
Even that humpback Biker can rail better than you can. In fact he's nailed you a few more times.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that 1% is 5 million people, it ain't too shabby. By the way you have to prove how my source is unbiased by reading it. See for yourself that it's fair and accurate. If you can't show otherwise.... Then you fail...for the 43rd time. I haven't failed yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, I don't have to prove shit.  Thats your job.  Mormon sites are not unbiased.  I hate to be so copernican on you but thats just the nature of this beast we call evidence.  If you can't find anything else i'm afraid im going to have to go ahead and stop pummeling you before I do some serious damage.
> 
> 1% impresses you?  ooook.    It's a proverbial fucking tidal wave of mormons out here, lemme tellya!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spoken like a true escape artist: You are beaten. It's over. You can't save face by lashing out any more. Your cries for help have been heard.... And ignored.
> You call that a pummelling? You put Missourians to shame. They know how to give a good pummelling. You sound more like an immigrant from Tennesse. You've gotta flame a little harder to impress me.
> Even that humpback Biker can rail better than you can. In fact he's nailed you a few more times.
Click to expand...


I'd hate to think that you learned this standard of lol "evidence" from an institution of higher education in Utah, dude.  You can't just CLAIM that a MORMON source is not biased FOR mormonism.  The very idea is three shades of fucking retarded.  Thats just like insisting that Davidduke.com ISNT a biased source on racial issues.  It is.  End of story.  

cries for help?    Trust me, mormon, when you finally get around to discovering what 1% means you'll understand, truly, what the SHOW ME STATE is all about.  Hell, considering that i've driven you into the warm security blanket of mormon sites you probably don't have a platform to stand on to ask for hotter flames.

And, your "enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine is a bit stale, don't you think?  Do I look like some westward moving settlers to you?  Is Gaysailer your little ruckus loving natives, Mr Young?





learn something about what actually amounts to EVIDENCE, dogma junkie.  I realize this may be a lot to ask of a christian, a laughable archeology expert mormon at that, but do try and better yourself so that you not attract any more DAS BOOTS from Missourians.


----------



## Avatar4321

Shogun said:


> I'd hate to think that you learned this standard of lol "evidence" from an institution of higher education in Utah, dude.  You can't just CLAIM that a MORMON source is not biased FOR mormonism.  The very idea is three shades of fucking retarded.  Thats just like insisting that Davidduke.com ISNT a biased source on racial issues.  It is.  End of story.
> 
> cries for help?    Trust me, mormon, when you finally get around to discovering what 1% means you'll understand, truly, what the SHOW ME STATE is all about.  Hell, considering that i've driven you into the warm security blanket of mormon sites you probably don't have a platform to stand on to ask for hotter flames.
> 
> And, your "enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine is a bit stale, don't you think?  Do I look like some westward moving settlers to you?  Is Gaysailer your little ruckus loving natives, Mr Young?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> learn something about what actually amounts to EVIDENCE, dogma junkie.  I realize this may be a lot to ask of a christian, a laughable archeology expert mormon at that, but do try and better yourself so that you not attract any more DAS BOOTS from Missourians.



Seems to me if you ignore all sources for a position and do nothing but focus on the sources against it, you really arent honestly investigating the subject. If you want to learn about  a subject, you look at all viewpoints.

I studied both pros and cons of mormonism before I started believing. In fact, it was some of the ridiculous arguments from the critics that made me inclined to believe in the first place. But the point is, I was willing to learn then. And I did learn for myself.

But if you dismiss sources you find "biased" as if they are untrustworthy simply because they advocate a position you disagree with, youll never learn anything. You'll never truly see both sides.

Dismiss the sources all you want. Its not going to hurt me in the long run. You just wont learn anything.


----------



## Shogun

Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence?  Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true?  Of course not.  But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream.  Go ahead and believe what you want to.  Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.  

for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus.  Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear.  That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets.  If you can't swallow this concept.. well...


----------



## Shogun

Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence?  Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true?  Of course not.  But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream.  Go ahead and believe what you want to.  Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.  

for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus.  Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear.  That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets.  If you can't swallow this concept.. well...


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.......islam itself is based in biased evidence and literature.

You fail Shit Sun.


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know.......islam itself is based in biased evidence and literature.

You fail Shit Sun.


----------



## Shogun

had to post twice, eh dwarf?  Feeling a little INSIGNIFICANT?

what religion IS NOT based on biased evidence, stupid?  Thats kinda the point.  Did you want to argue that the earth is flat now, short stuff?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Shogun said:


> had to post twice, eh dwarf?  Feeling a little INSIGNIFICANT?
> 
> what religion IS NOT based on biased evidence, stupid?  Thats kinda the point.  Did you want to argue that the earth is flat now, short stuff?



I've given you references that you can learn from, yet you continually choose to ignore it and remain ignorant.

Google Universal Torah Network, and watch the series on the B'nei Noach.

You might learn something, but, with a skull as thick as yours, I doubt it.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> I noticed that Sunni never brought up his black questions here. I noticed that everybody on that stupid thread of his just ignored all the answers I gave on this forum and went and wasted their timer repeating the same crap over and over. Quite queer really don't you think?



Sunni Man is a queerio


----------



## catzmeow

Sky Dancer said:


> Sunni Man is a queerio



Are you PUI again?


----------



## Shogun

ABikerSailor said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> had to post twice, eh dwarf?  Feeling a little INSIGNIFICANT?
> 
> what religion IS NOT based on biased evidence, stupid?  Thats kinda the point.  Did you want to argue that the earth is flat now, short stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've given you references that you can learn from, yet you continually choose to ignore it and remain ignorant.
> 
> Google Universal Torah Network, and watch the series on the B'nei Noach.
> 
> You might learn something, but, with a skull as thick as yours, I doubt it.
Click to expand...


no, you really haven't given a goddamn thing besides a reason to look down.  Just because you fell for the charisma of David Koresh doesn't mean evidence to life's mysteries are found in his compound.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Koresh?  No.

If you were to actually research something, you would see that Koresh had a mish mash of quite a few different theologies combined into his.


----------



## N4mddissent

I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing.  But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence.  I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one.  And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.  

However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another.  If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran.  To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true.  I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second.  But that's not me.  I have thought at times that I wish I was that way.  But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.


----------



## Avatar4321

N4mddissent said:


> I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing.  But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence.  I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one.  And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.
> 
> However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another.  If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran.  To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true.  I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second.  But that's not me.  I have thought at times that I wish I was that way.  But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.



Ive never understood the point of cricitizing others for what they believe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence?  Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true?  Of course not.  But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream.  Go ahead and believe what you want to.  Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.
> 
> for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus.  Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear.  That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets.  If you can't swallow this concept.. well...



Well Show-gun, it seems all you can do is cry "bias" without pointing out a single flaw in the works of Dr. Nibley, Sorenson or any other LDS archaeologist.....Oh and we as a society are supposed to just accept the slight majority of archaeologists who favor your views? As if it's some sort of dogma? 
Science keeps learning new things every day if you haven't studied your history of discovery. Science has now PROVEN the likelihood of transoceanic pre Columbian travel. Heresy in the scientific world just 10 years ago. Now HUGE numbers of them believe that the Asian Land Bridge Theory is only 1 possibility and not the only possibility. Go look at National Geographic's magazine The Maya(a decidedly non-mormon if not anti-mormon source).  The archaeologists are stubbornly scratching their heads as to how the Maya just suddenly appeared in a previously uninhabited sector of Meso America. They give the start of the civilization around 500 BC which began just after the Olmec decline and destruciton. Sounds exactly like the timeline of the Nephites who started up right about when the Jaredites were declining and eventually destroyed. No evidence whatsoever. check the magazine and cross reference it with the dates and times claimed in the Book of Mormon and they seem to fit like a glove. 

Like I said before, You can interpret it however you wanna, but to say there is no evidence is Mormophobic and baseless. Since you're so smart, why don't you tell me what problems you have with our data before you go screaming bias like the judgmental lefty you are. 

by the way it's the August 08 edition

Try again.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing.  But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence.  I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one.  And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.
> 
> However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another.  If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran.  To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true.  I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second.  But that's not me.  I have thought at times that I wish I was that way.  But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.




You and one of my very best friends are similar. I can have an intelligent discussion with someone like you. I really mean this as NO disrespect whatsoever; but I want to ask what reservations you have regarding some of the evidences I presented. If we can talk about 1 issue at a time then we can get somewhere. I think you will find my reasoning quite rational if I am allowed to explain archaeological and historical context for the claims I make.  Can you pick a subject for us to discuss?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't had a chance yet to look over all the evidence you provided, but what I've seen has not yet been convincing.  But that's not surprising, since I have a pretty high standard of evidence.  I mean, if I am going to believe in something, I want to make sure I get the right one.  And I haven't found anything to convince me of any supernatural belief.
> 
> However, I think it is a little over-the-top when someone from one religion heavily criticizes someone from another.  If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the things you believe as being sillier than people who believe the stuff in the torah, the new testament, or the koran.  To me, one has to have serious suspension of rational faculities to accept any of them as true.  I understand the comfort factor that would allow otherwise intelligent reasonable people to look past the contradictions and logical pitfalls to accept something as true that in other circumstances they would barely consider for more than a second.  But that's not me.  I have thought at times that I wish I was that way.  But some part of me refuses to compromise rational integrity just because it feels good or lends me comfort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive never understood the point of cricitizing others for what they believe.
Click to expand...


Your founder did.......That's why he and his followers got run out of every state heading West from New York.


----------



## Sunni Man

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence?  Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true?  Of course not.  But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream.  Go ahead and believe what you want to.  Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.
> 
> for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus.  Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear.  That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets.  If you can't swallow this concept.. well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has now *PROVEN the likelihood *of transoceanic pre Columbian travel.
Click to expand...

PROVEN the likelihood !!!! 

Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!

PROVEN by a maybe 

Like I said before:  All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by;  maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sunni Man said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence?  Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true?  Of course not.  But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream.  Go ahead and believe what you want to.  Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.
> 
> for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus.  Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear.  That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets.  If you can't swallow this concept.. well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science has now *PROVEN the likelihood *of transoceanic pre Columbian travel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> PROVEN the likelihood !!!!
> 
> Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!
> 
> PROVEN by a maybe
> 
> Like I said before:  All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by;  maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.
Click to expand...



I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:

POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY

Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."

Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi

Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.


----------



## Sunni Man

Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???

It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's

A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,

But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO


----------



## Avatar4321

Sunni Man said:


> Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???
> 
> It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's
> 
> A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,
> 
> But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO



Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.

I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.


----------



## Sunni Man

Here is a sentence right out of the article:

"The *possible relation *of some of the mentioned representations with Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts have been discussed by some art historians, physical anthropologists, and archaeologists in the past, but the *limited examples *and the *interpretative difficulties *have *not permitted definitive conclusions *to be drafted. *We hope that the corpus *with the recovered data will permit more objective and better founded *evaluation of their implications *in the discussion of the Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts. 


Wow!! I have Never read such a bunch of double speak non sense in all of my life!!! 

And you call this "Solid Evidence"!!!

All the article really says is " we don't know, and don't have any evidence, but we possibly think, there might be evidence, maybe"


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sunni Man said:


> Here is a sentence right out of the article:
> 
> "The *possible relation *of some of the mentioned representations with Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts have been discussed by some art historians, physical anthropologists, and archaeologists in the past, but the *limited examples *and the *interpretative difficulties *have *not permitted definitive conclusions *to be drafted. *We hope that the corpus *with the recovered data will permit more objective and better founded *evaluation of their implications *in the discussion of the Pre-Columbian Trans-Atlantic contacts.
> 
> 
> Wow!! I have Never read such a bunch of double speak non sense in all of my life!!!
> 
> And you call this "Solid Evidence"!!!
> 
> All the article really says is " we don't know, and don't have any evidence, but we possibly think, there might be evidence, maybe"




What has been proven is that nothing has been proven. Your argument is destroyed that says The Land Bridge is the only way. It is now inconclusive. That's all I was trying to prove. The possibility and that it's open for discussion and not a closed matter. Don't you get it. The Scientists don't agree. That means something. 

You obviously ignored Michael Coe's bold statement that boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia and the it is time to consider transoceanic maritime voyages Pre-Columbus.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who the hell cares to "learn" about a system that REQUIRES biased evidence?  Do you believe in heliocentrism just because Copernicus and his buddies says thats true?  Of course not.  But, again, if all you people have are team jersey sources then it's pretty clear why you fail in the mainstream.  Go ahead and believe what you want to.  Hell, if nutjob motherfuckers believed David Koresh and Jim Jones then it's not a huge leap to imagine what biased sources can make a human believe.
> 
> for instance, you people claim archeological evidence... but we both know damn well that such is nothing more than your biased interpretation rather than widescale archaeological consensus.  Thus, you MUST fester in the opinions of those who ALREADY have an imperative to feed you what you want to hear.  That, sir, is about as far from the role of EVIDENCE as it gets.  If you can't swallow this concept.. well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Show-gun, it seems all you can do is cry "bias" without pointing out a single flaw in the works of Dr. Nibley, Sorenson or any other LDS archaeologist.....Oh and we as a society are supposed to just accept the slight majority of archaeologists who favor your views? As if it's some sort of dogma?
> Science keeps learning new things every day if you haven't studied your history of discovery. Science has now PROVEN the likelihood of transoceanic pre Columbian travel. Heresy in the scientific world just 10 years ago. Now HUGE numbers of them believe that the Asian Land Bridge Theory is only 1 possibility and not the only possibility. Go look at National Geographic's magazine The Maya(a decidedly non-mormon if not anti-mormon source).  The archaeologists are stubbornly scratching their heads as to how the Maya just suddenly appeared in a previously uninhabited sector of Meso America. They give the start of the civilization around 500 BC which began just after the Olmec decline and destruciton. Sounds exactly like the timeline of the Nephites who started up right about when the Jaredites were declining and eventually destroyed. No evidence whatsoever. check the magazine and cross reference it with the dates and times claimed in the Book of Mormon and they seem to fit like a glove.
> 
> Like I said before, You can interpret it however you wanna, but to say there is no evidence is Mormophobic and baseless. Since you're so smart, why don't you tell me what problems you have with our data before you go screaming bias like the judgmental lefty you are.
> 
> by the way it's the August 08 edition
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


Like I said.. there is a reason you HAVE to run to biased mormon opinions to support your theory... We all know why that is the case.  When you want to step up to the plate of actual evidence let me know.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???
> 
> It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's
> 
> A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,
> 
> But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.
> 
> I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.
Click to expand...


evidence from WHOM?  some mormons out looking to validate their faith?  


ooooook.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I waste my time reading something that starts out with the word "Possible" ???
> 
> It's like watching those TV shows about UFO's
> 
> A lot of maybe, could be, quite possibe, leads one to believe,
> 
> But as far as solid evidence......................ZERO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.
> 
> I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> evidence from WHOM?  some mormons out looking to validate their faith?
> 
> 
> ooooook.
Click to expand...


Case in Point; You didn't even look at the links posted to see how many of your precious "non-mormon" sources were cited. Pull the bong out of wherever you are putting it and pay attention.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solid evidence has been cited multiple times. Its been ignored multiple times.
> 
> I understand you guys arent convinced by the evidence. but seriously, you look freaking insane when you keep denying the evidence exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evidence from WHOM?  some mormons out looking to validate their faith?
> 
> 
> ooooook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Case in Point; You didn't even look at the links posted to see how many of your precious "non-mormon" sources were cited. Pull the bong out of wherever you are putting it and pay attention.
Click to expand...




bait and switch now, eh?  I guess it would have to suck to require such deviousness in order to validate your faith.  





But, I guess what can one expect from a dogma based on the word of a conman...


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science has now *PROVEN the likelihood *of transoceanic pre Columbian travel.
> 
> 
> 
> PROVEN the likelihood !!!!
> 
> Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!
> 
> PROVEN by a maybe
> 
> Like I said before:  All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by;  maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:
> 
> POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY
> 
> Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."
> 
> Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi
> 
> Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.
Click to expand...



1) *Note: This project is currently under consideration for funding from several foundations and private sponsors. *




2) As was the case in the early 19th century, there are writers today who claim that Old World civilizations such as those of Israel, Egypt, Irish monks (as hinted by the legend of St Brendan), Ancient Rome, Islamic West Africa, Sumeria, the Temple Knights, etc had landed on the Pre-Columbian Americas. (Trans-Pacific influences have also been proclaimed, as have contacts with Atlantis and other supposed "lost continents"; in the 20th century extra-terrestrial civilizations have been added to the long list of the suggested "real" builders of the ancient monuments of the Americas.) *Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archeologists.*







dude.. whatsa matter?  Are you having trouble finding sources that are not mormons?


----------



## catzmeow

If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> evidence from WHOM?  some mormons out looking to validate their faith?
> 
> 
> ooooook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Case in Point; You didn't even look at the links posted to see how many of your precious "non-mormon" sources were cited. Pull the bong out of wherever you are putting it and pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bait and switch now, eh?  I guess it would have to suck to require such deviousness in order to validate your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, I guess what can one expect from a dogma based on the word of a conman...
Click to expand...


????????????What does......that.....mean?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> PROVEN the likelihood !!!!
> 
> Boy oh boy!!! is that is that a reach!!
> 
> PROVEN by a maybe
> 
> Like I said before:  All the so called evidence the Mormon's claim for their fable, is always followed by;  maybe, could be, leads to the conclusion, possible, plausible, might be, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:
> 
> POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY
> 
> Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."
> 
> Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi
> 
> Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1) *Note: This project is currently under consideration for funding from several foundations and private sponsors. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) As was the case in the early 19th century, there are writers today who claim that Old World civilizations such as those of Israel, Egypt, Irish monks (as hinted by the legend of St Brendan), Ancient Rome, Islamic West Africa, Sumeria, the Temple Knights, etc had landed on the Pre-Columbian Americas. (Trans-Pacific influences have also been proclaimed, as have contacts with Atlantis and other supposed "lost continents"; in the 20th century extra-terrestrial civilizations have been added to the long list of the suggested "real" builders of the ancient monuments of the Americas.) *Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archeologists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude.. whatsa matter?  Are you having trouble finding sources that are not mormons?
Click to expand...


 Read the links.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.



I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.



Where are the scientists arguments against it? They don't even pay attention because they know better. The less they know about the book of Mormon the better they can save face with their little  Smithsonian dogmas.

Still waitin for some scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon claims. I'll be waitin to shut those down as soon as you bring em


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear Sun, you oughta do some research yourself before squawking. You fell right into my trap. Read the non-Mormon sources and weep:
> 
> POSSIBLE PRE-COLUMBIAN TRANS-ATLANTIC VOYAGES TO MESOAMERICA: A SEARCH OF SOME NEW DATA FOR AN OLD CONTROVERSY
> 
> Michael D. Coe(The world's foremost Meso-American scholar) in his 6th edition of The Maya:"Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia... "The Siberian Land Bridge Only" theory is no longer acceptable."
> 
> Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Who is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? What is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Where is Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts? Definition of Pre-Columbian transatlantic contacts. Meaning of Pre-Columbi
> 
> Sorry, John L. Sorenson is one Mormon source among the 12 cited. I guess they think he's pretty smart since they listed him first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) *Note: This project is currently under consideration for funding from several foundations and private sponsors. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) As was the case in the early 19th century, there are writers today who claim that Old World civilizations such as those of Israel, Egypt, Irish monks (as hinted by the legend of St Brendan), Ancient Rome, Islamic West Africa, Sumeria, the Temple Knights, etc had landed on the Pre-Columbian Americas. (Trans-Pacific influences have also been proclaimed, as have contacts with Atlantis and other supposed "lost continents"; in the 20th century extra-terrestrial civilizations have been added to the long list of the suggested "real" builders of the ancient monuments of the Americas.) *Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archeologists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude.. whatsa matter?  Are you having trouble finding sources that are not mormons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the links.
Click to expand...


I did.  and I posted exactly what makes them a  punchline to the joke of your trouble with evidence.


----------



## Godboy

> I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.



Then why do they argue it away, if they cant? If you had irrefutable proof that the Mormon religion was the one true religion, then why isnt EVERYONE a mormon? The fact is, you dont have proof, and its dishonest when you pretend that you do.


----------



## Shogun

just to reiterate...

*Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.*


----------



## Sky Dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the scientists arguments against it? They don't even pay attention because they know better. The less they know about the book of Mormon the better they can save face with their little  Smithsonian dogmas.
> 
> Still waitin for some scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon claims. I'll be waitin to shut those down as soon as you bring em
Click to expand...


How does the Book of Mormon relate to the Bible?  Is the Bible used in LDS?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they argue it away, if they cant? If you had irrefutable proof that the Mormon religion was the one true religion, then why isnt EVERYONE a mormon? The fact is, you dont have proof, and its dishonest when you pretend that you do.
Click to expand...


You're not listening. I never claimed to prove my religion is the one true religion. I was talking about the plausiblity of Book of Mormon events taking place. Not irrefutable proof. 


Why can't people listen?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> just to reiterate...
> 
> *Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.*



Of course, but that is the emptiest statement I ever heard. Where is the backup. It is another dogmatic response. 
It's like.... all they can do is dismiss it as not up for discussion. Where is the substance? Their arguments are simply: "There was no pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas." as if the matter were closed and there is no evidence or proof they cite to back it up.

Scientists don't agree on the subject so it's hardly been decided. Science is not authoritative on the basis that it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. 

All I ever said is that my scientific view cannot be dismissed as invalid until someone proves it beyond any doubt. You guys think I am trying to prove it but I am only proving possibility.  Pay attention people.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they argue it away, if they cant? If you had irrefutable proof that the Mormon religion was the one true religion, then why isnt EVERYONE a mormon? The fact is, you dont have proof, and its dishonest when you pretend that you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not listening. I never claimed to prove my religion is the one true religion. I was talking about the plausiblity of Book of Mormon events taking place. Not irrefutable proof.
> 
> 
> Why can't people listen?
Click to expand...


That's a clear statement.  My question is what is the relationship (if any) between the Book of Mormon and the Bible?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sky Dancer said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he has to find scholarly non-mormon sources to vindicate his claims, he's going to be quiet a long damn time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already shown over 12. You're disbelievin eyes just can't see them. Either way it doesn't matter if I have 20,000 non-mormon sources or zero. The evidence causes plausiblity that no scientist can argue away.
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the scientists arguments against it? They don't even pay attention because they know better. The less they know about the book of Mormon the better they can save face with their little  Smithsonian dogmas.
> 
> Still waitin for some scientific evidence against the Book of Mormon claims. I'll be waitin to shut those down as soon as you bring em
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the Book of Mormon relate to the Bible?  Is the Bible used in LDS?
Click to expand...


Thanks for the sanity

The Book of Mormon does relate closely to the Bible. It is similar in that they are both collections of writings of prophets and apostles. The meat of the Bible takes place in the fertile crescent area and the meat of the Book of Mormon takes place in Meso America.

They both teach that Jesus is the saviour of the world and they both have poetry, symbolism, allegories and tales of war; all designed to teach spiritual lessons. We use both.


----------



## Sky Dancer

There are many things I admire about LDS and Mormons.  They have made an incredible contribution to the genealogy field.  They create beauty, art and music.   They live wholesome lives.  They are generally interested in conversing with others who are different from them and they value education.
Great basketball team.

Family is central to their values.  Those are all good things.  And they seem very attractive looking people as well--except for a few of the elders and statesmen--who kind of creep me out.

Utah is a beautiful state and they are gracious to travelers.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> just to reiterate...
> 
> *Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but that is the emptiest statement I ever heard. Where is the backup. It is another dogmatic response.
> It's like.... all they can do is dismiss it as not up for discussion. Where is the substance? Their arguments are simply: "There was no pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas." as if the matter were closed and there is no evidence or proof they cite to back it up.
> 
> Scientists don't agree on the subject so it's hardly been decided. Science is not authoritative on the basis that it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.
> 
> All I ever said is that my scientific view cannot be dismissed as invalid until someone proves it beyond any doubt. You guys think I am trying to prove it but I am only proving possibility.  Pay attention people.
Click to expand...


careful, you are exposing your ignorance regarding the scientific method.  It is not MY job to validate YOUR assumptions.  I don't have to disprove every nutter idea that you have while trying to calidate your religion.  If you've got evidence then post it.  If not, well, we know why you rail against the non-mormon scientific community and totally fail to offer anything that is not saturated in mormonism, dont we?


----------



## Eightball

Of all the sources that Joseph Smith used to construct the Book of Mormon, none is more apparent than the King James Bible. Mormons tend to be unaware of just how much the Book of Mormon owes to the Bible. 

Smith's use of the Bible occurs in a number of different ways - it shows up in apparently random quotes peppered throughout the Book of Mormon; it also shows up as a narrative source in a number of different passages. In very many cases, Smith quotes the New Testament long before it was written.  In a number of cases, Smith quotes a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament verse. He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.

Interesting how we ended up with 1611 KJV vernacular in an 1830's BOM. 

To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting example of early American frontier fiction, both quaint and pretentious, a living monument to human greed and gullibility. An analysis of the Book is useful, not because it tells us anything at all about ancient America, but rather for the insights that it gives us into the human psyche, into the mind of both the con artist and his mark.

It is evident that Joseph Smith used a number of sources in his monumental work. One of these was his own immediate environment, specifically the intense speculation about the origin of the Native Americans that fired the collective imagination of early nineteenth century New England. But, by far the most fruitful source of both ideas and prose in the Book of Mormon is the King James Bible.

It is an undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. This fact is acknowledged in the Book itself, in such phrases as '...now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.' (II Nephi 11:2). The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotes from Isaiah - some twenty-two chapters of the prophet are found in the Book, in many cases quoted verbatim from the King James Version. 

What is less well known is that the Book of Mormon makes a large number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. These quotes appear as part and parcel of the narrative of the Book, and are quoted by different authors at different times. It is these quotes that are of interest, because they reveal something about the origin of the Book of Mormon. 

Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See I Nephi 22:15 and II Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family supposedly left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet. 

A few examples of anachronistic New Testament quotes would be Matthew 3:10 quoted in Alma 5:52, I Corinthians 15:53 quoted in Mosiah 16:10 and Romans 8:6 in II Nephi 9:39.

Fatigue is a literary phenomenon that sometimes occurs when one author is heavily dependent on another. It produces small errors of continuity and detail, which result from the latter author omitting structural details while modifying the source.

As an example, consider the story of the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5. The gospel records that there were so many people in the house, that the friends of the patient were forced to let him down through the roof.

Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. 

The problem is that Luke has failed to mention that Jesus is in a house.

Luke 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them. 

What has happened here is that the author of Luke, in using Mark 2 for his source, has forgotten that he did not set the story in a house, creating a minor aberration in the flow of the narrative when he finds that he has need of a housetop.[5]

Can we find similar examples of fatigue in the Book of Mormon? There are at least two candidates.

As noted in the previous section, Alma 18 and 19 contains a story which is very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. The most obvious difference is the fact that whereas Lazarus had died, and had been dead for some time, King Lamoni was in a deep sleep (possibly comatose). Strangely enough, however, after informing his wife that the King is simply asleep, the prophet Ammon goes on to claim that he "...shall rise again" (19:8). This seems a rather curious phrase to use of someone who was merely asleep, especially when we consider that both times the phrase is used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (Alma 33:22 and Helaman 14:20), it refers to a resurrection from the dead.

Could it be that in copying his source (the gospel of John), Smith used a phrase that made sense in John's narrative ("...Thy brother shall rise again..." in John 11:23), but not in the Book of Mormon story?

A second example concerns the parable of the Vineyard, as recorded in Jacob 5. This is a long parable which casts the nation Israel in the metaphorical role of an Olive tree in a vineyard.

Jacob 5:3 For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay. 

The parable appears to be drawn from two biblical sources - the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, and Paul's discussion of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 11.[6] The problem for the author of the Book of Mormon is that Isaiah and Paul used slightly different metaphors - Isaiah that of a vineyard, and Paul an Olive tree. It is thus quite significant that halfway through the parable, Zenos appears to forget that he is using an Olive tree as his metaphor, and begins to use the whole vineyard as his focus.

Jacob 5:41 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard? 

Significantly, the break appears at the same point that the Book of Mormon quotes a passage from Isaiah:

Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? 

From this point on, the prophet Zenos refers exclusively to the "fruit of the vineyard", apparently forgetting that vineyards yield grapes, not olives.
*******
Plagarism, plagarism, plagarism..........and very blatent plagarist.

When a plagarist copies verbatim translation errors that are unique to his source that he's copying...........He's caught "Dead To Rights".........With his hands in the cookie jar.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sky Dancer said:


> There are many things I admire about LDS and Mormons.  They have made an incredible contribution to the genealogy field.  They create beauty, art and music.   They live wholesome lives.  Thye are generally interested in conversing with others who are different from them and they value education.
> 
> Family is central to their values.  Those are all good things.  And they seem very attractive looking people as well--except for a few of the elders and statesmen--who kind of creep me out.



Which ones creep you out? Maybe it's just cuz they're in their 70's and 80's.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> just to reiterate...
> 
> *Such writings are considered at least very dubious if not simply contrary to known facts by mainstream historians and archaeologists.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but that is the emptiest statement I ever heard. Where is the backup. It is another dogmatic response.
> It's like.... all they can do is dismiss it as not up for discussion. Where is the substance? Their arguments are simply: "There was no pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas." as if the matter were closed and there is no evidence or proof they cite to back it up.
> 
> Scientists don't agree on the subject so it's hardly been decided. Science is not authoritative on the basis that it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.
> 
> All I ever said is that my scientific view cannot be dismissed as invalid until someone proves it beyond any doubt. You guys think I am trying to prove it but I am only proving possibility.  Pay attention people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> careful, you are exposing your ignorance regarding the scientific method.  It is not MY job to validate YOUR assumptions.  I don't have to disprove every nutter idea that you have while trying to calidate your religion.  If you've got evidence then post it.  If not, well, we know why you rail against the non-mormon scientific community and totally fail to offer anything that is not saturated in mormonism, dont we?
Click to expand...


When you finally read my sources, You will shut your mouth. And it's only my duty to show that it's possible, not prove it's true. You are trying to prove me wrong, which is NOT possible.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Of all the sources that Joseph Smith used to construct the Book of Mormon, none is more apparent than the King James Bible. Mormons tend to be unaware of just how much the Book of Mormon owes to the Bible.
> 
> Smith's use of the Bible occurs in a number of different ways - it shows up in apparently random quotes peppered throughout the Book of Mormon; it also shows up as a narrative source in a number of different passages. In very many cases, Smith quotes the New Testament long before it was written.  In a number of cases, Smith quotes a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament verse. He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Interesting how we ended up with 1611 KJV vernacular in an 1830's BOM.
> 
> To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting example of early American frontier fiction, both quaint and pretentious, a living monument to human greed and gullibility. An analysis of the Book is useful, not because it tells us anything at all about ancient America, but rather for the insights that it gives us into the human psyche, into the mind of both the con artist and his mark.
> 
> It is evident that Joseph Smith used a number of sources in his monumental work. One of these was his own immediate environment, specifically the intense speculation about the origin of the Native Americans that fired the collective imagination of early nineteenth century New England. But, by far the most fruitful source of both ideas and prose in the Book of Mormon is the King James Bible.
> 
> It is an undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. This fact is acknowledged in the Book itself, in such phrases as '...now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.' (II Nephi 11:2). The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotes from Isaiah - some twenty-two chapters of the prophet are found in the Book, in many cases quoted verbatim from the King James Version.
> 
> What is less well known is that the Book of Mormon makes a large number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. These quotes appear as part and parcel of the narrative of the Book, and are quoted by different authors at different times. It is these quotes that are of interest, because they reveal something about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See I Nephi 22:15 and II Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family supposedly left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet.
> 
> A few examples of anachronistic New Testament quotes would be Matthew 3:10 quoted in Alma 5:52, I Corinthians 15:53 quoted in Mosiah 16:10 and Romans 8:6 in II Nephi 9:39.
> 
> Fatigue is a literary phenomenon that sometimes occurs when one author is heavily dependent on another. It produces small errors of continuity and detail, which result from the latter author omitting structural details while modifying the source.
> 
> As an example, consider the story of the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5. The gospel records that there were so many people in the house, that the friends of the patient were forced to let him down through the roof.
> 
> Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.
> 
> The problem is that Luke has failed to mention that Jesus is in a house.
> 
> Luke 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
> 
> What has happened here is that the author of Luke, in using Mark 2 for his source, has forgotten that he did not set the story in a house, creating a minor aberration in the flow of the narrative when he finds that he has need of a housetop.[5]
> 
> Can we find similar examples of fatigue in the Book of Mormon? There are at least two candidates.
> 
> As noted in the previous section, Alma 18 and 19 contains a story which is very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. The most obvious difference is the fact that whereas Lazarus had died, and had been dead for some time, King Lamoni was in a deep sleep (possibly comatose). Strangely enough, however, after informing his wife that the King is simply asleep, the prophet Ammon goes on to claim that he "...shall rise again" (19:8). This seems a rather curious phrase to use of someone who was merely asleep, especially when we consider that both times the phrase is used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (Alma 33:22 and Helaman 14:20), it refers to a resurrection from the dead.
> 
> Could it be that in copying his source (the gospel of John), Smith used a phrase that made sense in John's narrative ("...Thy brother shall rise again..." in John 11:23), but not in the Book of Mormon story?
> 
> A second example concerns the parable of the Vineyard, as recorded in Jacob 5. This is a long parable which casts the nation Israel in the metaphorical role of an Olive tree in a vineyard.
> 
> Jacob 5:3 For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.
> 
> The parable appears to be drawn from two biblical sources - the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, and Paul's discussion of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 11.[6] The problem for the author of the Book of Mormon is that Isaiah and Paul used slightly different metaphors - Isaiah that of a vineyard, and Paul an Olive tree. It is thus quite significant that halfway through the parable, Zenos appears to forget that he is using an Olive tree as his metaphor, and begins to use the whole vineyard as his focus.
> 
> Jacob 5:41 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?
> 
> Significantly, the break appears at the same point that the Book of Mormon quotes a passage from Isaiah:
> 
> Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
> 
> From this point on, the prophet Zenos refers exclusively to the "fruit of the vineyard", apparently forgetting that vineyards yield grapes, not olives.
> *******
> Plagarism, plagarism, plagarism..........and very blatent plagarist.
> 
> When a plagarist copies verbatim translation errors that are unique to his source that he's copying...........He's caught "Dead To Rights".........With his hands in the cookie jar.



It has now been officially 32 times that I have shown you there is no plagiarism because he cited the source. You just don't get it. He didn't claim them to be his own words. Who would think they could get away with it. It was the most famous book in the whole country. Think dude.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> When you finally read my sources, You will shut your mouth. And it's only my duty to show that it's possible, not prove it's true. You are trying to prove me wrong, which is NOT possible.



I dont think its something they understand. 

The whole thing about it is it shouldnt be possible. If Joseph was a con man it should be a slam dunk. But its not because he kept getting things right.

How many "coincidences" does he have to have before he is taken seriously?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of all the sources that Joseph Smith used to construct the Book of Mormon, none is more apparent than the King James Bible. Mormons tend to be unaware of just how much the Book of Mormon owes to the Bible.
> 
> Smith's use of the Bible occurs in a number of different ways - it shows up in apparently random quotes peppered throughout the Book of Mormon; it also shows up as a narrative source in a number of different passages. In very many cases, Smith quotes the New Testament long before it was written.  In a number of cases, Smith quotes a New Testament paraphrase of an Old Testament verse. He recycles quotes over and over again. He uses archaic King James vocabulary in a manner that shows he was not familiar with the true meaning of the words. He quotes King James translation errors again and again. In short, there can be very little doubt that the King James Version inspired large sections of the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Interesting how we ended up with 1611 KJV vernacular in an 1830's BOM.
> 
> To the ardent follower of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is the surest proof of his prophetic office. It is the one undeniable sign of his divinely given gifts of translation. To the skeptic, the Book of Mormon is an interesting example of early American frontier fiction, both quaint and pretentious, a living monument to human greed and gullibility. An analysis of the Book is useful, not because it tells us anything at all about ancient America, but rather for the insights that it gives us into the human psyche, into the mind of both the con artist and his mark.
> 
> It is evident that Joseph Smith used a number of sources in his monumental work. One of these was his own immediate environment, specifically the intense speculation about the origin of the Native Americans that fired the collective imagination of early nineteenth century New England. But, by far the most fruitful source of both ideas and prose in the Book of Mormon is the King James Bible.
> 
> It is an undeniable fact that the Book of Mormon quotes the Bible. This fact is acknowledged in the Book itself, in such phrases as '...now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words.' (II Nephi 11:2). The Book of Mormon contains extensive quotes from Isaiah - some twenty-two chapters of the prophet are found in the Book, in many cases quoted verbatim from the King James Version.
> 
> What is less well known is that the Book of Mormon makes a large number of unacknowledged Biblical quotes. These quotes appear as part and parcel of the narrative of the Book, and are quoted by different authors at different times. It is these quotes that are of interest, because they reveal something about the origin of the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Of particular interest are quotes that appear long before their sources were written. These include several hundred New Testament quotes and allusions, as well as one Old Testament anachronism. Malachi 4:1-2 is quoted or alluded to several times in First and Second Nephi. (See I Nephi 22:15 and II Nephi 26:4, for example). The problem is that Lehi and his family supposedly left Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest - Malachi, however, was a post-exilic prophet.
> 
> A few examples of anachronistic New Testament quotes would be Matthew 3:10 quoted in Alma 5:52, I Corinthians 15:53 quoted in Mosiah 16:10 and Romans 8:6 in II Nephi 9:39.
> 
> Fatigue is a literary phenomenon that sometimes occurs when one author is heavily dependent on another. It produces small errors of continuity and detail, which result from the latter author omitting structural details while modifying the source.
> 
> As an example, consider the story of the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5. The gospel records that there were so many people in the house, that the friends of the patient were forced to let him down through the roof.
> 
> Luke 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus.
> 
> The problem is that Luke has failed to mention that Jesus is in a house.
> 
> Luke 5:17 And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judaea, and Jerusalem: and the power of the Lord was present to heal them.
> 
> What has happened here is that the author of Luke, in using Mark 2 for his source, has forgotten that he did not set the story in a house, creating a minor aberration in the flow of the narrative when he finds that he has need of a housetop.[5]
> 
> Can we find similar examples of fatigue in the Book of Mormon? There are at least two candidates.
> 
> As noted in the previous section, Alma 18 and 19 contains a story which is very similar to the resurrection of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. The most obvious difference is the fact that whereas Lazarus had died, and had been dead for some time, King Lamoni was in a deep sleep (possibly comatose). Strangely enough, however, after informing his wife that the King is simply asleep, the prophet Ammon goes on to claim that he "...shall rise again" (19:8). This seems a rather curious phrase to use of someone who was merely asleep, especially when we consider that both times the phrase is used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (Alma 33:22 and Helaman 14:20), it refers to a resurrection from the dead.
> 
> Could it be that in copying his source (the gospel of John), Smith used a phrase that made sense in John's narrative ("...Thy brother shall rise again..." in John 11:23), but not in the Book of Mormon story?
> 
> A second example concerns the parable of the Vineyard, as recorded in Jacob 5. This is a long parable which casts the nation Israel in the metaphorical role of an Olive tree in a vineyard.
> 
> Jacob 5:3 For behold, thus saith the Lord, I will liken thee, O house of Israel, like unto a tame olive-tree, which a man took and nourished in his vineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to decay.
> 
> The parable appears to be drawn from two biblical sources - the Song of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5, and Paul's discussion of the relation of the Gentiles to the Jews in Romans 11.[6] The problem for the author of the Book of Mormon is that Isaiah and Paul used slightly different metaphors - Isaiah that of a vineyard, and Paul an Olive tree. It is thus quite significant that halfway through the parable, Zenos appears to forget that he is using an Olive tree as his metaphor, and begins to use the whole vineyard as his focus.
> 
> Jacob 5:41 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard wept, and said unto the servant: What could I have done more for my vineyard?
> 
> Significantly, the break appears at the same point that the Book of Mormon quotes a passage from Isaiah:
> 
> Isaiah 5:4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
> 
> From this point on, the prophet Zenos refers exclusively to the "fruit of the vineyard", apparently forgetting that vineyards yield grapes, not olives.
> *******
> Plagarism, plagarism, plagarism..........and very blatent plagarist.
> 
> When a plagarist copies verbatim translation errors that are unique to his source that he's copying...........He's caught "Dead To Rights".........With his hands in the cookie jar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has now been officially 32 times that I have shown you there is no plagiarism because he cited the source. You just don't get it. He didn't claim them to be his own words. Who would think they could get away with it. It was the most famous book in the whole country. Think dude.
Click to expand...


So, copying a N.T. verse and chronicling it before it happened has been answered..........

Falling into the trap of copying verbatim the KJV translation errors right into the Book of Mormon is not suspect of plagarism?.........................


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> So, copying a N.T. verse and chronicling it before it happened has been answered..........
> 
> Falling into the trap of copying verbatim the KJV translation errors right into the Book of Mormon is not suspect of plagarism?.........................



Let's say for the sake of argument that your claims are correct, ignoring the fact that Joseph corrected errors found in the KJV. Let's just say you are right just for argument sake. Let's say Joseph copied it verbatim.

It still wouldnt be plagarism. You cant plagarize something when:

1)You dont claim it as your own work
2)You cite the author.

This isnt a difficult concept to understand. You can't plagarize Isaiah when you introduce the passage by saying "Let's look to what Isaiah says".

I understand you have contempt for mormonism. And you know, as long as youre not chasing my family, friends, and I with pitch forks and torches, that's your complete right. You can misrepresent our faith as much as you want. That's your choice and it's between you and God.

But at least be honest about your claims. You cant plagarize sources you cite. You cant claim zero evidence simply because you arent satisfied with the evidence there actually is.

Its just dishonest. You dont have to believe a single claim of mormonism. But lets stop this bullcrap lying about your arguments. Because if you're correct, you shouldnt have to lie.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, but that is the emptiest statement I ever heard. Where is the backup. It is another dogmatic response.
> It's like.... all they can do is dismiss it as not up for discussion. Where is the substance? Their arguments are simply: "There was no pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas." as if the matter were closed and there is no evidence or proof they cite to back it up.
> 
> Scientists don't agree on the subject so it's hardly been decided. Science is not authoritative on the basis that it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.
> 
> All I ever said is that my scientific view cannot be dismissed as invalid until someone proves it beyond any doubt. You guys think I am trying to prove it but I am only proving possibility.  Pay attention people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> careful, you are exposing your ignorance regarding the scientific method.  It is not MY job to validate YOUR assumptions.  I don't have to disprove every nutter idea that you have while trying to calidate your religion.  If you've got evidence then post it.  If not, well, we know why you rail against the non-mormon scientific community and totally fail to offer anything that is not saturated in mormonism, dont we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you finally read my sources, You will shut your mouth. And it's only my duty to show that it's possible, not prove it's true. You are trying to prove me wrong, which is NOT possible.
Click to expand...


no really.  It IS your responsibility to provide evidence supporting your theory.  Good grief, a giant fucking cthulu type monster from space could POSSIBLY gobble up the earth this year.  You want to take my word for it or see my evidence?

good grief.  no wonder dogma junkies have such a hard time with science.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you finally read my sources, You will shut your mouth. And it's only my duty to show that it's possible, not prove it's true. You are trying to prove me wrong, which is NOT possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think its something they understand.
> 
> The whole thing about it is it shouldnt be possible. If Joseph was a con man it should be a slam dunk. But its not because he kept getting things right.
> 
> How many "coincidences" does he have to have before he is taken seriously?
Click to expand...


You people sure are quick to gloss over the fact that everyone else who doesn't have a mormon bone to pick OUTRIGHT DISAGREES with your entire premise, eh?   Indeed, it IS a slam dunk given how little your goofy stretch of the imagination gets disregarded like a hale-bopp prophet with a spaceship POSSIBILITY.

You don't offer coincidence.  you offer a biased interpretation meant to facilitate your personal faith.  Just because a greek dogma junkie thought lighting was the jizm of Zues doesn't mean it is so and challenging a non believer to PROVE OTHERWISE is not proof positive of your nutter opinion.

Hey, enjoy the scientific method, buddy.  Clearly, we'd still be walking on a flat earth, in the center of the universe, without it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you finally read my sources, You will shut your mouth. And it's only my duty to show that it's possible, not prove it's true. You are trying to prove me wrong, which is NOT possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think its something they understand.
> 
> The whole thing about it is it shouldnt be possible. If Joseph was a con man it should be a slam dunk. But its not because he kept getting things right.
> 
> How many "coincidences" does he have to have before he is taken seriously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You people sure are quick to gloss over the fact that everyone else who doesn't have a mormon bone to pick OUTRIGHT DISAGREES with your entire premise, eh?   Indeed, it IS a slam dunk given how little your goofy stretch of the imagination gets disregarded like a hale-bopp prophet with a spaceship POSSIBILITY.
> 
> You don't offer coincidence.  you offer a biased interpretation meant to facilitate your personal faith.  Just because a greek dogma junkie thought lighting was the jizm of Zues doesn't mean it is so and challenging a non believer to PROVE OTHERWISE is not proof positive of your nutter opinion.
> 
> Hey, enjoy the scientific method, buddy.  Clearly, we'd still be walking on a flat earth, in the center of the universe, without it.
Click to expand...


Boy you sure showed me. Are you quite finished? We aren't going to agree. No problem. I never had any hope of converting you. I guess people like you will think we're crazy. The evidence is good enough for me. You think I'm twisting it to fit my beliefs and I get that. I admit it does conveniently fit my doctrine. With only 2% of known archaeological sites having been excavated in Mesoamerica, I'll gladly take it and so will the rest of my wacko religious wingnuts.  I'll be waiting for more interesting discoveries to come to light.  So let's agree to disagree. Nice job on the flaming though. Let's just stop fighting


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think its something they understand.
> 
> The whole thing about it is it shouldnt be possible. If Joseph was a con man it should be a slam dunk. But its not because he kept getting things right.
> 
> How many "coincidences" does he have to have before he is taken seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people sure are quick to gloss over the fact that everyone else who doesn't have a mormon bone to pick OUTRIGHT DISAGREES with your entire premise, eh?   Indeed, it IS a slam dunk given how little your goofy stretch of the imagination gets disregarded like a hale-bopp prophet with a spaceship POSSIBILITY.
> 
> You don't offer coincidence.  you offer a biased interpretation meant to facilitate your personal faith.  Just because a greek dogma junkie thought lighting was the jizm of Zues doesn't mean it is so and challenging a non believer to PROVE OTHERWISE is not proof positive of your nutter opinion.
> 
> Hey, enjoy the scientific method, buddy.  Clearly, we'd still be walking on a flat earth, in the center of the universe, without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boy you sure showed me. Are you quite finished? We aren't going to agree. No problem. I never had any hope of converting you. I guess people like you will think we're crazy. The evidence is good enough for me. You think I'm twisting it to fit my beliefs and I get that. I admit it does conveniently fit my doctrine. With only 2% of known archaeological sites having been excavated in Mesoamerica, I'll gladly take it and so will the rest of my wacko religious wingnuts.  I'll be waiting for more interesting discoveries to come to light.  So let's agree to disagree. Nice job on the flaming though. Let's just stop fighting
Click to expand...


Inductive or deductive reasoning;  what will it be in order to validate your system of faith?  We know that the bible is interpretted only by one of the above methods.  That also must apply to the BOM, and all LDS documents of faith.

Cults can massage the bible into saying whatever they "want" it to say in order to validate their doctrine.  It's what Avatar likes to liberally use against us skeptics of his LDS religion as, "Cut and Paste" when we quote LDS/critical articles.  Sadly, the LDS approach to defending their system of belief, is the use of "cut and paste" upon the bible in order to make it(bible) agree with or validate their doctrine.

This is not unlike believing in the word, "Hope" as though that word itself has magical/powerful qualitities.  We all know that "hope" begins to have substance when connected to objective evidences.

Faith to men can appear to be such a "stretch", but the LDS church has taken it to atmospheric proportions, and surprisingly, very bright people have accepted that premise.


----------



## Sunni Man

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people sure are quick to gloss over the fact that everyone else who doesn't have a mormon bone to pick OUTRIGHT DISAGREES with your entire premise, eh?   Indeed, it IS a slam dunk given how little your goofy stretch of the imagination gets disregarded like a hale-bopp prophet with a spaceship POSSIBILITY.
> 
> You don't offer coincidence.  you offer a biased interpretation meant to facilitate your personal faith.  Just because a greek dogma junkie thought lighting was the jizm of Zues doesn't mean it is so and challenging a non believer to PROVE OTHERWISE is not proof positive of your nutter opinion.
> 
> Hey, enjoy the scientific method, buddy.  Clearly, we'd still be walking on a flat earth, in the center of the universe, without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy you sure showed me. Are you quite finished? We aren't going to agree. No problem. I never had any hope of converting you. I guess people like you will think we're crazy. The evidence is good enough for me. You think I'm twisting it to fit my beliefs and I get that. I admit it does conveniently fit my doctrine. With only 2% of known archaeological sites having been excavated in Mesoamerica, I'll gladly take it and so will the rest of my wacko religious wingnuts.  I'll be waiting for more interesting discoveries to come to light.  So let's agree to disagree. Nice job on the flaming though. Let's just stop fighting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith to men can appear to be such a "stretch", but the LDS church has taken it to atmospheric proportions, and surprisingly, very bright people have accepted that premise.
Click to expand...

One of the best statements I have ever heard concerning the LDS


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people sure are quick to gloss over the fact that everyone else who doesn't have a mormon bone to pick OUTRIGHT DISAGREES with your entire premise, eh?   Indeed, it IS a slam dunk given how little your goofy stretch of the imagination gets disregarded like a hale-bopp prophet with a spaceship POSSIBILITY.
> 
> You don't offer coincidence.  you offer a biased interpretation meant to facilitate your personal faith.  Just because a greek dogma junkie thought lighting was the jizm of Zues doesn't mean it is so and challenging a non believer to PROVE OTHERWISE is not proof positive of your nutter opinion.
> 
> Hey, enjoy the scientific method, buddy.  Clearly, we'd still be walking on a flat earth, in the center of the universe, without it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boy you sure showed me. Are you quite finished? We aren't going to agree. No problem. I never had any hope of converting you. I guess people like you will think we're crazy. The evidence is good enough for me. You think I'm twisting it to fit my beliefs and I get that. I admit it does conveniently fit my doctrine. With only 2% of known archaeological sites having been excavated in Mesoamerica, I'll gladly take it and so will the rest of my wacko religious wingnuts.  I'll be waiting for more interesting discoveries to come to light.  So let's agree to disagree. Nice job on the flaming though. Let's just stop fighting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inductive or deductive reasoning;  what will it be in order to validate your system of faith?  We know that the bible is interpretted only by one of the above methods.  That also must apply to the BOM, and all LDS documents of faith.
> 
> Cults can massage the bible into saying whatever they "want" it to say in order to validate their doctrine.  It's what Avatar likes to liberally use against us skeptics of his LDS religion as, "Cut and Paste" when we quote LDS/critical articles.  Sadly, the LDS approach to defending their system of belief, is the use of "cut and paste" upon the bible in order to make it(bible) agree with or validate their doctrine.
> 
> This is not unlike believing in the word, "Hope" as though that word itself has magical/powerful qualitities.  We all know that "hope" begins to have substance when connected to objective evidences.
> 
> Faith to men can appear to be such a "stretch", but the LDS church has taken it to atmospheric proportions, and surprisingly, very bright people have accepted that premise.
Click to expand...


Well, I think we have been off topic for a while now. There is evidence for both arguments but I didn't start this thread to argue about archaeology or history. I just wanted to distinguish between precepts we actually believe in and rumor about what we believe in. I have said that from the beginning. 

We definitely have taken it to atmospheric proportions. There are some fantastic claims we believe in. We admit that. But we believe them. Let us have our religion. I am not trying to prove anyone elses faith to be wrong, only to state my own belief. If you think that by so doing I am attacking your faith then you are mistaken. 

Any more legit questions?


----------



## hansom

From what the mormons tell me, the worst I can expect to encounter after this life is an eternity in one of the lowest levels of heaven; only mormons that reject the LDS are threatened with "outer darkness."


----------



## hansom

From what the mormons tell me, the worst I can expect to encounter after this life is an eternity in one of the lowest levels of heaven; only mormons that reject the LDS are threatened with "outer darkness." 

So I'm cool.


----------



## Eightball

hansom said:


> From what the mormons tell me, the worst I can expect to encounter after this life is an eternity in one of the lowest levels of heaven; only mormons that reject the LDS are threatened with "outer darkness."
> 
> So I'm cool.



This folks is definitely "upper atmospheric"..........

The bible is filled with plausible reasons and very, very objective eye-witness reports...........Paul stated at the time of writing one of his epistles that several hundred people who saw Jesus Christ and many hundreds who witnessed His ascension back to heaven were still alive.

The BOM, and the other LDS "holy" writings, are, well, "up there", and feed into humanity's, fleshly desires/apetites.....I.E. polygamy, Celestial sex....., spirit babies.....marriage in heaven, obfuscating Gods direct statement through Christ that saving souls after their death was impossible(baptism of the dead)...None of which is mentioned in the bible.

Oops.......forgot, the bible isn't complete or accurate........God Almight screwed-up!    Yeah!, for the treasure digger/con man from New York......He was picked by God to be His Holy prophet and set the Christian church straight again, after 2,000 years of following a corrupt gospel(bible).  Moonies, Hubbard and Scientology, J.W.'s, all come to mind....  It's interesting how cults have similar finger-prints......Maybe that's because they have one/same author ( You fill in the blank.  )?


----------



## Truthspeaker

hansom said:


> From what the mormons tell me, the worst I can expect to encounter after this life is an eternity in one of the lowest levels of heaven; only mormons that reject the LDS are threatened with "outer darkness."



Well, what's more important than what church you belong to is the quality of your heart and actions. We believe lots of people will reject our church without ever really knowing what it is we teach. There is no punishment in that. We will all have a lot to learn when we enter the next life.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> hansom said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what the mormons tell me, the worst I can expect to encounter after this life is an eternity in one of the lowest levels of heaven; only mormons that reject the LDS are threatened with "outer darkness."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what's more important than what church you belong to is the quality of your heart and actions. We believe lots of people will reject our church without ever really knowing what it is we teach. There is no punishment in that. We will all have a lot to learn when we enter the next life.
Click to expand...


"Well atleast we're good people with good hearts."

God succinctly said through Jesus Christ that the only true good heart was Christ's.  The rest of us need His gift of forgiveness, and His indwelling Holy Spirit to be considered acceptable before God.

That gift is not by our works of "goodness" but by God's sovereign grace(unmerited favor/love) as a follow-up of man's admission of a sinful nature, that only God can change.  It starts with a "contrite" heart, followed by repentance, then the human soul is prepared to accept God's terms not man's.

Attonement for man's sin is totally accomplished by Christ, without any goof-ball extra blood attonement at the hands of one or more men over another as the victim.  That is blasphemous, and degrades the sovereign power, and reign of God who created Mormons as well as all other human being of other cultures, philosophys, and religions and non-religions.

It is so easy to spot-out manmade gospels/doctrines........They always feed into the "ego", and often "appease" the sexual appetite of humanity.......basically floundering in fleshly desires that avoid surrender and commitment of one's life to their Creator.

The moniker, "Truthspeaker" is a very revealing of one's spiritual state.  First of all, it reeks of pride, and that would violate the Lord Jesus' commands to come to Him, surrendering one's "pumped ego", and accepting His Lordship.

Humanity is not unlike peeling-back an onion skin, layer by layer.  Many folks live by the creed of charity to others, and living the most "goodie two shoes" life possible, yet if you peel back that veneer of outward works you will find a most hidden, and dark side, that this person is desperately trying to keep hidden/buried.

Pride is a killer.  It thinks that all others are behind the ball, and they have the knowledge.  It will only last a short time, and the veneer will peel away, as the tests of earthly life will put to trial how deep those "goodie two shoes" intentions go.  Is one willing to give up a their coat for one who is cold and homeless?  Is one willing to eat Maccaroni and cheese all week so that another may eat.

These surrenders are either urged by the fleshly side of man that covertly wants recognition, or they are motivated by the indwelling love of Christ, that will do these things without the slightest desire for "atta boys/girls" but just for the sake of love.

The Mormon church may outwardly appear to be the loving extension of God, but man's non-religious benevolent works have been doing that for eons. 

Romans chapter one says that God has placed in all men a knowledge that there is a Creator, but that is not enough to establish a true relationship with that Creator.  It is only the beginning, of a process that involves man's total cooperation with God, through an honest seeking of Him/God, laying down one's pre-concieved ideas or conditions.

J.S. Jr. formulated a doctrine along with the following LDS prophets, that fed into earthly man's fleshly wants......Polygamy comes to mind.  There is a strong sexual drive with the male human to pro-create all over the place..........The temptation is often their when one is committing to a monogamous relationship.  Throughout the bible many well known bible characters fell into the sinful trap of polygamy, and you can read how their lives went downhill ASAP.  David totally lost control of his family and one of his sons even tried to kill David.  King Solomon, wrote the mournful book of Ecclesiastes that was basically a book of all the trevails of a man who wasn't satisfied with one wife, and a God blessed life.  It is trully a book of "warning".

J.S. Jr.'s life is filled with earthly desires........The desire to find earthly treasures, is far from the credentials of a true Prophet of God, who looks for his treasures in His Creator's abundance, that comes in the form of Spiritual food, not earthly gain. 

Joseph Smith Jr. as well as the many latter day prophets will have some very serious answering to do in the end times.  It won't be pleasant, I fear.

God will ask why he/J.S. Jr. ignored His Word, and planted all kinds of seeds of strange doctrine in his followers.  I think that J.S. Jr. wil be speechless before God's throne, and not be able to tell Him to His face that His gospel is/was corrupted and incomplete.  There will be nashing of teeth, and much regret.

Solomon called vanity, vanity, vanity.......

Adam was given Eve........not a harem.  Abraham too matters in his own hands and slept with his slave girl, and didn't trust God's promise of a child through Sarah.  God is a God of impossibilities, but with that comes patience, endurance, long suffering, peace, joy, trust, mercy, forgiveness, and especially love.
*******
Anyone who comes to you saying, "I come speaking the truth!"........Run, flee, head for the hills.........

There is but one Truth, and one Word, and one God......who revealed/reveals Himself in three persons.  A real brain teaser, huh?.........That's what separates God or the Creator for His Creation; infinite knowledge, infinite resources, infinite love, .......infinite  holiness, and righteousness.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hansom said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what the mormons tell me, the worst I can expect to encounter after this life is an eternity in one of the lowest levels of heaven; only mormons that reject the LDS are threatened with "outer darkness."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what's more important than what church you belong to is the quality of your heart and actions. We believe lots of people will reject our church without ever really knowing what it is we teach. There is no punishment in that. We will all have a lot to learn when we enter the next life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Well atleast we're good people with good hearts."
> 
> God succinctly said through Jesus Christ that the only true good heart was Christ's.  The rest of us need His gift of forgiveness, and His indwelling Holy Spirit to be considered acceptable before God.
> 
> That gift is not by our works of "goodness" but by God's sovereign grace(unmerited favor/love) as a follow-up of man's admission of a sinful nature, that only God can change.  It starts with a "contrite" heart, followed by repentance, then the human soul is prepared to accept God's terms not man's.
> 
> Attonement for man's sin is totally accomplished by Christ, without any goof-ball extra blood attonement at the hands of one or more men over another as the victim.  That is blasphemous, and degrades the sovereign power, and reign of God who created Mormons as well as all other human being of other cultures, philosophys, and religions and non-religions.
> 
> It is so easy to spot-out manmade gospels/doctrines........They always feed into the "ego", and often "appease" the sexual appetite of humanity.......basically floundering in fleshly desires that avoid surrender and commitment of one's life to their Creator.
> 
> The moniker, "Truthspeaker" is a very revealing of one's spiritual state.  First of all, it reeks of pride, and that would violate the Lord Jesus' commands to come to Him, surrendering one's "pumped ego", and accepting His Lordship.
> 
> Humanity is not unlike peeling-back an onion skin, layer by layer.  Many folks live by the creed of charity to others, and living the most "goodie two shoes" life possible, yet if you peel back that veneer of outward works you will find a most hidden, and dark side, that this person is desperately trying to keep hidden/buried.
> 
> Pride is a killer.  It thinks that all others are behind the ball, and they have the knowledge.  It will only last a short time, and the veneer will peel away, as the tests of earthly life will put to trial how deep those "goodie two shoes" intentions go.  Is one willing to give up a their coat for one who is cold and homeless?  Is one willing to eat Maccaroni and cheese all week so that another may eat.
> 
> These surrenders are either urged by the fleshly side of man that covertly wants recognition, or they are motivated by the indwelling love of Christ, that will do these things without the slightest desire for "atta boys/girls" but just for the sake of love.
> 
> The Mormon church may outwardly appear to be the loving extension of God, but man's non-religious benevolent works have been doing that for eons.
> 
> Romans chapter one says that God has placed in all men a knowledge that there is a Creator, but that is not enough to establish a true relationship with that Creator.  It is only the beginning, of a process that involves man's total cooperation with God, through an honest seeking of Him/God, laying down one's pre-concieved ideas or conditions.
> 
> J.S. Jr. formulated a doctrine along with the following LDS prophets, that fed into earthly man's fleshly wants......Polygamy comes to mind.  There is a strong sexual drive with the male human to pro-create all over the place..........The temptation is often their when one is committing to a monogamous relationship.  Throughout the bible many well known bible characters fell into the sinful trap of polygamy, and you can read how their lives went downhill ASAP.  David totally lost control of his family and one of his sons even tried to kill David.  King Solomon, wrote the mournful book of Ecclesiastes that was basically a book of all the trevails of a man who wasn't satisfied with one wife, and a God blessed life.  It is trully a book of "warning".
> 
> J.S. Jr.'s life is filled with earthly desires........The desire to find earthly treasures, is far from the credentials of a true Prophet of God, who looks for his treasures in His Creator's abundance, that comes in the form of Spiritual food, not earthly gain.
> 
> Joseph Smith Jr. as well as the many latter day prophets will have some very serious answering to do in the end times.  It won't be pleasant, I fear.
> 
> God will ask why he/J.S. Jr. ignored His Word, and planted all kinds of seeds of strange doctrine in his followers.  I think that J.S. Jr. wil be speechless before God's throne, and not be able to tell Him to His face that His gospel is/was corrupted and incomplete.  There will be nashing of teeth, and much regret.
> 
> Solomon called vanity, vanity, vanity.......
> 
> Adam was given Eve........not a harem.  Abraham too matters in his own hands and slept with his slave girl, and didn't trust God's promise of a child through Sarah.  God is a God of impossibilities, but with that comes patience, endurance, long suffering, peace, joy, trust, mercy, forgiveness, and especially love.
> *******
> Anyone who comes to you saying, "I come speaking the truth!"........Run, flee, head for the hills.........
> 
> There is but one Truth, and one Word, and one God......who revealed/reveals Himself in three persons.  A real brain teaser, huh?.........That's what separates God or the Creator for His Creation; infinite knowledge, infinite resources, infinite love, .......infinite  holiness, and righteousness.
Click to expand...


And.......here we go again around and around in circles again. There's nothing I haven't responded to already from this post....mmm.....maybe......er....... 20 times. Except that it's gnashing and not nashing. 
 Except also; maybe you would like to elaborate further how Abraham's life just crumbled to the point of God promising to bless all nations through him. What a loser he must have been. That Moses guy.... He really fell out of favor with God didn't he? Interpret all you like. Knock yourself out. No really. 
We believe what we believe and you believe what you believe. What more do you want from me?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Maybe you would also like to start a thread where all you do is post sermons. Then your comments would belong.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Maybe you would also like to start a thread where all you do is post sermons. Then your comments would belong.



Deflection is a "safe" response?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> This folks is definitely "upper atmospheric"..........
> 
> The bible is filled with plausible reasons and very, very objective eye-witness reports...........Paul stated at the time of writing one of his epistles that several hundred people who saw Jesus Christ and many hundreds who witnessed His ascension back to heaven were still alive.



Right, and the people who saw the plates. Saw Jesus Christ. Recieved the ministry of angels, Saw Joseph raise someone from the dead and heal hundreds are unreliable eye witnesses.

But hearsay from Paul is reliable and objective.

Seriously, come on.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you would also like to start a thread where all you do is post sermons. Then your comments would belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection is a "safe" response?
Click to expand...


You arent exactly providing alot to respond to that hasnt been responded to a dozen times on the thread.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> This folks is definitely "upper atmospheric"..........
> 
> The bible is filled with plausible reasons and very, very objective eye-witness reports...........Paul stated at the time of writing one of his epistles that several hundred people who saw Jesus Christ and many hundreds who witnessed His ascension back to heaven were still alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and the people who saw the plates. Saw Jesus Christ. Recieved the ministry of angels, Saw Joseph raise someone from the dead and heal hundreds are unreliable eye witnesses.
> 
> But hearsay from Paul is reliable and objective.
> 
> Seriously, come on.
Click to expand...


Yeh, Benny Hinn does it every day, and we know how legit he is.


----------



## N4mddissent

Anybody still remember James Randi and Peter Popoff?


----------



## Eightball

N4mddissent said:


> Anybody still remember James Randi and Peter Popoff?



Oh there's a two-some.

How about Kenneth Copeland and Bob Tilton?

Many of these folks got their start via what is called the "Toronto Revival".

It was a Charismatic gathering of alleged Christians, and, well, the old "tongues" thing came on strong, and many preachers have sprung from that movement.

Everyone of these preachers have bent scripture to their liking, and have sucked in millions of dollars duping so many folks.

Here's an interesting example of Preacher Bob Tilton's message.
Turn up your P.C. sound......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6waXPTSrGiA]YouTube - Farting Preacher Original[/ame]


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> This folks is definitely "upper atmospheric"..........
> 
> The bible is filled with plausible reasons and very, very objective eye-witness reports...........Paul stated at the time of writing one of his epistles that several hundred people who saw Jesus Christ and many hundreds who witnessed His ascension back to heaven were still alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and the people who saw the plates. Saw Jesus Christ. Recieved the ministry of angels, Saw Joseph raise someone from the dead and heal hundreds are unreliable eye witnesses.
> 
> But hearsay from Paul is reliable and objective.
> 
> Seriously, come on.
Click to expand...


Paul is the author of a good many of the N.T. books, and he's doing hear-say.........?

There isn't anything you folks won't say or throw out there to promote/protect your very, very, weird doctrine.

Just do a study of Paul's life in the bible and then put his life up against J.S. Jr.'s or B. Y.'s, and it's an absolute black and white difference between the ethics they lived by, and the consistency of the gospel they spread.  Paul = totally consistency with the bible, those LDS prophets.........changes, changes......and all over the place.  Even before his conversion, Paul was earnestly seeking God, but was blinded by legalism.  On the other hand, the LDS latter day alleged prophets, lived sordid lives devoid of any serious desire to be a servant of God, but rather were unscrupulous in their dealings with their fellow man.

Your church in the 19th century promoted racism until just a few years ago, yet Paul clearly defined that all men of any race, nationality, Jew/Gentile/barbarian........etc.... were all playing on the same flat playing field before a Holy and Righteous Creator.  I doubt that Jesus had lilly-white skin as He was from Northern Africa by nationality, and race.

Also, Paul clearly states that all true Christians are not only Saints but defined as part of a royal Priesthood, with Christ at the head.

There is no levels/delineations in Christianity where some receive greater truths for being "gooder" Christians........or get to join a manmade priesthood as the LDS church prescribes too.  The Aaronic Priesthood was designated for only Aaron, and his sons according to the bible, while the remaining Levites served not withing the Tabernacle at all.  The Melkisadek priesthood was of one man, Melikisadek, who had no stated geneology, and thus was considered to be the Pre-incarnate Jesus by theologians.  In fact Abraham gave a portion of his war spoils to Melkisadek, as a tribute.

The LDS/Mormon church has taken these priesthoods that were recorded back in the O.T., and bestowed them upon many of their members in "best" standing, and along with that bestowing have given these initiates secrets that are not to be shared with non priesthood Mormons.  Trully this is a heirarchy, and is very unbiblical.  This promotes "pride" within the ranks of any religious system, as it designates some members as more acceptable before their god, elders, bishops, leaders...

If one were to read Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Exodus, all authored by Moses himself, you will find that the LDS priesthoods that use these Priesthood's mentioned in those OT books are far from what Moses described, and therefore anti-biblical.

Aaron was designated a high priest, as he offered burnt sin offerings for both himself and the congregation of Israel.  Yet in Hebrews we find that Christ's Priesthood trumps all priesthoods, because Christ did not have to offer sin offerings for Himself, but only for the congregation of mankind in total.  Christ was sinless, Aaron was not.  To bestow these titles upon sinful man.. i.e. Melkisadek priesthood that was a foreshadow of the sinless Priest for all mankind, Jesus Christ, is presumptuous to the nth degree, and reveals a total lack of biblical/Spiritual understanding.  No Mormon or any man has the right to identify with the Melkisadek Priesthood, nor should they realm in the area of Aaron's priesthood.  Aaron's priesthood, involved acceptance by God through following the letter of the law, or by "legalism".  Acceptance by God through Christ is the last and newer covenant, that came through the gift of grace, not works that man should boast in his salvation/conversion

Rituals, secret handshakes, secret blood oaths, do not make a special or righteous man.  It is all Christ who makes a man a new creature/creation in Christ.

The only secrecy in Christianity has been when there was persecution, yet among believers they were all saints, and royal ambassadors of the King.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.

All of your attacks on my church are futile. They don't change my opinion and I think the educated person would be forced to consider the other point of view because of your extreme stances. 

Believe what you want but I am keeping my faith. Good luck with your crusade.


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.





Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.


----------



## Avatar4321

Neubarth said:


> Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.
> 
> Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.
> 
> I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.



Of course they would. You see they've read the Book of Mormon and know your question is quite insane.



> Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.  I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases.  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.



You realize that we know little to anything about America prior to Columbus dont you? Archaelogy has barely scratched the surface. 

We do know plenty about the Middle East though and Joseph's accurate descriptions of a path through the Arabian penninsula with corresponding name and descriptions is pretty dang impressive. Pretty impressive for a wilderness farmboy to be able to accurately describe a route no one knew about in the early 1800s.



> Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!



The problem with your DNA analysis is that you assuming we have any kind of evidence for what Lehi & families DNA look like. You can't test for DNA you dont have knowledge of. Not to mention any people they intermarried in a 2000 period since. The best DNA can offer is inconclusive evidence.




> Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.



I am not looking for followers. If fact, Id be quite surprised if people wanted to follow me. My concern is truth. And the Lord has revealed to me the Book of Mormon is true, so why should I stop teaching people about it and encouraging them to learn for themselves from the Lord? If you dont want to believe, that's fine. Live by the light you have and the Lord will bless you. But I see no point to hide the light I have been blessed with. Especially when I know the Lord has power to convince who He will.


----------



## Avatar4321

N4mddissent said:


> Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.



It's always amazed me that the same people who believe that the Lord rose from the dead, preformed countless miracles, had servants who did likewise, etc can believe that God cant give a boy the power to translate ancient records and show them to others.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.
Click to expand...


The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.
> 
> Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water. We never claimed this exclusively.
> 
> I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they would. You see they've read the Book of Mormon and know your question is quite insane.I took care of that one a long time ago, ah.... the memories are coming back now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.That's an interesting question because Teotihuacan didn't need to be excavated. It was made entirely of cement and stone. Just like the Nephites who moved into the land Northward. I maintain that nearly all the ancient cities found in the jungles of mesoamerica and mexico were civilizations that bear strong resemblances to the claims of the book of Mormon.   I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some casesYour good friend, bless his heart, didn't do his research..  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize that we know little to anything about America prior to Columbus dont you? Archaelogy has barely scratched the surface. Studies show that 2% of Meso America has been excavated.
> 
> We do know plenty about the Middle East though and Joseph's accurate descriptions of a path through the Arabian penninsula with corresponding name and descriptions is pretty dang impressive. Pretty impressive for a wilderness farmboy to be able to accurately describe a route no one knew about in the early 1800s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with your DNA analysis is that you assuming we have any kind of evidence for what Lehi & families DNA look like. You can't test for DNA you dont have knowledge of. Not to mention any people they intermarried in a 2000 period since. The best DNA can offer is inconclusive evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not looking for followers. If fact, Id be quite surprised if people wanted to follow me. My concern is truth. And the Lord has revealed to me the Book of Mormon is true, so why should I stop teaching people about it and encouraging them to learn for themselves from the Lord? If you dont want to believe, that's fine. Live by the light you have and the Lord will bless you. But I see no point to hide the light I have been blessed with. Especially when I know the Lord has power to convince who He will.
Click to expand...


It's time to start considering all angles.


----------



## Eightball

http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/priestod2.htm


> The Aaronic Priesthood was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and sometime later, but before August 1830, they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Apostles Peter, James and John.



Is this taught by the LDS/Mormon church?

The N.T. book of Hebrews clearly says that the priest Melchizedek was a "one of a kind" and the imbodiment of Christ, as He Melchizedek had no geneology, and was Christ pre-carnate.

How can a sinful human being/s, who is/are not the Son of God, receive this title or priesthood reserved for Jesus Christ only?

Abraham who was deemed righteous/justified before God, payed tithes to Melchizedek.  

Is the Mormon church placing Joseph Smith Jr, and others who allegedly receive this priesthood at age 12 or older and usually males, on a level with Jesus Christ?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> FABRICATING THE MORMON PRIESTHOOD
> 
> 
> 
> The Aaronic Priesthood was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and sometime later, but before August 1830, they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Apostles Peter, James and John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this taught by the LDS/Mormon church?
> 
> The N.T. book of Hebrews clearly says that the priest Melchizedek was a "one of a kind" and the imbodiment of Christ, as He Melchizedek had no geneology, and was Christ pre-carnate.
> 
> How can a sinful human being/s, who is/are not the Son of God, receive this title or priesthood reserved for Jesus Christ only?
> 
> Abraham who was deemed righteous/justified before God, payed tithes to Melchizedek.
> 
> Is the Mormon church placing Joseph Smith Jr, and others who allegedly receive this priesthood at age 12 or older and usually males, on a level with Jesus Christ?
Click to expand...


No its not right. He recieved the Melchesidek Priesthood before April 1830.

And you are contradicting you own intepretation. Abraham paid tithes to Melchesidek. You said it yourself. You can't possibly argue that Christ was the only Priest after the Order of Melchesidek when you already cited Melchesidek. If we are to accept your view of the Bible there can be no fewer than 2 Priests of the Melchesidek Priesthood.

Moreover, Paul, in the scriptures you are refering to stated that there was an Order of Melchesidek, much like there was an Order of Aaron.



> 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the *order of Melchisedec*, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)



 An Order is defined as:



> 1 a: a group of people united in a formal way: as (1): a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2): a community under a religious rule ; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows b: a badge or medal of such a society ; also : a military decoration
> 
> 2 a: any of the several grades of the Christian ministry bplural : the office of a person in the Christian ministry plural : ordination



If you are actually reading the Bible, its clear that there is an Order and an Order has multiple members.

No one recieves the Melchesidek Priesthood at age 12. No clue where you even got that idea.

Why do you think it's such sin to become like Christ? That's the whole point of Christianity. Christ atoned for our sins so that we might partake of the divine nature and be made perfect through Him. He rose from the dead to restore us to our bodies perfect in the resurrection. The scriptures promise that we will be joint heirs with Christ. We are adopted as His Children. And the Children do the work of their Father.

The scriptures are clear that their is a Priesthood after the Order of Aaron and a Priesthood after the Order of Melchesidek. Christ was a High Priest after the Order of Melchesidek. The very scriptures you cited support that. You are free to disagree with the scriptures and us. But from my understanding, you believe the Bible. So why are you upset when we follow it and you dont? If you are wrong about this, which the text shows that you are, what makes you think you are correct in other interpretations?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> FABRICATING THE MORMON PRIESTHOOD
> 
> 
> 
> The Aaronic Priesthood was allegedly given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and sometime later, but before August 1830, they received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Apostles Peter, James and John.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this taught by the LDS/Mormon church?
> 
> The N.T. book of Hebrews clearly says that the priest Melchizedek was a "one of a kind" and the imbodiment of Christ, as He Melchizedek had no geneology, and was Christ pre-carnate.
> 
> How can a sinful human being/s, who is/are not the Son of God, receive this title or priesthood reserved for Jesus Christ only?
> 
> Abraham who was deemed righteous/justified before God, payed tithes to Melchizedek.
> 
> Is the Mormon church placing Joseph Smith Jr, and others who allegedly receive this priesthood at age 12 or older and usually males, on a level with Jesus Christ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No its not right. He recieved the Melchesidek Priesthood before April 1830.
> 
> And you are contradicting you own intepretation. Abraham paid tithes to Melchesidek. You said it yourself. You can't possibly argue that Christ was the only Priest after the Order of Melchesidek when you already cited Melchesidek. If we are to accept your view of the Bible there can be no fewer than 2 Priests of the Melchesidek Priesthood.
> 
> Moreover, Paul, in the scriptures you are refering to stated that there was an Order of Melchesidek, much like there was an Order of Aaron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the *order of Melchisedec*, and not be called after the order of Aaron? (Hebrews 7:11)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An Order is defined as:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 a: a group of people united in a formal way: as (1): a fraternal society <the Masonic Order> (2): a community under a religious rule ; especially : one requiring members to take solemn vows b: a badge or medal of such a society ; also : a military decoration
> 
> 2 a: any of the several grades of the Christian ministry bplural : the office of a person in the Christian ministry plural : ordination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are actually reading the Bible, its clear that there is an Order and an Order has multiple members.
> 
> No one recieves the Melchesidek Priesthood at age 12. No clue where you even got that idea.
> 
> Why do you think it's such sin to become like Christ? That's the whole point of Christianity. Christ atoned for our sins so that we might partake of the divine nature and be made perfect through Him. He rose from the dead to restore us to our bodies perfect in the resurrection. The scriptures promise that we will be joint heirs with Christ. We are adopted as His Children. And the Children do the work of their Father.
> 
> The scriptures are clear that their is a Priesthood after the Order of Aaron and a Priesthood after the Order of Melchesidek. Christ was a High Priest after the Order of Melchesidek. The very scriptures you cited support that. You are free to disagree with the scriptures and us. But from my understanding, you believe the Bible. So why are you upset when we follow it and you dont? If you are wrong about this, which the text shows that you are, what makes you think you are correct in other interpretations?
Click to expand...


No, you are wrong, and didn't read my message.

Melchezedek is considered Pre-incarnate Christ, not a person other than Christ, or a second priest.

I clearly wrote that.

Hebrew's flatly says that Christ is the only Melchizedek, not anyone else.  No mortal human can take that position.

Hebrews Chapter 7, verses 11-28

*Jesus Like Melchizedek *

 11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to comeone in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 
12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 
13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 
14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 
15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 
16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 
17For it is declared: 
   "You are a priest forever, 
      in the order of Melchizedek."[a] 
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 
19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. 

20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 
21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: 
   "The Lord has sworn 
      and will not change his mind: 
   'You are a priest forever.' "* 
22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. **
23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 
24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 

 26Such a high priest meets our needone who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 
27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 
28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.*


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> No, you are wrong, and didn't read my message.
> 
> Melchezedek is considered Pre-incarnate Christ, not a person other than Christ, or a second priest.
> 
> I clearly wrote that.
> 
> Hebrew's flatly says that Christ is the only Melchizedek, not anyone else.  No mortal human can take that position.
> 
> Hebrews Chapter 7, verses 11-28
> 
> *Jesus Like Melchizedek *
> 
> 11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to comeone in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
> 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
> 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.
> 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.
> 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears,
> 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.
> 17For it is declared:
> "You are a priest forever,
> in the order of Melchizedek."[a]
> 18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless
> 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.
> 
> 20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath,
> 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
> "The Lord has sworn
> and will not change his mind:
> 'You are a priest forever.' "*
> 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. **
> 23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office;
> 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely[c] those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
> 
> 26Such a high priest meets our needone who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.
> 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
> 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.*


*

Believe whatever you want man. Melchesidek isnt Christ. Nor does it change the fact that there is an Order of Melchesidek. However, it be nice if you actually believed what the Bible said.*


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you think we are so weird. I am sure there are plenty of non-Christians who think you are weird too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.
Click to expand...


The history channel is to history what "Survivor" is to actually be a castaway somewhere.  A committed attempt at presenting similarity, but content is chosen for entertainment over accuracy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to call any belief weird when a thread here has 13 pages debating whether the Noah's Ark story represents an actual historical event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history channel is to history what "Survivor" is to actually be a castaway somewhere.  A committed attempt at presenting similarity, but content is chosen for entertainment over accuracy.
Click to expand...


I agree with you to a point. They try to be as accurate as possible but I do admit they have to sell the channel first. They sometimes cling to old dogmas like bering straight theories and big bang theories.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The History Channel hasn't ruled it out with their multiple shows on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The history channel is to history what "Survivor" is to actually be a castaway somewhere.  A committed attempt at presenting similarity, but content is chosen for entertainment over accuracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you to a point. They try to be as accurate as possible but I do admit they have to sell the channel first. They sometimes cling to old dogmas like bering straight theories and big bang theories.
Click to expand...


Bering Strait Theory?  It is indeed, but during the last major ice age, there was enough sea water locked up in cap ice, iceberg ice, glacial ice, that the Aleutian chain was very-much exposed as a land bridge between Asia and North America.

Interestingly, the geologic aging of the last major global ice age also coincides with the archeological aging/date of the advent of man's appearance in North America.

This all happened before metalurgy happened in the rest of the world, and these folks were then isolated geographically/physically when the ice age subsided and the Aleutians became an unpassable island chain in the Arctic Ocean.

So metalurgy happened or dawned in the rest of the world, and was easily evidenced, but did not ocurr in the New World or N./S. America.

The first actual contact of Old World man that has been substantiated is Vikings in the New Foundland area of N.America, but their settlement was abandoned in less than a century, and they never returned again, as far as archeological evidence can reveal.

For many many years the many Old World cities and civilizations have been unearthed/found, that continue to substantiate many areas of the bible where geographical, or city areas were described.

This cannot be said for one bit of the Book of Mormon.

Faith is not a "blind" leap, as the LDS church espouses, but is based on evidences.


----------



## Valerie

Eightball said:


> For many many years the many Old World cities and civilizations have been unearthed/found, that continue to substantiate many areas of the bible where geographical, or city areas were described.
> 
> This cannot be said for one bit of the Book of Mormon.
> 
> *Faith is not a "blind" leap, as the LDS church espouses, but is based on evidences.*




Eightball, I agree.  And to those who say faith is some sort of cop out for the weak minded, I say au contraire!  Faith takes strength and courage and I think of Christianity as a discipline of my faith that manifests itself in my actions.  The meaning of disciple is "one who teaches" as the disciples taught Jesus' faith by spreading the gospel teachings.  I haven't read this entire thread, but I really appreciate your thoughtful posts on this subject.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Faith is not a "blind" leap, as the LDS church espouses, but is based on evidences.



And this is why you have no credibility. Because you insist on making these straw men arguments. No one is asking for a blind leap. Quite the opposite. We invite people to read the Book of Mormon for themselves. We encourage them to ask questions and seek out the Lord.

The Lord didnt expect people to take a blind leap. He provides witnesses. When Christ rose from the dead, He had twelve witnesses to testify to the world. (There were others of course as well). When the Book of Mormon was translated, the Lord called 12 witnesses as well.

Moreover, the Lord sends His Holy Spirit with power to testify to each individual who seeks divine knowledge that these things are of God. There is nothing blind about it.

There is more evidence for the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon than there is for the resurrection of the dead. If the Book of Mormon were false, there should be absolutely no evidence. But there is evidence. There is linguistic evidence. There are accurate places/paths described in the Book of Mormon. There are the actual witnesses. And most important there is the Power of the Holy Ghost.

You dont have to believe the evidence. That's between you and God. But this complete denial that evidence exists is disingenous.


----------



## Eightball

How can reading the Book of Mormon instill solid evidenciary based faith?

Nothing of Geographical, or Archeological, or early N./S. American culture stated in the Book of Mormon is substantiated.
******
To this day, how did a sinful man like Joseph Smith Jr. get a special greeting from John the Baptist.

Why did God pick a con-man to validate His message or gospel?
*******
You folks "want" to believe, cause that is your "straw man".  Your desire and hope that Mormonism is the truth, is all you have going for you.  Nothing evidenciary.  No Golden plates, nothing.

Joseph Smith's teachings as well as B.Y.'s go against so much of Jesus' and His apostles teachings.

The whole premise of your religion is based on God's alleged weakness and ineptitude.

God somehow allowed His truth become corrupted.  What other explanation could it be.

Avatar:  Do you really know what it means when God is described as "omnipotent"?  What does omnipotent mean to you?  Does it mean that God controls or can intervene in somethings but does not in others, even when it makes Him out to appear weak and not in control?  

Avatar:  God does nothing that will diminish who He is in nature, character, or attributes.  When He inspires men to pen down His words, does He somehow forget to "protect" His communication via the scriptures throughout time?  

Then He/God has to refix things and thence we have the "real" church and "Real" gospel ala J.S. jr.?

What kind of God do we have here, as defined by the LDS/Mormon religion?  From my observations, He is extremely weak, forgetful, and easily changes His mind.  First He bans the Negroid race from full church participation, then He says, "ok".......Of course conveniently this new change comes through a 20th century Mormon President/apostle, who just conveniently happens to be under public scrutiny/pressure for banning negroid raced people from the Mormon priesthood.  How convenient. 

Joseph Smith condones along with the early Apostles, polygamy, and then the U.S. government starts to weigh down on the church and the possibility of Utah statehood, and "wa la!" a new prophecy from the ever-changing LDS/Mormon God...........Polygamy is wrong!

So much of Joseph Smith teachings as well as B.Y. center on the carnal side of man's nature, and as a result, condones areas of human behaviour that the bible specifically rejects as Godly.

The outward presentation ot the "newbie" or possible LDS convert is this group of people who fly the American flag, are clean cut, don't smoke, drink, or swear, and don't go out with bad boys or girls on dates.

Their familial appearance to the outsider is one of strength and cohesiveness.

Yet.........if one is to scratch that "pretty" veneer, we see a religion that promotes a "striving" to "be", and is devoid of the bible's resounding call to "grace".  In order to defend this religion of legalistic works in order to please their god, they twist or take out of context scripture pertaining to the true definition of faith, and skew it to support their doctrine.  They claim that works is pre-requisite to salvation, yet the bible when talking about works is talking to already saved/converted believers.  The bible simply says that truth Christian faith, will reveal itself in fruitful, and Godly inspired works.

Works do not earn us salvation, or position.  Going through Masonic inspired rituals within the "temple" to become "endowed" or become part of a priesthood, is just works and rituals.  I can't count how many times God told Moses to tell the Israelites, that it isn't things, but "Me!" you must venerate.  It isn't secret handshakes, passages, veils, nor bloody oaths, that make a pact with God.  This is all occult in origin, and places faith in works of man, rather than God's interest in the inner man or heart of man.

There is a Christian church that is very steeped in legalism that flatly teaches that one must be water baptized and it must be total water immersion in order to be saved.  Again this is that insidious thing called "works" or "legalism".  

Paul called them "Judiazers" in his epistle to the Galatian church.  Judiazers said that simple salvation by faith in Christ's attoning work on the cross, through the grace of God was not enough for the gentile believers of the Galatian church.  These folks were believing Jews that still held tight to many of their sacred rituals, and rights that had nothing to do with God's work of saving souls, yet these Judiazers were telling Gentile Christians that they needed to observe Jewish traditions and laws that even involved circumcision!

Paul said that a true believer is "circumcized" internally, not externally.  Sure, one can be circumcized and be a true Christian, but God's work is not on the physical of man to make Him a new creature/creation in Christ Jesus, but is a work on man's soul that was once dead to God and is now alive to God.  God's surgery or doctoring is on the heart or innner man/woman.  

Mormons place all their faith or bets on rights, works and priveledges, and don't understand or comprehend the true mechanics or ownership that God has in the area of man's salvation.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> How can reading the Book of Mormon instill solid evidenciary based faith?



Can't imagine how actually knowing what something says can give you reason to believe it.

I think the more appropriate question is: How can not reading the Book of Mormon disprove it?



> Nothing of Geographical, or Archeological, or early N./S. American culture stated in the Book of Mormon is substantiated.



There is plenty substantiated. However, you are also ignoring that not everything took place in N&S America. The details about the trip through the Arabian Penninsula are extremely accurate. Some places even use the same name! No one had a clue about this path in 1830. Yet now, its documented.

But of course, nothing has been substantiated.




> To this day, how did a sinful man like Joseph Smith Jr. get a special greeting from John the Baptist.
> 
> Why did God pick a con-man to validate His message or gospel?



You're begging the question. If what Joseph claimed was true, he wasn't a con-man. 

How did sinner in the New Testament get Christ to talk to them? How does a sinner like you expect to recieve salvation?

God has to work through sinners. He doesn't have a lot of other options.




> You folks "want" to believe, cause that is your "straw man".  Your desire and hope that Mormonism is the truth, is all you have going for you.  Nothing evidenciary.  No Golden plates, nothing.



I had no reason to want mormonism to be true when I asked the Lord. You can claim it all you want, your claim isnt true. Not to mention, this isnt a straw man.

Ive already cited multiple evidences to you. The 12 witnesses are evidenciary.




> Joseph Smith's teachings as well as B.Y.'s go against so much of Jesus' and His apostles teachings.



Which is why every time you try to cite something they taught that you say was contrary, I refute it using Jesus an the Apostles own teachings.



> The whole premise of your religion is based on God's alleged weakness and ineptitude.
> 
> God somehow allowed His truth become corrupted.  What other explanation could it be.



Actually the whole premise is based on the corruption and weakness of man. It is men who turn away from the truth of God repeatedly. It's men who draw near to Him with their lips but place their hearts far from Him.

But that is exactly why God continues to reach out to man. That is why God speaks to man and continually reveals His truths to them. Because God is consistant. He isnt going to stop talking and teaching just because someone compiled the ancients testimonies into records and declared the heavens closed. He isnt going to stop reaching out for His children because of the weakness of man. That is why the Atonement was preformed.



> Avatar:  Do you really know what it means when God is described as "omnipotent"?  What does omnipotent mean to you?  Does it mean that God controls or can intervene in somethings but does not in others, even when it makes Him out to appear weak and not in control?



Seems rather irrelevant to the discussion, another attempt to change the topic I suppose. But I have no problem answering:

Saying that God is omnipotent simply means that He has the power to do anything that is possible to do. And He uses that power as He chooses to. His hand is usually very subtle, unless He is trying to prove a point.



> Avatar:  God does nothing that will diminish who He is in nature, character, or attributes.  When He inspires men to pen down His words, does He somehow forget to "protect" His communication via the scriptures throughout time?



You act as though all things God has taught men are meant for all people to know. God's protection is the fact that He still does speak. And that's the problem you have. You dont believe God can still speak. I think God hasnt changed.

The fact that we have the scriptures in the form we do is a miracle. But it's absurd to think that anything touched by human hands is perfect. God has to condescend to our level and use our language to communicate to us most of the time.

The scriptures are given to us as a record of our parents dealings with God. The revelations they recieved, cannot save us. Revelations given to Adam couldnt save Noah. God's revelations to Noah couldnt save Abraham.

We have the testimony of our fathers to build our faith. We have their witness to teach us that Jesus is the Christ and to trust in the Father. But if we don't humble ourselves and learn from them and recieves revelations for our days we cannot be saved. We cant be saved by reading the testimonies of others. We have to recieve our own.



> Then He/God has to refix things and thence we have the "real" church and "Real" gospel ala J.S. jr.?



The scriptures have promised us that the Lord will continue to call Apostles and Prophets to teach the people. In fact, they are the foundation to Christ's church. If you go to a Church without Apostles, the logical question must be asked is whose church is it? Because Christ's was built with the foundation of Apostles and Prophets with Christ being the chief cornerstone.

Do you honestly believe that God is the author of the confusion that is modern Christianity? Do you honestly think God expect us to just figure it out on our own by relying on revelations He gave our Fathers? Do you honestly think that we are somehow unworthy to learn from Him ourselves?

Because it's not God that's holding back revelation. It's our own lack of faith.



> What kind of God do we have here, as defined by the LDS/Mormon religion?  From my observations, He is extremely weak, forgetful, and easily changes His mind.  First He bans the Negroid race from full church participation, then He says, "ok".......Of course conveniently this new change comes through a 20th century Mormon President/apostle, who just conveniently happens to be under public scrutiny/pressure for banning negroid raced people from the Mormon priesthood.  How convenient.



There was no public scrutiny in 1978. However, I suggest you read the Book of Acts sometimes and see what the early Christians thought of those heathen gentiles before conveniently recieving revelation to take the Gospel to them.

God doesnt need to bless all His children with the same things at the same time. In fact, there is wisdom in what He does. He does not have to give everyone His authority. In fact, throughout most of history He hasnt. The Priesthood was limited to one tribe in the House of Israel for generations. The gentiles werent even allowed to hear the Gospel before Peter recieved the revelations.

The beauty of it all is that all people are still entitled to the blessings in their own due time if they are true and faithful to God. This has always been the case. That is why the Gospel is preached to the dead.



> Joseph Smith condones along with the early Apostles, polygamy, and then the U.S. government starts to weigh down on the church and the possibility of Utah statehood, and "wa la!" a new prophecy from the ever-changing LDS/Mormon God...........Polygamy is wrong!



You really dont know what prophecy is do you? Utah was denied statehood multiple times before the polygamy issue was ever came to a head. Statehood wasnt even an issue with the revelation. A statement which demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

The issue is simple. There were two commandments involved: Command to live the principle of plural marriage and the command to obey the laws of the land. The Church fought the government through the legal system to try to overturn the polygamy laws, the Supreme Court upheld the law.

So the Prophet asked the Lord what to do about the matter. Which commandment should be followed?



> It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .
> 
> I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .
> 
> The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.
> 
> The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursueto continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
> 
> The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners.
> 
> This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.
> 
> . . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .
> 
> I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)



This is exactly why revelation is important. Because God sees things in our lives that was unthinkable to the ancients. He commands as He chooses and revokes commands when He chooses; to both try and to ease the trials ouf His people. 

He commanded Noah to build an ark. He doesnt command us to do that

He commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and then commanded him not to when Abraham showed He was willing to obey.

How can any religion be of God and deny the power of God to reveal His will now?



> So much of Joseph Smith teachings as well as B.Y. center on the carnal side of man's nature, and as a result, condones areas of human behaviour that the bible specifically rejects as Godly.



I doubt you've studied what they tought enough to make such a claim. Teaching against covetness and pride is carnal? Teaching the saints to be chaste, honest, generous, and brave is carnal?



> The outward presentation ot the "newbie" or possible LDS convert is this group of people who fly the American flag, are clean cut, don't smoke, drink, or swear, and don't go out with bad boys or girls on dates.
> 
> Their familial appearance to the outsider is one of strength and cohesiveness.



Maybe in the United States. We have more members outside of the States and I dont really think they care about flying the American flag.

I also doubt who we date comes out in the missionary discussion. 

Keeping the commandments, of course, would. So why wouldnt we teach what God asks of us?



> Yet.........if one is to scratch that "pretty" veneer, we see a religion that promotes a "striving" to "be", and is devoid of the bible's resounding call to "grace".  In order to defend this religion of legalistic works in order to please their god, they twist or take out of context scripture pertaining to the true definition of faith, and skew it to support their doctrine.  They claim that works is pre-requisite to salvation, yet the bible when talking about works is talking to already saved/converted believers.  The bible simply says that truth Christian faith, will reveal itself in fruitful, and Godly inspired works.



You really dont understand grace do you? You also have no clue what the LDS position on grace is. Ill try to sum it up clearly and concisely:

Nothing is possible without the Atonement of Jesus Christ. It's through Christ that we rise from the dead. It's through Christ that we heal. It's through Christ that our human nature can change and we can repent of our sins. It's Christ that gives us the power to keep His commandments as quickly as we are capable. The whole point of the Atonement is to become the sons of God in word and deed.



> Works do not earn us salvation, or position.  Going through Masonic inspired rituals within the "temple" to become "endowed" or become part of a priesthood, is just works and rituals.  I can't count how many times God told Moses to tell the Israelites, that it isn't things, but "Me!" you must venerate.  It isn't secret handshakes, passages, veils, nor bloody oaths, that make a pact with God.  This is all occult in origin, and places faith in works of man, rather than God's interest in the inner man or heart of man.



No one is claiming that salvation can be earned.

What did Christ teach the Apostles during the 40 days after His resurrection?



> There is a Christian church that is very steeped in legalism that flatly teaches that one must be water baptized and it must be total water immersion in order to be saved.  Again this is that insidious thing called "works" or "legalism".



The Bible itself says we are saved by Water, Blood, and Spirit.



> Paul called them "Judiazers" in his epistle to the Galatian church.  Judiazers said that simple salvation by faith in Christ's attoning work on the cross, through the grace of God was not enough for the gentile believers of the Galatian church.  These folks were believing Jews that still held tight to many of their sacred rituals, and rights that had nothing to do with God's work of saving souls, yet these Judiazers were telling Gentile Christians that they needed to observe Jewish traditions and laws that even involved circumcision!



Yet Paul himself testified that men must be baptized and recieve the Holy Ghost. You think He did this because they weren't necessary? What's the point of the Atonement if you don't accept it?



> Paul said that a true believer is "circumcized" internally, not externally.  Sure, one can be circumcized and be a true Christian, but God's work is not on the physical of man to make Him a new creature/creation in Christ Jesus, but is a work on man's soul that was once dead to God and is now alive to God.  God's surgery or doctoring is on the heart or innner man/woman.



All well and good, however, no ones arguing that we need to be circumcized.



> Mormons place all their faith or bets on rights, works and priveledges, and don't understand or comprehend the true mechanics or ownership that God has in the area of man's salvation.



No, we simply choose to accept the Atonement in our lives, comply with the ordinances and recieve the blessings God has for us. Nothing sinister about that.


----------



## Shogun

Critics note that the Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are not substantiated by the archaeological record between 3100 B.C. to 400 AD in America,[6][7][8][9] including the following: ass,[10] cow,[11] horses, ox, sheep, swine,[12] goats,[13] elephants,[14] wheat,[15] barley,[16] silk[17] , steel,[18] bellows, brass, breast plates, iron, ore (mining), plows, swords,[14] scimitars, chariots[19] and other elements.

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Eightball

Shogun said:


> Critics note that the Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are not substantiated by the archaeological record between 3100 B.C. to 400 AD in America,[6][7][8][9] including the following: ass,[10] cow,[11] horses, ox, sheep, swine,[12] goats,[13] elephants,[14] wheat,[15] barley,[16] silk[17] , steel,[18] bellows, brass, breast plates, iron, ore (mining), plows, swords,[14] scimitars, chariots[19] and other elements.
> 
> Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Excellent point Shogun.

Evidence does matter when one is suppose to exercise faith in anything.

The Mormon/LDS premise of faith is based on nothing but conjecture.

******
Also, I've wondered about the well know "Battle of Crooked Creek" that happened in the 1830's in Missouri?

Seems that there was a pretty big battle with Mormons and non-Mormons fighting with guns.  

There was even a "no man's land" between Mormon settled areas and non-Mormon settled areas that extended over 20 miles wide.
*******
Anyway, what precipitated this very violent battle?  I know the LDS church has it's version, but no doubt a secular version would might shed some light too.
******


----------



## Truthspeaker

I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
happy reading!
and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals


----------



## Truthspeaker

I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
happy reading!
and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals

Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
> Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
> happy reading!
> and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
> Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals
> 
> Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter.  Yeah non-Christian idiots like Copernicus that told the church that the world was round should have kept their collective mouths shut and let the church propagate extra-biblica teachings that the earth was flat.



Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.

Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.

In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eohippus
You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.

At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples.  They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.

In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.

Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine.  There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature.  Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.

Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.
> 
> Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.
> 
> In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
> Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.
> 
> At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples.  They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.
> 
> In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.
> 
> Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine.  There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature.  Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.
> 
> Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.



All I hear is: Blah blah blah blah blah.

Are you done pontificating? Would you like to have an actual discussion rather than simply talk for the sake of talking? Granted, that would mean you'd have to listen first.

What is nonsense about the Doctrines of Christ? What is nonsense about faith in Jesus Christ, Repentence, Baptism for the remission of sin, and the Laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

What is nonsense about the reality of the Atonement? The Resurrection from the dead? The Gifts of the Spirit? What is nonsense about Revelation?

Tell me, which of all those basic doctrines offends you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
> Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
> happy reading!
> and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
> Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals
> 
> Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter.  Yeah non-Christian idiots like Copernicus that told the church that the world was round should have kept their collective mouths shut and let the church propagate extra-biblica teachings that the earth was flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.
> 
> Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.
> 
> In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
> Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.
> 
> At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples.  They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.
> 
> In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.
> 
> Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine.  There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature.  Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.
> 
> Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.
Click to expand...


Since you refuse to read the links I post, you end up looking like and idiot. I won't let you get off that easy though. Sorry about the length of this but at least you couldn't say I didn't cite my sources. And it ain't like you never posted long winded entries before so I don't wanna hear it about the length. Read and weep:

Yes, the fossil record is now clear on that point, but it is widely thought that they were extinct before Book of Mormon times. However, that assumption may be incorrect. I quote from a review by Matthew Roper in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 4, 1992, p.208:

    Scholars no longer doubt that horses were present in the New World during the Pleistocene period. Although many believe that horses were extinct long before the Book of Mormon era, there is still disagreement as to just how long horses survived in the New World. Some scholars believe that horses could have survived as late as 3000 B.C. [see discussion in Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-99]. Ivan Sanderson states that "there is a body of evidence both from the mainland of Central America and even from rock drawings in Haiti . . . tending to show that the horse may have been known to man in the Americas before the coming of the Spaniards." Sanderson further suggests that it is conceivable that "isolated small populations of horses or horse-like animals continued to exist until much later times in outlying corners of the two continents where conditions were suitable to their requirements and where they were free from whatever animal foes or parasitic diseases caused their extermination" elsewhere [Ivan T. Sanderson, Living Treasure (New York: Viking Press, 1941), 39-40]. Pre-Columbian horse remains that showed no signs of fossilization have actually been found in several sites on the Yucatan Peninsula ["Once Again the Horse," F.A.R.M.S. Update, June 1984; John Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-100]. In 1957, Mayapan, a Post-Classic Mayan site, yielded the remains of horses at a depth of two meters under ground. They were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization"[Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 (May 1957): 278]. 

In the Yucatan area, horse remains were found during archaeological investigations in three caves (see Henry Chapman Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1896, p. 172, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99). These remains were associated with signs of human activity (potsherds), and bore with no sign of fossilization. More recently, 1978 excavations at the Loltun Cave in the Maya lowlands also yielded the remains of horses (see Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, no. 11, Nov. 1978, p. 2, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99).

That seems pretty significant: the discovery of pre-Columbian, non-fossil horse remains from Book of Mormon times in the Book of Mormon setting of Mesoamerica. Careful work remains to be done in dating and classifying these remains. But it should be clear that references to horses in the Book of Mormon are insufficient grounds for rejecting the book as fraudulent. This doesn't prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but helps establish the possibility of plausibility on one minute issue - and should serve to warn us about the risky and tentative nature of conclusions drawn from arguments of silence (failure to find something does not necessarily mean it never existed).

Further, there is linguistic evidence for American horses before Columbus:

    "No systematic research has been done comparing the names of animals in the Near East and Mesoamerica. Just as we saw with the metals, perhaps also with beasts: clarifying links may appear through linguistic studies. A hint of the possibilities derives from work on the Yuman language group (located around the lower Colorado River, near the U.S.-Mexican border). Reconstructing the protoculture associated with the ancestral Yuman language by comparing the descendant tongues, an investigator reconstructed a word for "horse" on strong evidence [Howard W. Law, "A Reconstructed Proto-Culture Derived from Some Yuman Vocabularies," Anthropological Linguistics 3 (1961):54]. That is, the indications are that a term for horse was shared by those people long before European horses arrived. The evidence is not foolproof, of course, but it does demand some alternative explanation if we are not to suppose early knowledge of the horse."

    (John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Comp., SLC, UT (1985), p. 297.) 

I received e-mail from someone with ties to the Cherokee tribe (may have been a member of the tribe), a people legendary for their skills with horses. He claimed that Cherokee tradition maintains that they had horses before the Spaniards came and that Cherokee had a long and ancient tradition of working with horses, horses that were native to this continent. I am not familiar with Cherokee traditions, but I have never heard scholars explain why the Indians of North America suddenly proved to be far better horsemen than the Spaniards ever were once the Spaniards (supposedly) introduced the horse to this continent. Skills and traditions involving horses and other animals don't emerge suddenly - it's the kind of thing that would seem to require many generations of development. I do have one interesting piece of evidence that I encountered on a trip to Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah. There is a famous slab of stone with ancient petroglyphs there called "Newspaper Rock." The carvings on the rock date from roughly 100 A.D. to 1500 A.D., overlapping into the post-Spanish period. There are many carvings that may have been made over the centuries, but right in the middle of the rock, one of the most prominent carvings - in the place that I would choose as one of the first places to carve - is a man riding a horse. Was there a big blank spot conveniently left after centuries of carving for a late Indian to carve something he saw from the Spaniards, or was this a more ancient carving depicting something of importance to Indian culture? (Update from 2002: it may be that the central horse carving was inscribed over earlier, older carvings that had become covered with tarnish, as was suggested to me in 2002 in correspondance with someone familiar with Newspaper Rock.)

A recent article in National Geographic News, "Remains Show Ancient Horses Were Hunted for Their Meat," by Hillary Mayell, May 11, 2001, reports that ancient spear points have been found with identifiable horse protein on them, indicating that horses were hunted for food. These horses are believed to have gone extinct 10,000 years ago, though again, pockets of them may have survived in some places, such as Book of Mormon lands. They were probably smaller than modern horses, perhaps unsuitable for riding - which the Book of Mormon does not require - but plenty big for herding and eating, as the Book of Mormon does imply.
Could other species be meant? To the index at the top

It may be naive to assume that the word "horse" necessarily refers to the species of we know today. The Hebrew word for horse , "sus", has a root meaning of "to leap" and can refer to other animals as well - including the swallow (J. L. Sorenson, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 345). Since deer also leap, it is not impossible that the early Nephites might have described them with a word related to "sus" or even the word "sus" itself. (Sorenson notes also that "ss" in Egyptian means horse, while "shs" is antelope). Could the "horse" of the Book of Mormon be Mesoamerican deer?

    John L. Sorenson has suggested the latter possibility and has pointed to archaeological specimens showing humans riding on the backs of animal figures, some of which are evidently deer. Also Mayan languages used the term deer for Spanish horses and deer-rider for horsemen. Indians of Zinacantan, Chiapas, believe that the mythical "Earth Owner," who is supposed to be rich and live inside a mountain, rides on deer. In addition, the Aztec account of the Spanish Conquest used terms like the-deer-which-carried-men-upon-their-backs, called horses (see Bernardino de Sahagun, The War of Conquest: How It Was Waged Here in Mexico, trans. A. J. Anderson and C. E. Dibble [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1978], pp. 28, 35, 55, 60).

    --Quoted from Reexploring the Book of Mormon, John Welch, ed., Deseret Book, SLC, UT, 1992, p. 98). 

Further work needs to be done to better understand what "horses" in the Book of Mormon actually refers to and how they were used. If anything, though, the occurrence of the "horses" in the Book of Mormon should serve as an invitation for further scholarship, not as a reason for ending it.

For additional information, see the Chapman Research page on Horses in the Book of Mormon.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already dealt with the so called contradictions you brought up. And by the way, just because a thing hasn't been found doesn't mean it ain't there. by the way horses? That's the oldest one in the anti-mormon book. It's already been proven that horses were here pre-columbus, but the anti's have been blabbering on about it for so long they don't know how to stop. You think that is gonna rock my faith?
> Why don't you guys get a life and go practice what you believe and stop trying to tear down others faiths?
> happy reading!
> and please, I double dog dare you to actually read this and repeat back to me that you comprehend it. Then if you have a problem with something, let address one issue at a time so we can take time to answer your "honest" questions.
> Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals
> 
> Also please bear in mind and take note that nearly all the sources quoted are from non-mormon sources, even though a scientist is a scientist, mormon or not, it shouldn't matter.  Yeah non-Christian idiots like Copernicus that told the church that the world was round should have kept their collective mouths shut and let the church propagate extra-biblica teachings that the earth was flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pre-Columbus horses were in the genre of Eohippus......and were about the size of large dogs, and also became extinct a very long time before man walked the soils of N. or S. America.
> 
> Eohippus, is the early genre of the modern or present day horse that the Europeans brought with the first Spanish landfalls in the New World.
> 
> In the fossil record, it disappeared from these continents millions of years before man's landfall here.
> Hyracotherium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> You have better chances of proving the existence of unicorns than hanging onto the BOM's fantasia of alleged facts about the history, flora, and fauna, of these two continents.
> 
> At least Jesus made sense in the bible, and so did His disciples.  They didn't fill the bible with these long-winded tales that rival Princess Bride, and the Land of Nimh.
> 
> In the bible, we have solid, coherent, writings that teach, exonnerate, encourage, each and every believer on their true identity/life in Christ, through His 100% encompassing attonement for all mankind past, present and future.
> 
> Even Narnia makes more sense than Mormon doctrine as it is allegorically based on actual bible doctrine.  There are myriads of allegorical books, with "Pilgrim's Progess" being another great milestone of Christian based literature.  Author Jonathan Edwards would turn over in his grave to know that millions of people worldwide have "bought" into such nonesense of LDS doctrine.
> 
> Christian doctrine from the bible is not authored with any intent, but to "call" the lost, feed the sheep, and glorify God, not man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you refuse to read the links I post, you end up looking like and idiot. I won't let you get off that easy though. Sorry about the length of this but at least you couldn't say I didn't cite my sources. And it ain't like you never posted long winded entries before so I don't wanna hear it about the length. Read and weep:
> 
> Yes, the fossil record is now clear on that point, but it is widely thought that they were extinct before Book of Mormon times. However, that assumption may be incorrect. I quote from a review by Matthew Roper in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 4, 1992, p.208:
> 
> Scholars no longer doubt that horses were present in the New World during the Pleistocene period. Although many believe that horses were extinct long before the Book of Mormon era, there is still disagreement as to just how long horses survived in the New World. Some scholars believe that horses could have survived as late as 3000 B.C. [see discussion in Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-99]. Ivan Sanderson states that "there is a body of evidence both from the mainland of Central America and even from rock drawings in Haiti . . . tending to show that the horse may have been known to man in the Americas before the coming of the Spaniards." Sanderson further suggests that it is conceivable that "isolated small populations of horses or horse-like animals continued to exist until much later times in outlying corners of the two continents where conditions were suitable to their requirements and where they were free from whatever animal foes or parasitic diseases caused their extermination" elsewhere [Ivan T. Sanderson, Living Treasure (New York: Viking Press, 1941), 39-40]. Pre-Columbian horse remains that showed no signs of fossilization have actually been found in several sites on the Yucatan Peninsula ["Once Again the Horse," F.A.R.M.S. Update, June 1984; John Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 98-100]. In 1957, Mayapan, a Post-Classic Mayan site, yielded the remains of horses at a depth of two meters under ground. They were "considered to be pre-Columbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization"[Clayton E. Ray, "Pre-Columbian Horses from Yucatan," Journal of Mammalogy 38 (May 1957): 278].
> 
> In the Yucatan area, horse remains were found during archaeological investigations in three caves (see Henry Chapman Mercer, The Hill-Caves of Yucatan: A Search for Evidence of Man's Antiquity in the Caverns of Central America, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1896, p. 172, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99). These remains were associated with signs of human activity (potsherds), and bore with no sign of fossilization. More recently, 1978 excavations at the Loltun Cave in the Maya lowlands also yielded the remains of horses (see Institute of Maya Studies, Miami Museum of Science, Newsletter 7, no. 11, Nov. 1978, p. 2, as cited in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 99).
> 
> That seems pretty significant: the discovery of pre-Columbian, non-fossil horse remains from Book of Mormon times in the Book of Mormon setting of Mesoamerica. Careful work remains to be done in dating and classifying these remains. But it should be clear that references to horses in the Book of Mormon are insufficient grounds for rejecting the book as fraudulent. This doesn't prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but helps establish the possibility of plausibility on one minute issue - and should serve to warn us about the risky and tentative nature of conclusions drawn from arguments of silence (failure to find something does not necessarily mean it never existed).
> 
> Further, there is linguistic evidence for American horses before Columbus:
> 
> "No systematic research has been done comparing the names of animals in the Near East and Mesoamerica. Just as we saw with the metals, perhaps also with beasts: clarifying links may appear through linguistic studies. A hint of the possibilities derives from work on the Yuman language group (located around the lower Colorado River, near the U.S.-Mexican border). Reconstructing the protoculture associated with the ancestral Yuman language by comparing the descendant tongues, an investigator reconstructed a word for "horse" on strong evidence [Howard W. Law, "A Reconstructed Proto-Culture Derived from Some Yuman Vocabularies," Anthropological Linguistics 3 (1961):54]. That is, the indications are that a term for horse was shared by those people long before European horses arrived. The evidence is not foolproof, of course, but it does demand some alternative explanation if we are not to suppose early knowledge of the horse."
> 
> (John L. Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Deseret Book Comp., SLC, UT (1985), p. 297.)
> 
> I received e-mail from someone with ties to the Cherokee tribe (may have been a member of the tribe), a people legendary for their skills with horses. He claimed that Cherokee tradition maintains that they had horses before the Spaniards came and that Cherokee had a long and ancient tradition of working with horses, horses that were native to this continent. I am not familiar with Cherokee traditions, but I have never heard scholars explain why the Indians of North America suddenly proved to be far better horsemen than the Spaniards ever were once the Spaniards (supposedly) introduced the horse to this continent. Skills and traditions involving horses and other animals don't emerge suddenly - it's the kind of thing that would seem to require many generations of development. I do have one interesting piece of evidence that I encountered on a trip to Canyonlands National Park in southern Utah. There is a famous slab of stone with ancient petroglyphs there called "Newspaper Rock." The carvings on the rock date from roughly 100 A.D. to 1500 A.D., overlapping into the post-Spanish period. There are many carvings that may have been made over the centuries, but right in the middle of the rock, one of the most prominent carvings - in the place that I would choose as one of the first places to carve - is a man riding a horse. Was there a big blank spot conveniently left after centuries of carving for a late Indian to carve something he saw from the Spaniards, or was this a more ancient carving depicting something of importance to Indian culture? (Update from 2002: it may be that the central horse carving was inscribed over earlier, older carvings that had become covered with tarnish, as was suggested to me in 2002 in correspondance with someone familiar with Newspaper Rock.)
> 
> A recent article in National Geographic News, "Remains Show Ancient Horses Were Hunted for Their Meat," by Hillary Mayell, May 11, 2001, reports that ancient spear points have been found with identifiable horse protein on them, indicating that horses were hunted for food. These horses are believed to have gone extinct 10,000 years ago, though again, pockets of them may have survived in some places, such as Book of Mormon lands. They were probably smaller than modern horses, perhaps unsuitable for riding - which the Book of Mormon does not require - but plenty big for herding and eating, as the Book of Mormon does imply.
> Could other species be meant? To the index at the top
> 
> It may be naive to assume that the word "horse" necessarily refers to the species of we know today. The Hebrew word for horse , "sus", has a root meaning of "to leap" and can refer to other animals as well - including the swallow (J. L. Sorenson, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 345). Since deer also leap, it is not impossible that the early Nephites might have described them with a word related to "sus" or even the word "sus" itself. (Sorenson notes also that "ss" in Egyptian means horse, while "shs" is antelope). Could the "horse" of the Book of Mormon be Mesoamerican deer?
> 
> John L. Sorenson has suggested the latter possibility and has pointed to archaeological specimens showing humans riding on the backs of animal figures, some of which are evidently deer. Also Mayan languages used the term deer for Spanish horses and deer-rider for horsemen. Indians of Zinacantan, Chiapas, believe that the mythical "Earth Owner," who is supposed to be rich and live inside a mountain, rides on deer. In addition, the Aztec account of the Spanish Conquest used terms like the-deer-which-carried-men-upon-their-backs, called horses (see Bernardino de Sahagun, The War of Conquest: How It Was Waged Here in Mexico, trans. A. J. Anderson and C. E. Dibble [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1978], pp. 28, 35, 55, 60).
> 
> --Quoted from Reexploring the Book of Mormon, John Welch, ed., Deseret Book, SLC, UT, 1992, p. 98).
> 
> Further work needs to be done to better understand what "horses" in the Book of Mormon actually refers to and how they were used. If anything, though, the occurrence of the "horses" in the Book of Mormon should serve as an invitation for further scholarship, not as a reason for ending it.
> 
> For additional information, see the Chapman Research page on Horses in the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...


Yep, Moroni sayeth the earth is flat.....  Therefore the earth is flat.........

Roundness of the earth is just a luciferian illusion.  

Faith cometh by "hoping", and "hoping" the BOM is truth.
*******
That flat earth parity, I realize is not mentioned in the BOM, but it is a reminder that faith must have subtance more than just "I sayeth" in every case.
******
In order to have a belief system that is credible, then prophecies must be 100% correct that were predicted for the present or past, and of course prophecies of the future must not be fictional either.
******
When are you LDS talk-heads going to let the scales fall off your souls and become transparent about the lack there-of evidence to substantiate your system of belief?

Instead you reply with "Blah Blah Blah", and "Idiot" replies back at folks that question and hope for answers to very important chinks in the historicity, and accuracy of your faith's foundations.

You use LDS archeologocial sources to support your N. American horse defense.

The bible is being substantiated archeologically every day by non-Christian as well as Christian supported agencies of research.

This cannot be said for the BOM for any historicity of miracles, divine visitations, ancient N. or S. American cities, ancient N. or S. American metalurgy, etc....

The LDS religion is not based on faith, but on hope that they are right, and is carried to the next level of divine inspired faith.

Oh, I forgot.  Of course there are no secular sources in the area of archeology to back up LDS backed archeological summations, as the Mormons/LDS are a persecuted people by any and all secular research agencies.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Yep, Moroni sayeth the earth is flat.....  Therefore the earth is flat.........
> 
> Roundness of the earth is just a luciferian illusion.



Can't you make a response without making up nonsense?  Surely, you must have a better argument than that.



Eightball said:


> The bible is being substantiated archeologically every day by non-Christian as well as Christian supported agencies of research.



Well, we do know  that the Holy Land as described in the Bible is pretty much accurate, from a geographic point of view.

How about Jesus raising Lazerus, making wine from water, or feeding a whole crowd of people from one little kid's lunch?  Is there any scientific back up for any of those stories?  How about the parting of the Red Sea?  Could that have really happened?

Believing that the Bible is more than just a collection of stories and tales takes some faith as well, it seems to me.

Don't get me started on the book of Leviticus.  I'm sure you can't justify the nonsense printed in that one.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Yep, Moroni sayeth the earth is flat.....  Therefore the earth is flat.........
> 
> Roundness of the earth is just a luciferian illusion.
> 
> Faith cometh by "hoping", and "hoping" the BOM is truth.
> *******
> That flat earth parity, I realize is not mentioned in the BOM, but it is a reminder that faith must have subtance more than just "I sayeth" in every case.



In other words, you set up a straw man and you are being completely honest about the fact that you are making it up. 





> In order to have a belief system that is credible, then prophecies must be 100% correct that were predicted for the present or past, and of course prophecies of the future must not be fictional either.
> ******



That would be true if there are prophecies in believe system. Not all belief systems have prophecies.

However, you're problem is that Mormon prophecies have been extremely accurate.



> When are you LDS talk-heads going to let the scales fall off your souls and become transparent about the lack there-of evidence to substantiate your system of belief?



Ive cited evidence for you multiple times. You conveniently ignore it and start a rant on a new topic. I refuse to admit there is no evidence when im citing evidence for you. Simply because you dont think the evidence is sufficient to believe in the Book of Mormon, doesnt mean that evidence ceases to exist. You're being dishonest here and you know it.



> Instead you reply with "Blah Blah Blah", and "Idiot" replies back at folks that question and hope for answers to very important chinks in the historicity, and accuracy of your faith's foundations.



When you stop pontificating and start actual discussion, ill respond with more than blah blah blah. You've had Hundreds of posts to demonstrate that you actually cared about having a discussion. I am not simply going to repeat the same things you ignore over and over again with hopes that you will someday pay attention.



> You use LDS archeologocial sources to support your N. American horse defense.



And of course, LDS archaelogists are liars and cant be trusted. Talk about poisoning the well. "I Dont believe them because they are dishonest"

As if horses matter. The Book of Mormon isnt an archaelogy guide. Its a record of scripture that's written with two purposes in mind: To convince Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ and to show mankind that God keeps His covenants.

The only way to find out whether the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ is real is through revelation like Peter did.



> The bible is being substantiated archeologically every day by non-Christian as well as Christian supported agencies of research.



I would love to see the archaelogical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I really would. But I realize the only way to know, short of Christ appearing to you, is for the Holy Spirit to reveal it to you.

If we were to accept your premise that only that which is proved through archaelogy can be believed as true, we would have to Reject the testimony of the Apostles concerning Jesus Christ. You might be willing to do that, I am not.

You see, if you were an honest seeker of truth, you would realize archaelogy can prove: Nothing. Archaelogy cannot prove spiritual truths, and it's absurd to assume so. Not only that, but it's one of the most incomplete sciences out there. You can't excivate less than 2% of the sites in an area and then declare that you know everything there is to know about the history of that region. But that's exactly what you are suggesting we do.

And let's just completely ignore the archaelogical finds in Arabia that _clearly support the Book of Mormon_. Let's just ignore that evidence and keep on declaring that there is no evidence.

And you wonder why I don't really care what you say?



> This cannot be said for the BOM for any historicity of miracles, divine visitations, ancient N. or S. American cities, ancient N. or S. American metalurgy, etc....



As I pointed out, provide any archaelogy that proves any miracles or divine visitation anywhere in the world.



> The LDS religion is not based on faith, but on hope that they are right, and is carried to the next level of divine inspired faith.



My faith is based on what the Lord revealed to me. Argue as you might, but I wont deny the gifts of God simply because you dont believe me. Who am I do deny Him? No one.

What's sad about it all is that the Lord is just as willing to reveal Himself to all people, yourself included. 



> Oh, I forgot.  Of course there are no secular sources in the area of archeology to back up LDS backed archeological summations, as the Mormons/LDS are a persecuted people by any and all secular research agencies.



I doubt there are many secular research agencies who have done any research into Book of Mormon archaelogy, let alone even care about it. So why should anyone be surprised that they havent been proving it? Most of them probably dont know the Book of Mormon exists.

However, since you brought it up early, what secular sources in the area of archaelogy back up the resurrecton of Jesus Christ?

After all, we are worshiping God, not the Bible.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Are there any fresh questions we haven't heard yet? Maybe questions about doctrine? Maybe questions about why all our buildings seem to look the same? Perhaps questions about why we used basketball courts for wedding receptions? Maybe about Mormon idioms or phrases we tend to use that nobody else does? Like "put your nose to the grindstone" and put your shoulder to the wheel. Why we bless the "refreshments" when we know they are just junk food punch and cookies? Ha. 

We have our own little cultural quirks that take place in places called "cultural halls".


----------



## Sky Dancer

Truthspeaker said:


> Are there any fresh questions we haven't heard yet? Maybe questions about doctrine? Maybe questions about why all our buildings seem to look the same? Perhaps questions about why we used basketball courts for wedding receptions? Maybe about Mormon idioms or phrases we tend to use that nobody else does? Like "put your nose to the grindstone" and put your shoulder to the wheel. Why we bless the "refreshments" when we know they are just junk food punch and cookies? Ha.
> 
> We have our own little cultural quirks that take place in places called "cultural halls".



What is your opinion of the program Big Love airing sacred LDS ceremonies in its program?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sky Dancer said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any fresh questions we haven't heard yet? Maybe questions about doctrine? Maybe questions about why all our buildings seem to look the same? Perhaps questions about why we used basketball courts for wedding receptions? Maybe about Mormon idioms or phrases we tend to use that nobody else does? Like "put your nose to the grindstone" and put your shoulder to the wheel. Why we bless the "refreshments" when we know they are just junk food punch and cookies? Ha.
> 
> We have our own little cultural quirks that take place in places called "cultural halls".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion of the program Big Love airing sacred LDS ceremonies in its program?
Click to expand...


I didn't watch the show but I heard they were going to try and publicize our Temple rituals. It would have made me very angry to watch it since HBO rufuses to respect our religious beliefs. They tracked down some ex-members who probably recited from their memory what goes on in the temple. I have doubts that they perfectly recited all the words used but if they did it doesn't matter. I won't talk about the ordinances because I promised not to. But basically if HBO can make a buck by airing a classified segment of a controversial religion then they would take the buck at the expense of snubbing the Mormons. 
I don't care how good an actor is, if he is not LDS, he cannot accurately portray to the viewers a realistic sense of the mormon he is playing. I have yet to see it done.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Ok, without having seen the show, you are angry that it was written and aired.  Your view is this is a form of persecution of LDS?

I know other Mormons who think any publicity about LDS is a good thing.

There are sacred Buddhist ceremonies that are secret too.  There is a reason for having certain practices only be seen and experienced by the initiated.


----------



## Truthspeaker

The only way people would ever find out about what goes on in the temple used to be by actually going in. You are only allowed in if you are a card carrying member. But with traitors and disgruntled ex-mormons thinking about getting back at us by "exposing" our "secret" rituals, the internet now becomes a weapon for them to portray their interpretations of what happens without presenting context or understanding of our ordinances. It is incredibly disrespectful. But if the show is accurate, I don't think that it would cause an uproar among non-mormons at what we do. 
Some have expected there to be blood letting or sexual consumations when nothing is farther from the truth. I doubt HBO aired such nonsense. 

Bad publicity is sometimes good publicity because it may lead the honest observer to seek out the facts rather than jump to a conclusion based on what they saw from a tv or news report.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I wouldn't dream of 'crashing' anyone else's sacred ceremony.  Nor would I advise someone who know nothing about Tibetan Buddhism to show up for an empowerment if they have no intention of taking up the practice.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I wouldn't dream of 'crashing' anyone else's sacred ceremony.  Nor would I advise someone who know nothing about Tibetan Buddhism to show up for an empowerment if they have no intention of taking up the practice.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sky Dancer said:


> What is your opinion of the program Big Love airing sacred LDS ceremonies in its program?



My opinion is that they should have been respectful, they werent. So I am going to question myself before ever considering to order HBO. Granted, they probably wouldnt have my business as it is. But people profane the sacred all the time. I am not going to let it change my life or even get much of a reaction from me. All I can say is Im not pleased with them and dont plan to do business with them anytime soon.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sky Dancer said:


> I wouldn't dream of 'crashing' anyone else's sacred ceremony.  Nor would I advise someone who know nothing about Tibetan Buddhism to show up for an empowerment if they have no intention of taking up the practice.



And I think that's wise counsel to follow.

I think the key to dialogue is respect even when you disagree. I respect everyone unless they give me a reason to disrespect them. Even then I wouldnt mock what they find Sacred. I dont think God wants us to do that.

I can tell you that regardless how the show portrayed anything, the actual ceramony is powerful and makes perfect sense. Although the significance is not always obvious the first time.


----------



## 1soldier

Hi Truthspeaker,
 I hope your doing well today. I wanted to ask you something if I may? I understand that Joseph Smith translated the book of morman from an object that was called the Urim and Thummim. If you will go to youtube and enter in Urim and Thummim you will see the trailer or previews of a documentary I've done called the Urim and Thummim. This object that I have is a discovery of a lifetime. As I have had some morman Elders look into this object. It
wasn't new to me that they would start to see these images within this object. They themselves couldn't believe what they were seeing. They even brought some more elders to see this object. Do you believe that there is or was such an object? If so,what do you know about it? I have tried to tell the Morman headquarters about it,But they won't listen. This isn't no joke. It isn't something I've made up. This documentary is not available to the public yet. Were waiting on a network to purchase it then it will be shown to the people. Thank You for your time. Please email me back at sing4uky@yahoo.com or post a reply.


                                                                     May God Bless You,
                                                                     1 Soldier


----------



## amrchaos

I do not know if this question was asked, but I have to ask it

Are Mormons Christians, or are Mormons a new off-shoot religion like Islam is.  You know, some beliefs are similiar, others not so.  Differing practices, rituals, organizations.

The thing I noticed about most Christian Denominations is that that they derive mainly from the three main chuches--Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Cypnotics--where Catholicism is the more fractured branch composed of Catholic and Protestants.

I keep trying to find exactly how Mormonism fit into Protestants movement--does it?


----------



## Skeptik

amrchaos said:


> I do not know if this question was asked, but I have to ask it
> 
> Are Mormons Christians, or are Mormons a new off-shoot religion like Islam is.  You know, some beliefs are similiar, others not so.  Differing practices, rituals, organizations.
> 
> The thing I noticed about most Christian Denominations is that that they derive mainly from the three main chuches--Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Cypnotics--where Catholicism is the more fractured branch composed of Catholic and Protestants.
> 
> I keep trying to find exactly how Mormonism fit into Protestants movement--does it?



The full name of the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  The term "saints" in Mormon lexicon means followers of Jesus.  The term Latter Day is self explanatory, and is part of Mormon doctrine.

Mormons believe that their church is a restoration, through prophecy, of the original doctrines preached by Christ. 

Their beliefs do differ in some respects from most other Christian religions.

There.  You decide whether Mormons are Christian or not.


----------



## Truthspeaker

1soldier said:


> Hi Truthspeaker,
> I hope your doing well today. I wanted to ask you something if I may? I understand that Joseph Smith translated the book of morman from an object that was called the Urim and Thummim. If you will go to youtube and enter in Urim and Thummim you will see the trailer or previews of a documentary I've done called the Urim and Thummim. This object that I have is a discovery of a lifetime. As I have had some morman Elders look into this object. It
> wasn't new to me that they would start to see these images within this object. They themselves couldn't believe what they were seeing. They even brought some more elders to see this object. Do you believe that there is or was such an object? If so,what do you know about it? I have tried to tell the Morman headquarters about it,But they won't listen. This isn't no joke. It isn't something I've made up. This documentary is not available to the public yet. Were waiting on a network to purchase it then it will be shown to the people. Thank You for your time. Please email me back at sing4uky@yahoo.com or post a reply.
> 
> 
> May God Bless You,
> 1 Soldier



I must admit, my curiosity is peaked. There are several such stones at large in the world. If you truly have discovered another then it doesn't surprise me. Joseph and several others found similar stones during the treasure digging era he grew up in. I know they are not a joke but I believe like anything, we need prophetic guidance as to how they should be used. The church is in possession of the egg-shaped, chocolate covered stone that Joseph found. That being said, I am more concerned with doctrine than relics. There are many relics and unexplained mysteries in this large world of ours. What is most important is the doctrine we subscribe to.


----------



## Truthspeaker

amrchaos said:


> I do not know if this question was asked, but I have to ask it
> 
> Are Mormons Christians, or are Mormons a new off-shoot religion like Islam is.  You know, some beliefs are similiar, others not so.  Differing practices, rituals, organizations.
> 
> The thing I noticed about most Christian Denominations is that that they derive mainly from the three main chuches--Eastern Orthodox, Catholicism, Cypnotics--where Catholicism is the more fractured branch composed of Catholic and Protestants.
> 
> I keep trying to find exactly how Mormonism fit into Protestants movement--does it?



As some critics love to try and accuse us of being non-Christian there really is not a shred of substance to prove it. Our first article of faith states, We believe in God the eternal Father and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in The Holy Ghost. Jesus is the Saviour and redeemer of mankind. Yes we are Christian.

However we are different in our claim from all other Christians because we are not Catholic, but we are also not Protestant, because we don't protest any other church, and we are not Reformers, since we are not seeking to reform the Catholic church. 
We call ourselves Restorationists because we believe Jesus restored that which was lost in the modern day church.

that is a very good question by the way. I really appreciate decent dialogue for a change.


----------



## Eightball

*What makes a church or group non-Christian?* 

There are many non-Christian religions and cults in America: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unity, The Way International, Unitarianism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. They all claim special revelation and privilege and those that use the Bible invariably interpret it in disharmony with standard biblical understanding.  And groups like the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses object to being labeled a "cult" because it often gets an emotional reaction as well as is a label they want to avoid.

The dictionary defines cult as "a system of religious worship or ritual"; "devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.", "a group of followers."

This is a typical secular definition and, by it, any believer in any god is a cultist, even atheists since they have an admiration for a principle and are a group of followers of the philosophy of atheism.  Therefore, this is too broad a definition since it doesn't sufficiently address the issue of true and false religious systems.

The definition I use (and other Christian ministries and theologians use as well) for "non-Christian cult" or "non-Christian religion" is a group that may or may not include the Bible in its set of authoritative scriptures. If it does include the Bible, it distorts the true biblical doctrines that effect salvation sufficiently so as to void salvation.1  If it doesn't use the Bible, it is a non-Christian religion and does not participate in the benefit of divine revelation.

In Christian bookstores, there are almost always 'cult' sections which include the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.  So, I am not alone in describing what a non-Christian, bible based cult is.  Nevertheless, what makes something non-Christian is when it denies the essential doctrines of the Bible.

*The Deity of Christ, which involves The Trinity 
*the Resurrection, and 
*Salvation by Grace 

All of them add to the finished work of Jesus on the cross. Some cult groups even add to the Bible, i.e., Mormonism which has the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. Also Christian Science has added Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. The Jehovah's Witnesses, however, have actually changed the text of the Bible to make it fit what they want it to. For information on this see 'Jehovah's Witnesses and how they have changed the Bible.'

Cults add their own efforts, their own works of righteousness to the finished work of salvation accomplished by Jesus on the cross. All Cults say that Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient, but that our works must be 'mixed with' or 'added to' His in order to prove that we are saved and worthy of salvation. They say one thing but believe another. They maintain that they must prove themselves worthy and that they must try their best to please God and prove to Him that they are sincere, have worked hard, and are then worthy to be with Him. In other words, they do their best and God takes care of the rest.

*This is absolutely wrong.* The Bible says that we are saved by grace, not by works: "For by grace you have been saved through faith...not as a result of works, that no one should boast," (Eph. 2:8-9, NASB); not by anything we do: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28, NASB). Because if there was anything that we could do to merit the forgiveness of our sins, then Jesus died needlessly: "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified...I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," (Gal. 2:16, 21, NASB).

People in cults will often cite James 2:26 where it says that faith without works is dead in an attempt to demonstrate that works are part of becoming saved. While it is true that faith without works is dead, it isn't the works that save us.  James is saying that if you have real and true faith, it will result in real and true works of Christianity.  In other words, you do good works because you are saved, not to get saved.  He isn't saying that our works are what saves us, or that they, in combination with the finished work of Christ, save us. James is simply telling us that if we say we have faith (James 2:14) but we have no works in correspondence to that faith, then that faith won't save us because it is a dead faith.  This agrees with Paul who tells us that faith is what saves us, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).  This faith is real faith, or true saving faith, not just an empty mental acknowledgement of God's existence -which is what those who say they have faith but show no corresponding godliness are guilty of.  Incidentally, you should realize that faith is only as good as who you put it in.  Just having faith in something doesn't mean you're saved.  That is why it is important to have the True Jesus, *because if you have great faith but it is in the wrong Jesus -the Jesus of a cult- then your faith is useless.*

In Mormonism, Jesus is the brother of the devil begotten through sexual intercourse from a God who came from another planet. In Jehovah's Witnesses he is Michael the Archangel who became a man. In the New Age Movement he is a man in tune with the divine consciousness. Which is true? The only true Jesus is the one of the Bible, the one who is prayed to (1 Cor. 1:1-2 with Psalm 116:1; Acts 7:55-60); worshipped (Matt. 2:2, 11, 14:33, John 9:35-38, Heb. 1:8), and called God (John 20:28; Col. 2:9). The Jesus of the Cults is not prayed to, worshipped, or called God. And since the Jesus of the Bible is the only one who reveals the Father (Luke 10:22) so that you may have eternal life (John 17:3), you must have the true Jesus who alone is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).

*Another common denominator among the Cults is their methods for twisting scripture. Some of the errors they commit in interpreting Scripture are*: 

1) taking Scripture out of context; 2) reading into the Scriptures information that is not there; 3) picking and choosing only the Scriptures that suit their needs; 4) ignoring other explanations; 5) combining scriptures that don't have anything to do with each other; 5) quoting a verse without giving its location; 6) incorrect definitions of key words; and 7) mistranslations. These are only a few of the many ways Cults misuse Scripture.

If you want to be able to witness well to a person in a cult, you need to understand their doctrines as well as your own. It would be a good idea to study Christian Doctrine: the Bible, God, Creation, Man; and Christian Doctrine: Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Salvation... as well as the The Essential Doctrines of Christianity to become better equipped. Through study you will be able to answer questions that often come up in witnessing encounters. A Christian should know his doctrine well enough to be able to recognize not only what is true, but also what is false in a religious system (1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15).

Jesus warned us that in the last days false Christs and false prophets would arise and deceive many (Matt. 24:24). The Lord knew that there would be a rise of the spirit of Antichrist (1 John 4:1-3) in the last days. Its manifestation is here in the forms of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the New Age Movement, among others.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> *Another common denominator among the Cults is their methods for twisting scripture. Some of the errors they commit in interpreting Scripture are*:
> 
> 1) taking Scripture out of context; 2) reading into the Scriptures information that is not there; 3) picking and choosing only the Scriptures that suit their needs; 4) ignoring other explanations; 5) combining scriptures that don't have anything to do with each other; 5) quoting a verse without giving its location; 6) incorrect definitions of key words; and 7) mistranslations. These are only a few of the many ways Cults misuse Scripture.



So what your saying is that your particularly brand of Protestant/Evangelical Christianity is a cult.



> If you want to be able to witness well to a person in a cult, you need to understand their doctrines as well as your own. It would be a good idea to study Christian Doctrine: the Bible, God, Creation, Man; and Christian Doctrine: Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Salvation... as well as the The Essential Doctrines of Christianity to become better equipped. Through study you will be able to answer questions that often come up in witnessing encounters. A Christian should know his doctrine well enough to be able to recognize not only what is true, but also what is false in a religious system (1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15).



It be nice if you did worry about your own doctrine more. Maybe if you preached your doctrine instead of attacking others, people would convert.

Because the key to conversion is the Holy Spirit. And you can only teach with the Holy Spirit when you are testifying of truth. Not when you are fighting others.

I think the world would be a better place if people did more to live their religion.



> Jesus warned us that in the last days false Christs and false prophets would arise and deceive many (Matt. 24:24). The Lord knew that there would be a rise of the spirit of Antichrist (1 John 4:1-3) in the last days. Its manifestation is here in the forms of Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the New Age Movement, among others.



Did you ever stop to consider that maybe _you_ were the one being decieved?


----------



## eots

the truth about mormons...some of them are mindless assholes..this one is anyway



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf33g9ep4YU&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Truthspeaker

Wouldn't that be the same about every religious or non- religious group?


----------



## eots

> Wouldn't that be the same about every religious or non- religious group?


__________________


prettty much..


----------



## Truthspeaker

Aha, it seems the thread has finally come to an end. Unless there are any further unanswered questions I would like to thank you all for a spirited participation few threads receive.


----------



## Skeptik

Just one more:

Do Mormons really wear underwear made of seagull feathers?

Just kidding.  I actually have heard that one, believe it or not.

You have done a very good job of explaining your religion.  Kudos.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I do hear that seagull feathers make for great pillows!


----------



## TofuDog

I have a question for truthspeaker:

Are Mormons right and every other religion is wrong? Is the book of mormons the only true revelation from god?


----------



## Avatar4321

TofuDog said:


> I have a question for truthspeaker:
> 
> Are Mormons right and every other religion is wrong?



If Mormons are right than all religions have some truth. 




> Is the book of mormons the only true revelation from god?



Mormons dont claim this so no. Quite the opposite, there are many revelations from God that we dont yet have. And Revelations that have not been revealed.


----------



## Maple

I am a Christian woman- non-denominational.  I worked for a Mormon boss, very nice person and a very devoted Mormon. One thing I did notice is that he had a tendency to blow off any suggestions or recommendations that were made by a woman employee or even his own business consultant, who happened to be a woman. He did not take many actions that were suggested to him by a woman and therefore lost me and other women employees that were top notch.

I was watching Glen Beck the other day on television and he was talking about the Tea Parties, he was going on about how women have really become involved in this and implied that it was because they had more time to do this than the men did, being that they were house wives and mothers. One women interrupted him and reminded him that many of the women attending the parties were small business owners. He kind of blew that off.

Mitt Romney- another Mormon insulted Sarah Palin when it was brought to his attention that she was on the cover of Time Magazine being depicted as the conservative voice of America. I don't know his exact words but it was something about being a beauty queen and in a way denegrating her contribution to the conservative movement.

I would like to think that Mormon men have not been brought up to believe that somehow women are not their equals, but it has been my experience especially with my old boss, that this may very well have been ingrained in him since he was a child. 

What say you????


----------



## Eightball

Maple:

I'll most likely get bashed by the Mormon members here, but in respect to husband/wife relationships as designated in the LDS/Mormon religion I have this quote.



> *STRANGE TEACHING OF JOSPEH SMITH AND LDS LEADERS *
> 
> The following are strange teachings and public statements of the LDS church founders:
> 
> 1. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. (Journal of Discourses, p289)
> 
> 
> Another Mormon belief is that the men resurrect their wives. The Mormon man if he is worthy will become a god on some uninhabited planet out in the Universe. He then as the god of his own world will at his own discretion resurrect those wives who were faithful and obedient to him. They then become the goddesses of his planet and rule with their husbands. A joke among the Mormon's which reflects this teaching goes like this:
> 
> It is resurrection day and the Mormon man begins to call his wives from the grave. He first called Mary, and says to her you were a wonderful wife and such a comfort to me, "Come on up!" Then to Sarah and several other wives he makes complimentary statements and calls them to be resurrected too. Then he comes to Ethel....."Ethel," he says, "You made my life a living H... and never obeyed. You just stay where you are."
> 
> Heaven for Mormon women is eternal pregnancy. They have to produce the spirit babies who will populate the world when human babies are born. Also those LDS women who are not sealed to their husbands for all time and eternity in the temple marriage or were never married will be the servants of those goddess wives who were blessed by their husbands and were resurrected.
> 
> 2. The earth, "conceives" and produces other earths, the same as a mulberry tree produces mulberry trees. The earth is alive or it could not reproduce itself. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses,1857, p 36)
> 
> 3. Brigham Young taught that the sun and moon were inhabited! In fact he said there was no doubt about it, either! ( Journal of Discourses, 1880, p 271)  Not much different from scientologist founder Hubbard's teachings.
> 
> 4. Joseph Smith preached that the moon was inhabited by men and women who were about six feet tall, dressed like Quakers, and lived about a 1000 years. He promised Oliver B Huntington, that he would preach the gospel before he was 21 years of age and that he would preach to the inhabitants of the moon! (TheYoung Woman's Journal, 1892, vol 3, page 264)
> 
> 5. Brigham Young said that gold and silver grow the same way the hair grew on his head grows. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourse, 1852, p 219)
> 
> 6. The planet "Kolob" is the "nearest unto the throne of God." (Doc. & Cov. Sec.130:7-8) Kolob is the planet where the great council of gods met and Jesus's plan for redemption was accepted and Satan's rejected. The gods who meet on Kolob assign the newly exalted gods (Mormons who were faithful) to the planets where they will rule with their wives, such as the god of earth.


*******
No doubt I'll be called a "Mormon hater" as I've been called in earlier post in this thread.  
*******


----------



## HUGGY

Truthmatters said:


> Tell me about magic underwear please?



My favorite is the magic plates.  

I have read the book of mormon and find it even crazier than the bible.

You can believe what you want but trying to get others to buy into your fantasy is fraud.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Maple:
> 
> I'll most likely get bashed by the Mormon members here, but in respect to husband/wife relationships as designated in the LDS/Mormon religion I have this quote.
> *******
> No doubt I'll be called a "Mormon hater" as I've been called in earlier post in this thread.
> *******



Maybe if you actually stopped pretending you havent been answered on these same exact issues hundreds of times in this very thread, people might consider you more sincere in your concerns.

However, if you continue to use unofficial sources, unreliable sources, out of context sources, and ignore what your very Bible says on the matter, no one who knows better will take you seriously. Unfortunately, those who may not be so knowledgible about mormonism may be misinformed.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> My favorite is the magic plates.
> 
> I have read the book of mormon and find it even crazier than the bible.
> 
> You can believe what you want but trying to get others to buy into your fantasy is fraud.



Magic plates? Who has ever said anything about magic plates. Certainly there are gold plates involved which contained the original text to the Book of Mormon, but there is nothing magical about them. They are indeed Holy, but so is anything sanctified of God.

Out of curiosity, which parts of the Book of Mormon did you find crazier than the Bible? Id seriously love to here what you have to say. And I am talking about you personally, not talking about what some other website says or what.

Thankfully, the Lord has established this land as a land of liberty where man can worship Him according to the dictates of our hearts and conscience. You may disbelieve it, but the Book of Mormon can stand of its own accord. The Lord can and does show people with His power that it's true.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Maple:
> 
> I'll most likely get bashed by the Mormon members here, but in respect to husband/wife relationships as designated in the LDS/Mormon religion I have this quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *STRANGE TEACHING OF JOSPEH SMITH AND LDS LEADERS *
> 
> The following are strange teachings and public statements of the LDS church founders:
> 
> 1. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. (Journal of Discourses, p289)
> 
> 
> Another Mormon belief is that the men resurrect their wives. The Mormon man if he is worthy will become a god on some uninhabited planet out in the Universe. He then as the god of his own world will at his own discretion resurrect those wives who were faithful and obedient to him. They then become the goddesses of his planet and rule with their husbands. A joke among the Mormon's which reflects this teaching goes like this:
> 
> It is resurrection day and the Mormon man begins to call his wives from the grave. He first called Mary, and says to her you were a wonderful wife and such a comfort to me, "Come on up!" Then to Sarah and several other wives he makes complimentary statements and calls them to be resurrected too. Then he comes to Ethel....."Ethel," he says, "You made my life a living H... and never obeyed. You just stay where you are."
> 
> Heaven for Mormon women is eternal pregnancy. They have to produce the spirit babies who will populate the world when human babies are born. Also those LDS women who are not sealed to their husbands for all time and eternity in the temple marriage or were never married will be the servants of those goddess wives who were blessed by their husbands and were resurrected.
> 
> 2. The earth, "conceives" and produces other earths, the same as a mulberry tree produces mulberry trees. The earth is alive or it could not reproduce itself. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses,1857, p 36)
> 
> 3. Brigham Young taught that the sun and moon were inhabited! In fact he said there was no doubt about it, either! ( Journal of Discourses, 1880, p 271)  Not much different from scientologist founder Hubbard's teachings.
> 
> 4. Joseph Smith preached that the moon was inhabited by men and women who were about six feet tall, dressed like Quakers, and lived about a 1000 years. He promised Oliver B Huntington, that he would preach the gospel before he was 21 years of age and that he would preach to the inhabitants of the moon! (TheYoung Woman's Journal, 1892, vol 3, page 264)
> 
> 5. Brigham Young said that gold and silver grow the same way the hair grew on his head grows. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourse, 1852, p 219)
> 
> 6. The planet "Kolob" is the "nearest unto the throne of God." (Doc. & Cov. Sec.130:7-8) Kolob is the planet where the great council of gods met and Jesus's plan for redemption was accepted and Satan's rejected. The gods who meet on Kolob assign the newly exalted gods (Mormons who were faithful) to the planets where they will rule with their wives, such as the god of earth.
> 
> 
> 
> *******
> No doubt I'll be called a "Mormon hater" as I've been called in earlier post in this thread.
> *******
Click to expand...


No doubt you'll be called someone who will swallow anything if you believe the above quote.


----------



## TofuDog

"Thankfully, the Lord has established this land as a land of liberty where man can worship Him according to the dictates of our hearts and conscience. You may disbelieve it, but the Book of Mormon can stand of its own accord. The Lord can and does show people with His power that it's true."

Dude, you're seriously trippin', the Lord told you to steal the land from the indians? 
Do you homeys still outlaw alcohol in your state?


----------



## TofuDog

"Thankfully, the Lord has established this land as a land of liberty where man can worship Him according to the dictates of our hearts and conscience. You may disbelieve it, but the Book of Mormon can stand of its own accord. The Lord can and does show people with His power that it's true."

Dude, you're seriously trippin', the Lord told you to steal the land from the indians? 
Do you homeys still outlaw alcohol in your state?


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is the magic plates.
> 
> I have read the book of mormon and find it even crazier than the bible.
> 
> You can believe what you want but trying to get others to buy into your fantasy is fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magic plates? Who has ever said anything about magic plates. Certainly there are gold plates involved which contained the original text to the Book of Mormon, but there is nothing magical about them. They are indeed Holy, but so is anything sanctified of God.
> 
> Out of curiosity, which parts of the Book of Mormon did you find crazier than the Bible? Id seriously love to here what you have to say. And I am talking about you personally, not talking about what some other website says or what.
> 
> Thankfully, the Lord has established this land as a land of liberty where man can worship Him according to the dictates of our hearts and conscience. You may disbelieve it, but the Book of Mormon can stand of its own accord. The Lord can and does show people with His power that it's true.
Click to expand...


Oh where to start..how about *THERE IS NO GOD* to sanctify any of your bullshit..and that is for you specifically and all christians morman or otherwise.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Oh where to start..how about *THERE IS NO GOD* to sanctify any of your bullshit..and that is for you specifically and all christians morman or otherwise.



So the extent of your argument is your assertion that there is no God.

Needless to say, it's not very convincing. In fact, it begs the question. It's a circular argument.

The Book of Mormon provides a way to find out whether there is a God that every person can do. The Bible provides the same way to find out, but the Book of Mormon is a bit more direct in providing the formula.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh where to start..how about *THERE IS NO GOD* to sanctify any of your bullshit..and that is for you specifically and all christians morman or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the extent of your argument is your assertion that there is no God.
> 
> Needless to say, it's not very convincing. In fact, it begs the question. It's a circular argument.
> 
> The Book of Mormon provides a way to find out whether there is a God that every person can do. The Bible provides the same way to find out, but the Book of Mormon is a bit more direct in providing the formula.
Click to expand...


It begs no question at all.

If no god then what?

Witch doctor mentality.

Grow up and put away your pretend friends.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh where to start..how about *THERE IS NO GOD* to sanctify any of your bullshit..and that is for you specifically and all christians morman or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the extent of your argument is your assertion that there is no God.
> 
> Needless to say, it's not very convincing. In fact, it begs the question. It's a circular argument.
> 
> The Book of Mormon provides a way to find out whether there is a God that every person can do. The Bible provides the same way to find out, but the Book of Mormon is a bit more direct in providing the formula.
Click to expand...


The bible and the book of Mormon are miles apart when it comes to what "true" faith in God entails.  

1. Mormon theology basis faith on very subjective/experiential phenomena that the individual seeker will receive to "confirm/validate" Mormonism as the true Christian church or belief in God.
2. The bible stresses most succinctly in the N.T. that faith comes as a result of "objective" study of the scriptures, and the work of the Holy Spirit to the validation God's reality.
3. One of the mainstay teachings that door to door LDS/Mormon missionarys stress is for people to "pray" and ask God whether Mormonism is the truth or not.  The Mormon seems to be unaware or in denial to the fact that Lucifer/Satan, and His myriads of principalites that dwell in the spiritual realm will entertain these broad based prayer requests with manifestations in the form of "burning bosom" experiences or dreams to the one that prays this request/inquirey.
4. God does not want us to check in our brains at the door and just throw out a prayer and expect the "truth", as He has provided mankind with all the proof he needs to make an objective decision, "yeah or nay" in regards to reality of God, and Jesus Christ.
5. Mormons consider the present day bible to be incorrect and or corrupted because from their human perspective, 2,000+ years of translating and re-translating from the original scripture must deem the present day bible very inaccurate from the original manuscripts written by prophets of the O.T. and disciples/apostles of the N.T..
The problem lies in the realm of human perspective, and totally negates or does not take into consideration that absolute power/omnipotence of God who made all of creation.  The Mormon ignores or overlooks that this omnipotent God/Jehova, can and has the total ability to "protect" His communication via the written Word, throughout the ages using human being as the agents.

If God wants to stop the sun and He can, and did during one O.T. recording of a battle.  God's mind and abilities are beyond our scope.  Just one look into the cosmos, or the birth of a baby, or the vibrant life forms that abound on our planet that defy scientific analysis in so many ways, is just one little smidge of the evidencary information before mankind.

Even Paul in Romans Chapter 1 of the N.T., said that man is without excuse, as the evidence of intelligent creation is so obviously observable to man from both macro to micro life forms, atomic structure that follows organized, and predictable mathematical formulations, yet man stubbornly refuses to accept it. 
6.  There is no planet "Kolob" or whatever the Mormons call it in the bible, as it is of no value to man's quest of meaning, and relationship between him and his Creator.
7. The bible says that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega/First and last..  There is no others like Him.  No human born of Adam's race can fill the position of Christ on earth nor on Kolob, or any other planet that might be hospitable to man, if indeed any exist.
8. Attonement:  The Mormon church believes that there is an attonement for sin that man must do at extreme times, called, "Blood attonement".  This again goes 180 degrees against the very teachings in the bible/N.T..  What did Jesus mean, when His last words on the cross were, "It is finished!"?  What was finished was the work of "attonement" for all of mankinds sins.  Now it was man's responsibility to appropriate that reality/fact, that was offered to him 2,000 years ago, by faith or belief in that act of God's Son.
9. No Mormon man living the most righteous or correct life, can fullfill or fill the sandals of Jesus Christ.  It is blasphemous; the teaching that a Mormon man can ascertain Jesus' level or rank and someday be the Christ or New Adam of another earth/type planet.  

Just consider the outlandish tales or stories of people inhabiting the moon and the bazaar tale of how Joseph Smith Jr. received God's revelation from an angel.  
9. The Mormon church is established on the credentials that they've straightened-out the biblically based Christain faith through their founder's revelations from this angel Moroni.
10. Literally millions upon millions of earth's citizens have found solace, peace, and eternal reward in the King James, Revised Standard, American Standard, New American Standard, New International Version, bibles that have not changed one bit of the intent or direction of scripture but have made it more easily read in our more modern English vernacular through each later translation, as well as all the translations in many other world languages. 
11. The Book of Mormon has gone through nearly 4,000 text changes, from major to minor since it's introduction.  
12. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran many years back revealed a nearly complete scroll of the O.T. book of Isaiah.  When it was compared to present day bible translations of Isaiah, it was found to be exactly the same, though obviously not written in present day English, but in the language of the day used by those Jewish writers nearly 2,000 years ago. 

How?:  How could the Dead Sea Isaiah scroll written thousands of years ago, not deviate or show any difference from nowaday, scholarly recognized, bible translations?  Omnipotence of God, as plain as the nose on your face!  If God wants to communicate to mankind, He doesn't allow anything to hinder it, as He is the Potter, and we are the clay.  He is the Master, we are the created, of His creation.  Just as God "spoke" all things into existence, the scriptures have been true to His intent, and communication to His beloved creation/humanity.
13. So we see here with very obvious, and vivid explanation that the LDS/Mormon premise that God, "Oops'd" and allowed man to corrupt His communication to humanity over the thousands of years is a very "weak" premise to base their system of belief on.
14. Joseph Smith Jr.:  Did this man fullfill the criteria of a prophet, as observe and read of the lives of prophets in the O.T.?  Hardly, but the LDS/Mormon church refuses to accept secular accounts of J.S. Jr's life that detract or indicate that he was indeed a less than Godly man in the entirety of his life.  The bible says that a true prophet of God will never prophesy incorrectly, or in anyway against God's set-stone principles.  The prophet Balaam, learned the hard way when refused to listen to God, and was more interested in material gain, and occult, and socery, that were no-no's with God.  Balaam, played the "harlot" and prostituted himself to other gods.  Is end was death by the swords of the Israelites.
15. God's Word is intact, and will stay intact, as man is not more powerful that God, and God will not allow, and has not allowed His communication via the scriptures to be changed in intent, or message to humanity.  
16. Now the question comes:  Do you want to embrace the all knowing, all powerful, all present God of the bible, or the "anemic" ever changing, every correcting, continually evolving god of the LDS/Mormon church, whose whole credentials must be substantiated via subjective, personal experiential phenoma that can easily be misinterpretted, and easily be from a source other than God?
17. Romans says: "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word(scripture) of God.".  The bible does not substantiate nor endorce, "Faith comes by feelings, experiencing miracles, dreams, tongues, that say that Mormonism is the truth,".
18. One should not believe, because they want something to be the truth, but should allow themselves to be convinced, based on evidences, and not phenomena.


----------



## Maple

I had heard that about mormon men inheriting their own planet and bringing up their wives, but just didn't beleive that was their teachings. So thank you for the information, I don't believe that it would be heaven for any woman to be eternally pregnant. It has been my experience as my earlier post indicated that the mormon men I have dealt with are very nice, but they seem to discount women to the point of not heeding any advise they get from them.

The boss I worked with had no experience in the industry, he had 3 women including his consultant who with the other two had a combined 60+ years of experience yet he paid no attention to their recommendations. He is paying dearly for that now. 

I don't bash other religions, I am very happy to see that people realize that there is a higher power than themselves, but I am very glad that I am a Christian who belongs to a bible based church and I will remain so.


----------



## Maple

12. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran many years back revealed a nearly complete scroll of the O.T. book of Isaiah. When it was compared to present day bible translations of Isaiah, it was found to be exactly the same, though obviously not written in present day English, but in the language of the day used by those Jewish writers nearly 2,000 years ago. 

How true!!!! Great post.


----------



## Avatar4321

How can you be "Bible based" if you deny revelation? How can you be Bible based if you deny the need for Apostles and Prophets?


----------



## TofuDog

Mormons are just another bunch of god fearing pedophiles. Geez, is there even 1 religion that isn't all whacked out?


----------



## DavidS

TofuDog said:


> Mormons are just another bunch of god fearing pedophiles. Geez, is there even 1 religion that isn't all whacked out?



Yes.

Judaism. 

It's a "super" religion.


----------



## TofuDog

sorry, but jews are a bunch of inbred racists.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> How can you be "Bible based" if you deny revelation? How can you be Bible based if you deny the need for Apostles and Prophets?



There's revelation, and there's revelation, Avatar.  You should know that if you are fairly familiar with the bible.

There is false revelation, and there's revelation that is not false.

One important way to test revelation and the Apostle Paul emphasized this above all else, was, "Go to the scriptures and test the revelation against God''s Word.".  If it contradicts God's word or just goes against God's already set and clear principles, then you have a false revelation.  False revelations come from false prophets.

Now the LDS/Mormon church bases their whole foundation on "extra or additional revelation" over and above the bible.

Now we already have shown via the Qumran scrolls that God has protected His scripture even with fallible man being the "agent" used to pass it on via oral, and then written means.  God is not some anemic, namby-pamby god who can't keep things in order or according to His will.  When His will is to be extended, there is nothing that can stop it.

The LDS/Mormon foundation of belief is built upon the principle that God, "oops'd" and let His original and accurate communication to mankind become corrupted by fallible man.  Then God picks this "upstanding" individual, ex-treasure hunter, current con-artist, named Joseph Smith Jr. to be the human vessel to receive God's "corrected" or "straightened-out" will for mankind.

Even Paul the Apostle to the gentiles, who was formerly a Pharisee who attacked the early Christian church with wild abandon and what he thought was God's will, was finally haulted in the dessert between Jerusalem and Damascus.  Jesus actually spoke thunderously to Paul, and Paul fell off his horse while in pursuit of Christians to arrest and take back to Jerusalem for trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin.  

On that day, Paul became a believer, whose zealous spirit was redirected to do God's will not his/Paul's.  God will not allow His Word to be twisted,  changed, nor thwarted in anyway.

Underground Christian churches are growing in the Republic of China, and in the Middle East.  Those Christian believers face so much potential threat of life and limb, and ostracizing from their families and relatives.
********
Just look at the lives of true bible prophets, and look at lives/backgrounds of LDS/Mormon early prophets.  There's no comparison.

Also the revelations of both groups are like oil and water.  There is no parallel.
*******


----------



## Maple

The one message that really hit home with me, was the fact that after Jesus's crucifiction and he was placed in his tomb, his 11 deciples hid out afraid that since they had been followers of Jesus they would be next in line to be crucified. They were afraid to be recognized as friends of Jesus.

Jesus appeared to the women first, then to the deciples. My pastor made a point that had the resurrection of Jesus not occured and his deciples had not seen him rise again, then why on earth would they go out and preach his message, knowing full well the terrible deaths that they would incur. They all died terrible deaths, but they no longer feared physical death.  Should Jesus not have risen from the grave there would be no Christian religion, there would be no point in the teaching of his words. Think about this, it's profound.

Hopefully, this will open some minds and hearts to God, I can tell by some of the messages that there are alot of non-believers on this board. To me- that is a sad thing, God loves you and is always searching for you, trying to open your hearts and minds to him.


----------



## Maple

For all of you people that need scientific evidence, researching the Shroud of Turin may help you. As of this day there is no explanation of how that image got on that cloth. Scientists who were atheists have come out and stated that the shroud is the image of Christ and is Christ's burial cloth. There have been carbon dating tests on the fringe of the cloth and it was not dated to Christ's time, however, many believe that the portion of the cloth that was taken for carbon dating had been repaired by French Monks and that this produced an erroneous dating. The Catholic church has not released it for further testing, and scientists are still running tests on what little remains of the small peice of material. It is absolutely fascinating to me as well as others who continue to research it. 

One fact remains, no  scientist has been able to explain or replicate that image in today's  scientific, know everything world.


----------



## HUGGY

Maple said:


> For all of you people that need scientific evidence, researching the Shroud of Turin may help you. As of this day there is no explanation of how that image got on that cloth. Scientists who were atheists have come out and stated that the shroud is the image of Christ and is Christ's burial cloth. There have been carbon dating tests on the fringe of the cloth and it was not dated to Christ's time, however, many believe that the portion of the cloth that was taken for carbon dating had been repaired by French Monks and that this produced an erroneous dating. The Catholic church has not released it for further testing, and scientists are still running tests on what little remains of the small peice of material. It is absolutely fascinating to me as well as others who continue to research it.
> 
> One fact remains, no  scientist has been able to explain or replicate that image in today's  scientific, know everything world.



Desperation.  If you want to believe something bad enough you might see jesus when you wipe your butt.


----------



## TofuDog

"Hopefully, this will open some minds and hearts to God, I can tell by some of the messages that there are alot of non-believers on this board. To me- that is a sad thing, God loves you and is always searching for you, trying to open your hearts and minds to him."

God should know where I am, and he's welcome anytime for beers and doobies. better yet for all us doubters, why doesn't he hold a press conference? Clear up all the doubt? Or does that make too much sense? I have to convince myself that it/god exists?


----------



## Avatar4321

Maple said:


> The one message that really hit home with me, was the fact that after Jesus's crucifiction and he was placed in his tomb, his 11 deciples hid out afraid that since they had been followers of Jesus they would be next in line to be crucified. They were afraid to be recognized as friends of Jesus.
> 
> Jesus appeared to the women first, then to the deciples. My pastor made a point that had the resurrection of Jesus not occured and his deciples had not seen him rise again, then why on earth would they go out and preach his message, knowing full well the terrible deaths that they would incur. They all died terrible deaths, but they no longer feared physical death.  Should Jesus not have risen from the grave there would be no Christian religion, there would be no point in the teaching of his words. Think about this, it's profound.
> 
> Hopefully, this will open some minds and hearts to God, I can tell by some of the messages that there are alot of non-believers on this board. To me- that is a sad thing, God loves you and is always searching for you, trying to open your hearts and minds to him.



What on earth does this have to do with your argument against Mormonism? Have you read the Book of Mormon. Its the biggest proponent of the Resurrection of Christ. No one is arguing that Christ didnt rise from the dead. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> There's revelation, and there's revelation, Avatar.  You should know that if you are fairly familiar with the bible.
> 
> There is false revelation, and there's revelation that is not false.
> 
> One important way to test revelation and the Apostle Paul emphasized this above all else, was, "Go to the scriptures and test the revelation against God''s Word.".  If it contradicts God's word or just goes against God's already set and clear principles, then you have a false revelation.  False revelations come from false prophets.
> 
> Now the LDS/Mormon church bases their whole foundation on "extra or additional revelation" over and above the bible.
> 
> Now we already have shown via the Qumran scrolls that God has protected His scripture even with fallible man being the "agent" used to pass it on via oral, and then written means.  God is not some anemic, namby-pamby god who can't keep things in order or according to His will.  When His will is to be extended, there is nothing that can stop it.
> 
> The LDS/Mormon foundation of belief is built upon the principle that God, "oops'd" and let His original and accurate communication to mankind become corrupted by fallible man.  Then God picks this "upstanding" individual, ex-treasure hunter, current con-artist, named Joseph Smith Jr. to be the human vessel to receive God's "corrected" or "straightened-out" will for mankind.
> 
> Even Paul the Apostle to the gentiles, who was formerly a Pharisee who attacked the early Christian church with wild abandon and what he thought was God's will, was finally haulted in the dessert between Jerusalem and Damascus.  Jesus actually spoke thunderously to Paul, and Paul fell off his horse while in pursuit of Christians to arrest and take back to Jerusalem for trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin.
> 
> On that day, Paul became a believer, whose zealous spirit was redirected to do God's will not his/Paul's.  God will not allow His Word to be twisted,  changed, nor thwarted in anyway.
> 
> Underground Christian churches are growing in the Republic of China, and in the Middle East.  Those Christian believers face so much potential threat of life and limb, and ostracizing from their families and relatives.
> ********
> Just look at the lives of true bible prophets, and look at lives/backgrounds of LDS/Mormon early prophets.  There's no comparison.
> 
> Also the revelations of both groups are like oil and water.  There is no parallel.
> *******



So where are your new scriptures? Where are your new revelations? Why have you sealed the heavens contrary to what the Bible says?


----------



## TofuDog

"Its the biggest proponent of the Resurrection of Christ. No one is arguing that Christ didnt rise from the dead."

sorry, no proof.


----------



## Avatar4321

Maple said:


> For all of you people that need scientific evidence, researching the Shroud of Turin may help you. As of this day there is no explanation of how that image got on that cloth. Scientists who were atheists have come out and stated that the shroud is the image of Christ and is Christ's burial cloth. There have been carbon dating tests on the fringe of the cloth and it was not dated to Christ's time, however, many believe that the portion of the cloth that was taken for carbon dating had been repaired by French Monks and that this produced an erroneous dating. The Catholic church has not released it for further testing, and scientists are still running tests on what little remains of the small peice of material. It is absolutely fascinating to me as well as others who continue to research it.
> 
> One fact remains, no  scientist has been able to explain or replicate that image in today's  scientific, know everything world.



The shroud of turin is a hoax. its quite a well known hoax. It doesnt date anywhere near the time of Christ.


----------



## Avatar4321

TofuDog said:


> "Hopefully, this will open some minds and hearts to God, I can tell by some of the messages that there are alot of non-believers on this board. To me- that is a sad thing, God loves you and is always searching for you, trying to open your hearts and minds to him."
> 
> God should know where I am, and he's welcome anytime for beers and doobies. better yet for all us doubters, why doesn't he hold a press conference? Clear up all the doubt? Or does that make too much sense? I have to convince myself that it/god exists?



You dont have to convince yourself of anything. You simply have to be open enough to investigate.

Why the heck would God reveal Himself to you and make you more accountable for what you do if you dont want to do it? God isnt going to give you more light and knowledge to have you ignore it to your own condemnation. Its better you remain in ignorance until you desire to learn the truth


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all of you people that need scientific evidence, researching the Shroud of Turin may help you. As of this day there is no explanation of how that image got on that cloth. Scientists who were atheists have come out and stated that the shroud is the image of Christ and is Christ's burial cloth. There have been carbon dating tests on the fringe of the cloth and it was not dated to Christ's time, however, many believe that the portion of the cloth that was taken for carbon dating had been repaired by French Monks and that this produced an erroneous dating. The Catholic church has not released it for further testing, and scientists are still running tests on what little remains of the small peice of material. It is absolutely fascinating to me as well as others who continue to research it.
> 
> One fact remains, no  scientist has been able to explain or replicate that image in today's  scientific, know everything world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The shroud of turin is a hoax. its quite a well known hoax. It doesnt date anywhere near the time of Christ.
Click to expand...


I thought they did a study of the type of weave of the cloth, and it isn't a type of weave used back in Jesus' time.

Also Carbon 14 testing of cloth fragments have come up much newer than Jesus' time too.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> I thought they did a study of the type of weave of the cloth, and it isn't a type of weave used back in Jesus' time.
> 
> Also Carbon 14 testing of cloth fragments have come up much newer than Jesus' time too.



We actually agree for once.

Im all for using every evidence we can for the resurrection of Christ. The Shroud just isnt accurate. We have plenty of good evidence without resorting to bad evidence.


----------



## TofuDog

"We have plenty of good evidence without resorting to bad evidence."  lol, like what? And please don't say cuz it's written in a book.

"Why the heck would God reveal Himself to you" That's the dumbest excuse I've heard in a long time.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> I have a question for truthspeaker:
> 
> Are Mormons right and every other religion is wrong? Is the book of mormons the only true revelation from god?



This question is not fair because the answer to it is far more complex then you make it seem. We believe our doctrine to be true but just because we believe that doesn't mean that God will condemn others; even if we are right. Mormons have to pay for their individual sins just like every one else. 
The Book of Mormon absolutely is not the only true word from God. It actually says so and so does the Bible. God judges people based on their hearts and actions. That is our stance.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Maple said:


> I am a Christian woman- non-denominational.  I worked for a Mormon boss, very nice person and a very devoted Mormon. One thing I did notice is that he had a tendency to blow off any suggestions or recommendations that were made by a woman employee or even his own business consultant, who happened to be a woman. He did not take many actions that were suggested to him by a woman and therefore lost me and other women employees that were top notch.
> 
> I was watching Glen Beck the other day on television and he was talking about the Tea Parties, he was going on about how women have really become involved in this and implied that it was because they had more time to do this than the men did, being that they were house wives and mothers. One women interrupted him and reminded him that many of the women attending the parties were small business owners. He kind of blew that off.
> 
> Mitt Romney- another Mormon insulted Sarah Palin when it was brought to his attention that she was on the cover of Time Magazine being depicted as the conservative voice of America. I don't know his exact words but it was something about being a beauty queen and in a way denegrating her contribution to the conservative movement.
> 
> I would like to think that Mormon men have not been brought up to believe that somehow women are not their equals, but it has been my experience especially with my old boss, that this may very well have been ingrained in him since he was a child.
> 
> What say you????



If the individuals are guilty of what you imply they are guilty of(discrimination against females) then they are individually in the wrong. Our church doctrine does not support them. 
However, these statements made by these men are open to interpretation and we need to be slow to judgment of their intentions. A lot of people are anxious to jump on a Mormon individual's statement because they have preconcieved notions ingrained in their minds. I would need to hear the statements myself but whatever their intentions it is immaterial because the doctrine is what I am here to explain and not individual weaknesses. 

I suggest you read this thread from the beginning because we have discussed this before.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me about magic underwear please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is the magic plates.
> 
> I have read the book of mormon and find it even crazier than the bible.
> 
> You can believe what you want but trying to get others to buy into your fantasy is fraud.
Click to expand...


You're entitled to your opinion. Do you have any questions?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Maple:
> 
> I'll most likely get bashed by the Mormon members here, but in respect to husband/wife relationships as designated in the LDS/Mormon religion I have this quote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *STRANGE TEACHING OF JOSPEH SMITH AND LDS LEADERS *
> 
> The following are strange teachings and public statements of the LDS church founders:
> 
> 1. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. (Journal of Discourses, p289)
> 
> 
> Another Mormon belief is that the men resurrect their wives. The Mormon man if he is worthy will become a god on some uninhabited planet out in the Universe. He then as the god of his own world will at his own discretion resurrect those wives who were faithful and obedient to him. They then become the goddesses of his planet and rule with their husbands. A joke among the Mormon's which reflects this teaching goes like this:
> 
> It is resurrection day and the Mormon man begins to call his wives from the grave. He first called Mary, and says to her you were a wonderful wife and such a comfort to me, "Come on up!" Then to Sarah and several other wives he makes complimentary statements and calls them to be resurrected too. Then he comes to Ethel....."Ethel," he says, "You made my life a living H... and never obeyed. You just stay where you are."
> 
> Heaven for Mormon women is eternal pregnancy. They have to produce the spirit babies who will populate the world when human babies are born. Also those LDS women who are not sealed to their husbands for all time and eternity in the temple marriage or were never married will be the servants of those goddess wives who were blessed by their husbands and were resurrected.
> 
> 2. The earth, "conceives" and produces other earths, the same as a mulberry tree produces mulberry trees. The earth is alive or it could not reproduce itself. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses,1857, p 36)
> 
> 3. Brigham Young taught that the sun and moon were inhabited! In fact he said there was no doubt about it, either! ( Journal of Discourses, 1880, p 271)  Not much different from scientologist founder Hubbard's teachings.
> 
> 4. Joseph Smith preached that the moon was inhabited by men and women who were about six feet tall, dressed like Quakers, and lived about a 1000 years. He promised Oliver B Huntington, that he would preach the gospel before he was 21 years of age and that he would preach to the inhabitants of the moon! (TheYoung Woman's Journal, 1892, vol 3, page 264)
> 
> 5. Brigham Young said that gold and silver grow the same way the hair grew on his head grows. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourse, 1852, p 219)
> 
> 6. The planet "Kolob" is the "nearest unto the throne of God." (Doc. & Cov. Sec.130:7-8) Kolob is the planet where the great council of gods met and Jesus's plan for redemption was accepted and Satan's rejected. The gods who meet on Kolob assign the newly exalted gods (Mormons who were faithful) to the planets where they will rule with their wives, such as the god of earth.
> 
> 
> 
> *******
> No doubt I'll be called a "Mormon hater" as I've been called in earlier post in this thread.
> *******
Click to expand...

For those of you who are new to this thread and haven't read from the beginning; Please realize I am not dodging this feeble attack on our faith. 

It's just that they are all so easily answered and have already been explained several times within these 90 plus pages of Q&A. 
If you are new, I highly encourage you to read from the beginning or search the thread for the topic you are about to bring up. 
but if you ask an honest question without an agenda I will deal with it even if I have answered it before. Thank you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> "Thankfully, the Lord has established this land as a land of liberty where man can worship Him according to the dictates of our hearts and conscience. You may disbelieve it, but the Book of Mormon can stand of its own accord. The Lord can and does show people with His power that it's true."
> 
> Dude, you're seriously trippin', the Lord told you to steal the land from the indians?
> Do you homeys still outlaw alcohol in your state?



Ok "homey". Can you rise above a 3rd grade insult trade-off and come a little stronger with your questions?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is the magic plates.
> 
> I have read the book of mormon and find it even crazier than the bible.
> 
> You can believe what you want but trying to get others to buy into your fantasy is fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magic plates? Who has ever said anything about magic plates. Certainly there are gold plates involved which contained the original text to the Book of Mormon, but there is nothing magical about them. They are indeed Holy, but so is anything sanctified of God.
> 
> Out of curiosity, which parts of the Book of Mormon did you find crazier than the Bible? Id seriously love to here what you have to say. And I am talking about you personally, not talking about what some other website says or what.
> 
> Thankfully, the Lord has established this land as a land of liberty where man can worship Him according to the dictates of our hearts and conscience. You may disbelieve it, but the Book of Mormon can stand of its own accord. The Lord can and does show people with His power that it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh where to start..how about *THERE IS NO GOD* to sanctify any of your bullshit..and that is for you specifically and all christians morman or otherwise.
Click to expand...


Ok, thanks for your opinion. Thank you for that. I am sure you think we are all crazy religious wackjobs who blindly accept ancient dogmas that have been forced on our impressionable minds at a young age. That's fine.
Would you like to contribute to the topic?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Maple said:


> 12. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran many years back revealed a nearly complete scroll of the O.T. book of Isaiah. When it was compared to present day bible translations of Isaiah, it was found to be exactly the same, though obviously not written in present day English, but in the language of the day used by those Jewish writers nearly 2,000 years ago.
> 
> How true!!!! Great post.



I see that you are quite taken with the 8-ball's half truths about our church. What you assume to be our doctrine claimed by him is not so. If you want an authoritative statement on what we believe, you ought to at least give someone who actually practices our doctrine the benefit of the doubt. Or even the benefit of a chance to explain before you make up your mind.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Mormons are just another bunch of god fearing pedophiles. Geez, is there even 1 religion that isn't all whacked out?



Substance please


----------



## Truthspeaker

DavidS said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are just another bunch of god fearing pedophiles. Geez, is there even 1 religion that isn't all whacked out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Judaism.
> 
> It's a "super" religion.
Click to expand...


Now that's legitimately funny!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Maple said:


> The one message that really hit home with me, was the fact that after Jesus's crucifiction and he was placed in his tomb, his 11 deciples hid out afraid that since they had been followers of Jesus they would be next in line to be crucified. They were afraid to be recognized as friends of Jesus.
> 
> Jesus appeared to the women first, then to the deciples. My pastor made a point that had the resurrection of Jesus not occured and his deciples had not seen him rise again, then why on earth would they go out and preach his message, knowing full well the terrible deaths that they would incur. They all died terrible deaths, but they no longer feared physical death.  Should Jesus not have risen from the grave there would be no Christian religion, there would be no point in the teaching of his words. Think about this, it's profound.
> 
> Hopefully, this will open some minds and hearts to God, I can tell by some of the messages that there are alot of non-believers on this board. To me- that is a sad thing, God loves you and is always searching for you, trying to open your hearts and minds to him.



There is a God. He does love us all. We all just need to do our own individual and honest soul searching to find Him. That is far more important than trying to prove someone else's faith wrong.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all of you people that need scientific evidence, researching the Shroud of Turin may help you. As of this day there is no explanation of how that image got on that cloth. Scientists who were atheists have come out and stated that the shroud is the image of Christ and is Christ's burial cloth. There have been carbon dating tests on the fringe of the cloth and it was not dated to Christ's time, however, many believe that the portion of the cloth that was taken for carbon dating had been repaired by French Monks and that this produced an erroneous dating. The Catholic church has not released it for further testing, and scientists are still running tests on what little remains of the small peice of material. It is absolutely fascinating to me as well as others who continue to research it.
> 
> One fact remains, no  scientist has been able to explain or replicate that image in today's  scientific, know everything world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation.  If you want to believe something bad enough you might see jesus when you wipe your butt.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to contribute.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> "Hopefully, this will open some minds and hearts to God, I can tell by some of the messages that there are alot of non-believers on this board. To me- that is a sad thing, God loves you and is always searching for you, trying to open your hearts and minds to him."
> 
> God should know where I am, and he's welcome anytime for beers and doobies. better yet for all us doubters, why doesn't he hold a press conference? Clear up all the doubt? Or does that make too much sense? I have to convince myself that it/god exists?



It's not about making what you call "too much sense."
Sounds like your mind is already made up. If that's the case why don't you go do your own thing and stop trying to bother people who believe in God. Let me know when you want a serious discussion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> "Its the biggest proponent of the Resurrection of Christ. No one is arguing that Christ didnt rise from the dead."
> 
> sorry, no proof.



I could put you in the Dolorian drive to the airport, fly both of you to Jerusalem, drive to 88 miles an hour, then get out and hop on a jackass, ride to the sepulchre as Jesus walked out of it and you still wouldn't believe.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maple said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all of you people that need scientific evidence, researching the Shroud of Turin may help you. As of this day there is no explanation of how that image got on that cloth. Scientists who were atheists have come out and stated that the shroud is the image of Christ and is Christ's burial cloth. There have been carbon dating tests on the fringe of the cloth and it was not dated to Christ's time, however, many believe that the portion of the cloth that was taken for carbon dating had been repaired by French Monks and that this produced an erroneous dating. The Catholic church has not released it for further testing, and scientists are still running tests on what little remains of the small peice of material. It is absolutely fascinating to me as well as others who continue to research it.
> 
> One fact remains, no  scientist has been able to explain or replicate that image in today's  scientific, know everything world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation.  If you want to believe something bad enough you might see jesus when you wipe your butt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to contribute.
Click to expand...


I hope you have been enjoying your popcorn.  I am busy and get to the internet as I have time.  In my opinion mormans are a cult not unlike the Jones family.  Threats of excomunicaations and secret underwear..   Don't you get it?  Every religion on this planet ...and there must be hundreds is just as serious as yours.  They cannot all be right...BUT!!!  They all CAN be wrong.  Simple logic. 

You guys go all over the planet and exchange one brand of voodoo for another in the name of "helping" and establishing missionaries in the land of the other believers.  If you really just wanted to help you would do that and not try to indoctrinate others that already have a "faith".


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> I hope you have been enjoying your popcorn.  I am busy and get to the internet as I have time.  In my opinion mormans are a cult not unlike the Jones family.  Threats of excomunicaations and secret underwear..   Don't you get it?  Every religion on this planet ...and there must be hundreds is just as serious as yours.  They cannot all be right...BUT!!!  They all CAN be wrong.  Simple logic.
> 
> You guys go all over the planet and exchange one brand of voodoo for another in the name of "helping" and establishing missionaries in the land of the other believers.  If you really just wanted to help you would do that and not try to indoctrinate others that already have a "faith".



The Jones family? You mean the socialist group that committed mass suicide? How can a religion be compared to an extreme communal political movement?

No they cant all be right. One can be right. And none can be right. To declare them all wrong without investigation and evidence is absurd. Why should we believe they are all wrong simply because you say so?

if you believe that not trying to indoctrinate those who already have faith is so good, why dont you practice what you preach


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have been enjoying your popcorn.  I am busy and get to the internet as I have time.  In my opinion mormans are a cult not unlike the Jones family.  Threats of excomunicaations and secret underwear..   Don't you get it?  Every religion on this planet ...and there must be hundreds is just as serious as yours.  They cannot all be right...BUT!!!  They all CAN be wrong.  Simple logic.
> 
> You guys go all over the planet and exchange one brand of voodoo for another in the name of "helping" and establishing missionaries in the land of the other believers.  If you really just wanted to help you would do that and not try to indoctrinate others that already have a "faith".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jones family? You mean the socialist group that committed mass suicide? How can a religion be compared to an extreme communal political movement?
> 
> No they cant all be right. One can be right. And none can be right. To declare them all wrong without investigation and evidence is absurd. Why should we believe they are all wrong simply because you say so?
> 
> if you believe that not trying to indoctrinate those who already have faith is so good, why dont you practice what you preach
Click to expand...


Because I am not selling anything and you are...or does jesus the carpenter build all of your palaces?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Desperation.  If you want to believe something bad enough you might see jesus when you wipe your butt.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to contribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you have been enjoying your popcorn.  I am busy and get to the internet as I have time.  In my opinion mormans are a cult not unlike the Jones family.  Threats of excomunicaations and secret underwear..   Don't you get it?  Every religion on this planet ...and there must be hundreds is just as serious as yours.  They cannot all be right...BUT!!!  They all CAN be wrong.  Simple logic.
> 
> You guys go all over the planet and exchange one brand of voodoo for another in the name of "helping" and establishing missionaries in the land of the other believers.  If you really just wanted to help you would do that and not try to indoctrinate others that already have a "faith".
Click to expand...


There is no "indoctrination". You make it sound like we are the "Borg" from Star Trek. Going around assimilating everyone because "resistance is futile."

That's certainly not what we are doing. What is your problem with us? Or is it just organized religion. What questions do you have so I can answer them? 1 at a time please. I don't read 8-Ball's novels anymore.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you have been enjoying your popcorn.  I am busy and get to the internet as I have time.  In my opinion mormans are a cult not unlike the Jones family.  Threats of excomunicaations and secret underwear..   Don't you get it?  Every religion on this planet ...and there must be hundreds is just as serious as yours.  They cannot all be right...BUT!!!  They all CAN be wrong.  Simple logic.
> 
> You guys go all over the planet and exchange one brand of voodoo for another in the name of "helping" and establishing missionaries in the land of the other believers.  If you really just wanted to help you would do that and not try to indoctrinate others that already have a "faith".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jones family? You mean the socialist group that committed mass suicide? How can a religion be compared to an extreme communal political movement?
> 
> No they cant all be right. One can be right. And none can be right. To declare them all wrong without investigation and evidence is absurd. Why should we believe they are all wrong simply because you say so?
> 
> if you believe that not trying to indoctrinate those who already have faith is so good, why dont you practice what you preach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because I am not selling anything and you are.
Click to expand...


Have we asked for your credit card #? 
come on seriously. What's in it for me if you decide to join us?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Because I am not selling anything and you are...or does jesus the carpenter build all of your palaces?



Not selling a thing man. Simply teaching, exhorting and encouraging people to live better lives.


----------



## TofuDog

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am not selling anything and you are...or does jesus the carpenter build all of your palaces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not selling a thing man. Simply teaching, exhorting and encouraging people to live better lives.
Click to expand...


Encouraging peeps to be poly-pedophiles, and that the only true god is a white god that wants you to enslave and ignore your women. Hmmm, it's not really catching on, is it.

Truthspeaker:  "I could put you in the Dolorian drive to the airport, fly both of you to Jerusalem, drive to 88 miles an hour, then get out and hop on a jackass, ride to the sepulchre as Jesus walked out of it and you still wouldn't believe."
But you couldn't, now could you? Because if we said yes and went there with you, nothing would happen, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.  Again, no proof of anything, just empty words.


----------



## Avatar4321

TofuDog said:


> Encouraging peeps to be poly-pedophiles, and that the only true god is a white god that wants you to enslave and ignore your women. Hmmm, it's not really catching on, is it.



Of course it's not catching on. We aren't teaching that. Why would we want to?




> But you couldn't, now could you? Because if we said yes and went there with you, nothing would happen, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.  Again, no proof of anything, just empty words.



I would presume, that the actual reason he couldnt do it is because, as far as we know, Time Travel is not humanly possible.

However, were it, you would indeed see the living Savior rise from the dead. I know that because the Spirit has revealed it to me. That's one of the many beautiful aspects of the Gospel. You don't have to take my word for it. Or the word of the Apostles. You can find out for yourself by going to the Lord and seeking the truth from Him. And He can reveal it to you. 

However, my guess is you will never actually even concieve of the possibility that you are wrong to ever even consider attempting it. And God will judge you according to your knowledge and you desire to seek after knowledge. And thankfully, for your sake, He is merciful with all His children. Even disrespectful ones.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I am not selling anything and you are...or does jesus the carpenter build all of your palaces?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not selling a thing man. Simply teaching, exhorting and encouraging people to live better lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Encouraging peeps to be poly-pedophiles, and that the only true god is a white god that wants you to enslave and ignore your women. Hmmm, it's not really catching on, is it.
> 
> Truthspeaker:  "I could put you in the Dolorian drive to the airport, fly both of you to Jerusalem, drive to 88 miles an hour, then get out and hop on a jackass, ride to the sepulchre as Jesus walked out of it and you still wouldn't believe."
> But you couldn't, now could you? Because if we said yes and went there with you, nothing would happen, you know that, I know that, everyone knows that.  Again, no proof of anything, just empty words.
Click to expand...


Boy you sure showed me. I guess you can go now.


----------



## TofuDog

"Boy you sure showed me. I guess you can go now."

Good, intelligent comeback, I guess you didn't have a real answer, not surprising. In fact, the religionites here never seem to have any real answers.

Ok, buddy, let's go to Jerusalem and see if we can catch a glimpse of jesus. Geez, just writing that I feel like a doofus.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> "Boy you sure showed me. I guess you can go now."
> 
> Good, intelligent comeback, I guess you didn't have a real answer, not surprising. In fact, the religionites here never seem to have any real answers.
> 
> Ok, buddy, let's go to Jerusalem and see if we can catch a glimpse of jesus. Geez, just writing that I feel like a doofus.



If you are looking for a lot of logical and scientific explanations you will have to start from the beginning and read all the way to the end. Since you are so intelligent and I am an idiot surely you can read my statements and actually refute one of them. Just start from the beginning and make a list, if you will, of the problems you see and maybe we can discuss them in an "intelligent" way. 
You are entering an arena that you are not prepared to enter. I suggest you read up on what has already been brought up multiple times rather than casually jump onto the end of this thread and spout off nonsense you think we haven't already dealt with. Therefore I will not repeat myself to a USMB rookie.
Happy reading.(Or not)


----------



## TofuDog

LOLOLOL. I started reading the beginning of the thread where you're asking peeps to ask you questions about mormonism, and the first question is: "Tell me about magic underwear please?"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Too funny!

Look I tried, but nearly died laughing, plus there's like 92 pages. If they're all a funny as the first half page...
Look if you can explain your religion to South Africans for 2 years, you can answer my simple question.


----------



## AllieBaba

You know, it seems to me that once in the not so distant past of USMB, a poster who just went around to the religious debate threads trolling was reprimanded rather severely.

It's not appropriate and it's offensive. Start coming up something to actually contribute instead of just laughing stupidly at everything that your betters write.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> LOLOLOL. I started reading the beginning of the thread where you're asking peeps to ask you questions about mormonism, and the first question is: "Tell me about magic underwear please?"
> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> Too funny!
> 
> Look I tried, but nearly died laughing, plus there's like 92 pages. If they're all a funny as the first half page...
> Look if you can explain your religion to South Africans for 2 years, you can answer my simple question.



Happy reading. Hope you keep enjoying yourself. You'll eventually get your questions answered


----------



## TofuDog

Gee, you have a nice friendly religion there. No wonder mormons comprise 0.000000001% of the world's people, you're waaaayyyyyy too friendly.


----------



## HUGGY

TofuDog said:


> Gee, you have a nice friendly religion there. No wonder mormons comprise 0.000000001% of the world's people, you're waaaayyyyyy too friendly.



The mormans showed thier hand when they sucked up to howard hughes and stole his estate.

Approximately three weeks after Hughes' death, a handwritten will was found on the desk of an official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. The so-called "Mormon Will" gave US$1.56 billion to various charitable organizations (including US$625 million to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute); nearly US$470 million to the upper-management in Hughes' companies and to his aides; US$156 million to first cousin William Lummis; US$156 million split equally between his two ex-wives Ella Rice and Jean Peters; and US$156 million to a gas-station owner named Melvin Dummar. Dummar initially denied any knowledge about the will but changed his story when his fingerprints were found on the envelope containing the will.

Dummar claimed to reporters that late one evening in December 1967, he found a disheveled and dirty man lying along U.S. Highway 95, 150 miles (240 km) north of Las Vegas. The man asked for a ride to Las Vegas. Dropping him off at the Sands Hotel, Dummar said the man told him he was Hughes. Dummar then claimed that days after Hughes' death, a "mysterious man" appeared at his gas station, leaving an envelope containing the will on his desk. Unsure if the will was genuine, and unsure of what to do, Dummar left the will at the LDS Church office. In a trial lasting seven months, the Mormon Will was eventually rejected by the Nevada court in June 1978 as a forgery. The court declared that Hughes had died intestate.

Hughes' US$2.5 billion estate was eventually split in 1983 among 22 cousins, including William Lummis who serves as a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dummar was largely discounted by the public as a phony and an opportunist. Jonathan Demme's film Melvin and Howard (starring Jason Robards and Paul Le Mat), was based on Dummar's tale.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hughes Aircraft was owned by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who sold it to General Motors in 1985 for US$5.2 billion. Suits brought by the states of California and Texas claiming they were owed inheritance tax were both rejected by the court. In 1984, Hughes' estate paid an undisclosed amount to Terry Moore, who claimed to have been secretly married to Hughes on a yacht in international waters off Mexico in 1949 and never divorced. Although Moore never produced proof of a marriage, her book, The Beauty and the Billionaire, became a bestseller.


----------



## Avatar4321

TofuDog said:


> "Boy you sure showed me. I guess you can go now."
> 
> Good, intelligent comeback, I guess you didn't have a real answer, not surprising. In fact, the religionites here never seem to have any real answers.
> 
> Ok, buddy, let's go to Jerusalem and see if we can catch a glimpse of jesus. Geez, just writing that I feel like a doofus.



First, you're right it was a lame comeback.

However, there was nothing to answer. you didnt say anything substantive.


----------



## wvulax

Can I ask why the Mormons bought the Boy Scouts of America, and then started using it as an indoctrination tool forcing members to profess a belief in god and banning homosexuality?


----------



## TofuDog

Truthavoider, are all mor(m)ons as weenie as you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Gee, you have a nice friendly religion there. No wonder mormons comprise 0.000000001% of the world's people, you're waaaayyyyyy too friendly.



Your figures may be a little off but yes we are way outnumbered. that's fine. Too friendly is better than too much of anything else.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you have a nice friendly religion there. No wonder mormons comprise 0.000000001% of the world's people, you're waaaayyyyyy too friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mormans showed thier hand when they sucked up to howard hughes and stole his estate.
> 
> Approximately three weeks after Hughes' death, a handwritten will was found on the desk of an official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. The so-called "Mormon Will" gave US$1.56 billion to various charitable organizations (including US$625 million to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute); nearly US$470 million to the upper-management in Hughes' companies and to his aides; US$156 million to first cousin William Lummis; US$156 million split equally between his two ex-wives Ella Rice and Jean Peters; and US$156 million to a gas-station owner named Melvin Dummar. Dummar initially denied any knowledge about the will but changed his story when his fingerprints were found on the envelope containing the will.
> 
> Dummar claimed to reporters that late one evening in December 1967, he found a disheveled and dirty man lying along U.S. Highway 95, 150 miles (240 km) north of Las Vegas. The man asked for a ride to Las Vegas. Dropping him off at the Sands Hotel, Dummar said the man told him he was Hughes. Dummar then claimed that days after Hughes' death, a "mysterious man" appeared at his gas station, leaving an envelope containing the will on his desk. Unsure if the will was genuine, and unsure of what to do, Dummar left the will at the LDS Church office. In a trial lasting seven months, the Mormon Will was eventually rejected by the Nevada court in June 1978 as a forgery. The court declared that Hughes had died intestate.
> 
> Hughes' US$2.5 billion estate was eventually split in 1983 among 22 cousins, including William Lummis who serves as a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dummar was largely discounted by the public as a phony and an opportunist. Jonathan Demme's film Melvin and Howard (starring Jason Robards and Paul Le Mat), was based on Dummar's tale.
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hughes Aircraft was owned by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who sold it to General Motors in 1985 for US$5.2 billion. Suits brought by the states of California and Texas claiming they were owed inheritance tax were both rejected by the court. In 1984, Hughes' estate paid an undisclosed amount to Terry Moore, who claimed to have been secretly married to Hughes on a yacht in international waters off Mexico in 1949 and never divorced. Although Moore never produced proof of a marriage, her book, The Beauty and the Billionaire, became a bestseller.
Click to expand...


sounds to me like the Supreme Court made a ruling and nobody took anything. I'm not quite sure your point.


----------



## Truthspeaker

wvulax said:


> Can I ask why the Mormons bought the Boy Scouts of America, and then started using it as an indoctrination tool forcing members to profess a belief in god and banning homosexuality?



Not quite sure they bought the BSA as much as bought into the BSA. The BSA has it's own rules which we agree with. All their principles are honorable and we try to affiliate with any organization that puts forth good morals and belief in God. 
I can't apologize for something we believe is right. I certainly understand why people engage in homosexuality or sympathize with their plight. I sympathize myself to a certain extent. 
You might be surprised how tolerant we really are. But then again you might not think we are tolerant at all. I have no control over that. We may do better to hear both sides out and politely agree to disagree.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Truthavoider, are all mor(m)ons as weenie as you?



ouch


----------



## TofuDog

Truthspeaker said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthavoider, are all mor(m)ons as weenie as you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ouch
Click to expand...


That's a definite YES!!!!!!!

Did you go preach in Africa and when someone asked you a question you said: go read my 92 pages thread at USMB? I bet you converted NO ONE in your 2 years, but got laughed at a lot.


----------



## wvulax

The Mormon church Bought a controlling stake in BSA, and then changed the rules.  The Scout handbook from the 70's tells scoutmasters not to even talk about religion let alone enforce a monotheistic pledge of allegiance.  What's worse is that the BSA receives government funding even though they're still enforcing segregation.  The Mormon church also spent MILLIONS of dollars advertising for the bill in California to ban gay marriage.  Don't try to act like the Mormon church just bought the BSA for economic reasons.  The Mormon church is proactive in spreading their belief system.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, you have a nice friendly religion there. No wonder mormons comprise 0.000000001% of the world's people, you're waaaayyyyyy too friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mormans showed thier hand when they sucked up to howard hughes and stole his estate.
> 
> Approximately three weeks after Hughes' death, a handwritten will was found on the desk of an official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. The so-called "Mormon Will" gave US$1.56 billion to various charitable organizations (including US$625 million to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute); nearly US$470 million to the upper-management in Hughes' companies and to his aides; US$156 million to first cousin William Lummis; US$156 million split equally between his two ex-wives Ella Rice and Jean Peters; and US$156 million to a gas-station owner named Melvin Dummar. Dummar initially denied any knowledge about the will but changed his story when his fingerprints were found on the envelope containing the will.
> 
> Dummar claimed to reporters that late one evening in December 1967, he found a disheveled and dirty man lying along U.S. Highway 95, 150 miles (240 km) north of Las Vegas. The man asked for a ride to Las Vegas. Dropping him off at the Sands Hotel, Dummar said the man told him he was Hughes. Dummar then claimed that days after Hughes' death, a "mysterious man" appeared at his gas station, leaving an envelope containing the will on his desk. Unsure if the will was genuine, and unsure of what to do, Dummar left the will at the LDS Church office. In a trial lasting seven months, the Mormon Will was eventually rejected by the Nevada court in June 1978 as a forgery. The court declared that Hughes had died intestate.
> 
> Hughes' US$2.5 billion estate was eventually split in 1983 among 22 cousins, including William Lummis who serves as a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dummar was largely discounted by the public as a phony and an opportunist. Jonathan Demme's film Melvin and Howard (starring Jason Robards and Paul Le Mat), was based on Dummar's tale.
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hughes Aircraft was owned by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who sold it to General Motors in 1985 for US$5.2 billion. Suits brought by the states of California and Texas claiming they were owed inheritance tax were both rejected by the court. In 1984, Hughes' estate paid an undisclosed amount to Terry Moore, who claimed to have been secretly married to Hughes on a yacht in international waters off Mexico in 1949 and never divorced. Although Moore never produced proof of a marriage, her book, The Beauty and the Billionaire, became a bestseller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds to me like the Supreme Court made a ruling and nobody took anything. I'm not quite sure your point.
Click to expand...


You know what my point is and has been consistantly in this thread.  The mormans are about control as a cult is.  They are about stealing inherhitances as they did with hughes.  The mormans are about the money.  Like the Jim Jones church with the exception of the suicides I see no difference.


----------



## wvulax

agreed


----------



## HUGGY

wvulax said:


> agreed



Again I try to have first hand info before I rail on any group.  About three years ago I was working on an invention that required a computer tech to verify the validity of a major component of my business plan.  The guy I hired was a morman.  He gave me the book of morman which I read.  This poor fucker was unemployed when I met him but still so beat down by his church that he was more worried about paying a percentage to the LDS of what little money he had and would make than he was concerned about his own family.  

A decent but very confused man.


----------



## Truthspeaker

wvulax said:


> The Mormon church Bought a controlling stake in BSA, and then changed the rules.  The Scout handbook from the 70's tells scoutmasters not to even talk about religion let alone enforce a monotheistic pledge of allegiance.  What's worse is that the BSA receives government funding even though they're still enforcing segregation.  The Mormon church also spent MILLIONS of dollars advertising for the bill in California to ban gay marriage.  Don't try to act like the Mormon church just bought the BSA for economic reasons.  The Mormon church is proactive in spreading their belief system.



Like I said. the BSA is a private group and if they were willing to sell shares to us that means they must have liked what we were going to do as far as making changes. The changes sound great to me. Last time I checked, it was ok for private organizations to make their own rules. 
And you are darn skippy about us being proactive. I think that's a good thing. People should be proactive in whatever cause they believe in.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthavoider, are all mor(m)ons as weenie as you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ouch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a definite YES!!!!!!!
> 
> Did you go preach in Africa and when someone asked you a question you said: go read my 92 pages thread at USMB? I bet you converted NO ONE in your 2 years, but got laughed at a lot.
Click to expand...


 whatever you say sonny. For me to respond on your level would be for me to say something like. "Yo Momma".

Do you have any substance to your paper thin personality?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mormans showed thier hand when they sucked up to howard hughes and stole his estate.
> 
> Approximately three weeks after Hughes' death, a handwritten will was found on the desk of an official of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City. The so-called "Mormon Will" gave US$1.56 billion to various charitable organizations (including US$625 million to the Howard Hughes Medical Institute); nearly US$470 million to the upper-management in Hughes' companies and to his aides; US$156 million to first cousin William Lummis; US$156 million split equally between his two ex-wives Ella Rice and Jean Peters; and US$156 million to a gas-station owner named Melvin Dummar. Dummar initially denied any knowledge about the will but changed his story when his fingerprints were found on the envelope containing the will.
> 
> Dummar claimed to reporters that late one evening in December 1967, he found a disheveled and dirty man lying along U.S. Highway 95, 150 miles (240 km) north of Las Vegas. The man asked for a ride to Las Vegas. Dropping him off at the Sands Hotel, Dummar said the man told him he was Hughes. Dummar then claimed that days after Hughes' death, a "mysterious man" appeared at his gas station, leaving an envelope containing the will on his desk. Unsure if the will was genuine, and unsure of what to do, Dummar left the will at the LDS Church office. In a trial lasting seven months, the Mormon Will was eventually rejected by the Nevada court in June 1978 as a forgery. The court declared that Hughes had died intestate.
> 
> Hughes' US$2.5 billion estate was eventually split in 1983 among 22 cousins, including William Lummis who serves as a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dummar was largely discounted by the public as a phony and an opportunist. Jonathan Demme's film Melvin and Howard (starring Jason Robards and Paul Le Mat), was based on Dummar's tale.
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hughes Aircraft was owned by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who sold it to General Motors in 1985 for US$5.2 billion. Suits brought by the states of California and Texas claiming they were owed inheritance tax were both rejected by the court. In 1984, Hughes' estate paid an undisclosed amount to Terry Moore, who claimed to have been secretly married to Hughes on a yacht in international waters off Mexico in 1949 and never divorced. Although Moore never produced proof of a marriage, her book, The Beauty and the Billionaire, became a bestseller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds to me like the Supreme Court made a ruling and nobody took anything. I'm not quite sure your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what my point is and has been consistantly in this thread.  The mormans are about control as a cult is.  They are about stealing inherhitances as they did with hughes.  The mormans are about the money.  Like the Jim Jones church with the exception of the suicides I see no difference.
Click to expand...


you see no difference because you have no desire to look at our doctrines, so you don't know them. You are as ignorant of our teachings as you are about the dark side of the moon. Probably more so.
Let me know if you want to know our stance on any real issues.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> wvulax said:
> 
> 
> 
> agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I try to have first hand info before I rail on any group.  About three years ago I was working on an invention that required a computer tech to verify the validity of a major component of my business plan.  The guy I hired was a morman.  He gave me the book of morman which I read.  This poor fucker was unemployed when I met him but still so beat down by his church that he was more worried about paying a percentage to the LDS of what little money he had and would make than he was concerned about his own family.
> 
> A decent but very confused man.
Click to expand...


That's a pretty nice way to compliment a "decent" man by calling him names and assuming he is confused and brainwashed. Maybe he knows something you don't. but that thought hasn't occured to you of course because you're such an intellectual.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wvulax said:
> 
> 
> 
> agreed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I try to have first hand info before I rail on any group.  About three years ago I was working on an invention that required a computer tech to verify the validity of a major component of my business plan.  The guy I hired was a morman.  He gave me the book of morman which I read.  This poor fucker was unemployed when I met him but still so beat down by his church that he was more worried about paying a percentage to the LDS of what little money he had and would make than he was concerned about his own family.
> 
> A decent but very confused man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a pretty nice way to compliment a "decent" man by calling him names and assuming he is confused and brainwashed. Maybe he knows something you don't. but that thought hasn't occured to you of course because you're such an intellectual.
Click to expand...


The unfortunate people of the Jones family knew something I don't also.  Believing something does not make it true...or safe....or even morally right.  Re reading the nonsense in your book won't happen.  I don't have any more time to waste on it.


----------



## TofuDog

Truthspeaker, what's it like to go through life and when people find out you're a mormon, they dismiss you outright and think you're a retard?


----------



## del

TofuDog said:


> Truthspeaker, what's it like to go through life and when people find out you're a mormon, they dismiss you outright and think you're a retard?



except for the mormon part, i expect it's much like your experience, retard.

you're dismissed.


----------



## TofuDog

del, did I hit a raw nerve? lol


----------



## del

TofuDog said:


> del, did I hit a raw nerve? lol





no, not even close. 

try again, windowlicker.


----------



## wvulax

"Last time I checked, it was ok for private organizations to make their own rules."

They get public funding through the federal and state government.  They're acting like Dick Cheney, one day their public the next private.  I agree that private organizations can do what they want, when they can afoord it.  I don't like the fact that I'm paying to make homosexual youths feel like shit so much so that suicide becomes an option.  

Has anyone seen the south park episode on Mormons.........dumbdadumbdumbdumb.  those guys are hilarious.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I try to have first hand info before I rail on any group.  About three years ago I was working on an invention that required a computer tech to verify the validity of a major component of my business plan.  The guy I hired was a morman.  He gave me the book of morman which I read.  This poor fucker was unemployed when I met him but still so beat down by his church that he was more worried about paying a percentage to the LDS of what little money he had and would make than he was concerned about his own family.
> 
> A decent but very confused man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty nice way to compliment a "decent" man by calling him names and assuming he is confused and brainwashed. Maybe he knows something you don't. but that thought hasn't occured to you of course because you're such an intellectual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The unfortunate people of the Jones family knew something I don't also.  Believing something does not make it true...or safe....or even morally right.  Re reading the nonsense in your book won't happen.  I don't have any more time to waste on it.
Click to expand...


Believing something does not make it true. Knowing it does. It would be a waste of time for you to further investigate something you are not interested in learning about. Happy Trails buddy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

del said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, what's it like to go through life and when people find out you're a mormon, they dismiss you outright and think you're a retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except for the mormon part, i expect it's much like your experience, retard.
> 
> you're dismissed.
Click to expand...


Actually it's great!


----------



## TofuDog

"Actually it's great!"

lol, why is that?


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a pretty nice way to compliment a "decent" man by calling him names and assuming he is confused and brainwashed. Maybe he knows something you don't. but that thought hasn't occured to you of course because you're such an intellectual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unfortunate people of the Jones family knew something I don't also.  Believing something does not make it true...or safe....or even morally right.  Re reading the nonsense in your book won't happen.  I don't have any more time to waste on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believing something does not make it true. Knowing it does. It would be a waste of time for you to further investigate something you are not interested in learning about. Happy Trails buddy.
Click to expand...


Oh I'm not going anywhere...unless the administrator decides it so.

You cultists and thieves don't get a pass from me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

wvulax said:


> "Last time I checked, it was ok for private organizations to make their own rules."
> 
> They get public funding through the federal and state government.  They're acting like Dick Cheney, one day their public the next private.  I agree that private organizations can do what they want, when they can afoord it.  I don't like the fact that I'm paying to make homosexual youths feel like shit so much so that suicide becomes an option.
> 
> Has anyone seen the south park episode on Mormons.........dumbdadumbdumbdumb.  those guys are hilarious.



South Park eh? Not there's a reliable source. Oh By the way, you may want to do real research before you claim the Scouts are backed by federal funds. 
Who Pays for Scouting? 
I know you are on a crusade for homosexuals but don't take it out on private organizations.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unfortunate people of the Jones family knew something I don't also.  Believing something does not make it true...or safe....or even morally right.  Re reading the nonsense in your book won't happen.  I don't have any more time to waste on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believing something does not make it true. Knowing it does. It would be a waste of time for you to further investigate something you are not interested in learning about. Happy Trails buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I'm not going anywhere...unless the administrator decides it so.
> 
> You cultists and thieves don't get a pass from me.
Click to expand...

You're not leaving? Fantastic! If you stay on long enough you may actually learn something. Be careful though. The dark side is enticing and you may never return once you venture over.


----------



## Eightball

This a pretty basic question for Mormons:

Why is there an image of the angel Moroni on the top of the temple, but not the Cross, as is seen on most Christian churches, both Catholic, Protestant, and Non-denominational?

Is there something about the cross that the angel Moroni who allegedly visited Joseph Smith Jr. back in the early 1800's that makes it take a back seat?

All throughout the N.T., the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was the beginning of the great move of "grace" by God upon mankind.  Without the "cross" there would be no salvation, and no, new life in Christ.

Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucififed with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.".(Inspired by God, and written by His vessel, the Apostle Paul.)

Every true Christian enters into Christ's crucified, ressurrected, and ascended life.  The Spirit of Christ indwells every believer by the power of God's doing, through the faith of the human agent/man.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Romans(Written by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of God.)
*******
Paul wore no special underware with occult symbols.  Christianity is not a belief system that depends upon superstitious acts of protection of one's soul, via special underware, mandatory tithing, or forced righteous living in order to "please" God, and receive righteousness.

Righteousness is a "gift" and a positional bestowment from God upon every true believer, and is not received by our "good" works.  It is based on our accepting God for who He is, and that is an act of faith.

Abraham was considered "righteous" by God because He "believed", not because he performed certain "goodie" acts.  The "goodie" acts were/are spawned from the the new positional righteousness that God has given the believer.  When man believes and or accepts Christs attonement for his sins, God makes that man a "new creature/creation" in Christ Jesus.  Old things pass away, in that "true" believer's life.  That is why true converts to Christ, will often experience a total change in their lives, concerning goals, habits, priorities, and just their whole outloof of life and their relationships to their fellow man.  When a person receives the Holy Spirit, they literally receive the Person of Christ into their life, and their lives start to parallel Christs, as revealed in the N.T. gospels and epistles.  A  person is not purged of their God given personality or identity, but they do experience tremendous transformation in their lives.  Where once they thought nothing of many sinful acts of mankind, now they find their conscience "pricked" and convicted.  Never the less the Christian still has the "free will" to live as a willing "bond slave" of God's rightful ownership, or they can still choose to live a carnal/fleshly life that seeks to find indentity in the world, and it ungodly agendas.

Jesus didn't expect to win a popularity contest when He came to earth 2,000 years ago.  He came to "save", and to "seek" out mankind, and introduce mankind to the true nature of God, as He was the incarnation of God in the flesh.  As Jesus said, "You've seen me, you've seen the Father.".  He also said that He and the Father are one.".  He/Jesus could don nothing that contradicted the Father.

God has revealed Himself very clearly to mankind.  He has protected His message of salvation, security, and everlasting immortality offered to mankind couldn't be more clear as revealed in the bible.

God does not want us to jump through hoops as most religions nowadays mandate in order to be allegedly "righteous" or "perfected" to their god's satisfaction.  

Grace is a missing noun in all the religions of the world except for true biblical Christianity.  Grace is unmerited favor towards one who is not deserving.  Grace is an expression of love that was authored by God when He gave His only Son, on the Cross for our pardon.

Now people can't understand why some are saved or going to heaven and some aren't.  Isn't God being picky and evil and not gracious?  Far from it.  God's grace is only conditional in this sense.  It is hinged on man's freewill to humble himself, and bascially surrender his life, his dreams, his self fullfilling ways and accept that his Creator knows what's best, as He's the Potter, and man is the clay.

People avoid or run from this "surrender" as they perceive it as the end of their "fun" or "free will" to live life the way the want.  In one sense it does create a change, but it doesn't rob man of freewill, but instead opens up an entire vista of goals, and possiblities, that fullfill the vacuum of emptiness that unsaved man is constantly striving to quench or fill in his most deep innermost self.

The LDS/Mormon Church has heaped myriads of requirements upon their members in order to "be" that acceptable person before their god.  The bible totally disagrees with this.  Jesus said take my "yoke", as it is easy/light.  Mormons are constantly "expected" to perform in order to "be", through wearing strange occult marked underware, going through temple rituals of "sealing", priesthoods, etc..

All along, in the N.T. of the bible, God has said over and over again that every true believer/Christian is a royal priest, and ambassador of God.  Christ fullfilled the ultimate priesthood.  He gave his life, as the ultimate offering, that would never have to be repeated again.  "It is finished!" was His succinct and final words.  Even the Roman centurion that stood at the base of the cross, exclaimed that this man was surely the Son of God.  Earthquakes happened, the skies thundered, and most importantly the "veil" in the holy temple that blocked non-Levitical Jew, and gentile from entry to the Holy of Holies was rent or torn in two.  What did this mean?  It meant that Jesus had opened up access to God Almighty that very day that He gave His life.  Now man had access to the Holy of Holys.  He didn't need a special Levitical, or Aaronic priest to intercede between himself and God.  God was offering total access of Himself to mankind.

Man's responsibility was not to wear strange underware, but to "accept" by faith, that "He" Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be.

Paul quoted in one of His epistles that several hundred people still were alive at the writing that epistle, that actually saw the "risen" Christ, before He ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.  Yet Jesus did not leave mankind naked and vunerable to sin, and the woes and depressions of life, but sent His Spirit, the Holy Spirit on Pentacost, starting with His Apostles and disciples first.  On that first day of Pentacost, several thousand received the Spirit, and become the new Church.

Joseph Smith's alleged revelation adds nothing new, but adds much bazaar, and outlandishness to a very sober gospel that was passed on to us in the bible.  

The Book of Mormon is a compilation of partially copied bible scripture and then renamed with strange authors, and convoluted stories.

Every day, archeology continues to unearth in the MiddleEast and throughout Asia Minor, more physical proofs that substantiate the bible, yet the Book of Mormon has not had one archeological substantiation of it's N. & S. American stories.

Salvation is again not based on works, but righteous works do follow after "true" salvation.  This totally goes againt the tenents of LDS/Mormon doctrine.  They must "do" in order to "be".  In true biblical Christianity, we "become" through faith, and then we start to "do" because of our gratitude, based on our new nature.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> "Actually it's great!"
> 
> lol, why is that?



It's great because I don't care what an ignoramus thinks.


----------



## TofuDog

Ya, but most people you meet must dismiss you when you tell them that you're a mormon, and like, 99.99% of the people you try to convert laugh at you or slam the door in your face.


----------



## caterpillar

Truthspeaker said:


> I know you are on a crusade for homosexuals but don't take it out on private organizations.



All internet forums are predominately in favor of all aspects of the gay political agenda.  Its my belief that their organizations assign them to various forums.  It wouldn't surprise me if they are paid (just a suspiscion I have).  

In general, internet forums are always pretty much the same in terms of the views expressed, and yet when you discuss with ordinary people there is usually a wider range of views than you see on internet forums.  Forums being predominately a mixture of ultra-liberals, anti-values libertines who claim to be fiscal conservatives, and angry "moderates" who hate everyone but themselves and yet claim to be the most reasonable of anyone.


----------



## TofuDog

caterpillar, you forgot to mention the gay bashing homophobes like you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> This a pretty basic question for Mormons:
> 
> Why is there an image of the angel Moroni on the top of the temple, but not the Cross, as is seen on most Christian churches, both Catholic, Protestant, and Non-denominational?A cross is two pieces of wood. Not a necessary flag to be saluted. I know what it represents. The death of Jesus. I know it was necessary. But we prefer to put prime emphasis on his resurrection and life rather than death. Does the cross make you a christian or does your faith and actions towards others?
> 
> Is there something about the cross that the angel Moroni who allegedly visited Joseph Smith Jr. back in the early 1800's that makes it take a back seat?It has nothing to do with taking a back seat. The angel Moroni atop our temples(not churches) is a symbol that the trumpets will sound to the east announcing the second coming of JESUS THE CHRIST.
> 
> 
> All throughout the N.T., the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was the beginning of the great move of "grace" by God upon mankind.  Without the "cross" there would be no salvation, and no, new life in Christ.
> 
> Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucififed with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.".(Inspired by God, and written by His vessel, the Apostle Paul.)
> 
> Every true Christian enters into Christ's crucified, ressurrected, and ascended life.  The Spirit of Christ indwells every believer by the power of God's doing, through the faith of the human agent/man.
> 
> "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Romans(Written by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of God.)
> *******
> Paul wore no special underware with occult symbolsYou are so sure of this but all jews wear symbolic clothing to remind them of their faith in God, just like us..  Christianity is not a belief system that depends upon superstitious acts of protection of one's soul, via special underware, mandatory tithing, or forced righteous living in order to "please" God, and receive righteousness.
> 
> Righteousness is a "gift" and a positional bestowment from God upon every true believer, and is not received by our "good" works.  It is based on our accepting God for who He is, and that is an act of faith.
> 
> Abraham was considered "righteous" by God because He "believed", not because he performed certain "goodie" acts.  The "goodie" acts were/are spawned from the the new positional righteousness that God has given the believer.  When man believes and or accepts Christs attonement for his sins, God makes that man a "new creature/creation" in Christ Jesus.  Old things pass away, in that "true" believer's life.  That is why true converts to Christ, will often experience a total change in their lives, concerning goals, habits, priorities, and just their whole outloof of life and their relationships to their fellow man.  When a person receives the Holy Spirit, they literally receive the Person of Christ into their life, and their lives start to parallel Christs, as revealed in the N.T. gospels and epistles.  A  person is not purged of their God given personality or identity, but they do experience tremendous transformation in their lives.  Where once they thought nothing of many sinful acts of mankind, now they find their conscience "pricked" and convicted.  Never the less the Christian still has the "free will" to live as a willing "bond slave" of God's rightful ownership, or they can still choose to live a carnal/fleshly life that seeks to find indentity in the world, and it ungodly agendas.
> 
> Jesus didn't expect to win a popularity contest when He came to earth 2,000 years ago.  He came to "save", and to "seek" out mankind, and introduce mankind to the true nature of God, as He was the incarnation of God in the flesh.  As Jesus said, "You've seen me, you've seen the Father.".  He also said that He and the Father are one.".  He/Jesus could don nothing that contradicted the Father.
> 
> God has revealed Himself very clearly to mankind.  He has protected His message of salvation, security, and everlasting immortality offered to mankind couldn't be more clear as revealed in the bible.
> 
> God does not want us to jump through hoops as most religions nowadays mandate in order to be allegedly "righteous" or "perfected" to their god's satisfaction.
> 
> Grace is a missing noun in all the religions of the world except for true biblical Christianity.  Grace is unmerited favor towards one who is not deserving.  Grace is an expression of love that was authored by God when He gave His only Son, on the Cross for our pardon.
> 
> Now people can't understand why some are saved or going to heaven and some aren't.  Isn't God being picky and evil and not gracious?  Far from it.  God's grace is only conditional in this sense.  It is hinged on man's freewill to humble himself, and bascially surrender his life, his dreams, his self fullfilling ways and accept that his Creator knows what's best, as He's the Potter, and man is the clay.
> 
> People avoid or run from this "surrender" as they perceive it as the end of their "fun" or "free will" to live life the way the want.  In one sense it does create a change, but it doesn't rob man of freewill, but instead opens up an entire vista of goals, and possiblities, that fullfill the vacuum of emptiness that unsaved man is constantly striving to quench or fill in his most deep innermost self.
> 
> The LDS/Mormon Church has heaped myriads of requirements upon their members in order to "be" that acceptable person before their god.  The bible totally disagrees with this.  Jesus said take my "yoke", as it is easy/light.  Mormons are constantly "expected" to perform in order to "be", through wearing strange occult marked underware, going through temple rituals of "sealing", priesthoods, etc..
> 
> All along, in the N.T. of the bible, God has said over and over again that every true believer/Christian is a royal priest, and ambassador of God.  Christ fullfilled the ultimate priesthood.  He gave his life, as the ultimate offering, that would never have to be repeated again.  "It is finished!" was His succinct and final words.  Even the Roman centurion that stood at the base of the cross, exclaimed that this man was surely the Son of God.  Earthquakes happened, the skies thundered, and most importantly the "veil" in the holy temple that blocked non-Levitical Jew, and gentile from entry to the Holy of Holies was rent or torn in two.  What did this mean?  It meant that Jesus had opened up access to God Almighty that very day that He gave His life.  Now man had access to the Holy of Holys.  He didn't need a special Levitical, or Aaronic priest to intercede between himself and God.  God was offering total access of Himself to mankind.
> 
> Man's responsibility was not to wear strange underware, but to "accept" by faith, that "He" Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be.
> 
> Paul quoted in one of His epistles that several hundred people still were alive at the writing that epistle, that actually saw the "risen" Christ, before He ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.  Yet Jesus did not leave mankind naked and vunerable to sin, and the woes and depressions of life, but sent His Spirit, the Holy Spirit on Pentacost, starting with His Apostles and disciples first.  On that first day of Pentacost, several thousand received the Spirit, and become the new Church.
> 
> Joseph Smith's alleged revelation adds nothing new, but adds much bazaar, and outlandishness to a very sober gospel that was passed on to us in the bible.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a compilation of partially copied bible scripture and then renamed with strange authors, and convoluted stories.
> 
> Every day, archeology continues to unearth in the MiddleEast and throughout Asia Minor, more physical proofs that substantiate the bible, yet the Book of Mormon has not had one archeological substantiation of it's N. & S. American stories.
> 
> Salvation is again not based on works, but righteous works do follow after "true" salvation.  This totally goes againt the tenents of LDS/Mormon doctrine.  They must "do" in order to "be".  In true biblical Christianity, we "become" through faith, and then we start to "do" because of our gratitude, based on our new nature.



I actually appreciated the first couple of questions. The rest of the novel seems to be an exact copy and paste of your pointless attempt to debate me on faith versus works. I am not here to debate my stance, only explain why I take the stance I do. I have already answered you. If you want to believe your thing, then go for it. I am not going to argue with you.


----------



## wvulax

Where is the BSA national jamboree?

Fort A.P. Hill in VA

last time I checked that is publicly funded and owned site that the BSA pays 0.00$ to have their jamboree there.  That is just one example of the public funding.  I guess they are changing the policy though as I saw in the news part that it will no longer be at fort Hill.  So after 2013 I can only bitch about reparations, ha.

1. I was just remembering the south park episode fondly not really referencing it.  
2. I'm not on a crusade for homos.  I'm on a crusade to get a seperation of church and state.  The BSA also hates atheists, myself included.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Ya, but most people you meet must dismiss you when you tell them that you're a mormon, and like, 99.99% of the people you try to convert laugh at you or slam the door in your face.



If you only knew anything.


----------



## Truthspeaker

wvulax said:


> Where is the BSA national jamboree?
> 
> Fort A.P. Hill in VA
> 
> last time I checked that is publicly funded and owned site that the BSA pays 0.00$ to have their jamboree there.  That is just one example of the public funding.  I guess they are changing the policy though as I saw in the news part that it will no longer be at fort Hill.  So after 2013 I can only bitch about reparations, ha.
> 
> 1. I was just remembering the south park episode fondly not really referencing it.
> 2. I'm not on a crusade for homos.  I'm on a crusade to get a seperation of church and state.  The BSA also hates atheists, myself included.



Separation of church and state was made when the constitution was formed. Didn't you get the memo. Nothing changed.


----------



## Avatar4321

wvulax said:


> Where is the BSA national jamboree?
> 
> Fort A.P. Hill in VA
> 
> last time I checked that is publicly funded and owned site that the BSA pays 0.00$ to have their jamboree there.  That is just one example of the public funding.  I guess they are changing the policy though as I saw in the news part that it will no longer be at fort Hill.  So after 2013 I can only bitch about reparations, ha.
> 
> 1. I was just remembering the south park episode fondly not really referencing it.
> 2. I'm not on a crusade for homos.  I'm on a crusade to get a seperation of church and state.  The BSA also hates atheists, myself included.



The Boy Scouts arent a church. There isnt an establishment clause issue with them.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> This a pretty basic question for Mormons:
> 
> Why is there an image of the angel Moroni on the top of the temple, but not the Cross, as is seen on most Christian churches, both Catholic, Protestant, and Non-denominational?A cross is two pieces of wood. Not a necessary flag to be saluted. I know what it represents. The death of Jesus. I know it was necessary. But we prefer to put prime emphasis on his resurrection and life rather than death. Does the cross make you a christian or does your faith and actions towards others?
> 
> Is there something about the cross that the angel Moroni who allegedly visited Joseph Smith Jr. back in the early 1800's that makes it take a back seat?It has nothing to do with taking a back seat. The angel Moroni atop our temples(not churches) is a symbol that the trumpets will sound to the east announcing the second coming of JESUS THE CHRIST.
> 
> 
> All throughout the N.T., the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was the beginning of the great move of "grace" by God upon mankind.  Without the "cross" there would be no salvation, and no, new life in Christ.
> 
> Galatians 2:20 "I have been crucififed with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.".(Inspired by God, and written by His vessel, the Apostle Paul.)
> 
> Every true Christian enters into Christ's crucified, ressurrected, and ascended life.  The Spirit of Christ indwells every believer by the power of God's doing, through the faith of the human agent/man.
> 
> "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Romans(Written by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration of God.)
> *******
> Paul wore no special underware with occult symbolsYou are so sure of this but all jews wear symbolic clothing to remind them of their faith in God, just like us..  Christianity is not a belief system that depends upon superstitious acts of protection of one's soul, via special underware, mandatory tithing, or forced righteous living in order to "please" God, and receive righteousness.
> 
> Righteousness is a "gift" and a positional bestowment from God upon every true believer, and is not received by our "good" works.  It is based on our accepting God for who He is, and that is an act of faith.
> 
> Abraham was considered "righteous" by God because He "believed", not because he performed certain "goodie" acts.  The "goodie" acts were/are spawned from the the new positional righteousness that God has given the believer.  When man believes and or accepts Christs attonement for his sins, God makes that man a "new creature/creation" in Christ Jesus.  Old things pass away, in that "true" believer's life.  That is why true converts to Christ, will often experience a total change in their lives, concerning goals, habits, priorities, and just their whole outloof of life and their relationships to their fellow man.  When a person receives the Holy Spirit, they literally receive the Person of Christ into their life, and their lives start to parallel Christs, as revealed in the N.T. gospels and epistles.  A  person is not purged of their God given personality or identity, but they do experience tremendous transformation in their lives.  Where once they thought nothing of many sinful acts of mankind, now they find their conscience "pricked" and convicted.  Never the less the Christian still has the "free will" to live as a willing "bond slave" of God's rightful ownership, or they can still choose to live a carnal/fleshly life that seeks to find indentity in the world, and it ungodly agendas.
> 
> Jesus didn't expect to win a popularity contest when He came to earth 2,000 years ago.  He came to "save", and to "seek" out mankind, and introduce mankind to the true nature of God, as He was the incarnation of God in the flesh.  As Jesus said, "You've seen me, you've seen the Father.".  He also said that He and the Father are one.".  He/Jesus could don nothing that contradicted the Father.
> 
> God has revealed Himself very clearly to mankind.  He has protected His message of salvation, security, and everlasting immortality offered to mankind couldn't be more clear as revealed in the bible.
> 
> God does not want us to jump through hoops as most religions nowadays mandate in order to be allegedly "righteous" or "perfected" to their god's satisfaction.
> 
> Grace is a missing noun in all the religions of the world except for true biblical Christianity.  Grace is unmerited favor towards one who is not deserving.  Grace is an expression of love that was authored by God when He gave His only Son, on the Cross for our pardon.
> 
> Now people can't understand why some are saved or going to heaven and some aren't.  Isn't God being picky and evil and not gracious?  Far from it.  God's grace is only conditional in this sense.  It is hinged on man's freewill to humble himself, and bascially surrender his life, his dreams, his self fullfilling ways and accept that his Creator knows what's best, as He's the Potter, and man is the clay.
> 
> People avoid or run from this "surrender" as they perceive it as the end of their "fun" or "free will" to live life the way the want.  In one sense it does create a change, but it doesn't rob man of freewill, but instead opens up an entire vista of goals, and possiblities, that fullfill the vacuum of emptiness that unsaved man is constantly striving to quench or fill in his most deep innermost self.
> 
> The LDS/Mormon Church has heaped myriads of requirements upon their members in order to "be" that acceptable person before their god.  The bible totally disagrees with this.  Jesus said take my "yoke", as it is easy/light.  Mormons are constantly "expected" to perform in order to "be", through wearing strange occult marked underware, going through temple rituals of "sealing", priesthoods, etc..
> 
> All along, in the N.T. of the bible, God has said over and over again that every true believer/Christian is a royal priest, and ambassador of God.  Christ fullfilled the ultimate priesthood.  He gave his life, as the ultimate offering, that would never have to be repeated again.  "It is finished!" was His succinct and final words.  Even the Roman centurion that stood at the base of the cross, exclaimed that this man was surely the Son of God.  Earthquakes happened, the skies thundered, and most importantly the "veil" in the holy temple that blocked non-Levitical Jew, and gentile from entry to the Holy of Holies was rent or torn in two.  What did this mean?  It meant that Jesus had opened up access to God Almighty that very day that He gave His life.  Now man had access to the Holy of Holys.  He didn't need a special Levitical, or Aaronic priest to intercede between himself and God.  God was offering total access of Himself to mankind.
> 
> Man's responsibility was not to wear strange underware, but to "accept" by faith, that "He" Jesus Christ was who He claimed to be.
> 
> Paul quoted in one of His epistles that several hundred people still were alive at the writing that epistle, that actually saw the "risen" Christ, before He ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father.  Yet Jesus did not leave mankind naked and vunerable to sin, and the woes and depressions of life, but sent His Spirit, the Holy Spirit on Pentacost, starting with His Apostles and disciples first.  On that first day of Pentacost, several thousand received the Spirit, and become the new Church.
> 
> Joseph Smith's alleged revelation adds nothing new, but adds much bazaar, and outlandishness to a very sober gospel that was passed on to us in the bible.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a compilation of partially copied bible scripture and then renamed with strange authors, and convoluted stories.
> 
> Every day, archeology continues to unearth in the MiddleEast and throughout Asia Minor, more physical proofs that substantiate the bible, yet the Book of Mormon has not had one archeological substantiation of it's N. & S. American stories.
> 
> Salvation is again not based on works, but righteous works do follow after "true" salvation.  This totally goes againt the tenents of LDS/Mormon doctrine.  They must "do" in order to "be".  In true biblical Christianity, we "become" through faith, and then we start to "do" because of our gratitude, based on our new nature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually appreciated the first couple of questions. The rest of the novel seems to be an exact copy and paste of your pointless attempt to debate me on faith versus works. I am not here to debate my stance, only explain why I take the stance I do. I have already answered you. If you want to believe your thing, then go for it. I am not going to argue with you.
Click to expand...


Not one iota of my last post was copy-paste, but from my knowledge of the bible.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Joseph Smith's alleged revelation adds nothing new, but adds much bazaar, and outlandishness to a very sober gospel that was passed on to us in the bible.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a compilation of partially copied bible scripture and then renamed with strange authors, and convoluted stories.



Just saw this and had to ask.

How is it possible for the Book of Mormon to add nothing new, but then add much bizzare and outlandishness? It either adds nothing new or it adds alot of weird things. It cant do both any more than Christ could have Risen from the dead and not Risen.

The Book of Mormon is a complitation of a partially copied Bible? really? yet it contains outlandish and bizzare doctrines, what does that say about the Bible it was allegedly copied from?

Oh and please name one convoluted story that is copied from the Bible than  renamed with strange author.

You can't seem to reach a single conclusion on what the Book of Mormon actually is. All your theories cant be correct. I really would recommend reading it sometime. Youll have a much clearer understanding of it.


----------



## TofuDog

Truthspeaker, one last question:

If your god exists and is so great, why does he need you to go door to door talking him up?


----------



## TofuDog

ok, one more: is this true?

"Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected, "exalted" human being named Elohim who was at one time not God. Rather, he was once a mortal man on another planet who, through obedience to the precepts of his God, eventually attained exaltation, or godhood, himself through "eternal progression." The Mormon God, located in time and space, has a body of flesh and bone and thus is neither spirit nor omnipresent." 

LOL.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Truthspeaker, one last question:
> 
> If your god exists and is so great, why does he need you to go door to door talking him up?



He doesn't need it. He asks it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> ok, one more: is this true?
> 
> "Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected, "exalted" human being named Elohim who was at one time not God. Rather, he was once a mortal man on another planet who, through obedience to the precepts of his God, eventually attained exaltation, or godhood, himself through "eternal progression." The Mormon God, located in time and space, has a body of flesh and bone and thus is neither spirit nor omnipresent."
> 
> LOL.



Laugh it up.... It's true. One statement of particular interest to you would be the one that says: "Fools mock, but they shall mourn..." (Ether 12:27)


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, one last question:
> 
> If your god exists and is so great, why does he need you to go door to door talking him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't need it. He asks it.
Click to expand...


Your god talks to you?  Whaoh there pilgrim....Thats crazy.


----------



## TofuDog

Truthspeaker, if Mormons think that alien shit, I'll leave you alone, you're dumber than a rock.

(But seriously FUCK, I never knew that! You guys are seriously fucked in the head badly!)


----------



## TofuDog

Lolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, one last question:
> 
> If your god exists and is so great, why does he need you to go door to door talking him up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't need it. He asks it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your god talks to you?  Whaoh there pilgrim....Thats crazy.
Click to expand...


If God claims to be our Father, then why wouldn't he want to communicate with us? I know, it's crazy. I get that you think that.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Truthspeaker, if Mormons think that alien shit, I'll leave you alone, you're dumber than a rock.
> 
> (But seriously FUCK, I never knew that! You guys are seriously fucked in the head badly!)



Talk about the gorilla calling the banana hairy.


----------



## TofuDog

No seriously dude, you believe god is an alien from another planet! That's seriously whacked! No wonder you don't drink, you don't need it! You're already totally whacked!
Man, you're seriously delusional.
I almost feel sorry for you.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Your god talks to you?  Whaoh there pilgrim....Thats crazy.



simply because you refuse to let the Lord reveal Himself to you, does not mean the rest of us dont know Him.

You could hear his voice too if you sought to.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god talks to you?  Whaoh there pilgrim....Thats crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> simply because you refuse to let the Lord reveal Himself to you, does not mean the rest of us dont know Him.
> 
> You could hear his voice too if you sought to.
Click to expand...


*The message below is not a copy-paste, but authored completey by 8-ball.*

How do you confirm that it is the "Lord" that is communicating with you?

That is the tripping-point with LDS/Mormons.  They rely on unscripturally based visions/dreams, to confirm the validity of their system of belief.
*******
Now of course if you look at it from the LDS/Mormons angle, all is completely legit, as they believe that God is still sending prophets with new revelations up to even now.  It wasn't enough that Jesus got the job done 2,000 years ago, and that the bible tells us specifically to rely on God's Word, the scriptures.

The only problem, is that you'd think that these very intelligent, well educated people would use some common sense, and not "buy" into this planetary stuff that has similar finger prints to Scientology.  It is so bazaar, cause so many of the tenets of LDS/Mormonism is considered an abomination to the God and Lord of the bible.

Sadly, so many Mormons have just followed in the footsteps of their ancestors right up to their parents, and have sadly not investigated their belief system themselves.  They have a religion that has no physical evidence, nor reliable witnesses, that would be considered of rational mind nowadays nor were they back in the 1800's.  

What I love about the bible, is that the non-believer who has not come from any Christian or biblical background can pick up this book, and read it and really receive some valuable eye-witness information from a myriad of different authors, both from the O.T. and N.T..  Yet, the bible seems to be congruous, in it's message both from O.T. to the N.T..

As mentioned earlier, reputable archeological teams are constantly unearthing evidenced in the Middle East that are substantiating the bible, and validating more and more as an accurate group of books.

Truthspeaker is constantly telling folks who present viable arguments or questions about his religion by telling them that he's adequately answered their inquiries, yet when you look back, his whole premise is based on "blind" faith.   

True faith is based on factual, substantiated evidence.  All the LDS church has is a person of questionable character as the founder, and seer who had this revelation from an angel named Moroni.  As  Paul says in the bible to the early church nearly 2,000 years back, "Don't believe me nor anyone that comes to you and says, that they have this revelation or they've seen the Lord, and He said this or that; but go to the scriptures and make sure that what is said or seen confirms scripture.

The Mormon church only confirms what validates their alleged prophet's dreams and writings.

Just because a religious group is persecuted, doesn't mean that they have the truth.  The persecution can be for a number of reasons, i.e. that they are trying to proselytize bible Christians into their heresy, and that can raise the hackles of a strong biblically based community.  That is what happened in Illinoise and many states that the early J.S. Jr. followers traveled through, before settling in an area of the N. America where there were little or no Judeau Christian settlers; namely the arid regions of the territory of Utah.

Mormons weren't persecuted because people were under conviction of the Holy Spirit, when the LDS doctrines were presented.  The Biblical Christian communities were incensed by the incursion and intrusion of the Mormons who basically condemned bible believing folks, telling them that their bible was corrupt, and that their leader had a one on one connection with God that trumped the bible.

Up until a short time ago, the Mormons in their secret temple ceremonies, present a skit that basically shows a bible based minister being duped by Lucifer.  They have ended that presentation, as it makes it very difficult to proselytize Christians into thinking they are true Christians by mocking their Pastors, Priests, and or ministers.

2,000 years ago, Paul said that there is no distinction between male, female, gentile, Jew, barbarian who are in Christ.  All are internally circumcized by God with the gift of His Spirit indwelling their souls eternally.

Yet, the "True Christian Church" of J.S. Jr./Brigham Young only a few years ago, finally ended a very terrible form of racism towards people of African/Negroid Race decent.  One of their prophets long ago said that those of the black skin race are decendents of Cain, who murdered his brother Abel, in a fit of jealousy.  Therefore, Black Mormon members were not allowed to partake in the priesthood offices of the church.  What a travesty!  

Again, Paul the apostle 2,000 years ago was miles ahead of J.S. jr. and the Mormon church.

Also, Paul taught that salvation was and act of God's grace upon the individual.  It was not based on man's works, but was a gift of God, yet the LDS church violates those very tenents, by emphasizing that man can earn God's righteousness through "good" works.  

If that is the case, then Jesus died for nothing.  I.E., man can gain righteousness through his own works, aside from the redeeming work of Christ on the cross.  Do you see the contradiction?

Again, Truthspeaker thinks he has adequately answered all the very damning questions that have pertinence, but in fact summarily "blows" off those questions, with anwsers such as "I'm tired of reading your novels", "or he's at odds with alleged cut and past quotes from sources".  

Mormonism demands a verdict!  Mormonism is classified as a cult by well respected theologians of the bible, and that includes both Catholic, Protestant, and Non-aligned Christian theologians.

The whole foundation of Mormonism is build upon supposed visions, and miracles that all seem to conveniently support the statement, that Mormonism is the truth.  How convenient. 

I totally respect the LDS churches' strong patriotic fervor of our country, and their support of heterosexual marriage, but that does not mean that they are Christian.  Many religions of the world support their governments, and don't support gay marriage.

Christianity goes beyond the acts, and is an internalized, change that God creates in the individual, that confirms the bible scriptures.

Novice and most Mormons are encouraged to do study, but not "independent" study, of scripture.  It must be under the supervision of an elder in most cases.

Interestingly, most ex-Mormons have become-so, as a result of studying the bible without the constraints and oversight of elders.  I.E... The truth of the bible has freed them from the cultic hold that Mormonism exerts on it's members.  

In areas of this country where communities have a majority of Mormons, it can be very difficult for the bible Christian or non-Mormon to prosper in business.  The H.P. corporation up in Camas, Washington, is loaded with upper management folks who are LDS, and it is very difficult to be accepted and advance up their in Camas/Vancouver, WA. area otherwise.

When my father grew up in Salt Lake back in the 1915-1920's, he told me that the LDS folks would shun non LDS folks in public and even walk on the other side of the street to avoid contact.  My dad's mom was LDS, but his dad was Episcapalean.  My grandpa owned two bars/saloons in Salt Lake City back in the late 1800's into the early 1900's.  He was also at Promentory Point, Utah, at the driving of the Golden Spike that connected the transcontinental railroad.  He is part of the famous photograph with the two steam locomotive engines facing each other from the two railroads that joined in Utah.

I have worked with ex-Mormons for Jesus when I was in bible college.  It was a challenging yet blessed ministry.  Ex-Mormons go though some awful stress in their lives as many are cut-off from their close familial relationships because they chose to leave the LDS fold.  It is not unlike what happens when a Muslim becomes a Christian.  It is a big sacrifice, and the ramifications are very serious.
*******
Now, most likely, Truthspeaker will say, that he doesn't want to read 8-balls novels, but that's his choice.  It isn't unlike sticking one's fingeres in one's ears and humming real loud so as to not hear things that might cause some upset.
*******
Put the BOM alongside the bible.  I don't care what translation of the bible one prefers.  The King James is the LDS choice, but the American Standard, NIV, Revised Standard, are all very good too.  If you get hung up with the "Thys and Thees", then the last mentioned translations can help one in reading the bible and get some good comprehension.

You will find out for yourself that the BOM rambles, and goes all over the place, and also states factually erroneous statements about the human history of North and South America.
******
If it wasn't so sad as a bible Christian to know how mislead, these LDS folks were, I'd actually laugh about their beliefs, but I can't.  My heart is burdened for them, as they are so off track, and so controlled, and constrained, within the LDS parameters.

Where they have freedom, they open themselves up to being mislead by Lucifer, as they/LDS will not question the source of their visions, burning bosoms, that seem to conveniently validate Mormonism. 

Yes, there is an unseen spiritual world out there, and 2/3's of it is "hell-bent" on leading man away from the truth contained in the bible.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god talks to you?  Whaoh there pilgrim....Thats crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> simply because you refuse to let the Lord reveal Himself to you, does not mean the rest of us dont know Him.
> 
> You could hear his voice too if you sought to.
Click to expand...


*I don't think so sport*

I've got responsibilities and other peoples fortunes tied up in my inventions.  If I turned up wackadoodle like you someone might put a cap in my scull.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your god talks to you?  Whaoh there pilgrim....Thats crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> simply because you refuse to let the Lord reveal Himself to you, does not mean the rest of us dont know Him.
> 
> You could hear his voice too if you sought to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I don't think so sport*
> 
> I've got responsibilities and other peoples fortunes tied up in my inventions.  If I turned up wackadoodle like you someone might put a cap in my scull.
Click to expand...


One less know-it-all


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> No seriously dude, you believe god is an alien from another planet! That's seriously whacked! No wonder you don't drink, you don't need it! You're already totally whacked!
> Man, you're seriously delusional.
> I almost feel sorry for you.



Fine by me.


----------



## TofuDog

I said "almost".

You believe your god is an alien from another planet, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
You guys are dumber than I thought! And I already knew you're heavily dumbed out with your funny beards and your pedophilic multiple marriages.

One question: how the fuck did they get you to believe that alien shit?


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> I said "almost".
> 
> You believe your god is an alien from another planet, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
> You guys are dumber than I thought! And I already knew you're heavily dumbed out with your funny beards and your pedophilic multiple marriages.
> 
> One question: how the fuck did they get you to believe that alien shit?



If you were ready to listen, I'd explain some things to you. But since your adolescent behavior dictates no worthiness of an answer, I will not humor you further. 

Next please...


----------



## TofuDog

ok, all kidding aside, I'm ready to listen, go ahead.


----------



## Eightball

MORMON MISSIONARIES DEBATING A GEORGIA PREACHER 

Check out this Youtube...

Just keep in mind that this preacher would not have been allowed, if he had been a Mormon, to participate in the Mormon priesthood just a few years back.

Also remember when facing Mormons attempting to evangelize you a bible Christian; make sure you are well versed in the bible as the average Mormon will use the bible to convince you that you are adrift and not in the "True Christian Church".  Of course if your up on your bible knowledge you will see how they mis-use scripture, to further their agenda.

*Please click this the following statement that high-lights with your cursor:* Mormon Missionaries confront a Georgia, preacher - Mormon Missionaries spreading the word of Jesus Christ

Here's an interesting Youtube video on Mormon Blood Attonement.

*Please click this the following statement that high-lights with your cursor:*BLOOD ATONEMENT DOCTRINE


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> MORMON MISSIONARIES DEBATING A GEORGIA PREACHER
> 
> Check out this Youtube...
> 
> Just keep in mind that this preacher would not have been allowed, if he had been a Mormon, to participate in the Mormon priesthood just a few years back.
> 
> Also remember when facing Mormons attempting to evangelize you a bible Christian; make sure you are well versed in the bible as the average Mormon will use the bible to convince you that you are adrift and not in the "True Christian Church".  Of course if your up on your bible knowledge you will see how they mis-use scripture, to further their agenda.
> 
> *Please click this the following statement that high-lights with your cursor:* Mormon Missionaries confront a Georgia, preacher - Mormon Missionaries spreading the word of Jesus Christ
> 
> Here's an interesting Youtube video on Mormon Blood Attonement.
> 
> *Please click this the following statement that high-lights with your cursor:*BLOOD ATONEMENT DOCTRINE



8-Ball you are a real piece of work ya know. You are like the energizer bunny of broken record error. Why do you keep posting these statements when you know full well, I have answered both of your little sniveling attempts to smear my church as early as the 4th page of this thread. 

oh and btw, I haven't heard you say anything to the TofuDogs of the world who claim there is no God. So do you believe there is a God to the point of rebutting someone like Huggy or Tofu? Or are you all three in this together?


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> ok, all kidding aside, I'm ready to listen, go ahead.



ok...yeah.no. you are not ready. Because you haven't asked any intelligent, grown up, or honest questions yet.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> MORMON MISSIONARIES DEBATING A GEORGIA PREACHER
> 
> Check out this Youtube...
> 
> Just keep in mind that this preacher would not have been allowed, if he had been a Mormon, to participate in the Mormon priesthood just a few years back.
> 
> Also remember when facing Mormons attempting to evangelize you a bible Christian; make sure you are well versed in the bible as the average Mormon will use the bible to convince you that you are adrift and not in the "True Christian Church".  Of course if your up on your bible knowledge you will see how they mis-use scripture, to further their agenda.
> 
> *Please click this the following statement that high-lights with your cursor:* Mormon Missionaries confront a Georgia, preacher - Mormon Missionaries spreading the word of Jesus Christ
> 
> Here's an interesting Youtube video on Mormon Blood Attonement.
> 
> *Please click this the following statement that high-lights with your cursor:*BLOOD ATONEMENT DOCTRINE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8-Ball you are a real piece of work ya know. You are like the energizer bunny of broken record error. Why do you keep posting these statements when you know full well, I have answered both of your little sniveling attempts to smear my church as early as the 4th page of this thread.
> 
> oh and btw, I haven't heard you say anything to the TofuDogs of the world who claim there is no God. So do you believe there is a God to the point of rebutting someone like Huggy or Tofu? Or are you all three in this together?
Click to expand...


First and foremost, you haven't been answering my questions raised since the beginning.  You just spout off Mormon lingo, because you know the bible stands right in your face, and your answers, with a big, "No!" to your defense of your churchs' doctrine.

Secondly, Huggy and or Tofu, are not the real threat to the "truth" or the bible, and the revelation of God, that the LDS/Mormon church is.

Huggy, and Tofu don't hide their agenda, nor where they really stand.

On the other hand, you who are probably a bishop or elder of the LDS church, stand behind subderfuge, smoke and mirrors, and refuse to answer what the Word of God says straight to your face.

I have quoted Romans 10:17 many times, and you have totally ignored it because you are spiritually blind to it's understanding.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ"

That's it in a ball of wax.

You carry a "haughty" attitude on this thread throughout, dismissing those that present plausible reasons or rebuttals to your churchs' doctrine.

Your whole religious premise stand on this revelation from a most notorious, man J.S. Jr. who lacked moral compass/scruples of great degree.

Your Temple rituals are Freemason ripoff's, ala J.S. Jr.'s earlier affiliation with Freemasonry, your magic underware with it's occult symbols is a big blatant example of superstitious, occult, leaning teaching, and has no grounds in Christian/biblical teaching.

The Witch of Endor who King Saul went to, was living in violation of God's commands to not be involved in occult/witchcraft activity.  Yet, your protective underware represents occult influence, and you know it.

You refuse to accept secular accounts of your church founder's life and which involved much criminal activity, and scamming of innocent folks in early 19th century America.

Your Boof of Mormon is filled with ridiculous espousals that go totally against common sense acheology.

Yet the bible has been archeologically proven over and over again, and even to this day, new discoveries in the Middle East are validating cities/sites that before hand were mentioned in the bible but not known.

Your belief system is based on good works = Salvation, yet you espouse that faith is part of it.

If man's works could earn him salvation then Christ's death was in vain.  In fact your Blood Attonement taught by your early prophet is an example of your ignorance of Faith in Christ, and His total attoning work = personal salvation.

Mom, Dad, "Leave To Beaver" family living, apple pie, and the American flag don't earn one iota towards one's personal salvation with God Almighty.  

Paul clearly said that false prophets would arise in the future, and they would teach teachings that would not be from God.  These false teachers would tell us, "Here is the christ!", and many would flock to that christ, and these people would be miserably lost on a circular rabbit trail of false visions, miracles, etc...  

Lucifer has done a superb job via the LDS/Mormon church.  He has gotten millions of human beings to "buy" into visions, miracles, burning bosom, subjective experiential occurences as the means to LDS/Mormon validation of their doctirne.

God has given us the whole package in His Word, the bible.  It is all that is needed for man to know the nature of God, as it's N.T. reveals the very nature of God via Jesus Christ.

God has not allowed his scripture to be convoluted/corrupted, in anyway, yet the premise of Mormon teaching is that God did indeed let His communication or revelation/gospel become inadequate.

Folks:  Just open the bible and read any of the first four gospels in the N.T., Matthew, Mark, John or Luke, and then read this alleged revelation from God, via this angel Moroni, to J.S. Jr..  You will see a distinct difference.  One book will seem like a mishmash, and confusion, and fairytale, and the other will seem so plausible, and direct to the heart of man.
*****
One distinct foot print of any cult or occult group is "How do they deal with Jesus Christ?".

1.  With Mormons, he was once just a man, and not God Almighty, and He/Jesus can be repeated in any Mormon males life if that Mormon lives a good, righteous life(Works again.).
2. Jehovah's Witnesses, also attack the eternal Godhood of Jesus by teaching that Jesus was once created, as we humans, and was the Archangel Michael.
******
One can go on and on about the LDS/Mormon movement/church.  It's adherents often have just followed familial tradition, and have evolved into church membership, cause Mom and Pop, Gramps and Grandma, and on back for generations.

Jesus and His disciples taught that once a person dies, they either are going to be in heaven or they will be eternally separated from God(Hell).  There is no grey area with this teaching in the bible.

Yet: The Mormons have taken this firm, clear teaching and teach that people who died without salvation can be post-mortem baptized by living persons, most notably Mormons in good standing.

So much of Mormon doctrine falls into the area of man's definition of a church, rather than God's parameters.  Notice that polygamy was considered ok, by their early prophets, yet they conveniently changed that when the U.S. government was going to withhold Utah from statehood unless the Mormons straightened up their act.

Truthspeaker has never answered the question of the weight of the golden plates that the then known lame legged J.S. Jr. didn't just carry but ran with for a great distance.

Truthspeaker has never adequately answered why their god gave them his communications in heirogyphics, rather than English.  

When God communicated to Moses on Mt. Sinai, He gave Moses the stone tablets in Moses' and the Israelites language of that time.

Joseph Smith Jr. had to decipher the heiroglyphics via a seer's stone in his hat.  The use of a seers stone is as occult as in withcraft.  Again, J.S. Jr. was violating God's very clear command to stay as far as possible from the occult.

When Christ died on the cross, the "Veil" in the temple in Jerusalem was ripped in two.  No longer did the Veil enclose the Holy of Holies of the great temple.  Only the Levitical priests could enter the Holy of Holies back in the O.T. times.  The Israelites had the Levite priests as their mediators to give their sins to God in the Holy of Holies, and receive forgiveness for one year.  

When Christ died, and said "It is finished!", the Veil was ripped, and that represented that Jesus had become the ultimate Mediator between man and God.  No longer was a Levitical priesthood needed to set sins aside from year to year.  Now Christ had set the sins aside for an eternity, as far as the East is to the West.  Man could enter the Holy or Holies or have communion with God Almighty through Jesus Christ.  His blood was the total sufficiency.

Yet:  The Mormons taught that there were some sins that Jesus' death could not cover, and thence we have "blood attonement"; a most gruesome, murdersom, display of unGodly humanity calling the shots.
********
Folks look back at the pages of posts, and see if Truthspeaker really did answer my questions or any of yours?

What you'll find is answers such as these:  "I've already answered that." or "I'm not going to bother reading another of your novels.", or "Why can't God still be doing visions, etc. to  the people?".

Lucifer is called a "wolf in sheeps clothing", and indeed he is.  He hides behind motherhood, clean living, no caffeine/alcohol, no swearing, patriotism, and clean shaved faces, and constantly wins-over converts.  He offeres a wide, popular highway of life, not unlike "Pleasantville, U.S.A.".  God is not against all the clean living, but these are still "works" in order to "be".  Mormons work so hard in order to "be" or be in the good graces of their god.  God showed us in the O.T., that not one person could meet His law 100%, and with that, Romans 3:23 said, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.".  Yet, Paul said that the Law wasn't bad, as it tutored us towards God's offer of unmerited favor/grace through His Son.  It tutored us, in that it convinced us that we could sin, yet be acceptable to enter into communion with our sinless, perfect, and Holy Creator, was through "grace".  That grace was offered through Jesus, becoming our replacement for God's judgement upon sinful man.  Therefore, Jesus, has become our mediator, and advocate before God, "Perpetually!".

Why do Mormons have the highest per-capita rate of alcoholism, of any religious group(actually Jehovah's Witnesses aren't far behind)?  It's so easy to see!  The average Mormon can't stop working overtime trying to "earn" brownie points that will convince God that he/she is good-enough.  This creates a perpetual treadmill of works upon works, upon works.  Mormons never know for sure, just like J.W.'s where they really stand before their god.  The works must go on and on, in order to "be".  Their whole identity is wrapped up in their works, not their position as judged by God.

The biblical Christian is positionally righteous, when he or she sins or doesn't sin.  Ok, some will say, that means Christians can do all kinds of bad things and their safe.  Absolutely not!  A true born again Christian who has the indwelling Holy Spirit, will not desire to sin, but will still have fleshly fights with the temptations.  The important part, is the "desire", that the H.S. has placed in the Christian.  It's that desire to be free from sin and it's temptations that distinguish the Christian from the natural or unsaved human.

Christians can fall into carnality, yet God will not let it go for long before consequences will befall them and they will either walk away from that carnal life, and start living by faith in God, or they will literally perish physically.
******
Yep, this is another 8-ball novel, as Truthspeaker would call it.

Remember that cults need to "control" their members, and Truthspeaker knows what that means, cause I'm sure he's in an office in the church where he must oversee some Mormons that aren't as far along as he.

I can't begin to count the stories of folks who left the LDS/Mormon church, and all the pressure that was put upon them by the church in ways that were outright mean.  

Truthspeaker knows that novice or young Mormons are not encouraged to read the bible independently, without asking their elders to answer questions that come up.  How convenient.  The "sheep" ask a question of the "wolf".
*****
And Truthspeaker, don't hit me with that "You hate Mormons" stuff, cause that's just the dieing breath of a person without a life-jacket.

The love of Christ fills every true Christian.  I wouldn't waste a bunch of time writing this "novels" if I didn't have a burden for the souls of Mormons.  

Just as Christ came down hard on the teachers of the day, called Pharisee's, I come down extra hard on those who caste a web of lies over myriads of novice Mormons, who think they've found eternal life in this false church.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> First and foremost, you haven't been answering my questions raised since the beginning.  You just spout off Mormon lingo, because you know the bible stands right in your face, and your answers, with a big, "No!" to your defense of your churchs' doctrine.



I cant speak for him, but I personally have addressed your concerns numerous times. You've ignored them, changed the subject, and then begin saying the same things over again when you think everyone has forgotten what was previously said. It's rather annoying.



> Secondly, Huggy and or Tofu, are not the real threat to the "truth" or the bible, and the revelation of God, that the LDS/Mormon church is.



While I agree Huggy and Tofu aren't real threats to anything, let alone Truth, You very well know that Mormon does not threaten the Bible. Quite the opposite. We embrace it. All of it, particularly the concept of revelation.



> Huggy, and Tofu don't hide their agenda, nor where they really stand.



Neither do I. 



> On the other hand, you who are probably a bishop or elder of the LDS church, stand behind subderfuge, smoke and mirrors, and refuse to answer what the Word of God says straight to your face.



What, you mean like where Christ says that those who recieve the Word are gods?



> I have quoted Romans 10:17 many times, and you have totally ignored it because you are spiritually blind to it's understanding.
> 
> "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ"
> 
> That's it in a ball of wax.



Neither I, Nor TS disagrees with the scripture at all. Quoting it over and over again when we have absolutely no disagreement with it as though this refutes everything we do is rather absurd.

However, I have to ask, if you believe that scripture, why do you try to limit what Christ can say?



> You carry a "haughty" attitude on this thread throughout, dismissing those that present plausible reasons or rebuttals to your churchs' doctrine.



Rebuttals? Who in this entire thread has rebutted anything??? Its 90+ pages of copy and paste and "you're wrong!" claims.



> Your whole religious premise stand on this revelation from a most notorious, man J.S. Jr. who lacked moral compass/scruples of great degree.



You say this out of ignorance, and I understand that. Joseph Smith was a man, and it's easy to make a man look evil. After all, even the Lord Jesus Christ was falsely accused of notoriety and lacking a moral compass. In fact, he was sentenced to death based on those false accusations.  And if the Lord can be accused of all manner of evil acts, He being the one perfect man to walk this planet, how much more are the 

However, almost all people are much more complex than simple unfounded accusations or even founded ones. And no matter who God chose to call, that man would still be a sinful man. That doesnt invalidate the message at all. But then, it is typical to attack the messenger when the message is unassailable.



> Your Temple rituals are Freemason ripoff's, ala J.S. Jr.'s earlier affiliation with Freemasonry, your magic underware with it's occult symbols is a big blatant example of superstitious, occult, leaning teaching, and has no grounds in Christian/biblical teaching.



Again, your demonstrating a lack of study into the subject. The Temple rituals are one of the greatest testaments that Joseph knew what he was talking about. The rituals or the "mysteries" are all over the ancient world. We still see them all over society and go through them ignorantly without a thought. Christianity and Judaism, in their pristine form, are Temple centered religions. The Temple is all over the Bible! 

Also, Joseph wasnt affiliated with Freemasonry until the last years of his life. Quite a bit of time after he began to learn the mysteries from translating the Book of Abraham.



> The Witch of Endor who King Saul went to, was living in violation of God's commands to not be involved in occult/witchcraft activity.  Yet, your protective underware represents occult influence, and you know it.



Yes, because Underwear is evil....



> You refuse to accept secular accounts of your church founder's life and which involved much criminal activity, and scamming of innocent folks in early 19th century America.



Why would I accept what's blatantly false? I've studied the information. Joseph was never convicted of any crime. And even if he was, it wouldnt prove that the message he taught was false or that he wasnt called by God because God has no choice but to use sinners to preach his message.



> Your Boof of Mormon is filled with ridiculous espousals that go totally against common sense acheology.



You mean like the resurrection of the dead? Eye witness accounts of the resurrected Savior? You do realize that archaelogy is about a precise as a man peeing in a toilet dont you?



> Yet the bible has been archeologically proven over and over again, and even to this day, new discoveries in the Middle East are validating cities/sites that before hand were mentioned in the bible but not known.



You keep saying this, but I cant help but notice you completely ignored my thread asking what the archaelogical proof for the resurrection of Christ is. You also completely ignore that the Book of Mormon _does_ accurately describe and _name_ locations through Arabia completely unknown to the western world until recently.  

Let me ask you, which is more impressive? A book we know is ancient, which was passed on from generation to generation, describing accurate places in it's region? or a Book that appeared practically out of thin air, accurately describing unknown locations half way around the world? 



> Your belief system is based on good works = Salvation, yet you espouse that faith is part of it.



No it isn't. What is so difficult to understand about it? Read the Book of Mormon. Please just read it and you wont continue with this ridiculous claim that we believe we are saved by good works.



> If man's works could earn him salvation then Christ's death was in vain.  In fact your Blood Attonement taught by your early prophet is an example of your ignorance of Faith in Christ, and His total attoning work = personal salvation.



No one has claimed that any mans works can earn him salvation.



> Mom, Dad, "Leave To Beaver" family living, apple pie, and the American flag don't earn one iota towards one's personal salvation with God Almighty.



No one has claimed it did. But I guess that's an efficient straw man for you to knock down.



> Paul clearly said that false prophets would arise in the future, and they would teach teachings that would not be from God.  These false teachers would tell us, "Here is the christ!", and many would flock to that christ, and these people would be miserably lost on a circular rabbit trail of false visions, miracles, etc...



Actually, Christ is the one who taught that. He also taught that miracles and visions would follow His true believers.



> Lucifer has done a superb job via the LDS/Mormon church.  He has gotten millions of human beings to "buy" into visions, miracles, burning bosom, subjective experiential occurences as the means to LDS/Mormon validation of their doctirne.



You don't believe in visions or miracles or the Holy Spirit??



> God has given us the whole package in His Word, the bible.  It is all that is needed for man to know the nature of God, as it's N.T. reveals the very nature of God via Jesus Christ.



I am sorry that you believe that all there is to the Eternities is found in the Bible. The Bible doesnt make that claim. Neither does God. Quite the opposite in fact. Paul taught that he was only preaching the milk of the Gospel. We have absolutely no knowledge of what Christ taught the disciples in His 40 days with them after the Resurrection. John stated that all the books in the world wouldnt begin to contain the All the words and acts of Christ. Paul stated there were things He was forbidden to speak.

Yet, we are supposed to believe that God doesnt want us to learn anything more than is in the Bible. Even though revelation and prophecy has been one of the clearest signs of His faith throughout all generations of time and God has not changed.

You're free to believe that if you choose, but Im not about to tell God what He can and cannot teach me.



> God has not allowed his scripture to be convoluted/corrupted, in anyway, yet the premise of Mormon teaching is that God did indeed let His communication or revelation/gospel become inadequate.



No, the premise of Mormonism is that God still talks to men and women of faith; that claiming otherwise is false doctrine and a corruption of the truth. The Lord communicates through the Spirit. The scriptures are a tool to aid that communication, not the end of that communication.



> Folks:  Just open the bible and read any of the first four gospels in the N.T., Matthew, Mark, John or Luke, and then read this alleged revelation from God, via this angel Moroni, to J.S. Jr..  You will see a distinct difference.  One book will seem like a mishmash, and confusion, and fairytale, and the other will seem so plausible, and direct to the heart of man.
> *****



You seriously need to read the Book of Mormon if you think there is any confusion in it.




> One distinct foot print of any cult or occult group is "How do they deal with Jesus Christ?".



Of course, because why on earth would they not? i mean why would any religious group exist that didnt think exclusively of what to do about Christ? [/sarcasm]

Not every religion centers it's message on Christ. Mormonism does. Some Christians do too. But many groups simply have their own view points depending on what their founders thought.




> 1.  With Mormons, he was once just a man, and not God Almighty, and He/Jesus can be repeated in any Mormon males life if that Mormon lives a good, righteous life(Works again.).



I know Ive said this before, but you really need to read the Book of Mormon. Because anyone who has knows how incredibly stupid your statement is.



> 2. Jehovah's Witnesses, also attack the eternal Godhood of Jesus by teaching that Jesus was once created, as we humans, and was the Archangel Michael.
> ******



They can do what they want, who cares?



> One can go on and on about the LDS/Mormon movement/church.  It's adherents often have just followed familial tradition, and have evolved into church membership, cause Mom and Pop, Gramps and Grandma, and on back for generations.



Most mormons are converts. Unless you're honestly trying to claim that all those Asian, African, and Hispanic converts are all just following the family traditions of their White Mormon grandparents.



> Jesus and His disciples taught that once a person dies, they either are going to be in heaven or they will be eternally separated from God(Hell).  There is no grey area with this teaching in the bible.



No He didn't. Though I completely understand why you've reached this conclution with the context you have.



> Yet: The Mormons have taken this firm, clear teaching and teach that people who died without salvation can be post-mortem baptized by living persons, most notably Mormons in good standing.



Most notably Mormons in good standing? do you know anyone else who goes into the Temples?

And please lets not forget Paul cited baptism by proxy for the dead as an evidence of the Resurrection because "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. " (1 Cor 15:19)

After all "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit"(1 Peter 3:6)

But no, there is absolutely no reason to believe that we have any hope of salvation after we die. It doesnt matter what the scriptures say.



> So much of Mormon doctrine falls into the area of man's definition of a church, rather than God's parameters.  Notice that polygamy was considered ok, by their early prophets, yet they conveniently changed that when the U.S. government was going to withhold Utah from statehood unless the Mormons straightened up their act.



What the hell is man's definition of a church?!?!? Where on earth do you get these ideas? it sure as heck isnt in the Bible. Almost all the early Bible Prophets thought polygamy was okay too. 

And Utah's statehood had _nothing_ to do with the revelation on polygamy. I know the websites you visited say so, but the Saints were applying from statehood from 1850 on. do you honestly think that after 40 years they thought statehood was so vital as to change practices? Seriously? Are you really saying that the extent of the effort to understand why the revelation happened is visiting an anti mormon website when all you have to do is read the proclaimation itself which states specifically why?




> Truthspeaker has never answered the question of the weight of the golden plates that the then known lame legged J.S. Jr. didn't just carry but ran with for a great distance.



Because, of course, he should answer questions that were addressed decades ago because everyone refuses to do some research.



> Truthspeaker has never adequately answered why their god gave them his communications in heirogyphics, rather than English.



Probably because your statement makes absolutely no sense. Why did God give the Bible in Hebrew and Greek?  Maybe because communicates to people in their languages.



> When God communicated to Moses on Mt. Sinai, He gave Moses the stone tablets in Moses' and the Israelites language of that time.



Yeah. Of course.



> Joseph Smith Jr. had to decipher the heiroglyphics via a seer's stone in his hat.  The use of a seers stone is as occult as in withcraft.  Again, J.S. Jr. was violating God's very clear command to stay as far as possible from the occult.



So you expected people who write their records anciently to write and speak English? this is logical because...?



> When Christ died on the cross, the "Veil" in the temple in Jerusalem was ripped in two.  No longer did the Veil enclose the Holy of Holies of the great temple.  Only the Levitical priests could enter the Holy of Holies back in the O.T. times.  The Israelites had the Levite priests as their mediators to give their sins to God in the Holy of Holies, and receive forgiveness for one year.



The Veil was fixed after Christ resurrection. Christians worshipped in that Temple until the Temple was destroyed.



> When Christ died, and said "It is finished!", the Veil was ripped, and that represented that Jesus had become the ultimate Mediator between man and God.  No longer was a Levitical priesthood needed to set sins aside from year to year.  Now Christ had set the sins aside for an eternity, as far as the East is to the West.  Man could enter the Holy or Holies or have communion with God Almighty through Jesus Christ.  His blood was the total sufficiency.



No, this is what you interpret it to mean. Yet, even after the Resurrection Christ called Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, Evangelists, etc to preach the Gospel, to baptize to lift up the feeble and unite them.



> Yet:  The Mormons taught that there were some sins that Jesus' death could not cover, and thence we have "blood attonement"; a most gruesome, murdersom, display of unGodly humanity calling the shots.
> ********



Christ, Himself, stated that Blasphemy of the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven.



> Folks look back at the pages of posts, and see if Truthspeaker really did answer my questions or any of yours?



Im sure that you will see them answered time and time again only to be ignored time and time again.



> What you'll find is answers such as these:  "I've already answered that." or "I'm not going to bother reading another of your novels.", or "Why can't God still be doing visions, etc. to  the people?".



That would probably be because you keep ignoring the responses and refusing to answer any question addressed to you and it gets rather annoying after a while.



> Lucifer is called a "wolf in sheeps clothing", and indeed he is.  He hides behind motherhood, clean living, no caffeine/alcohol, no swearing, patriotism, and clean shaved faces, and constantly wins-over converts.



Yeah cause those moms are just so evil...




> He offeres a wide, popular highway of life, not unlike "Pleasantville, U.S.A.".  God is not against all the clean living, but these are still "works" in order to "be".  Mormons work so hard in order to "be" or be in the good graces of their god.



Did you ever consider that we do good simply because we love God?




> God showed us in the O.T., that not one person could meet His law 100%, and with that, Romans 3:23 said, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.".  Yet, Paul said that the Law wasn't bad, as it tutored us towards God's offer of unmerited favor/grace through His Son.  It tutored us, in that it convinced us that we could sin, yet be acceptable to enter into communion with our sinless, perfect, and Holy Creator, was through "grace".  That grace was offered through Jesus, becoming our replacement for God's judgement upon sinful man.  Therefore, Jesus, has become our mediator, and advocate before God, "Perpetually!".



And no one has disgreed.



> Why do Mormons have the highest per-capita rate of alcoholism, of any religious group(actually Jehovah's Witnesses aren't far behind)?  It's so easy to see!



Because its easy for you to make things up.



> The average Mormon can't stop working overtime trying to "earn" brownie points that will convince God that he/she is good-enough.  This creates a perpetual treadmill of works upon works, upon works.  Mormons never know for sure, just like J.W.'s where they really stand before their god.  The works must go on and on, in order to "be".  Their whole identity is wrapped up in their works, not their position as judged by God.



Your assumptions are completely wrong. it's easy to know our positions before God. It's done through the Spirit.



> The biblical Christian is positionally righteous, when he or she sins or doesn't sin.  Ok, some will say, that means Christians can do all kinds of bad things and their safe.  Absolutely not!  A true born again Christian who has the indwelling Holy Spirit, will not desire to sin, but will still have fleshly fights with the temptations.  The important part, is the "desire", that the H.S. has placed in the Christian.  It's that desire to be free from sin and it's temptations that distinguish the Christian from the natural or unsaved human.



As if this is something foreign from mormonism. It really would be nice if you read the Book of Mormon.





> Christians can fall into carnality, yet God will not let it go for long before consequences will befall them and they will either walk away from that carnal life, and start living by faith in God, or they will literally perish physically.
> ******



That's basically the same way for just about everyone who ever lived.



> Yep, this is another 8-ball novel, as Truthspeaker would call it.



I doubt anyone knows what that means.



> Remember that cults need to "control" their members, and Truthspeaker knows what that means, cause I'm sure he's in an office in the church where he must oversee some Mormons that aren't as far along as he.



Can you be any more condescending? Look, I know you dont believe it, but please stop being so ridiculous.



> I can't begin to count the stories of folks who left the LDS/Mormon church, and all the pressure that was put upon them by the church in ways that were outright mean.



Problem is most of those so called stories are about as real as Clinton promoting abstinence.



> Truthspeaker knows that novice or young Mormons are not encouraged to read the bible independently, without asking their elders to answer questions that come up.  How convenient.  The "sheep" ask a question of the "wolf".
> *****



What on earth are you talkng about? All mormons are encouraged to read the Bible in depth on their own. We are encouraged to read all scriptures in depth on our own. We read it to our children. Teenagers get up early every morning study the Bible before school. Your being completely ridiculous and sounding like a conspiracy nut.



> And Truthspeaker, don't hit me with that "You hate Mormons" stuff, cause that's just the dieing breath of a person without a life-jacket.
> 
> The love of Christ fills every true Christian.  I wouldn't waste a bunch of time writing this "novels" if I didn't have a burden for the souls of Mormons.



If you love us so much, why dont you actually study what we believe? Read the Book of Mormon for yourself and try to learn the doctrine. Then you will know what you are talking about.



> Just as Christ came down hard on the teachers of the day, called Pharisee's, I come down extra hard on those who caste a web of lies over myriads of novice Mormons, who think they've found eternal life in this false church.



Christ understood what the Pharisees taught. You, as you repeatedly demonstrate, haven't a clue.


----------



## TofuDog

Here's a serious question: avatar and truthspeaker, what made you seriously consider believing that your god is really an alien from another planet? You find his spaceship or something?


----------



## Truthspeaker

TofuDog said:


> Here's a serious question: avatar and truthspeaker, what made you seriously consider believing that your god is really an alien from another planet? You find his spaceship or something?



Yeah totally, in fact, I was actually abducted by aliens and taken deep into the heart of Saturn. From there I was permitted to breathe the poisonous gasses without dying. It got me such a high that I was able to swim through space and land on each of Saturn's moons and set up a trading post for visiting klingons, borg's, vulcans and calerians. All the secrets of the universe were revealed to me by a giant intergalactic centipede who spoke to me through my communicater and translated it into english. 
I was then teleported to meet the great big alien of which you speak. but if I told you all I heard, I'd have to kill you. because the mere mention of it would spawn a virus in you that(if spread) would turn all of the rest of you earthlings into zombies, like the ones from I am Legend. 
By the way, will smith is the alien I was forced to worship him in this manner along with the other aliens there.

Seriously, that's my answer to your serious question.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Also, Avatar, you gotta teach me how to do that breakdown of quotes from a post one at a time. I don't understand how you separate those quotes like that. send me a message on how to do it please.


----------



## TofuDog

Truthspeaker said:


> TofuDog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a serious question: avatar and truthspeaker, what made you seriously consider believing that your god is really an alien from another planet? You find his spaceship or something?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah totally, in fact, I was actually abducted by aliens and taken deep into the heart of Saturn. From there I was permitted to breathe the poisonous gasses without dying. It got me such a high that I was able to swim through space and land on each of Saturn's moons and set up a trading post for visiting klingons, borg's, vulcans and calerians. All the secrets of the universe were revealed to me by a giant intergalactic centipede who spoke to me through my communicater and translated it into english.
> I was then teleported to meet the great big alien of which you speak. but if I told you all I heard, I'd have to kill you. because the mere mention of it would spawn a virus in you that(if spread) would turn all of the rest of you earthlings into zombies, like the ones from I am Legend.
> By the way, will smith is the alien I was forced to worship him in this manner along with the other aliens there.
> 
> Seriously, that's my answer to your serious question.
Click to expand...


That sounds about right.


----------



## Truthspeaker

So you are satisfied then?


----------



## Eightball

*When Talking to a Mormon *

Remember that the Mormon is trained to hide the difference between his beliefs and yours and to present himself as a Christian. However, his belief that he is a Christian is sincere, and his efforts to hide the distinctives of the Mormon religion are pursued in his desire to get you to accept Mormon teachings.

Do not allow glib, surface responses to go unchallenged; press the Mormon to define the Christian-sounding words he is using.

Define your own terms also. Draw the contrast for the Mormon. Calmly and clearly insist that what you and he believe about the nature of God, the identity of Jesus, the nature of man, salvation and eternal life are different. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

Appeal to his honesty and sense of fairness. You might say, "Look, we are not going to get anywhere unless we are honest with each other. Without making any statement about which one of us is right, can't we just acknowledge that we do not worship the same God?" or "Can't we just acknowledge that we do not have the same hope for the future?" Help the Mormon to consider the logical and philosophical problems with the Plan of Eternal Progression. 

If God had a Father and He had a Father and so on  then who was the first God? Mormons say it is an "infinite regression". But since there is no way to cross an infinite distance or pass an infinite amount of time, there would be no way to get to "now" and to "us" from an infinite past. Time has to have had a beginning and it did. It began with the creation "of all things seen and unseen" by God. Mormons say that God is omnipotent (almighty, all-powerful), yet they say there are many Gods. There cannot be more than one omnipotent being, so the Mormon conception of God is shrunken and distorted.

A big selling point of the Mormon hope for the future is the idea that families will be together eternally. But if Mormons become Gods of planets and then their children become Gods of other planets  how do the children and parents get together? Can a God leave his planet unattended while he goes to a celestial family reunion? This Mormon selling point would be diminished if we Christians were more vocal about our hope for the "new heavens and new earth" in which we know one another in the all the relationships of our present lives, only in glory (2 Pet. 3.13, Rev. 21.1).

Welcome the participation of Mormons in causes which we share for the common good: strengthening family life, fighting pornography and abortion, fostering the virtue of patriotism. We honor each Mormon as a person who desires what is genuinely good for himself, his family and his society  and when we share the truths of the Christian faith with him.


----------



## TofuDog

Truthspeaker said:


> So you are satisfied then?



Yes, you've TOTALLY convinced me that mormons are a bunch of retards.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> *When Talking to a Mormon *
> 
> Remember that the Mormon is trained to hide the difference between his beliefs and yours and to present himself as a Christian. However, his belief that he is a Christian is sincere, and his efforts to hide the distinctives of the Mormon religion are pursued in his desire to get you to accept Mormon teachings.
> 
> Do not allow glib, surface responses to go unchallenged; press the Mormon to define the Christian-sounding words he is using.
> 
> Define your own terms also. Draw the contrast for the Mormon. Calmly and clearly insist that what you and he believe about the nature of God, the identity of Jesus, the nature of man, salvation and eternal life are different. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
> 
> Appeal to his honesty and sense of fairness. You might say, "Look, we are not going to get anywhere unless we are honest with each other. Without making any statement about which one of us is right, can't we just acknowledge that we do not worship the same God?" or "Can't we just acknowledge that we do not have the same hope for the future?" Help the Mormon to consider the logical and philosophical problems with the Plan of Eternal Progression.
> 
> If God had a Father and He had a Father and so on  then who was the first God? Mormons say it is an "infinite regression". But since there is no way to cross an infinite distance or pass an infinite amount of time, there would be no way to get to "now" and to "us" from an infinite past. Time has to have had a beginning and it did. It began with the creation "of all things seen and unseen" by God. Mormons say that God is omnipotent (almighty, all-powerful), yet they say there are many Gods. There cannot be more than one omnipotent being, so the Mormon conception of God is shrunken and distorted.
> 
> A big selling point of the Mormon hope for the future is the idea that families will be together eternally. But if Mormons become Gods of planets and then their children become Gods of other planets  how do the children and parents get together? Can a God leave his planet unattended while he goes to a celestial family reunion? This Mormon selling point would be diminished if we Christians were more vocal about our hope for the "new heavens and new earth" in which we know one another in the all the relationships of our present lives, only in glory (2 Pet. 3.13, Rev. 21.1).
> 
> Welcome the participation of Mormons in causes which we share for the common good: strengthening family life, fighting pornography and abortion, fostering the virtue of patriotism. We honor each Mormon as a person who desires what is genuinely good for himself, his family and his society  and when we share the truths of the Christian faith with him.



After that copy and paste job, I have never felt more like a patient in my life. Ha! The original poster says "selling point" probably because we all pay tithing. It's as biblical a concept as any, so if a pretended biblical scholar insists we are selling something he ought to get his facts straight. People attach themselves to our church because they find our teachings believable and fills them with hope for the future. The reason they are so believable is because those who honestly investigate our church without an agenda and already have a firm belief in God and Jesus Christ come to know their maker in a way they never realized possible. Their testimonies of Christ become expanded and they can't get enough.

We also hope for the day when the earth and heavens will be made new. This very earth will become habitable again and be renewed to a celestial body where we can all dwell again. Another one of the many that are already in existence. Even if we are taught by our Father in Heaven and Jesus to become their equals one day(as all good parents want this for their children) supervision of planets will not be a concern. Freedom to go and visit with our families in the eternal worlds is a glorious doctrine. Even if someone else doesn't believe it, they have to admit that it is a heartwarming concept. Such feelings can come from 1 of only 2 sources. God or the Devil. It's up to us to judge for ourselves. that is our decision and right to believe such a thing.

If you are really on a crusade to save us mormons from the fiery pits of hell, then why don't you take the steps to relate with us? Read the doctrines yourself from cover to cover and not splashes of it here and there taken out of all kinds of contexts.


----------



## TofuDog

Ya 8ball, get your facts straight about mormonism. First there's the aliens, then they have super beings who take an alien, convert him to god and give him earth to rule over.
BOOOOUUUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!


----------



## spymaster

I apologize if you've already answered this question (I didn't have time to read all 97 pages) but my best friend is Mormon and I'm trying to understand where she comes from on some of her issues.  Do Mormon's believe that God and Lucifer are brothers?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> *When Talking to a Mormon *
> 
> Remember that the Mormon is trained to hide the difference between his beliefs and yours and to present himself as a Christian. However, his belief that he is a Christian is sincere, and his efforts to hide the distinctives of the Mormon religion are pursued in his desire to get you to accept Mormon teachings.



This is exactly what I've been talking about. You are completely ignoring what we are saying. You arent even trying to dialogue. you are talking to some unknown person and hoping they will simply take your word for it without looking it.

And complain and moan all you want, we are Christians. We aren't the protestant/evangelical Christian you are, and quite frankly we are proud of that. I seriously dont understand how you can possibly evne try to claim that we try to hide our differences when we are out there openly trying to convince people that the Book of Mormon is true and that God continues to reveal His will. Its like you are ignoring anything that doesnt agree with your own view of us.



> Do not allow glib, surface responses to go unchallenged; press the Mormon to define the Christian-sounding words he is using.



What the heck is a Christian-sounding word?



> Define your own terms also. Draw the contrast for the Mormon. Calmly and clearly insist that what you and he believe about the nature of God, the identity of Jesus, the nature of man, salvation and eternal life are different. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.



And that's the problem, you define your own terms and then wonder why no one agrees.




> Appeal to his honesty and sense of fairness. You might say, "Look, we are not going to get anywhere unless we are honest with each other. Without making any statement about which one of us is right, can't we just acknowledge that we do not worship the same God?" or "Can't we just acknowledge that we do not have the same hope for the future?" Help the Mormon to consider the logical and philosophical problems with the Plan of Eternal Progression.



Because, of course, all mormons are necessarily lying. Great way to have a dialogue, call the other person a liar and refuse to interact. Real mature and honest.

As for your ridiculous questions, I dont know what God you worship, I don't know what hope you have. But I can promise you that I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And have hope through the Atonement of Jesus Christ who the Prophets and Apostles testify. If you worship another, that's your right. But Id appreciate it if you don't try to tell me who I worship. I am the supreme authority on who I worship.



> If God had a Father and He had a Father and so on  then who was the first God? Mormons say it is an "infinite regression". But since there is no way to cross an infinite distance or pass an infinite amount of time, there would be no way to get to "now" and to "us" from an infinite past. Time has to have had a beginning and it did. It began with the creation "of all things seen and unseen" by God. Mormons say that God is omnipotent (almighty, all-powerful), yet they say there are many Gods. There cannot be more than one omnipotent being, so the Mormon conception of God is shrunken and distorted.



If it has a beginning, it has an end. The Apostles taught that Eye has not seen nor ear heard what God has for those who love Him. 

Life did not begin with birth, and will not end with this. I know this through revelation. You're conclusions are not based on any scriptures. They are based on your understanding of the scriptures. Which is fine, you have the right to believe whatever you want. But please dont pretend that your reasoning can hold up with Divine revelation. Nor that just because you interpret something one way, that there arent other equally valid interpretations.

The scriptures are clear that those who recieve the word are gods. That we become joint-heirs with Jesus Christ and recieve everything the Father has. You can deny this all you want, but it's in the Bible you claim to believe.




> A big selling point of the Mormon hope for the future is the idea that families will be together eternally. But if Mormons become Gods of planets and then their children become Gods of other planets  how do the children and parents get together? Can a God leave his planet unattended while he goes to a celestial family reunion? This Mormon selling point would be diminished if we Christians were more vocal about our hope for the "new heavens and new earth" in which we know one another in the all the relationships of our present lives, only in glory (2 Pet. 3.13, Rev. 21.1).



Families can be together Eternally. Simply because you are unable to concieve of it, doesnt mean it can't happen. What God has joined together, let no man split asunder. When God joins people, its not till death do you part, but forever. 

And while it doesnt really matter what you say you believe in, let's be honest. Those scriptures dont support a single thing you said.



> Welcome the participation of Mormons in causes which we share for the common good: strengthening family life, fighting pornography and abortion, fostering the virtue of patriotism. We honor each Mormon as a person who desires what is genuinely good for himself, his family and his society  and when we share the truths of the Christian faith with him.



Thank you once again for the condescension.


----------



## Avatar4321

spymaster said:


> I apologize if you've already answered this question (I didn't have time to read all 97 pages) but my best friend is Mormon and I'm trying to understand where she comes from on some of her issues.  Do Mormon's believe that God and Lucifer are brothers?



No


----------



## morpheus

My 2 cents:

Mormons are often times not considered Christians because Mormon theology and teaching has departed significantly from Christian scripture. There's a recognized level of denominational differences, and then there's the perception of an entirely new religion.  The relationship that LDS has to Christianity can be compared to the relationship between Christianity and Judaism: a parent religion and a descendant religion, as opposed to LDS being a mere sect of the same religion as Protestantism and Catholicism.  A key factor is recognition from other Christian bodies, which the LDS Church does _not_ have.  For example, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical Lutheran, Anglican/Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other mainstream Christian churches all recognize each other as Christian sects despite sectarian differences, and recognize each other's baptisms as legitimate Christian baptisms.  Of course, this is also the product of the 20th century Ecumenical movement (Christian reconciliation), but Mormons have departed too much from Christian scripture (Old and New Testament) to gain recognition, while all the other sects have the same scriptures with very minor version differences.  It's from _this_ perspective that the LDS Church is not considered a Christian sect, but a separate religion.  But, if by "Christian" we're talking about followers/worshippers of Jesus Christ, then it can be argued that Mormons are indeed Christians.


----------



## JW Frogen

Mormans must have true faith in God, afterall who would endure the lamentations of more than one wife?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> spymaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize if you've already answered this question (I didn't have time to read all 97 pages) but my best friend is Mormon and I'm trying to understand where she comes from on some of her issues.  Do Mormon's believe that God and Lucifer are brothers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
Click to expand...


The true answer is a resounding "YES", not "No".

Either you aren't aware of the teaching/doctrines of your own religion or you aren't willing to admit that Lucifer and Jesus are taught to be brothers before Jesus' incarnation.  Lucifer became bad, as he was jealous of Jesus being picked to be the savior and not him.



> *Joseph Fielding Smith Jr.,the LDS prophet, wrote in his work, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, Pg.218 -Pg.219 *
> 
> "We learn from the scriptures that Lucifer -- once a son of the morning, who exercised authority in the presence of God before the foundations of this earth were laid -- rebelled against the plan of salvation and against Jesus Christ who was chosen to be the Savior of the world and who is spoken of as the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.'"
> 
> *In the Discourses of Brigham Young, on Pg.53-54 *he lets it be known that Lucifer is the second son, the one known as "Son of the Morning."
> 
> "Who will redeem the earth, who will go forth and make the sacrifice for the earth and all things it contains?" The Eldest Son said: "Here am I"; and then he added, "Send me." But the second one, which was "Lucifer, Son of the Morning," said, "Lord, here am I, send me, I will redeem every son and daughter of Adam and Eve that lives on the earth, or that ever goes on the earth."


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> The true answer is a resounding "YES", not "No".
> 
> Either you aren't aware of the teaching/doctrines of your own religion or you aren't willing to admit that Lucifer and Jesus are taught to be brothers before Jesus' incarnation.  Lucifer became bad, as he was jealous of Jesus being picked to be the savior and not him.



My answer was correct. We were talking about God the Father. The devil is not the Father's brother. The quotes you cited prove that.

However, I cant help but notice you've finally admitted that we don't deny the Divinity of Christ. It's a nice change for once to see you not trying to lie about that.


----------



## Truthspeaker

morpheus said:


> My 2 cents:
> 
> Mormons are often times not considered Christians because Mormon theology and teaching has departed significantly from Christian scripture. There's a recognized level of denominational differences, and then there's the perception of an entirely new religion.  The relationship that LDS has to Christianity can be compared to the relationship between Christianity and Judaism: a parent religion and a descendant religion, as opposed to LDS being a mere sect of the same religion as Protestantism and Catholicism.  A key factor is recognition from other Christian bodies, which the LDS Church does _not_ have.  For example, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical Lutheran, Anglican/Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other mainstream Christian churches all recognize each other as Christian sects despite sectarian differences, and recognize each other's baptisms as legitimate Christian baptisms.  Of course, this is also the product of the 20th century Ecumenical movement (Christian reconciliation), but Mormons have departed too much from Christian scripture (Old and New Testament) to gain recognition, while all the other sects have the same scriptures with very minor version differences.  It's from _this_ perspective that the LDS Church is not considered a Christian sect, but a separate religion.  But, if by "Christian" we're talking about followers/worshippers of Jesus Christ, then it can be argued that Mormons are indeed Christians.



Sometimes I just don't get why people don't consider us "Christians". If, in order to be a Christian you must accept the creeds of Roman Catholicism and it's offshoots, then judging by those standards we are not "Christian". 
The dictionary describes Christian the best.

 Christian: a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and claimed by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.

Although one could argue that we are not monotheistic because we believe that the Godhead is made of three Gods who are separate individuals. But our doctrines are truly centered on Christ and his ability to save us.

Also to say that we have strayed from the Bible is pretty laughable. We quote the Bible every sunday and almost all of our doctrines have biblical roots and scriptures to back them up. Some may say we have strayed from the Bible, but that is only their opinion. We claim to adhere to it, as far as it is translated correctly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It's easy to confuse the name "God" because sometimes people don't know if Jesus or his father is being referred to. Lucifer was a brother who fell out of grace for fighting against the plan of God and Jesus. We are all brothers with Christ and Lucifer in the same sense. So what is the big deal? Just because you have bad relatives doesn't mean anything about you personally. People really need to get over themselves.


----------



## We Are They

Hey Truthspeaker, do you guys REALLY believe that your god is an alien from another planet? Or you just pulling our legs?


----------



## morpheus

Truthspeaker said:


> The dictionary describes Christian the best.
> 
> Christian: a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and claimed by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.
> 
> Although one could argue that we are not monotheistic because we believe that the Godhead is made of three Gods who are separate individuals. But our doctrines are truly centered on Christ and his ability to save us.
> 
> Also to say that we have strayed from the Bible is pretty laughable. We quote the Bible every sunday and almost all of our doctrines have biblical roots and scriptures to back them up. Some may say we have strayed from the Bible, but that is only their opinion. We claim to adhere to it, as far as it is translated correctly.



Well, the main point of contention is that the LDS denominations do _not_ rely entirely on the Bible (Old and New Testaments).  Rather, they hold the Bible as a mistranslation to be taken with a grain of salt, and to be understood only in conjunction with supplemental scriptures: the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.  This would sort of be like Christians and Muslims calling themselves "Jewish", because they share the Torah (or Old Testament), despite the fact that Jews do _not_ adhere to the New Testament or Koran.  Islam and Christianity have a significant theological narrative that continues where the Torah left off, and likewise, the LDS churches have a very significant narrative that continues were the New Testament leaves off.  So while LDS shares some scriptures with Christianity, LDS also has major supplemental scriptures not shared with other Christian denominations -or maistream Christianity- and a narrative that departs significantly from the Christian one: like, for example, the Mormon belief that the Amerindians are descendants of ancient Hebrews that crossed the Atlantic, and Joseph Smith Jr being one of the most significant prophets like Moses.  So from _this_ perspective, LDS can be regarded as a separate religion from Christianity.


----------



## Avatar4321

morpheus said:


> Well, the main point of contention is that the LDS denominations do _not_ rely entirely on the Bible (Old and New Testaments).



That's accurate. We rely entirely on Christ and His Holy Spirit. Not our own private interpretations of a book of scriptures that does not require anyone to rely entirely on it.




> Rather, they hold the Bible as a mistranslation to be taken with a grain of salt, and to be understood only in conjunction with supplemental scriptures: the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.



Completely false. We believe the Bible to be the Word of God on equal value as every other revelation God has revealed. We simply do not pretend we can tell God that He cant say anything else or reveal anything else.



> This would sort of be like Christians and Muslims calling themselves "Jewish", because they share the Torah (or Old Testament), despite the fact that Jews do _not_ adhere to the New Testament or Koran.



Hardly. There are accepted definitions for all of the above. A Christian can be Jewish. A Muslim can be Jewish. 

A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ. By definition all Mormons would qualify as Christians because we believe in and follow the Lord Jesus Christ who is our Savior.

Now if you want to try to narrowly restrict the definition, that's your perogative. but you dont get to change definitions for everyone else simply because you want to exclude someone.




> Islam and Christianity have a significant theological narrative that continues where the Torah left off, and likewise, the LDS churches have a very significant narrative that continues were the New Testament leaves off.  So while LDS shares some scriptures with Christianity, LDS also has major supplemental scriptures not shared with other Christian denominations -or maistream Christianity- and a narrative that departs significantly from the Christian one:



Is it really our fault that most of Christianity ignores the clear and unmistakeable doctrine of continued revelation found in the Bible? Are you seriously suggesting that our faith in Jesus Christ is somehow invalid because we choose to believe He continues to speak with man?



> like, for example, the Mormon belief that the Amerindians are descendants of ancient Hebrews that crossed the Atlantic, and Joseph Smith Jr being one of the most significant prophets like Moses.  So from _this_ perspective, LDS can be regarded as a separate religion from Christianity.



From that perspective, you are completely ignoring the definition of what a Christian is for your own exclusionary purposes. There is nothing in the definition that suggests you have to accept the Bible alone in order to be a Christian. In fact, if we accepted such an absurd assumption then there would have been no Christians before the 16th century. We must decisively exclude the writings of Peter, Paul, John etc, as non Christians because they had the audacity to accept revelation from the Holy Spirit and claim to follow Christ.

Quite frankly, Im not prepared to throw the Apostles under the bus to give Protestant Christianity exclusive power to determine who is Christian or not.


----------



## Eightball

> That's accurate. We rely entirely on Christ and His Holy Spirit. Not our own private interpretations of a book of scriptures that does not require anyone to rely entirely on it.



That's where you violate biblical scripture.

Romans 10:17  "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

By claiming you rely on Christ, and the H.S. solely, you are opening yourself to being deluded, mislead, etc., by the enemy of all Christians, namely Lucifer/Satan, and or his demonic host.

How can you Avatar, or Truthspeaker(Such a presumptuous, and prideful user name, by the way, for an alleged Christian; totally lacking in humility, or humbleness, as patterned by our Savior and His disciples and truly H.S. filled followers.) know for sure that your personal revelations are from God, without going to the scriptures as the Bereans did when Paul or anyone came to them to speak, to verify that a received message is of God?

You can't! You,  Avatar just revoked or contradicted yourself.  You condemn man's personal interpretation, then claim that Christ directly communicates to you by present day revelation, without the need of written revelations passed down through thousands of years.
Your claim of accepting personal revelation directly from Christ/H.S. is open to interpretation, and question as well.  You can't get around that.  That is why, Paul said, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.".


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> How can you Avatar, or Truthspeaker(Such a presumptuous, and prideful user name, by the way, for an alleged Christian; totally lacking in humility, or humbleness, as patterned by our Savior and His disciples and truly H.S. filled followers.) know for sure that your personal revelations are from God, without going to the scriptures as the Bereans did when Paul or anyone came to them to speak, to verify that a received message is of God?



There was more to the post, but I think this pretty much sums up your problem. You've never had an exprience with the Holy Spirit. You've never learned anything from God. Because if you had experienced the power of God, if you had heard the Spirit of the Lord, you wouldnt have to ask how you know it's from God. You would be immediately humbled and acknowledge the Glory, power, and love of God that comes with the whispers of the Spirit. They are undeniable.

I know that my revelations are from God the same way Moses did. Experience. Who am I to deny God when He has been so clear? I've seen the darkness and confusion that comes from the Adversary as well. 

It's from the Spirit I learned that Jesus is the Christ. I learned the Bible and Book of Mormon were true because of that same Spirit. I learned that Joseph Smith was a Prophets because of the Holy Spirit. You can only learn things of the Spirit from the Spirit.

And that's why you don't know. You are trying to reason it out. At least you have enough faith to accept the Lord even when you don't know, but there is more to the Lord then what we can reason from the scriptures. Youll learn more in 5 mins with the Spirit then by reading the Bible hundreds of times without even if you do figure out some of the basic principles correctly.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you Avatar, or Truthspeaker(Such a presumptuous, and prideful user name, by the way, for an alleged Christian; totally lacking in humility, or humbleness, as patterned by our Savior and His disciples and truly H.S. filled followers.) know for sure that your personal revelations are from God, without going to the scriptures as the Bereans did when Paul or anyone came to them to speak, to verify that a received message is of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was more to the post, but I think this pretty much sums up your problem. You've never had an exprience with the Holy Spirit. You've never learned anything from God. Because if you had experienced the power of God, if you had heard the Spirit of the Lord, you wouldnt have to ask how you know it's from God. You would be immediately humbled and acknowledge the Glory, power, and love of God that comes with the whispers of the Spirit. They are undeniable.
> 
> I know that my revelations are from God the same way Moses did. Experience. Who am I to deny God when He has been so clear? I've seen the darkness and confusion that comes from the Adversary as well.
> 
> It's from the Spirit I learned that Jesus is the Christ. I learned the Bible and Book of Mormon were true because of that same Spirit. I learned that Joseph Smith was a Prophets because of the Holy Spirit. You can only learn things of the Spirit from the Spirit.
> 
> And that's why you don't know. You are trying to reason it out. At least you have enough faith to accept the Lord even when you don't know, but there is more to the Lord then what we can reason from the scriptures. Youll learn more in 5 mins with the Spirit then by reading the Bible hundreds of times without even if you do figure out some of the basic principles correctly.
Click to expand...


You've walked over the precipice with your Moses parallel.  The bible says that no man has ever lived with greater faith or close relationship to God than Moses.  Note: I said man-only; as Jesus is man and God, and not a mere man.

Secondly, your statement that you've had/have a relationship with the H.S., and I have not.  That is the presumptuous attitude of Mormons.  Your fellow members, hang onto the experiential, without worrying one "iota" if it is from God.  Obviously, the enemy of God, isn't stupid, nor does he make himself obvious to those in whom he deludes.

If and when, if possible, you ever come to the point of questioning your visions, revelations, dreams, burning bosoms, with total objectivity, which God wants us to exercise at all times, you may, just may be able to see the forest for the trees.

The whole foundations of the LDS church is built upon subjective, experiential personal knowledge/encounters, and the acceptance of a most dubious piece of writing, called the BOM.  Also the Journal Of Discourses, and Pearl of Great Price, and other writing of both J.S. Jr., and B.Y., make Scientology seem credible.

Your church meets the complete criteria of a "cult", as it's adherents, don't live by objective truth, but seek the subjective, as dictated by your doctrine.

You just don't understand that the H.S. works quietly, subtely, but with power, in the souls of the "saved", not commonly via visions, dreams, etc., but by urgings within the soul that counter the power of sin that is constantly at work against the true Christian's new nature in Christ.

You get your confirmation from the "feeler"/emotions part of your human makeup, but that is a most unreliable gauge of truth.

If you could just take that leap of faith, and resoundingly leap that canyon of basing your belief system on what pops up in your mind, dreams, and "loud" urgings, and really, I mean really let the bible speak to you, rather than let the bible confirm your hoped-for agenda, you would know what I mean.

The scriptures for thousands of years have been used to promote false belief systems, when it is "used" out of context.  The Mormon church has gone one further and minimized the bible's contents, as it pertains to their 1830's era doctrine.

The J.W.'s have used another tact.  With their NWT bible they have actually changed key words to minimize/destroy Christ's divinity, and present Him as a mere created being; Archangel Michael.  The Mormon church has also followed similar suit, but making up the notion that Christ was once a mere man, and then become "exalted", yet Jesus told the crowd that was about to stone Him that He was the "I AM"(Alpha to Omega; Begining and Last); forever existent!

I understand your spirited defense of your church.  It is the whole foundation of your being, but true freedom for you and Truthspeaker will be, hopefully when you are able to surmount that deep denial within your soul, that has been programmed into you by your church.  God's Word is like food, but it is food for the soul.  When the true Christian reads the bible, the H.S. within, agrees with the scripture, as it is agreeing with Itself, namely God is agreeing with "God Breathed" words, that God-inspired men recorded through the centuries.

You know for a fact that the bible does not speak to you, nor feed you, but you need all the "extra" stuff that you church provides, beside your constant personal revelations direct from God, aside from written scripture.  

You walk on very dangerous ground, as again you fullfill the very tenents of cultic belief, but relying on the "subjective" to validate the "objective" part of your being.

God gave us the capacity to "feel" and or have "emotions" to enhance our human experience in the world, and life, but He never wanted us to rely on that part of our humanity to substantiate truth, and falsehood.

Just as our U.S. Constitution is the guide that our Justices are supposed to follow when making decisions, the bible is the ultimate constitution for the Christian.

In a sense the Mormon church is following a similar path to those that were or are called "reconstructionists" or believe that the U.S. Constitution is a code word, "Living, Breathing, Document".  I.E. the liberals believe that the U.S. Constitution can be redefined to validate their "subjective" based bent on life, culturally, socially in this country.  Yet, Justices like Clarence Thomas, abhor that, and see the Constitution as a document that says what it says, clearly, and is not in need of "redefinition".

The LDS church basically is taking the bible, and thousands of years of God's might work in this world, and upon mankind, and "redefining" it to the pleasure of their founder's beliefs.

When God says, that there will be "no other" Gods before Me, that is clearly defined, yet the LDS church says that there was, and still will be many more gods, like Christ, and God the Father.  It is a mere act of mankind to reach godhood by obedience to the god before him, so that he/man may perpetuate another godhood.

When one is so caught-up in a cult, they can't see the forest for the trees.  That is a fact.  Some cults are blatantly strange on the outside, and others hide their strange concocted beliefs with a sugar-coated exterior that seems like the norm.  

Even in my own Christian life; years ago, I had to face the fact that I was relying too much on experiential life/feelings to "gauge" my faith or relationship with God.  I finally had to face the fact that I was going to live the life existence that needed constant "feeding" of subjective input, in order to substantiate my faith.  I was totally going against scripture, and was prepping myself for a really "downer" as a Christian.  It was a tough step, but I had to realize that the Christian life was a daily step-by-step process of faith in God's provisions, clearly revealed in the bible.

Yes, I've had my times where I knew that God gave me an urging or a type of communique, because I made sure that it didn't go against His Holy Word, the bible/scriptures.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you Avatar, or Truthspeaker(Such a presumptuous, and prideful user name, by the way, for an alleged Christian; totally lacking in humility, or humbleness, as patterned by our Savior and His disciples and truly H.S. filled followers.) know for sure that your personal revelations are from God, without going to the scriptures as the Bereans did when Paul or anyone came to them to speak, to verify that a received message is of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was more to the post, but I think this pretty much sums up your problem. You've never had an exprience with the Holy Spirit. You've never learned anything from God. Because if you had experienced the power of God, if you had heard the Spirit of the Lord, you wouldnt have to ask how you know it's from God. You would be immediately humbled and acknowledge the Glory, power, and love of God that comes with the whispers of the Spirit. They are undeniable.
> 
> I know that my revelations are from God the same way Moses did. Experience. Who am I to deny God when He has been so clear? I've seen the darkness and confusion that comes from the Adversary as well.
> 
> It's from the Spirit I learned that Jesus is the Christ. I learned the Bible and Book of Mormon were true because of that same Spirit. I learned that Joseph Smith was a Prophets because of the Holy Spirit. You can only learn things of the Spirit from the Spirit.
> 
> And that's why you don't know. You are trying to reason it out. At least you have enough faith to accept the Lord even when you don't know, but there is more to the Lord then what we can reason from the scriptures. Youll learn more in 5 mins with the Spirit then by reading the Bible hundreds of times without even if you do figure out some of the basic principles correctly.
Click to expand...


*You've never had an exprience with the Holy Spirit. You've never learned anything from God. Because if you had experienced the power of God, if you had heard the Spirit of the Lord, you wouldnt have to ask how you know it's from God. You would be immediately humbled and acknowledge the Glory, power, and love of God that comes with the whispers of the Spirit. They are undeniable.
*

The good news is that you are not any crazier than Ted Bundy or the Son of Sam.


----------



## Truthspeaker

We Are They said:


> Hey Truthspeaker, do you guys REALLY believe that your god is an alien from another planet? Or you just pulling our legs?



No


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you Avatar, or Truthspeaker(Such a presumptuous, and prideful user name, by the way, for an alleged Christian; totally lacking in humility, or humbleness, as patterned by our Savior and His disciples and truly H.S. filled followers.) know for sure that your personal revelations are from God, without going to the scriptures as the Bereans did when Paul or anyone came to them to speak, to verify that a received message is of God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was more to the post, but I think this pretty much sums up your problem. You've never had an exprience with the Holy Spirit. You've never learned anything from God. Because if you had experienced the power of God, if you had heard the Spirit of the Lord, you wouldnt have to ask how you know it's from God. You would be immediately humbled and acknowledge the Glory, power, and love of God that comes with the whispers of the Spirit. They are undeniable.
> 
> I know that my revelations are from God the same way Moses did. Experience. Who am I to deny God when He has been so clear? I've seen the darkness and confusion that comes from the Adversary as well.
> 
> It's from the Spirit I learned that Jesus is the Christ. I learned the Bible and Book of Mormon were true because of that same Spirit. I learned that Joseph Smith was a Prophets because of the Holy Spirit. You can only learn things of the Spirit from the Spirit.
> 
> And that's why you don't know. You are trying to reason it out. At least you have enough faith to accept the Lord even when you don't know, but there is more to the Lord then what we can reason from the scriptures. Youll learn more in 5 mins with the Spirit then by reading the Bible hundreds of times without even if you do figure out some of the basic principles correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've walked over the precipice with your Moses parallel.  The bible says that no man has ever lived with greater faith or close relationship to God than Moses.  Note: I said man-only; as Jesus is man and God, and not a mere man.
> 
> Secondly, your statement that you've had/have a relationship with the H.S., and I have not.  That is the presumptuous attitude of Mormons.  Your fellow members, hang onto the experiential, without worrying one "iota" if it is from God.  Obviously, the enemy of God, isn't stupid, nor does he make himself obvious to those in whom he deludes.
> 
> If and when, if possible, you ever come to the point of questioning your visions, revelations, dreams, burning bosoms, with total objectivity, which God wants us to exercise at all times, you may, just may be able to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> The whole foundations of the LDS church is built upon subjective, experiential personal knowledge/encounters, and the acceptance of a most dubious piece of writing, called the BOM.  Also the Journal Of Discourses, and Pearl of Great Price, and other writing of both J.S. Jr., and B.Y., make Scientology seem credible.
> 
> Your church meets the complete criteria of a "cult", as it's adherents, don't live by objective truth, but seek the subjective, as dictated by your doctrine.
> 
> You just don't understand that the H.S. works quietly, subtely, but with power, in the souls of the "saved", not commonly via visions, dreams, etc., but by urgings within the soul that counter the power of sin that is constantly at work against the true Christian's new nature in Christ.
> 
> You get your confirmation from the "feeler"/emotions part of your human makeup, but that is a most unreliable gauge of truth.
> 
> If you could just take that leap of faith, and resoundingly leap that canyon of basing your belief system on what pops up in your mind, dreams, and "loud" urgings, and really, I mean really let the bible speak to you, rather than let the bible confirm your hoped-for agenda, you would know what I mean.
> 
> The scriptures for thousands of years have been used to promote false belief systems, when it is "used" out of context.  The Mormon church has gone one further and minimized the bible's contents, as it pertains to their 1830's era doctrine.
> 
> The J.W.'s have used another tact.  With their NWT bible they have actually changed key words to minimize/destroy Christ's divinity, and present Him as a mere created being; Archangel Michael.  The Mormon church has also followed similar suit, but making up the notion that Christ was once a mere man, and then become "exalted", yet Jesus told the crowd that was about to stone Him that He was the "I AM"(Alpha to Omega; Begining and Last); forever existent!
> 
> I understand your spirited defense of your church.  It is the whole foundation of your being, but true freedom for you and Truthspeaker will be, hopefully when you are able to surmount that deep denial within your soul, that has been programmed into you by your church.  God's Word is like food, but it is food for the soul.  When the true Christian reads the bible, the H.S. within, agrees with the scripture, as it is agreeing with Itself, namely God is agreeing with "God Breathed" words, that God-inspired men recorded through the centuries.
> 
> You know for a fact that the bible does not speak to you, nor feed you, but you need all the "extra" stuff that you church provides, beside your constant personal revelations direct from God, aside from written scripture.
> 
> You walk on very dangerous ground, as again you fullfill the very tenents of cultic belief, but relying on the "subjective" to validate the "objective" part of your being.
> 
> God gave us the capacity to "feel" and or have "emotions" to enhance our human experience in the world, and life, but He never wanted us to rely on that part of our humanity to substantiate truth, and falsehood.
> 
> Just as our U.S. Constitution is the guide that our Justices are supposed to follow when making decisions, the bible is the ultimate constitution for the Christian.
> 
> In a sense the Mormon church is following a similar path to those that were or are called "reconstructionists" or believe that the U.S. Constitution is a code word, "Living, Breathing, Document".  I.E. the liberals believe that the U.S. Constitution can be redefined to validate their "subjective" based bent on life, culturally, socially in this country.  Yet, Justices like Clarence Thomas, abhor that, and see the Constitution as a document that says what it says, clearly, and is not in need of "redefinition".
> 
> The LDS church basically is taking the bible, and thousands of years of God's might work in this world, and upon mankind, and "redefining" it to the pleasure of their founder's beliefs.
> 
> When God says, that there will be "no other" Gods before Me, that is clearly defined, yet the LDS church says that there was, and still will be many more gods, like Christ, and God the Father.  It is a mere act of mankind to reach godhood by obedience to the god before him, so that he/man may perpetuate another godhood.
> 
> When one is so caught-up in a cult, they can't see the forest for the trees.  That is a fact.  Some cults are blatantly strange on the outside, and others hide their strange concocted beliefs with a sugar-coated exterior that seems like the norm.
> 
> Even in my own Christian life; years ago, I had to face the fact that I was relying too much on experiential life/feelings to "gauge" my faith or relationship with God.  I finally had to face the fact that I was going to live the life existence that needed constant "feeding" of subjective input, in order to substantiate my faith.  I was totally going against scripture, and was prepping myself for a really "downer" as a Christian.  It was a tough step, but I had to realize that the Christian life was a daily step-by-step process of faith in God's provisions, clearly revealed in the bible.
> 
> Yes, I've had my times where I knew that God gave me an urging or a type of communique, because I made sure that it didn't go against His Holy Word, the bible/scriptures.
Click to expand...


Well, once again, I must point out to you that your opinion of us mormons being wrong, fallen, in denial etc. is just your opinion. I am not here to debate my religion being better than yours. If you are crusading to "save" mormons, you have come to the wrong place. Avatar and I have thoroughly dealt with all your assumptions and attacks. Do you have anything new?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> You've walked over the precipice with your Moses parallel.  The bible says that no man has ever lived with greater faith or close relationship to God than Moses.  Note: I said man-only; as Jesus is man and God, and not a mere man.



No it doesnt. Moses himself stated that He wished all men would become prophets like Him and know the Lord as He did. In fact, He spent years preparing the Children of Israel to enter into the Lord's presence and to be Prophets, Priests, and Kings. Yet they were hard in their hearts and refused to learn the lessons and sanctify themselves, so God made them wander in the desert for 40 years for their sins.



> Secondly, your statement that you've had/have a relationship with the H.S., and I have not.  That is the presumptuous attitude of Mormons.  Your fellow members, hang onto the experiential, without worrying one "iota" if it is from God.  Obviously, the enemy of God, isn't stupid, nor does he make himself obvious to those in whom he deludes.



I made no such presumption based on the fact that im Mormon and you are not. I made the presumption from your own words which state that you have no clue how to recognize the Spirit. You dont know what it's like to recieve a revelation. If you did you wouldnt be questioning how to know whether its from God or not. Because when you experience the Holy Spirit and the power associated with Him, it's very obvious to tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and other spirits and/or our own feelings and thoughts.

I know many non-mormons who know and recognize the influence of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Paul spells it out pretty nicely in Galations 5:

 16 





> This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
> 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
> 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
> 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
> 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
> *22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. *  24 And they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
> 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
> 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.



The Holy Spirit is what gives us power to know the things of God. The Holy Spirit is the one that teaches us the truth of all things. When Christ prepared His disciples for His death, He did not tell them He was giving them the Bible to show them all the things they need to do. He told them He was giving them the Spirit to do so.

When Peter and the Apostles waited after the ascension of Christ for instruction, they did not wait for the Bible. They waited for the Holy Spirit. And on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Ghost fell upon them they preached with power and converted thousands in a single day.

The idea that we are somehow to ignore the Holy Spirit and rely solely on what our mind can understand from the Bible is faulty, unbiblical, and contrary to the plan of God in every dispensation we have. The Bible is clear that Israel is to be directed by the Spirit through those called as Aaron was. It was Christ and the Apostles teaching by the Spirit with power and not the scribes and Pharisees teaching from the Bible that were correct.

In other words, stop exalting the Bible over God. The Bible is there as a tool to help us come to the Lord. It's not there to replace the Lord. and Its definitely not there to allow us to use our imperfect rationalization of scriptures to act contrary to the Spirit.



> If and when, if possible, you ever come to the point of questioning your visions, revelations, dreams, burning bosoms, with total objectivity, which God wants us to exercise at all times, you may, just may be able to see the forest for the trees.



Why would I reinvent the wheel? I questioned whether the revelations I recieved were from God years ago. I tested them years ago. The Lord has proved Himself again and again. Why should I doubt Him simply because you do?



> The whole foundations of the LDS church is built upon subjective, experiential personal knowledge/encounters, and the acceptance of a most dubious piece of writing, called the BOM.  Also the Journal Of Discourses, and Pearl of Great Price, and other writing of both J.S. Jr., and B.Y., make Scientology seem credible.



The Church of Jesus Christ is built upon revelation and the Spirit of Prophecy, as it has been in every age of mankind. The idea that you can deny such and claim to be of God is rather befuddling if you accept the Scriptures as they speak.

Have you read the Book of Mormon? it's one of the most powerful witnesses that Jesus is the Christ out there! It's a completely independent concurrent witness to those of the Old World by Eye witnesses who saw the living Christ. As is the Pearl of Great Price and the D&C.

The Journal of Discourses, as you should well know, are not considered scriptures. They are at best short hand accounts of selected sermons that were never edited to ensure accuracy and reliable inasmuch as the Spirit indicates.

And btw, you really need to do than make assertions if you want your points considered proven.



> Your church meets the complete criteria of a "cult", as it's adherents, don't live by objective truth, but seek the subjective, as dictated by your doctrine.



The Truth's of God are hardly subjective. You just disapprove of learning through the Spirit.



> You just don't understand that the H.S. works quietly, subtely, but with power, in the souls of the "saved", not commonly via visions, dreams, etc., but by urgings within the soul that counter the power of sin that is constantly at work against the true Christian's new nature in Christ.



I understand the power of the Holy Spirit completely. You were the one saying you had no clue how to recognize the Spirit, not me. 

God has always used visions, dreams, and pure testimony to teach His word. Your protestations otherwise do not demonstrate a flaw with my faith, but with yours.



> You get your confirmation from the "feeler"/emotions part of your human makeup, but that is a most unreliable gauge of truth.



I get my confirmation from the Holy Spirit based on the fruits of the Spirit as described by Paul above. The fact that you deny this says much more about your experience with the Spirit than mine.



> If you could just take that leap of faith, and resoundingly leap that canyon of basing your belief system on what pops up in your mind, dreams, and "loud" urgings, and really, I mean really let the bible speak to you, rather than let the bible confirm your hoped-for agenda, you would know what I mean.



Your assumptions here are completely false. It is in fact, the Bible that stands as one of the strongest witnesses of Church of Jesus Christ. It was through reading the Bible and through the Holy Spirit that I was taught the power and love of God.

But yet, you reject my witness because I have to be honest with myself and God and proclaim the Book of Mormon as true as the Bible because the Holy Spirit told me it was. And who am I to deny God?

Let God judge between you and me, and grant us both mercy.



> The scriptures for thousands of years have been used to promote false belief systems, when it is "used" out of context.  The Mormon church has gone one further and minimized the bible's contents, as it pertains to their 1830's era doctrine.



I agree with the first part, you have been providing perfect examples of using the Bible out of context. For example, denying the Doctrine of Diefication and believers partaking of the Divine nature is pretty clear in the Bible as Ive demonstrated and yet you repeatedly deny as false.

You are however, incorrect. The Bible and its contents are not minimized in the leasts. They are enhanced with more of the Word of the Lord.



> The J.W.'s have used another tact.  With their NWT bible they have actually changed key words to minimize/destroy Christ's divinity, and present Him as a mere created being; Archangel Michael.  The Mormon church has also followed similar suit, but making up the notion that Christ was once a mere man, and then become "exalted", yet Jesus told the crowd that was about to stone Him that He was the "I AM"(Alpha to Omega; Begining and Last); forever existent!



What the J.W.s do is neither here nor there. I understand your tactics, you are trying to smear mormonism by associating JWs and Scientology, both of which, in your eyes are discredited. But guilt by associate only works when you are accurately describing those you are associating. I have nothing against JWs. nor do i think you are accurately describing their views. So the tactic is quite useless.

More to the point you are completely ignoring what Mormons actually teach About Christ. For one, you are ignoring the New Testament that clearly teaches that the Son of God became a man, so that men could become the sons of God. We have four Gospels testifying of the condescension of God. That Christ was made mortal.

Yet to you this is false doctrine. Why?

And you also continually ignore the clear and unambiguous teaching in other scriptures of the Church. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches the condescension of God. That Christ became flesh. That He is our Lord and Savior. That He is the Great I Am.

This has been pointed out to you multiple times. Yet you continue to still falsely assert that Mormons deny the Divinity of Christ. Why?



> I understand your spirited defense of your church.  It is the whole foundation of your being, but true freedom for you and Truthspeaker will be, hopefully when you are able to surmount that deep denial within your soul, that has been programmed into you by your church.  God's Word is like food, but it is food for the soul.  When the true Christian reads the bible, the H.S. within, agrees with the scripture, as it is agreeing with Itself, namely God is agreeing with "God Breathed" words, that God-inspired men recorded through the centuries.



And who gives you authority to decide who is a true Christian or not? Who ordained you to govern the Kingdom of God?

We do agree with God's inspired records. You are the one who is preaching contrary to it. You preach against revelation. You falsely claim it says that we believe Christ is not the Lord. You deny the clear and unambiguous words of Christ Himself concerning diefication. You deny the fruits of the Spirit.

And yet we are the ones who disagree with the scriptures.... Your conclusions are unfounded and not based in reality.



> You know for a fact that the bible does not speak to you, nor feed you, but you need all the "extra" stuff that you church provides, beside your constant personal revelations direct from God, aside from written scripture.



The Bible isnt supposed to speak to me. Nor to feed me. Thats the Lord's job.

We are commanded to live off _every_ word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God. Not the ones we like. But every one.



> You walk on very dangerous ground, as again you fullfill the very tenents of cultic belief, but relying on the "subjective" to validate the "objective" part of your being.



I am perfectly confident about the ground I walk on because I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and not in my own understanding as some here do.



> God gave us the capacity to "feel" and or have "emotions" to enhance our human experience in the world, and life, but He never wanted us to rely on that part of our humanity to substantiate truth, and falsehood.



So the converts at Pentecost were wrong for accepting the truth of the Apostles based on their hearts being pricked? The disciples on the road were wrong to recognize the Living Lord when their hearts burned within them? We are not supposed to recognize the fruits of the Spirit the way Paul stated through joy, love, peace etc?

Youre arguments have no basis in the scripure.



> Just as our U.S. Constitution is the guide that our Justices are supposed to follow when making decisions, the bible is the ultimate constitution for the Christian.



No, *GOD IS*.



> In a sense the Mormon church is following a similar path to those that were or are called "reconstructionists" or believe that the U.S. Constitution is a code word, "Living, Breathing, Document".  I.E. the liberals believe that the U.S. Constitution can be redefined to validate their "subjective" based bent on life, culturally, socially in this country.  Yet, Justices like Clarence Thomas, abhor that, and see the Constitution as a document that says what it says, clearly, and is not in need of "redefinition".



We have a living breathing God. We are not limited to what you seek to constrain Him with.



> The LDS church basically is taking the bible, and thousands of years of God's might work in this world, and upon mankind, and "redefining" it to the pleasure of their founder's beliefs.



Actually, we simply accept the Bible says what it says. 



> When God says, that there will be "no other" Gods before Me, that is clearly defined, yet the LDS church says that there was, and still will be many more gods, like Christ, and God the Father.  It is a mere act of mankind to reach godhood by obedience to the god before him, so that he/man may perpetuate another godhood.



Paul stated that there were gods and lords many both in heaven and on earth. God Himself declared Himself the God of gods and the Lord of lords. Christ stated that those who believe in the word are gods. Paul also stated that we are joint heirs with Christ and inherit all the things the Father has. John said that when we see Christ we will know Him because we will be like Him. Peter said we are partakers of the Divine nature.

But all these people and God Himself is lying in the Bible, because according to you that no man can become a god. You dislike us because we believe what the Bible actually says on the matter. Believe me Im more than happy to stick with God and what He actually says then rely on you to interpret.



> When one is so caught-up in a cult, they can't see the forest for the trees.  That is a fact.  Some cults are blatantly strange on the outside, and others hide their strange concocted beliefs with a sugar-coated exterior that seems like the norm.



I have no reason to deny that we are strange. Peter stated it clearly in the Bible when He called the Saints a peculiar people. We are. But thats just more evidence that we are who we claim to be. 



> Even in my own Christian life; years ago, I had to face the fact that I was relying too much on experiential life/feelings to "gauge" my faith or relationship with God.  I finally had to face the fact that I was going to live the life existence that needed constant "feeding" of subjective input, in order to substantiate my faith.  I was totally going against scripture, and was prepping myself for a really "downer" as a Christian.  It was a tough step, but I had to realize that the Christian life was a daily step-by-step process of faith in God's provisions, clearly revealed in the bible.



So you felt you werent following the scriptures and decided to commit yourself more. Then stop denying revelation. Stop denying visions and dreams. Stop fighting against the Spirit. Follow the Doctrine of Christ and exercise faith in Him to repentence and be baptized and recieve the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.



> Yes, I've had my times where I knew that God gave me an urging or a type of communique, because I made sure that it didn't go against His Holy Word, the bible/scriptures.



You cant know the Word without the Spirit. It's the Spirit that proves the Bible true. Not the other way arond. Stop putting your personal understanding the book above the Lord. Let go and trust the Lord and He will teach you things never concieved of by man.


----------



## Eightball

This is an astounding read.  Though, I'm not of the Catholic branch of the Christian church, this author is, but presents a very concise, well-researched, and excellent writing on the very fundamental, and weak core of LDS/Mormon doctrine.  Regards, Eightballsidepocket 

The Gods of the Mormon Church



> *The Gods of the Mormon Church*
> 
> George Orwell, in his novel 1984, did biblical/Christian apologists a great favor by coining the term "doublethink," which he defined as "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." Its the most succinct way of describing certain religious beliefs. For an illustration of doublethink one need look no further than the Mormon churchs doctrines about God.
> 
> *Joseph Smith, Mormonisms founder, taught the doctrine of a "plurality of gods"polytheismas the bedrock belief of his church.* He developed this doctrine over a period of years to reflect his belief that not only are there many gods, but they once were mortal men who had developed in righteousness until they had learned enough and merited godhood.
> 
> The Mormon church uses the term "eternal progression" for this process, and it refers to godhood as "exaltation." Such euphemisms are used because the idea of men becoming gods is b.asphemous to orthodox Christians. Needless to say, Smith encountered much hostility to these doctrines and so thought it wise to disguise them with unfamiliar terminology.
> 
> Although he softened his terms, Smith minced no words in explaining his beliefs. "I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see" *(King Follett Discourse). *
> 
> Mormonisms founder concluded that his flock didnt understand the nature of God. No mortal entirely does, of course, but this particular group was handicapped, not helped, by the strange theories expounded by Smith.
> 
> True to his word, Smith took away the veil of misunderstanding, only to replace it with a monolithic wall of doublethink. After all, to teach that the all-sovereign God, the infinite and supreme being, the Creator and Master of the universe, is merely an exalted man is a fine example of what Orwell had in mind.
> 
> *Progressive Revelation To Smith*
> 
> In 1844, shortly before his death in a gunbattle at a jail in Carthage, Illinois, Joseph Smith delivered a sermon at the funeral of a Mormon named King Follett. The King Follett Discourse has become a key source for the Mormon churchs beliefs on polytheism and eternal progression. Its short and can be purchased at any LDS bookstore for about a dollar. You can read it in half an hour.
> 
> To appreciate the extent of Smiths departure from traditional Christian thought, its important to realize that his doctrines werent "revealed" to his church all at once or in their present state. From his first vision in 1820 until his death in 1844, Joseph Smith crafted and modified his doctrines, often altering them so drastically that they became something else entirely as years passed.
> 
> Early in his career as "prophet, seer, and revelator" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, which he claimed to be the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." In it are passages that proclaim there is only one God and that God cant change.
> 
> *The next time you speak with Mormon missionaries, cite these verses:
> 
> "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Moroni 8:18).
> 
> "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles" (Mormon 9:9-10). *
> 
> Its hard to be more explicit than that. In his early years Smith did not believe in the "law of eternal progression." He had an orthodox understanding of Gods immutable nature. But at some point in his theological odyssey, he veered into the land of doublethink.
> 
> *Contradictory Views*
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, Smith maintained the inspiration and truth of the Book of Mormon at the same time he believed the following: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visibleI say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in formlike yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another" *(King Follett Discourse). *
> 
> This is one of Smiths more spectacular displays of doublethink. Fourteen years after penning the Book of Mormon, he contradicts his earlier writings with this sermonbut he doesnt throw aside his earlier teaching. Both are to be accepted.
> 
> *The Missionarys "Testimony"*
> 
> If you question a Mormon missionary, hell be familiar with the *King Follett Discourse *(or should be), and hell have a "testimony" about the truth of the doctrine of eternal progression. If you have both the Discourse and the Book of Mormon on hand, read these passages to the missionary. Watch his reaction and press for an explanation. Ask him how its possible to hold both positions. Mormons revere Joseph Smith as the highest authority in their church. What he said is scripture, and theyre stuck when it comes to this topic. These two teachings from the prophet obviously dont agree with each other. This is where doublethink kicks in. If Mormons couldnt believe two contradictory doctrines at once, theyd be forced to throw up their hands in bewilderment.
> 
> They cant believe that God is at once immutable and changing, that from all eternity he was as he now is, yet he evolved from a mere man. To Mormons this theological contradiction poses no problem because they dont think through the ramifications of such a position. Your job as an apologist is to show them there is a problem and then to offer a solution to it.
> 
> Its not enough to say God is eternal and to leave it at that. We need to take his infinite perfection into account. This is where the Mormons falter. They believe that although God is perfect now, he wasnt always so. Once he was imperfect, as a mortal, and he had to arrive at perfection through his own labor. *(You might call it a sort of "hyper-Pelagianism.") *
> 
> *Jesus Christ*
> 
> According to Mormon teaching, at one point in the eternities past, this man-become-God, or "Heavenly Father," begat the spirit body of his first son. Together with his heavenly wife, the Father raised his son in the council of the gods.
> 
> Before the creation of this world, Jesus Christ presented to his father a plan of salvation which would enable the billions of future human beings the opportunity of passing through mortality and returning to heaven, there to become gods of their own worlds. At the same time, another son of the Heavenly Father and brother of Christ offered a competing plan. When Christs was chosen, the rejected Lucifer led a rebellion of one-third of the population of the heavens and was cast out.
> 
> In time, Mormons believe, the Heavenly Father came to earth and had physical, sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary. Rejecting both the testimony of Scripture (Luke 1:34-35) and the constant teaching of the Christian Church, Mormons believe Christ was conceived by the Father, and not by the Holy Spirit. *(Journal of Discourses 2:268.) *
> 
> Moreover, Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity. (Nor, for that matter, does his Father.) He was first made by a union of his heavenly parents. After having been reared and taught in the heavens, he achieved a certain divine stature. Through carnal relations with her Heavenly Father, the Virgin became pregnant with this lesser god.
> 
> *Mormons now believe that Christs divinity is virtually equal to that of his Fathers. As we have seen, this is a compromised godhood*: Jesus Christ merely joins the end of a long line of gods who have preceded him, an infinite "regression" of divine beings whose origin Mormons cannot explain. (Nor, for that matter, can they explain its end, as we will see when we discuss the doctrine of men becoming gods.)
> 
> *The Holy Ghost*
> 
> The LDS church teaches that all men must pass through mortality in human bodies before they can reach godhood. Yet their third, separate god, called the Holy Ghost, has not yet received a mortal body, even though he is considered to be another god. Mormon theology typically does not address this contradiction.
> 
> However, thats not to say that the Holy Ghost is without any body. In fact, he has a "spiritual body," in the actual shape of a man, with head, torso, and limbs. He can be in only one place at once (in this hes no different from his two superiors in the Mormon "Godhead.")
> 
> Though to the Holy Ghost is now ascribed the power of each Mormons individual "testimony" or feeling concerning the truth of Mormon doctrines, he was not always so honored. In fact, Joseph Smith originally acknowledged only two divine personages, referring to the Holy Ghost merely as the "mind" of the two. *(Lectures on Faith, 48-49.) *
> 
> *Latter-Day Saints do not believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the only three gods there are*. Rather, they believe in (though do not worship) a "plurality" of gods, gods without number, each one ruling his own creation. Thus, the three separate gods who rule our universe are finite in powerthey sustain and govern only a tiny portion of all that exists.
> 
> The other gods have either preceded or followed the Heavenly Father who organized our world. In fact, men living today on this planet will one day become gods of their own universes. As such, they will mate with heavenly wives, beget spirit children, populate new worlds, and receive the worship and obedience we are now expected to give to our particular, current God.
> 
> *SmithAnd All MenTo Be Gods*
> 
> The Mormon founder taught that faithful Mormon men can ascend to divinity. *In the King Follett Discourse*, Joseph Smith said, "My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same. And when I get to my kingdom [godhood], I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself."
> 
> In any discussion with a Mormon about Mormonisms conflicting teachings on the nature of God, you have to cut away the camouflage. You have to get to the central facts. Its simple, really. Just *show them how the Book of Mormon conflicts with Smiths later teachings*. If he was right about God, when was he right? Take your pick, but you cant pick both, and neither can a Mormon, except if he uses doublethink. If a Mormon chooses either teaching as correct and admits the other must be wrong, Smiths credibility as a prophet collapses.
> 
> *Dont Aim to Win an Argument*
> 
> Be forewarned that your first discussion about the nature of God wont produce any visible change in your Mormon acquaintance. Hes unlikely to admit the cogency and simplicity of your argument. Hes probably working in good faith, and hes sincere in his beliefs. But psychologically youre at a disadvantage, since he wants to maintain his faith as hes known it. Be patient as you help him see these theological "black holes."
> 
> *Keep in mind your ultimate goal isnt to win an argument, but to win a soul for Christ*. What the Biblical apologist offers isnt just sound logic, or a preponderance of Bible quotations, or even the blunders Joseph Smith made. No, what he offers is the truth of the Christian/biblical faith.
> 
> But you do need sound logic, buttressed by thorough homework, and you need patience thats sustained by charity. *Above all, you need to pray that God will use your efforts to prepare your acquaintances soul for the gift of faith. Doublethink isnt invincible. Its just an intellectual impediment, and it can be overcome*.
> 
> You need to do some homework first, of course. You need a solid understanding of Gods nature. The bible will suffice.
> 
> You should also have on hand, a copy of the Book of Mormon and of the King Follett Discourse. If you have your references already marked in these books, youll be ready the next time a Mormon missionary comes to your door.


----------



## Avatar4321

This is exactly why people get frustrated talking with you. You completely ignore conversastion and simply cut and paste another page with the same exact things that have been answered for the past nearly 100 pages of text. It gets tiring.

You really are never going to convince people youre correct by ignoring them and talking down to them. It just doesnt work that way.


----------



## We Are They

Avatar, can your god's planet be seen through the hubble telescope? What's it called?


----------



## Truthspeaker

We Are They said:


> Avatar, can your god's planet be seen through the hubble telescope? What's it called?



I'm sure it's quite out of reach of the meager power of the Hubble. space being so big, it's harder to find a needle in an ocean than to find Kolob with the Hubble.


----------



## We Are They

Truthspeaker said:


> We Are They said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, can your god's planet be seen through the hubble telescope? What's it called?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's quite out of reach of the meager power of the Hubble. space being so big, it's harder to find a needle in an ocean than to find Kolob with the Hubble.
Click to expand...


Hubble can see back to the beginning of time, so your fake planet is either there or it isn't, make up your mind.


----------



## Truthspeaker

We Are They said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We Are They said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, can your god's planet be seen through the hubble telescope? What's it called?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's quite out of reach of the meager power of the Hubble. space being so big, it's harder to find a needle in an ocean than to find Kolob with the Hubble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hubble can see back to the beginning of time, so your fake planet is either there or it isn't, make up your mind.
Click to expand...


hmmmm.... how to answer that statement.....

No... the hubble cannot see back in time. The planet is there but the Universe is a slightly bigger pond than you think it is. Especially since it's ever expanding. Your saying because you don't hear the tree fall in the forest, that it didn't fall and maybe didn't exist. Just as well would be to think that you don't exist because you have socratically argued away your own existence. 

Anywhoooo....
Like I've said before. Again... I am only here to answer questions about my religion and not to try and disprove other religions, including the religion of irreligion.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> We Are They said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's quite out of reach of the meager power of the Hubble. space being so big, it's harder to find a needle in an ocean than to find Kolob with the Hubble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hubble can see back to the beginning of time, so your fake planet is either there or it isn't, make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hmmmm.... how to answer that statement.....
> 
> No... the hubble cannot see back in time. The planet is there but the Universe is a slightly bigger pond than you think it is. Especially since it's ever expanding. Your saying because you don't hear the tree fall in the forest, that it didn't fall and maybe didn't exist. Just as well would be to think that you don't exist because you have socratically argued away your own existence.
> 
> Anywhoooo....
> Like I've said before. Again... I am only here to answer questions about my religion and not to try and disprove other religions, including the religion of irreligion.
Click to expand...


The Hubble as well as the naked eye can see "back in time/history" as the stars you see in the sky are pictures or images of that star that are coming at the speed of light, but have been traveling for a few to many years to reach our planet.

If a star is 4 1/2 light years away, then the image of that star that you see on a clear night with your eyes started traveling 4 1/2 years ago.

I.E.  If that star blew up right at this moment, you wouldn't see that blowing-up/happening for another 4 1/2 years.

So, yes indeed, the Hubble as well as the naked eye when viewing the universe is seeing/viewing what already happened or the past, or history.
*******
As for these planets that Joseph Smith Jr. dreamed up as part of his neat little scam, or psychosis, they will never be found, as they only exist in fable/fiction.  

Sadly millions of human earthlings have bought into this fable/religion, and J.S. Jr. and B. Y. will face a very sad, and scarey judgement for this, unless they repented and accepted the biblical Jesus as their Savior and Lord shortly before their deaths.
******


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> The Hubble as well as the naked eye can see "back in time/history" as the stars you see in the sky are pictures or images of that star that are coming at the speed of light, but have been traveling for a few to many years to reach our planet.
> 
> If a star is 4 1/2 light years away, then the image of that star that you see on a clear night with your eyes started traveling 4 1/2 years ago.
> 
> I.E.  If that star blew up right at this moment, you wouldn't see that blowing-up/happening for another 4 1/2 years.
> 
> So, yes indeed, the Hubble as well as the naked eye when viewing the universe is seeing/viewing what already happened or the past, or history.
> *******
> As for these planets that Joseph Smith Jr. dreamed up as part of his neat little scam, or psychosis, they will never be found, as they only exist in fable/fiction.
> 
> Sadly millions of human earthlings have bought into this fable/religion, and J.S. Jr. and B. Y. will face a very sad, and scarey judgement for this, unless they repented and accepted the biblical Jesus as their Savior and Lord shortly before their deaths.
> ******



While I dont really care about the hubble issue, it can't see back in time. It simply takes time to see the information thats already happened. 

What that has to do with mormonism is certainly unknown since kolob is an analogy for Jesus Christ and that's about all we know. If it exists outside analogy, we have no clue whether its visible from earth. So pointing it out in the sky is a rather pointless endevour and can neither prove nor disprove the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Not surprising that it's not the doctrine that's under attack. The truth is difficult to argue against.

As for your plates comment. If you were informed, and I know you are since I've told you, youd know no one dreamed anything up. There are over 12 witnesses. Interestingly enough the same number called specifically to testify of the resurrection of Jesus. If we are supposed to disbelieve the eye witnesses of the Book of Mormon because the plates are reserved to God, we would have to disbelieve the resurrection of Christ because Christ was kept from the world at large.

For some reason, I dont think you are proposing that we through out the testimonies of the Apostles simply because Christ hasnt physically appeared to the world. Although, I am certain the Adversary would love people to follow your similiar logic.

The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can be determined the same way we can determine the truthfulness of the Resurrection of Christ: The powerful witness of the Holy Ghost.

It's a shame so few people will listen to the Holy Ghost, or seek Him out. Even among believers, they are too content to rely on their understanding of the scriptures like the pharisees did. Unfortunately, putting a stake up and saying God can only do certain things endangers our Eternal welfare.  Trying to rely on our own understanding and not on the Spirit is a dangerous dangerous path. It stops us from learning and becoming like God.


----------



## hoMohammed

mormons are the devil's disciples. Only Islam is the one true religion and path towards god. Jesus was a knobhead, so it follows that you're all knobheads too for following that liar.


----------



## Eightball

hoMohammed said:


> mormons are the devil's disciples. Only Islam is the one true religion and path towards god. Jesus was a knobhead, so it follows that you're all knobheads too for following that liar.



Well, you just insulted Mohammed himself, as he proclaimed in his writings that Jesus was a prophet of Allah, and in very good standing.

The Quran reveals nothing but respect for Jesus within it's pages.

You, are a very ignorant of your own religion's beliefs, and have made a fool of yourself before your fellow Muslims.

When I refer to Jesus, it is the Jesus of the bible, not the concoctions of Mormon founder, Joseph Smith Jr..


----------



## Truthspeaker

98 percent well spoken. Funny that you speak better of Mohammed than you do of Joseph Smith, a man who stated that "It is by Christ, through Christ and of Christ we are saved." 
You seem to have more problems with such a man, than with prophets of a completely un-Christian religion. Interesting.


----------



## Truthspeaker

hoMohammed said:


> mormons are the devil's disciples. Only Islam is the one true religion and path towards god. Jesus was a knobhead, so it follows that you're all knobheads too for following that liar.



Ok friend. by the way would you please explain to us heathens exactly what a "knobhead" is. Perhaps if I were more "enlightened" by your religions teachings, then I would know better how to insult my religious foes.


----------



## N4mddissent

> When I refer to Jesus, it is the Jesus of the bible, not the concoctions of Mormon founder, Joseph Smith Jr



The Jesus who was the concoction of which of the biblical writers?  And why is their concoction of Jesus better than Smith's concoction of Jesus?


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> When I refer to Jesus, it is the Jesus of the bible, not the concoctions of Mormon founder, Joseph Smith Jr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jesus who was the concoction of which of the biblical writers?  And why is their concoction of Jesus better than Smith's concoction of Jesus?
Click to expand...


Quite a legitimate point. From my standpoint they are both claiming the same things. That Jesus is the savior of mankind. However, the sad thing is that both are no longer alive to clarify to some people that they are both on the same page. Individual interpretations will always hold back the general populous. How valuable would it be to get a chance to talk to Joseph Smith today and any of the Biblical authors for just 5 minutes?


----------



## Avatar4321

N4mddissent said:


> The Jesus who was the concoction of which of the biblical writers?  And why is their concoction of Jesus better than Smith's concoction of Jesus?



If the people complaining knew what they were talking about, they would realize that their concoctions are identical.


----------



## Arawyn

Avatar4321 said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jesus who was the concoction of which of the biblical writers?  And why is their concoction of Jesus better than Smith's concoction of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the people complaining knew what they were talking about, they would realize that their concoctions are identical.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Arawyn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Jesus who was the concoction of which of the biblical writers?  And why is their concoction of Jesus better than Smith's concoction of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the people complaining knew what they were talking about, they would realize that their concoctions are identical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
Click to expand...


I am instantly in love with you. Lord of the Rings is my favorite book!


----------



## Arawyn

Truthspeaker said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the people complaining knew what they were talking about, they would realize that their concoctions are identical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am instantly in love with you. Lord of the Rings is my favorite book!
Click to expand...


Hahahaha, what's not to love...

Seriously, I've heard this argument towards our faith for years. That our Jesus is somehow different from their Jesus and it just isn't true. I believe we just have a richer understanding.


----------



## -Cp

Truthspeaker said:


> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?



Why do mormon's wear it?


----------



## -Cp

Truthspeaker said:


> How valuable would it be to get a chance to talk to Joseph Smith today and any of the Biblical authors for just 5 minutes?



This is where mormons fail - Joe was NOT a "biblical author" - he was just a dude who obviously had too many "meds" one day...


----------



## Avatar4321

-Cp said:


> This is where mormons fail - Joe was NOT a "biblical author" - he was just a dude who obviously had too many "meds" one day...



If drugs is all it takes to do what Joseph did, Id like to know what drugs he was taking and where I can get some.


----------



## Truthspeaker

-Cp said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do mormon's wear it?
Click to expand...


We wear the sacred garment as a private reminder to keep the commandments of God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

-Cp said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> How valuable would it be to get a chance to talk to Joseph Smith today and any of the Biblical authors for just 5 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where mormons fail - Joe was NOT a "biblical author" - he was just a dude who obviously had too many "meds" one day...
Click to expand...


Intelligent, thought provoking statement. Where is the substance? Or substances Joseph was taking?

Why can't I find a normal person who wants to engage in a respectful dialogue about our faith.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Intelligent, thought provoking statement. Where is the substance? Or substances Joseph was taking?
> 
> Why can't I find a normal person who wants to engage in a respectful dialogue about our faith.



Since when is anyone normal? Or respectful?

However, im not sure you give them the chance. Dont mean to be mean or anything. I think you just want to contend with people too much. I don't think im much better. Its difficult not to get defensive and mean when talking about stuff thats personal to us when its under attack. I think if we try harder to be respectful, we will get more respect from people. And if we don't at least we tried.


----------



## -Cp

Truthspeaker said:


> -Cp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do mormon's wear it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We wear the sacred garment as a private reminder to keep the commandments of God.
Click to expand...


But that's just IT there is NOTHING "Sacred" about those garments... they're just a piece of cloth..


----------



## -Cp

Truthspeaker said:


> -Cp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> How valuable would it be to get a chance to talk to Joseph Smith today and any of the Biblical authors for just 5 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where mormons fail - Joe was NOT a "biblical author" - he was just a dude who obviously had too many "meds" one day...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligent, thought provoking statement. Where is the substance? Or substances Joseph was taking?
> 
> Why can't I find a normal person who wants to engage in a respectful dialogue about our faith.
Click to expand...


Just sayin... how the hell else does someone dream up some story about finding some golden plates and crap?


----------



## Truthspeaker

-Cp said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Cp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do mormon's wear it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wear the sacred garment as a private reminder to keep the commandments of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's just IT there is NOTHING "Sacred" about those garments... they're just a piece of cloth..
Click to expand...


Sacred to me. Not sacred to you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intelligent, thought provoking statement. Where is the substance? Or substances Joseph was taking?
> 
> Why can't I find a normal person who wants to engage in a respectful dialogue about our faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is anyone normal? Or respectful?
> 
> However, im not sure you give them the chance. Dont mean to be mean or anything. I think you just want to contend with people too much. I don't think im much better. Its difficult not to get defensive and mean when talking about stuff thats personal to us when its under attack. I think if we try harder to be respectful, we will get more respect from people. And if we don't at least we tried.
Click to expand...


I know I may sometimes be a little rough around the edges. Nobody's perfect but I generally try to be respectful to those who deserve it. In times like these I think of what Jesus or Joseph Smith were like in discussions. The sharp rebukes they would give could often times be considered rude or retaliatory. Certainly many of their comments in the Bible or newspaper quotes in the early 1800's enflamed their enemies. So I know that I can't really avoid getting some people hot under the collar. When Jesus would say, you are either with me or against me and that his word was like a sword to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow, I'm sure some people thought he was very arrogant when he said that. Or when he said he was the great I AM. 
Joseph Smith said many times that he would "whip sectarianism." It's no wonder a lot of people who were sectarians got enflamed at him. It's a frustrated anger that causes people to misjudge his intentions. 
You and I are doomed to suffer these reactions all our lives as long as we uphold the beliefs of our religion. 
Because really, from an outside perspective, what we claim is outrageous and arrogant. It's the most ridiculous thing to believe in and sometimes I step back and laugh because It really is the most far fetched thing ever to believe in! But the reason I believe in it still is because I know that truth can be more amazing than fiction and when I really took the time to investigate the wild claims of the church, They all stack up. And I mean REALLY REALLY REALLY took the time. It takes time to build a relationship of trust with anyone. How much more time does it take to develop a relationship with God, whom you have never seen(most likely). Once I developed that relationship, I got the confirmation through the Holy Ghost in my heart. 


but yes I may be a little abbrasive.


----------



## -Cp

Truthspeaker said:


> -Cp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> We wear the sacred garment as a private reminder to keep the commandments of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's just IT there is NOTHING "Sacred" about those garments... they're just a piece of cloth..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sacred to me. Not sacred to you.
Click to expand...


Being "sacred" to you does not make them "sacred"...


----------



## -Cp

Truthspeaker said:


> Once I developed that relationship, I got the confirmation through the Holy Ghost in my heart.



Uh-huh, sure ya did.....  

So did these people:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6KGZ4UQjgc[/ame]

It's always scary to me when people use emotion to validate truth...


----------



## Truthspeaker

-Cp said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once I developed that relationship, I got the confirmation through the Holy Ghost in my heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh, sure ya did.....
> 
> So did these people:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6KGZ4UQjgc]YouTube - God Is Hilarious![/ame]
> 
> It's always scary to me when people use emotion to validate truth...
Click to expand...


I am not going to watch the video if those people are not mormons. Because I don't base my decisions on emotion alone. It goes much deeper than that. It's a combination of all the elements: Intellectual, spiritual, and emotional. If it doesn't add up in all ways, then I would stop paying tithing and stop practicing the rigorous beliefs of my church.


----------



## Avatar4321

-Cp said:


> But that's just IT there is NOTHING "Sacred" about those garments... they're just a piece of cloth..



Anything can be sacred if the people who believe it such make it sacred. Even bread and wine.


----------



## Avatar4321

-Cp said:


> Just sayin... how the hell else does someone dream up some story about finding some golden plates and crap?



Same thing can be said about people rising from the dead. Maybe he didn't dream it up. The witnesses seemed convinced that their were plates even after they had their falling outs with Joseph.

People usually dont voluntarily go to their death for something they make up. The behavior of the witnesses dont make much sense unless they saw what they claimed to have seen either.

Ive seen people claim he made it all up. But having studied it, there are so many things that just dont make sense if he did make it up. Im certain Joseph believed what He was saying. But if he was a lunatic what about everyone else?

The Three witnesses of the Book of Mormon are an interesting collection of people. None of their behavior makes any sense if they knew it was all some fraud. Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all claimed to see the plates and heard the angel declare the Book of Mormon true. All three of them had a falling out with Joseph and were excommunicated from the Church. Yet all three of them held to their testimony.

I've read letters between David and Oliver which occured after Joseph's death. Even though they had their falling out with Joseph they still held to their testimony that they Saw the plates and the Angel. Oliver gave up a promising political career and eventually went west to rejoin the Church knowing that if he did he would not have the same authority he previously had in the Church. Martin likewise went west to rejoin the Church. David, while never rejoining the Church, made it a point to go to a reporter prior to his death and reaffirm that he saw the plates and the angel.

There were other witnesses, some of whom had similiar experiences. But these are the main three. Their behavior doesn't make any sense if it was all dreamt up. If it was some sort of conspiracy between the 4 of them, it doesnt make sense that 3 of the 4 would continue reaffirming the story after they lost all reason to keep up the scam and every reason to end it.

Nor does it explain the behavior of the other witnesses. Or explain the witnesses of miracle healings. Accurate prophecies. And many other things.

There is just too much to dismiss it as all dreamt up.


----------



## Eightball

-Cp said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once I developed that relationship, I got the confirmation through the Holy Ghost in my heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-huh, sure ya did.....
> 
> So did these people:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6KGZ4UQjgc]YouTube - God Is Hilarious![/ame]
> 
> It's always scary to me when people use emotion to validate truth...
Click to expand...


Dead on Dude!  Faith is not defined a result of emotions/dreams/internal fuzzies, confirming something as an objective reality.

The Holy Spirit does not work that way.  Just check out what Jesus says is the work of the H.S. in the bible.  It counsels, and confirms God's Word, and also Glorifies God through the life of the true believer who is indwelt with the H.S..

The Holy Spirit does not confirm 1830 gospels by scam artist/false prophets, nor any of the crazy doctrines that J.S. and successive false LDS prophets proclaimed.

Faith is not a feeling, nor an emotion.  God has blessed every human being with emotions or feelings to enhance and make our experiences of life/reality special, but emotions, dreams, visions are not the way we are supposed to base our faith in God.  

The Pentacostal, and Charismatic Christian movements often get side-tracked with the "experiential", and as a result many true believers become side-tracked, and misled into false beliefs, and other religions.

Satan is an old hand at working in the experiential/dreams, visions, fuzzy feelings, realm in order to guide Christians and potential Christians off-track.  

Sadly, when the experiences mysteriously disappear, the person is left "wanting", not unlike an addict.  They become emotions junkies, and without the good feelings, they are unable to exercise true faith that stands strong against feelings that go against the truth.  Depression insues, and they drop away from their religion.
***********
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.  Romans
*****************
 Faith does not come by visions, dreams, warm feelings.  The Holy Spirit confirms scripture, within the true believer's soul.  The Bereans were a perfect example of believers/Christians testing a message to make sure they weren't being duped/misled.  Just look up what Paul said of the Bereans for testing his message to them.  He was not angered, but encouraged, that they went to scripture to make sure his message was not misleading them from true faith in God.

It absolutely baffles me and millions of other Christians how an omnipotent God, can become a "weak" woosey-god as the LDS church has made Him, by claiming that scripture is corrupted by man over the years, and their religion has been corrected this by New York scam artist Joseph Smith Jr.'s wonderful tale of several hundred pound golden plates with, an unknown reformed Heiroglyphics language scratched on them as the bases of a belief system of faith.  Even Moses received tablets from God in the known language of the people of Israel or of that time.  Why Egyptian, and why a language to this day that has not been recognized as existent?  Wouldn't God want to make His message plain and simple for all mankind.  Why the weird, unsubstantiated heiroglyphics?

Their/LDS religion has all the paw prints of a very intelligent being's invention, namely Satan's paw prints or finger prints.  It has destroyed Jesus' divinity, lowering Him to the status of mere man, of created origin, has thrown in a convoluted Hubbard/Scientology style planetary-extratrestrial origin to man, and packaged it in "apple pie and the American flag" to the novices or unknowing, and hooked millions into this smiley faced cult.

Scratch the surface of Pleasantville USA Mormonism, and you find the most God-blasphemous teachings and an elitists heirarchy of elders, teachers, priesthoods, and male domination with recent anti-African rascism.  Paste on their pro-Prop 8 support to make them appear to be "mainstream" America, and "Wa La!", you have a very well laid-out scheme of evangelization.

The LDS church is definitely the "wide road" as described in the bible in Revelations.  It is covered in a veneer of patriotism, "Leave to Beaverism", yet is insidious in it's teachings in respect to the Holy Bible, and Jesus' teachings found withing the bible.
***********
Are Mormons bad people?  Absolutely not!  God loves them with an eternal passion, and wants them to come to salvation just like the rest of the unsaved world.

Sadly, cults have such a pull and hold on their followers that very few will ever arise and emerge out of it's hold, and come to faith in Christ of the Holy Bible.  They will not, out of fear, being potentially excluded from friendships, job discrimination, loss of family ties, etc..  The number of ex-Mormons who have lost jobs, or possible promotions in companies that are filled with high numbers of their church members in managerial positions is beyond count.  H.P. in Vacouver/Camas, Washington is filled with Mormon employees, and if you aren't a church member, don't try to get anywhere in that branch of the company in Camas.  We have friends who worked there, and actually joined the LDS church inorder to be accepted on even terms and have a shot at promotion and a job-future.  They left the church, as they didn't realize the insidious teachings below the surface.  They were mislead Born Again Christians, and they ended up leaving H.P. for other pastures of employment.  These ex-Mormons are treated with such maligned disregard, and distaste.  They are shunned in communities, where the Mormon population is large.  They often lose familial contacts because they choose biblical Christian faith over J.S. Jr's Satanic lies.  It's downright pitiful.    

The saddest part of course and the greatest "hold"  is that "burning bosom" type experience that "confirmed" to them that Mormonism was the truth.  They believe a subjective experiential moment as the truth, and the bible says, "don't!".  People see the virgin Mary in cloud formation, or a shadow or stain on a building.  The Mormon wants to believe that their gospel is the truth, and Satan obliges, as he has done for centuries in order to lead man away from the "I AM"..
*********


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Dead on Dude!  Faith is not defined a result of emotions/dreams/internal fuzzies, confirming something as an objective reality.
> 
> The Holy Spirit does not work that way.  Just check out what Jesus says is the work of the H.S. in the bible.  It counsels, and confirms God's Word, and also Glorifies God through the life of the true believer who is indwelt with the H.S..



Here is how the scriptures say the Spirit works



> 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
> 
> 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
> 
> 32 And they said one to another, *Did not our heart burn within us,* while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:30-32)





> 37 ¶ *Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart*, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
> 
> 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:37-38)





> 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is *love, joy, peace*, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> 
> 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22-23)



The fact that you say otherwise tells me the following: You've never experienced this.

When you experience the power and glory of the Holy Ghost, you cannot claim they are fuzzy feelings. When you feel the power of God you are compelled to be humble. No honest person can feel the Spirit and deny His influence upon them. Even if the Spirit whispers to do something that we dont want to do. When we follow the Spirit, it will be correct.

How do you know the Bible is the Word of God unless the Holy Spirit reveals it to you? And how do you deny how it feels if you've experienced it?

You believe the Bible to be true. And that is good. But you haven't had the Spirit tell you it's true. Because when the Spirit speaks there is no doubt left. And until you recognize the Spirit, you will never learn the Mysteries of God. No matter how much you read the Bible. Youll keep trying to understand it with your own abilities.

I can tell you that I know the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true because the Holy Spirit told me. I felt the power, the love, the glory, and I heard the voice of the Lord speak to me. And who am I to deny God?

I dont expect you to take my word for it. In fact, I dont want you to. I just want you to read the Book of Mormon for yourself and pray with real intent to know whether it's true. Because I know the Holy Ghost will tell you the truth of all things. "If any of you lack wisdom, let Him ask of God, who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not. But ask in faith, nothing waivering." (James 1:5-6).

You can do the same with the Bible. God isnt silent. He is more than happy to reveal Himself to those who seek Him in faith. The more I learn the more I realize how little faith men really have. Including myself. 

Do you really think the Bible is all that Christ wants us to have? Or do you think He wants us to have living faith? Do you think He wants to rely on the revelations of those who came before us? Or do you think He wants to give revelations to us? Im inclined to believe the latter.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dead on Dude!  Faith is not defined a result of emotions/dreams/internal fuzzies, confirming something as an objective reality.
> 
> The Holy Spirit does not work that way.  Just check out what Jesus says is the work of the H.S. in the bible.  It counsels, and confirms God's Word, and also Glorifies God through the life of the true believer who is indwelt with the H.S..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how the scriptures say the Spirit works
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
> 
> 31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
> 
> 32 And they said one to another, *Did not our heart burn within us,* while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:30-32)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 37 ¶ *Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart*, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
> 
> 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:37-38)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is *love, joy, peace*, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> 
> 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22-23)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you say otherwise tells me the following: You've never experienced this.
> 
> When you experience the power and glory of the Holy Ghost, you cannot claim they are fuzzy feelings. When you feel the power of God you are compelled to be humble. No honest person can feel the Spirit and deny His influence upon them. Even if the Spirit whispers to do something that we dont want to do. When we follow the Spirit, it will be correct.
> 
> How do you know the Bible is the Word of God unless the Holy Spirit reveals it to you? And how do you deny how it feels if you've experienced it?
> 
> You believe the Bible to be true. And that is good. But you haven't had the Spirit tell you it's true. Because when the Spirit speaks there is no doubt left. And until you recognize the Spirit, you will never learn the Mysteries of God. No matter how much you read the Bible. Youll keep trying to understand it with your own abilities.
> 
> I can tell you that I know the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true because the Holy Spirit told me. I felt the power, the love, the glory, and I heard the voice of the Lord speak to me. And who am I to deny God?
> 
> I dont expect you to take my word for it. In fact, I dont want you to. I just want you to read the Book of Mormon for yourself and pray with real intent to know whether it's true. Because I know the Holy Ghost will tell you the truth of all things. "If any of you lack wisdom, let Him ask of God, who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not. But ask in faith, nothing waivering." (James 1:5-6).
> 
> You can do the same with the Bible. God isnt silent. He is more than happy to reveal Himself to those who seek Him in faith. The more I learn the more I realize how little faith men really have. Including myself.
> 
> Do you really think the Bible is all that Christ wants us to have? Or do you think He wants us to have living faith? Do you think He wants to rely on the revelations of those who came before us? Or do you think He wants to give revelations to us? Im inclined to believe the latter.
Click to expand...


Your whole expose' is "feel, feel, feel".  You use bible scripture to support your premise, yet your church's doctrinal premise stand on the belief that the bible is not the final word, as it is corrupted by man.

There is induction methods and deduction methods when reading/studying scripture.  One is not suppose to "make" the bible say what they want it to say, but to let scripture speak to them, though it may not be what they want to hear/read.  The bible speaks myriads against Mormon doctrine.  

Your limited bible knowledge using joy, peace, love, etc.. as a resulting human response to God's indwelling Spirit, is not the ultimate "compass" to determine His presence.  The bible says over and over that scripture is the final deciding factor over all other alleged evidences.  So, what will it be........Take a bit of bible here and there that backs up your paradigm, and ignore that which doesn't.  It's either the Word of God or it is isn't.  

Your presumptuous statement that I haven't enjoyed those fruits of the Spirit are totally unfounded, but just a defensive counter to my last post.

In the bible there are types of love, "Agape, phileo, and eros",  Jesus, and His disciples said that "Agape" is the most important, as it encompasses the "servanthood" that Christ brought to mankind that truly summarizes God's nature towards us and what we should express to others.

Phileo is the type of love that "delights" in someone or something.
Eros is sexual attraction or love expressed sexually.

These all make up in totality, what love is according to the bible/Christ, but "Agape"; Christ and disciples said is the one to focus on.  It's not feeling oriented, but is an objective decision that can indeed be motivated by both mind and emotions, but in the end is exercised by our will, or "chooser".

It is expressed when we hug and kiss someone, even though we are angry at them or have been hurt by them.  In other words it goes deeper than feelings.

Feelings based decision making is most-dangerous as it can lead to big mistakes and a lot of burnt bridges needing mending.

Just as the LDS doctrine stresses for all to pray for a "message" from God, confirming Mormonism as the truth, so the radical Charismatic/Pentacostal Christian can fall into the same trap.  It creates a addiction to feelings based decision making in an every increasing rate.

The joy and peace that you experience is not the Holy Spirits authorship.  That's just feel-goodism, based on your present state of non-life-stress conditions.

The real test of faith, and belief isn't measured in the feel-good times, but in the trenches of life's valleys i.e... death of a loved one, terminal illnesses, loss of job, divorce, prolonged sickness, out-of-the-blue tragediess, disappointments, elimination of life goals/hopes...etc...

Christ and His disciples said that life wouldn't be a cake-walk, but would be hard, but He did say that if anyone took-up His "yoke" it would be much better/easier than going it alone with one's own "yoke".

Benny Hinn, is a perfect example of a preacher that stresses feelings-based faith.  

Sadly, I've met many folks from the very Charismatic/feelings oriented faith movement, and their ability to understand that faith is objective in it's goal and exercise is very foreign to them.

In fact as Christians, they are very immature, as they are so programmed to expect a "miracle" to rescue them out of lifes hardships that they never grow in endurance, which leads to greater character and wisdom.

They go to church, raise their hands, speak in alleged tongues, have visions, have messages or words of communication from God during worship/prayer, then go home Sunday afternoon after church, knock off a couple six packs of beer, give the finger in road rage to some rude driver, and basically live in a way through the week that would scarcely seem Christ-like.

I've seen it!  I've visited these churches for weeks at a time.  There are distinct differences to the personalities of the various body's of Christ(Church's).  Just as Revelations laid into the various churches one by one and prophesied either for or against them because of their behavior, it is no different today.

Satan has been a deceiver from the beginning.  God has been omnipotent and truthful from eternity past through eternity future, as there is no beginning or end to Him.  He is pre-existent.  Satan is not pre-existent, but is a created being of great power, beauty, and influence, and many theologians believe that he once was a beautiful being called a Seraphim, as mentioned in Isaiah in the Old Testament.  Seraphims were angels who stood before the throne of God, and announced God's glory.  They also had 3 sets of wings as they hovered about the throne.

Satan/Lucifer was cast from God's presence to the earth, and infact Jesus told His disciples He witnessed Satan's plummet to earth.  Christ was tempted by Satan for 40 days in the wilderness, but being God in flesh, resisted Satans crafty ways to beckon Jesus' worship of Him.

They were not brothers as Mormon teaching says.  The bible does not teach that in anyway.  Satan is a created being, that with free-will rebelled with pride and wanted it all.  Call it delusional, or whatever, that's what happened.

Satan may have been created before high technology, but he is no neophite at beguiling mankind into following anything but God.  Some folks wonder why he does this if he's bound for destruction?  Delusional beings don't live in complete reality do they?  Self delusion causes one to hope a believe in that which is absurd and non-objective.  Satan lives with one big old dose of delusion, or one big old grudge to take all of humanity with him to the pit as he can before his day is up and he is cast into the fiery furnace in chains.

Satan knows any and all things about the world.  He does not have a bronze age mentality, but is keen to 21st mankind as well as B.C. man.  Little does he know, but he is a "tool" in God's greater work of salvation, much like what happened in the book of Job.  God allows, but does not author sin and mishap upon mankind.

Character, and wisdom is not forged on the mountain-tops of life, but in the valleys of closed doors.  God so loves His creation that he allows many things to occur in our lives that seem so stressful and negative at first analysis.  Yet that stressful time is actually a time of potential growth for us as Christian, and for the non-Christian, a time to become convinced that they are not the "pilots" of their lives from birth to death.  Call it the old 2x4 across the cranium, but God knows us inside and out, as He created us and knew us before we formed in our mother's wombs.  

The bible says that many false prophets will arise that will say, "Here is the Christ!", yet beware.  There will be many false Christs concocted by men and women with deluded mines, and many who do it for totally selfish ambition(Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland).

Joseph Smith was once a Christian church member, but most likely was never "born again".  He like many Voltarian inspired people didn't want to live within what they saw as biblical constraints.  Rather than try to seek God's wisdom, they relied on their own wisdom as it avoided responsibility for sin.

So polygamy was green lighted, as well as blood attonement, all humanistic, Romans chapter one type degradations of the human soul.  Taking of underage girls in marriage, or pedophelia/sexual predation of children, covered in religiosity resulted.

There are so many contradictions within the doctrinal statements and stances of past to present LDS prophets, yet the church chugs on, ignoring these blaring inconsistencies.

Avatar:  If only you really knew or experienced the fruit or love of the Holy Spirit, and the resultant joy, and peace that even is experienced in the lowest points of life, you'd understand the feelings-based belief, is like shallow soil with a rock hard ground underneath.

Just as the seed and the sower parable by Jesus said that the truth fell upon a thin layer of soil started to take root, but the roots went down and hit the hard soil, and then withered and died, so it is with feelings based faith.  It can't crack the hard undersoil that produces or sustains growth in the believer.

Also, the seeds that fell on rocky ground were picked away by the birds of the air.  That the biblical truths that are blown-off right from the start by the individual.  It hardens the soul, and makes it even more difficult for that person to come to the base of the cross, in totally tranparency, and contrition.

Balaam claimed to be a prophet of God, but gave into worldly temptations just like Joseph Smith Jr. and later LDS prophets.  His end came by the sword as ordered by God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

8-Ball. You never cease to astound me with your lack of knowledge of what we believe. Joseph Smith did not marry underage girls. Polygamy was not "green lighted". It was commanded in the same way Abraham was commanded. I guess you just don't get that there was no condoning of sexual exploitation of children. The only exploitation I know of was the raping of our children and girls by missouri mobs filled with ignorance and hatred of our people.

I'm not sure of your ability to listen and comprehend the argument of another person. What "hidden insidious doctrines" are you talking about since I have already established consistently your misunderstanding of the blood atonement, polygamy and racism arguments?

As for the "feel good" religion we live. You need to understand the purpose of life. To have Joy. What are we ALL trying to do? be happy and find true joy in our lives. Christ taught this. If then, that is the purpose of life, then how does following your heart in doing what you know is right and will make you genuinely happy and fulfilled, come from the devil? In fact as you continue to ignore, those things are the fruits of the spirit of God. That's why we believe what we believe, because it brings us joy. You are not going to change our faith. We have proven it to ourselves. We're not even trying to prove it to you. I just don't understand why you are swimming against the current in trying to pull down the faith of a people who are solid and happy in their beliefs in Christ. 

Why don't you go spend your time practicing your religion and building your own faith and lifestyle? It is one of 2 reasons:

1. You are on a whole hearted mission to save the lost mormon souls.(which if that is the case I can teach you a few people skills which will help endear yourself to the lost souls you are trying to convert. For one, have a calm demeanor that is non-insulting.)

2. You really don't have a faith and since your whole past religion has been torn down by truthful statements in this forum, you are only left to kick against the pricks, trying to save face in front of people who don't even care if you are embarrassed and are not trying to embarrass you. Trying to grasp at straws for reasons to make yourself look good and others look bad. This is not a battle for me. It is a battle for you. One in which you don't have to fight. All the bruises you have sustained are not from me or Avatar. They are from yourself trying to run through a plexiglass wall and beat me up. 

which reason is it?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Your whole expose' is "feel, feel, feel".  You use bible scripture to support your premise, yet your church's doctrinal premise stand on the belief that the bible is not the final word, as it is corrupted by man.



I was unaware I had to accept the Bible as the final word in order to cite it as teaching correct principles. The notion is absurd to me. It's one of my scriptures, why the heck wouldnt I cite it when it specifically explains experiences with the Spirit?

The real question here is: If you believe the Bible is the "Final Word", why do you pretend the Spirit doesnt work by pricking our hearts, or through the feelings of joy, peace etc that the Bible specifically says?

Also, Im not concerned how I or anyone else feels. Im concerned with what the Spirit says. The scriptures say the fruits of the Spirit produce certain feelings. Who am I to deny that? especially when Ive had very clear experiences were the Spirit has spoken to me and Ive felt the power, glory, and love of God.

So no I dont accept the Bible as the final authority. I accept God as the final authority. You might not think its important to seek out and listen to the Holy Spirit, but I do. Because we must live off the Spirit if we are to be saved. We must recieve revelation and learn from God. This is what the scriptures you claim to believe say. So why are you upset when I actually try to live it?



> There is induction methods and deduction methods when reading/studying scripture.  One is not suppose to "make" the bible say what they want it to say, but to let scripture speak to them, though it may not be what they want to hear/read.  The bible speaks myriads against Mormon doctrine.



I dont make the Bible say what I want to say. I seek out the Spirit and God's will. Something youd rather ignore. I dont know what you have against seeking the Holy Ghost. He will teach you things you never dreamed.



> Your limited bible knowledge using joy, peace, love, etc.. as a resulting human response to God's indwelling Spirit, is not the ultimate "compass" to determine His presence.  The bible says over and over that scripture is the final deciding factor over all other alleged evidences.  So, what will it be........Take a bit of bible here and there that backs up your paradigm, and ignore that which doesn't.  It's either the Word of God or it is isn't.



Are the fruits of the Spirit joy, peace, love? or not? It's not a difficult question. The bible teaches it clearly, So why dont you accepte it?

The Bible is clear that the Spirit will teach us the truth of all things. That we must repent and be baptized and recieve the Holy Ghost. That we must live off every word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God. You dont know what the Bible says unless you Go to God and have Him teach you.



> Your presumptuous statement that I haven't enjoyed those fruits of the Spirit are totally unfounded, but just a defensive counter to my last post.



Im not presuming anything. You are explicitly stating that that's not how the Spirit works. Which tells me you don't know how the Spirit works because the Scriptures say the Spirit works that way and personal experience does. 



> In the bible there are types of love, "Agape, phileo, and eros",  Jesus, and His disciples said that "Agape" is the most important, as it encompasses the "servanthood" that Christ brought to mankind that truly summarizes God's nature towards us and what we should express to others.
> 
> Phileo is the type of love that "delights" in someone or something.
> Eros is sexual attraction or love expressed sexually.



Perfectly, fine but irrelevant to the conersation.



> These all make up in totality, what love is according to the bible/Christ, but "Agape"; Christ and disciples said is the one to focus on.  It's not feeling oriented, but is an objective decision that can indeed be motivated by both mind and emotions, but in the end is exercised by our will, or "chooser".
> 
> It is expressed when we hug and kiss someone, even though we are angry at them or have been hurt by them.  In other words it goes deeper than feelings.



Again completely irrelevant to the conversation. We are talking about how to recognize the Holy Spirit. Not what type of love there is.



> Feelings based decision making is most-dangerous as it can lead to big mistakes and a lot of burnt bridges needing mending.



Thats all good and true, but we arent talking about feelings based decisions. We are talking about listening and believing the Holy Spirit. 



> Just as the LDS doctrine stresses for all to pray for a "message" from God, confirming Mormonism as the truth, so the radical Charismatic/Pentacostal Christian can fall into the same trap.  It creates a addiction to feelings based decision making in an every increasing rate.



So you think God is going to lie to you?



> The joy and peace that you experience is not the Holy Spirits authorship.  That's just feel-goodism, based on your present state of non-life-stress conditions.



That isnt what Paul said. Nor is it what the disciples experienced. You can pretend to have a clue what i've experienced but as of right now, my experiences are lined up with the scriptures. 

You've provided no alternative in anything you've said. All you've done is say "Nah ah!"



> The real test of faith, and belief isn't measured in the feel-good times, but in the trenches of life's valleys i.e... death of a loved one, terminal illnesses, loss of job, divorce, prolonged sickness, out-of-the-blue tragediess, disappointments, elimination of life goals/hopes...etc...



Again totally irrelevant to how you recognize and identify the Spirit.



> Christ and His disciples said that life wouldn't be a cake-walk, but would be hard, but He did say that if anyone took-up His "yoke" it would be much better/easier than going it alone with one's own "yoke".



Again, completely irrelevant.



> Benny Hinn, is a perfect example of a preacher that stresses feelings-based faith.
> 
> Sadly, I've met many folks from the very Charismatic/feelings oriented faith movement, and their ability to understand that faith is objective in it's goal and exercise is very foreign to them.



Again, your post is yelling that you have no clue what the Holy Spirit is like. You've never felt the fruits of the Spirit.



> In fact as Christians, they are very immature, as they are so programmed to expect a "miracle" to rescue them out of lifes hardships that they never grow in endurance, which leads to greater character and wisdom.



This is again, completely irrelevant to asking God to recieve guidence. Why exactly do you pray if it's not to learn from the Holy Ghost? How do you except to learn wisdom if you ignore the Holy Spirit.



> They go to church, raise their hands, speak in alleged tongues, have visions, have messages or words of communication from God during worship/prayer, then go home Sunday afternoon after church, knock off a couple six packs of beer, give the finger in road rage to some rude driver, and basically live in a way through the week that would scarcely seem Christ-like.



Whatever they do is completely irrelevant to the topic. They can have visions. They can hear God's voice.



> I've seen it!  I've visited these churches for weeks at a time.  There are distinct differences to the personalities of the various body's of Christ(Church's).  Just as Revelations laid into the various churches one by one and prophesied either for or against them because of their behavior, it is no different today.



That's all well and good but its irrelevant to the topic at hand.



> Satan has been a deceiver from the beginning.  God has been omnipotent and truthful from eternity past through eternity future, as there is no beginning or end to Him.  He is pre-existent.  Satan is not pre-existent, but is a created being of great power, beauty, and influence, and many theologians believe that he once was a beautiful being called a Seraphim, as mentioned in Isaiah in the Old Testament.  Seraphims were angels who stood before the throne of God, and announced God's glory.  They also had 3 sets of wings as they hovered about the throne.



The scriptures are pretty clear that satan fell from heaven before the earth was. How can he not be pre existant then?

What does it matter what theologians are saying? What matters is what God says. And how the heck are you giong to know what God says if you dont talk with Him and Ask Him? And most important: Listen?




> Satan/Lucifer was cast from God's presence to the earth, and infact Jesus told His disciples He witnessed Satan's plummet to earth.  Christ was tempted by Satan for 40 days in the wilderness, but being God in flesh, resisted Satans crafty ways to beckon Jesus' worship of Him.



Again completely irrelevant to recognizing and listening to the Spirit.



> They were not brothers as Mormon teaching says.  The bible does not teach that in anyway.  Satan is a created being, that with free-will rebelled with pride and wanted it all.  Call it delusional, or whatever, that's what happened


.

The extent of your knowledge of satan rests in theologians. You dont know anything about him. To make this claim is ridiculous.



> Satan may have been created before high technology, but he is no neophite at beguiling mankind into following anything but God.  Some folks wonder why he does this if he's bound for destruction?  Delusional beings don't live in complete reality do they?  Self delusion causes one to hope a believe in that which is absurd and non-objective.  Satan lives with one big old dose of delusion, or one big old grudge to take all of humanity with him to the pit as he can before his day is up and he is cast into the fiery furnace in chains.



You shouldnt be so obsessed with the devil. You also shouldnt fear him more than you fear God. You shouldnt let your fear of Him keep you from learning from the Heavens.



> Satan knows any and all things about the world.  He does not have a bronze age mentality, but is keen to 21st mankind as well as B.C. man.  Little does he know, but he is a "tool" in God's greater work of salvation, much like what happened in the book of Job.  God allows, but does not author sin and mishap upon mankind.



Again my previous comment.



> Character, and wisdom is not forged on the mountain-tops of life, but in the valleys of closed doors.  God so loves His creation that he allows many things to occur in our lives that seem so stressful and negative at first analysis.  Yet that stressful time is actually a time of potential growth for us as Christian, and for the non-Christian, a time to become convinced that they are not the "pilots" of their lives from birth to death.  Call it the old 2x4 across the cranium, but God knows us inside and out, as He created us and knew us before we formed in our mother's wombs.



Completely irrelevant.



> The bible says that many false prophets will arise that will say, "Here is the Christ!", yet beware.  There will be many false Christs concocted by men and women with deluded mines, and many who do it for totally selfish ambition(Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland).



True, but in mentioning false prophets it acknowledges true prophets. 



> Joseph Smith was once a Christian church member, but most likely was never "born again".  He like many Voltarian inspired people didn't want to live within what they saw as biblical constraints.  Rather than try to seek God's wisdom, they relied on their own wisdom as it avoided responsibility for sin.



Biblical constraints? Why should we live within constraints the Bible doesnt require? No where in the Bible does it say believe this book and nothing else. Quite the opposite. It teaches us to seek. to learn. to ask and recieve from the Father.

Let me sum up what you are claiming:

Asking God for truth is satanic and wrong.

Trying to figure out the scriptures on your own is seeking God's wisdom.

You realize you have that completely backwards dont you?




> So polygamy was green lighted, as well as blood attonement, all humanistic, Romans chapter one type degradations of the human soul.  Taking of underage girls in marriage, or pedophelia/sexual predation of children, covered in religiosity resulted.



You really dont have a clue what you're talking about, do you?



> There are so many contradictions within the doctrinal statements and stances of past to present LDS prophets, yet the church chugs on, ignoring these blaring inconsistencies.



easy claim to make. Not so easy to back it up. Especially with someone who has done extensively more study.



> Avatar:  If only you really knew or experienced the fruit or love of the Holy Spirit, and the resultant joy, and peace that even is experienced in the lowest points of life, you'd understand the feelings-based belief, is like shallow soil with a rock hard ground underneath.



If you had experienced it you wouldnt confuse it with "feelings-based belief". 



> Just as the seed and the sower parable by Jesus said that the truth fell upon a thin layer of soil started to take root, but the roots went down and hit the hard soil, and then withered and died, so it is with feelings based faith.  It can't crack the hard undersoil that produces or sustains growth in the believer.



Completely irrelevant

Also, the seeds that fell on rocky ground were picked away by the birds of the air.  That the biblical truths that are blown-off right from the start by the individual.  It hardens the soul, and makes it even more difficult for that person to come to the base of the cross, in totally tranparency, and contrition.



> Balaam claimed to be a prophet of God, but gave into worldly temptations just like Joseph Smith Jr. and later LDS prophets.  His end came by the sword as ordered by God



Assertions that have nothing to do with the topic.

Why does it scare you to ask God for the truth? Seriously, what are you afraid of? Do you think God lies to people? Or do you just have that little faith in God? I mean He has told us He will reveal all things to us. Do you think He cant? Do you think He wont? Do you think It's somehow offensive to ask God??? Seriously, why are you so against it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Word


----------



## Truthspeaker

by the way. who knew this would turn into a hundred pages of dialogue.


----------



## Arawyn

Truthspeaker said:


> by the way. who knew this would turn into a hundred pages of dialogue.



I've not been on this board for long, but I've been on enough them to know that it does that 

We are just a fascinating group of folks


----------



## Montrovant

Avatar4321 said:


> People usually dont voluntarily go to their death for something they make up. The behavior of the witnesses dont make much sense unless they saw what they claimed to have seen either.



I have seen this sentiment a number of times before, and it always makes me wonder.  Does that mean that when people voluntarily go to their death for a faith other than your own, it validates that faith?

I'm not going to argue that such people believe in whatever it is they believe.  I accept that people usually will not voluntarily go to their death for something they don't believe.  However, the fact that someone is willing to do so only speaks to the strength of their belief, not it's validity.

Sorry to break into this discussion with such a small point!


----------



## Avatar4321

Montrovant said:


> I have seen this sentiment a number of times before, and it always makes me wonder.  Does that mean that when people voluntarily go to their death for a faith other than your own, it validates that faith?
> 
> I'm not going to argue that such people believe in whatever it is they believe.  I accept that people usually will not voluntarily go to their death for something they don't believe.  However, the fact that someone is willing to do so only speaks to the strength of their belief, not it's validity.
> 
> Sorry to break into this discussion with such a small point!



I never claimed they are valid because they voluntarily went to their deaths. Im saying people dont voluntarily go to their deaths for something they know is a scam. They actually believe it.

Now, just because someone believes it doesnt mean they are correct. But when they try to argue Joseph was a scam artist, it doesnt fit. He believed what he was preaching.


----------



## Arawyn

Avatar4321 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen this sentiment a number of times before, and it always makes me wonder.  Does that mean that when people voluntarily go to their death for a faith other than your own, it validates that faith?
> 
> I'm not going to argue that such people believe in whatever it is they believe.  I accept that people usually will not voluntarily go to their death for something they don't believe.  However, the fact that someone is willing to do so only speaks to the strength of their belief, not it's validity.
> 
> Sorry to break into this discussion with such a small point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed they are valid because they voluntarily went to their deaths. Im saying people dont voluntarily go to their deaths for something they know is a scam. They actually believe it.
> 
> Now, just because someone believes it doesnt mean they are correct. But when they try to argue Joseph was a scam artist, it doesnt fit. He believed what he was preaching.
Click to expand...


But I also think it must be discussed about voluntarily going to "your/their" death. Does it mean just willing to commit suicide/allow being murdered for what you believe.....or does it mean willing to face death for your beliefs?

I think Joseph willingly faced death......not voluntarily walked to be murdered. 

I'm not articulate enough to explain the difference except maybe that it comes in mindset. 

I don't see Joseph thinking (even after being shown what would/could happen) I'm going to kill myself/let myself be murdered to be a martyr for God. 

I tend to see Joseph more walking out, after seeing what would/could happen, I will face what comes my way. 

KWIM?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Arawyn said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen this sentiment a number of times before, and it always makes me wonder.  Does that mean that when people voluntarily go to their death for a faith other than your own, it validates that faith?
> 
> I'm not going to argue that such people believe in whatever it is they believe.  I accept that people usually will not voluntarily go to their death for something they don't believe.  However, the fact that someone is willing to do so only speaks to the strength of their belief, not it's validity.
> 
> Sorry to break into this discussion with such a small point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed they are valid because they voluntarily went to their deaths. Im saying people dont voluntarily go to their deaths for something they know is a scam. They actually believe it.
> 
> Now, just because someone believes it doesnt mean they are correct. But when they try to argue Joseph was a scam artist, it doesnt fit. He believed what he was preaching.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But I also think it must be discussed about voluntarily going to "your/their" death. Does it mean just willing to commit suicide/allow being murdered for what you believe.....or does it mean willing to face death for your beliefs?
> 
> I think Joseph willingly faced death......not voluntarily walked to be murdered.
> 
> I'm not articulate enough to explain the difference except maybe that it comes in mindset.
> 
> I don't see Joseph thinking (even after being shown what would/could happen) I'm going to kill myself/let myself be murdered to be a martyr for God.
> 
> I tend to see Joseph more walking out, after seeing what would/could happen, I will face what comes my way.
> 
> KWIM?
Click to expand...


Joseph knew he would be slaughtered. He said so several times. Why did he do it? because he was standing for the principles of being a law abiding citizen. he was willing to die in order to show that he was not a criminal, he was willing to face every charge in court and have himself acquitted even in courts that WANTED to see him hang. There was so little evidence at all the many trials he was acquitted of that the judges and even the prejudiced juries had to throw their hands up and say, this man cannot be reached by the law.

Had he run from illegal arrests he could have been justified because he was innocent. But he chose to face them anyway because it was another opportunity to prove he was not guilty of the vicious rumors ascribed to him. Had he run it would have just given more fuel for anti-mormons to use by saying, "See! If he's so innocent, then why does he run? He must have something to hide, that old devil. We knew he was crooked!"


----------



## Ceasaro

Wasn't Joseph a pedophile and a polygamist?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> Wasn't Joseph a pedophile and a polygamist?



no and yes in that order.


----------



## Ceasaro

Truthspeaker said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Joseph a pedophile and a polygamist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no and yes in that order.
Click to expand...


So all the females he married were 18+? Not too sure about that.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Joseph a pedophile and a polygamist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no and yes in that order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the females he married were 18+? Not too sure about that.
Click to expand...


18 is a random number that has been given as law only in recent times. Such laws did not exist back then. Young girls by age 14 were grown up women. they already were ready for marriage in case the parents thought they were ready. times were different so you can't hold people from different generations to today's standards in regards to the age of wives. None of them were forced and all were given by their parents. Just like in old testament times. It is hardly pedophilia when someone commits to a marriage and provides for the wife in every way she asks for. There was never any rape or anything of the sort. All charges ever brought against Joseph were dropped.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed they are valid because they voluntarily went to their deaths. Im saying people dont voluntarily go to their deaths for something they know is a scam. They actually believe it.
> 
> Now, just because someone believes it doesnt mean they are correct. But when they try to argue Joseph was a scam artist, it doesnt fit. He believed what he was preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I also think it must be discussed about voluntarily going to "your/their" death. Does it mean just willing to commit suicide/allow being murdered for what you believe.....or does it mean willing to face death for your beliefs?
> 
> I think Joseph willingly faced death......not voluntarily walked to be murdered.
> 
> I'm not articulate enough to explain the difference except maybe that it comes in mindset.
> 
> I don't see Joseph thinking (even after being shown what would/could happen) I'm going to kill myself/let myself be murdered to be a martyr for God.
> 
> I tend to see Joseph more walking out, after seeing what would/could happen, I will face what comes my way.
> 
> KWIM?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph knew he would be slaughtered. He said so several times. Why did he do it? because he was standing for the principles of being a law abiding citizen. he was willing to die in order to show that he was not a criminal, he was willing to face every charge in court and have himself acquitted even in courts that WANTED to see him hang. There was so little evidence at all the many trials he was acquitted of that the judges and even the prejudiced juries had to throw their hands up and say, this man cannot be reached by the law.
> 
> Had he run from illegal arrests he could have been justified because he was innocent. But he chose to face them anyway because it was another opportunity to prove he was not guilty of the vicious rumors ascribed to him. Had he run it would have just given more fuel for anti-mormons to use by saying, "See! If he's so innocent, then why does he run? He must have something to hide, that old devil. We knew he was crooked!"
Click to expand...


You are so LDS brainwashed.  You've really drank the Kool-aid.

Non-church eyewitness, newspaper reports say that J.S. Jr. did not die a martyr nor was he illegally charged or arrested.
Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He attempted to destroy a towns newspaper press because that paper printed negative stories about him and his group of followers.  God forbid, the paper condemned J.S. Jr's polygamous practices as well as other abherent activities.

Smith attacked the very essentials of the 1st Ammendment rights granted to all Americans when he did this deed.
********
You "want" to believe that Mormonism is true, it isn't a matter of objective evidences that your belief is based upon.  

You've been taught to believe that your a victim of the big old nasty corrupted biblical Christian world.

Your temple rituals, nearly up to present mocked protestant pastors in a foolish theatrical drama for initiates.  You have copied Masonic, occultic handshakes and oaths nearly to the letter in the temple.

Joseph Smith Jr. created a mish mash of beliefs.  To this day your "reformed heiroglyphics" allegedly on the golden plates cannot validated by linguists who are astute in Egyptian heiroglyphics.

But you still hang on with such a preponderance of evidence that reveals nothing but inconsistencies.

Your 1830 authored Book of Mormon that trumps the bible has undergone thousands of changes.

You wear undergarments with occultic symbols, aprons not unlike Masonic aprons, have made Jesus into a mere man who became a god, allied Lucifer with this LDS invented Jesus as blood brothers......and on and on.

Yet, you tell biblical Christians that we are off-beam cause the bible isn't trustworthy anymore, cause this J.S. Jr. of sordid, criminal past was selected by God to bring the "true gospel" to the world.

You claim your church as the "true" Christian church, yet it in no way parallels the early Christian church of the N.T. book of Acts.  Oh, I forgot, Acts must be corrupted too.  That our excuse or "out" for believing in this incredible mish mash of contradictions.

When I say contradictions, I don't say it lightly.  Your church has sucked in so many folks who see only it's very thin outward veneer of apple pie, heterosexual marriage, and the American flag.  What an incredibly ingenious design, and the bible(oops) says that the Prince of Darkness is one heck of a good designer.

Your church as well as every cult can be identified clearly by one very important method or observation.  How does the LDS church deal with Jesus Christ?  You have bought into a blasphemous belief that diminishes the Godhood of Christ.  In flies in the face of 2,000 years of Christian teaching/history.  

To teach or tell initiates or your own members that the bible is not dependable is to diminish the very strength and power of God to "protect" His Word to His creation.  

Your church builds it's whole foundation upon the premise that God is weak, and non-involved with mankind, up until your J.S. jr. had his epiphany from God via an angel.

I've asked so many questions, but you've blew them off by saying they are answered, but you haven't.

You can't substantiated archeologically anything in N. or S. America that the Book of Mormon lays out in it's pages.

Every day new ruins and archeological finds in the Middle East, and Southern Europe are validating the bible.  The BOM has not one validating piece of archeological evidence to validate it as historical account of history in the New World.

Yet, you still hang on.

You pooh pooh the absolute fact Christian faith is based on evidences that demand a verdict.  Instead you elitely raise yourself above others by saying that "I've got the H.S." and it/he talkes to me and validated Mormonism as it gives me happies, and peace.

Happies and peace do not confirm anything.  They are emotions.  Emotions are a glorious gift of God to mankind, but they are not the "COMPASS" to depend on to determine Truth.  Emotions enhance and magnify our passions and beliefs, but ultimately, belief goes beyond emotions.  

Do you think those Christians that were in the colliseum about to be torn apart by animals or gladiators had warm fuzzies to help them stand strong?  Sure they were strong, and it amazed the Romans who watched these people go to their terrible slow deaths, but their strength came from their faith that this immediate world and it's tribulations were but a temporary time in a future eternal life in Heaven.  Thats the Holy Spirit at work in the believer.  Faces with death, they approached bravely, knowing that God had a better place, and eternal future ahead for them.  That's how the H.S. works.  It gives counsel in the inner man, it encourages and assures the true Christian.  It intercedes between the Christian and God when we are so distraught that we can't even pray.  It knows the mind of God, because it is the Person of the Spirit of God  working in perfect unison with Him.

The disciple Steven, even prayed for the men who were stoning him to death.  So did Jesus.

There is no account of Joseph Smith Jr. going peacefully to his alleged martyrdom.  He took out a gun and shot it out and was gunned down.  Not what one would expect of a man of God who was at peace, and love with his enemies.  There was no, "Father forgive them for they no not what they do." from the founder of your church.

Yes, he was a mere man, but he had not the qualities or life that one would know as a true prophet of God.

He was fascinated with treasure digging in New York along with his father.  He scammed folks in New York, and ran up a nice little rap sheet there.  

You don't want to believe this!  You only want to believe what your church historians feed you!  Your unwilling to step out and take a chance and challenge your churchs' doctrine against secular accounts.

Biblical Christians are challenged to challenge what is taught with our churches.  This has been true all the way back to the early church of Acts.  Even the famous Paul the Apostle was not trusted with his messages to the churches, as the followers of Christ, would diligently study scripture to make sure they weren't being misled.  

Paul applauded them for this.  What would J.S. jr. do if his followers challenged or questioned his teachings.  We know......."Blood Attonement".  Mormons who didn't fall into line were treated accordingly.

What of non-Mormons?  Well the Mountain Meadows Massacre is all we have to refer to for that answer.

Who were the actual victims in the MMM?  Hardly Mormons.
*********
You do not answer the questions.

God did not bless polygamy via Abraham, Solomon, David, etc...  In every instance these men of God were transgressing God's monogamous command.  In every instance, polygamy only brought strife, and sometimes bloodshed.  Abraham going into his servant girl without waiting on God's promise for a child/Isaac was a direct violation.  Solomon was given the greatest wisdom from God in the beginning, but he squandered away all that potential when he married again and again, and collected concubines from all over the known world.  In Ecclesiates, Solomon is one broken man, who warns us to avoid the pull of the world, and the flesh and obey God.  David commited murder to acquire another wife/Bathsheba, and in later years, the in-fighting between Davids offspring from his different wives nearly cost David his life.

So don't try to twist scripture into saying what you want it to say.  Polygamy was never blessed by God.  God allowed polygamy, but that's not "green lighting" it.

No, Mormons haven't suffered like true biblical Christians.  They haven't been fed to lions, been rounded by Muslims outside of this continent, and summarily killed or held hostage.

Mormon persecution has happened due to Mormon's trying to push or take over communities in the 1800's that didn't want their doctrine forced upon them.  People struck out against your early followers, as they saw them as a threat to their biblical beliefs.  This is why biblical Christian America continued to give J.S. and is followers the bum rush out of town wherever they tried to encamp.  They were not welcome.  They attacked the foundations of biblical Christian belief that was the mainstay of this country.


----------



## Truthspeaker

You pooh pooh the absolute fact Christian faith is based on evidences that demand a verdict.

Wow! What a statement! So everything in the bible has scientific evidence to support it eh? I thought the Christian faith was based on believing that Christ is the savior even if you haven't seen miracles or hard indusputable facts. Where is the "evidence" that Christ resurrected? Eyewitnesses only. 

Sure I love physical evidence as much as the next sign seeker. But I don't need archaeology(an ever changing institution) to tell me about Christs teachings(unchanging). Archaeology has no proof of Christ's resurrection but I still know it happened. 

The richest thing I read from your monotonous and repetitive rant is that I haven't answered your questions! Rich as Bill Gates eating See's candies! Just what questions, pray tell, have I not answered?
in over 100 hundred pages of dialogue you haven't comprehended a single one of the myriad of answers I have printed for review to the world. I think you just read your own posts! Assuming I couldn't possibly answer your questions. Well since your so smart, why don't you answer me a few questions?
What church do you belong to specifically?
How old are you?
Are you married?
What state do you live in?
Do you have family from Missouri?
Did you graduate from college?
Oh and one last question: Can you please explain the mountainous evidence in support of the book of mormon in no short supply on the link below?(by the way, I have already done this before, but only you could make me repeat myself more than 10 times)
Book of Mormon Evidences - Are LDS Scriptures Supported by Science?


----------



## Avatar4321

What a surprise. jumping to yet another topic.

Do you think God answers prayers? Yes or no?

Are you honestly claiming the Bible is wrong when it states that the fruits of the Spirit are joy, love, peace etc and that the Spirit works on our feelings?

Are you still going to try to falsely claim that we are trusting feelings and not the Spirit.

So why do you seem to think God is going to lie or not answer honest prayers?


----------



## Ceasaro

Archaeology has no proof of Christ's resurrection but I still know it happened. 
Ok, tell us how you know.

And dude, I went to your link and I have to say that the people who made that site are living in a state of suspended reality.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ceasaro said:


> Archaeology has no proof of Christ's resurrection but I still know it happened.
> Ok, tell us how you know.
> 
> And dude, I went to your link and I have to say that the people who made that site are living in a state of suspended reality.



The Spirit told me. I dont know about him, but im sure the response is similiar.

If you want to learn the things of God, you have to ask God and listen to Him.

Problem is so few people exercise the faith necessary to get the answer even though everyone can. Those who might think for some reason they dont have. Take Eighters, for whatever reason he thinks that asking God for knowledge is wrong. Yet he professes to believe in the Bible which teaches us to ask and recieve, to seek and to find.

Yet somehow we are wrong to do just that? 

I can promise you that God is there, and that He has the power to reveal Himself to us. I can also tell you that He is more than willing to do so, but He will do so on His conditions, not ours. And that condition is humility, faith, sincere desire to know and willingness to follow when we do.

Why are people so unwilling to experiment on the Word and find out for themselves?


----------



## Ceasaro

He's going to reveal himself on his conditions, and then we have to follow him? Didn't he make me? He forget to put something in? Why didn't he make me to follow him in the first place?
or are you just a natural born follower?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> He's going to reveal himself on his conditions, and then we have to follow him? Didn't he make me? He forget to put something in? Why didn't he make me to follow him in the first place?
> or are you just a natural born follower?



No one is born to follow him. that's one of the great secrets. This is an often random and dangerous environment we live in. An environment in which we make our OWN choices. God doesn't force his will on us because he loves us. He simply asks us to do our best with the knowledge we have. He invites us to to come to him and learn more of Him. Many people will be witheld from knowledge of Him but that's ok. We're all going to find out what's on the other side anyway. The point is to be a good person in your heart and actions. Jesus makes up the difference for ignorance.


----------



## Shogun

Hey dude.. congrats on making a pretty epic thread around here!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Hey dude.. congrats on making a pretty epic thread around here!



Mr. Missouri you have truly been appreciated. Thank you very much.


----------



## geauxtohell

All organized religions believe silly stuff and have their fair share of skeletons in their closet, so I don't take exception with any of them.

I will say that Mormons, as a group, are some of the nicest and most polite people I have ever met.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well that's nice to hear.


----------



## geauxtohell

Truthspeaker said:


> Well that's nice to hear.



Dammit!

Must you people be so nice?


----------



## Truthspeaker

geauxtohell said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's nice to hear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dammit!
> 
> Must you people be so nice?
Click to expand...


The second greatest commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself. Only nice people can do that.


----------



## N4mddissent

I used to believe.  I prayed.  I asked for wisdom.  I have read the bible many times.  In fact, I planned on being a minister.  I participated in bible studies, went to church retreats during the summer, evangelized in the community, and even delivered a few sermons during evening services.  

I no longer believe.  It wasn't sudden or asked for.  I had never even met a self-declared unbeliever when I lost my faith.  There was no literature or propoganda.  Just simply thinking critically and searching for the truth- initially the true "faith" or better understanding of god's will - I carefully studied and gradually chipped away the inconsistencies that were questionable or appeared contrived by man.  Eventually there was nothing left and I surprised myself with the realization that I honestly no longer believed.  

A quest for the truth present in the word of god led me to the conclusion that god is only a word.  Just like language is a way of ordering and labeling the world to communicate, the concept of god is a way of ordering and labeling the unknown.  There is no evidence of its actual existence as a "being".  
My search was done in good faith and led to no faith.   How does that fit into the ideology you presented, Avatar?  I was humble, willing, and had abundant faith. I have to keep my (lack of) beliefs close to my vest due to potential social repurcussions in the small town where I live, but at the same time, I feel more content and at peace than I ever did relying on faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> I used to believe.  I prayed.  I asked for wisdom.  I have read the bible many times.  In fact, I planned on being a minister.  I participated in bible studies, went to church retreats during the summer, evangelized in the community, and even delivered a few sermons during evening services.
> 
> I no longer believe.  It wasn't sudden or asked for.  I had never even met a self-declared unbeliever when I lost my faith.  There was no literature or propoganda.  Just simply thinking critically and searching for the truth- initially the true "faith" or better understanding of god's will - I carefully studied and gradually chipped away the inconsistencies that were questionable or appeared contrived by man.  Eventually there was nothing left and I surprised myself with the realization that I honestly no longer believed.
> 
> A quest for the truth present in the word of god led me to the conclusion that god is only a word.  Just like language is a way of ordering and labeling the world to communicate, the concept of god is a way of ordering and labeling the unknown.  There is no evidence of its actual existence as a "being".
> My search was done in good faith and led to no faith.   How does that fit into the ideology you presented, Avatar?  I was humble, willing, and had abundant faith. I have to keep my (lack of) beliefs close to my vest due to potential social repurcussions in the small town where I live, but at the same time, I feel more content and at peace than I ever did relying on faith.



I know you directed your statement toward Avatar so I'm sorry if you didn't want my opinion. But I thought it might be helpful to tell you I was having the same questions you had in the past. I drew a different conclusion. I am sure we both had different experiences because we were raised in to different social circles in different parts of the world. Might I suggest you give the Book of Mormon a try. I would really respect your opinion on it. I'm very curious as to what you would think about it. But there is only one way to read it; cover to cover in order without stopping in the middle and never giving the rest of it a chance. 
You can't spot read. It won't make sense. Like entering into the middle of a movie like The Game(Michael Douglas).
Also part of the caveat is that you must(and I know you will) read it very carefully and ask questions about things you don't understand right away. I would love to hear what you have to say.


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to believe.  I prayed.  I asked for wisdom.  I have read the bible many times.  In fact, I planned on being a minister.  I participated in bible studies, went to church retreats during the summer, evangelized in the community, and even delivered a few sermons during evening services.
> 
> I no longer believe.  It wasn't sudden or asked for.  I had never even met a self-declared unbeliever when I lost my faith.  There was no literature or propoganda.  Just simply thinking critically and searching for the truth- initially the true "faith" or better understanding of god's will - I carefully studied and gradually chipped away the inconsistencies that were questionable or appeared contrived by man.  Eventually there was nothing left and I surprised myself with the realization that I honestly no longer believed.
> 
> A quest for the truth present in the word of god led me to the conclusion that god is only a word.  Just like language is a way of ordering and labeling the world to communicate, the concept of god is a way of ordering and labeling the unknown.  There is no evidence of its actual existence as a "being".
> My search was done in good faith and led to no faith.   How does that fit into the ideology you presented, Avatar?  I was humble, willing, and had abundant faith. I have to keep my (lack of) beliefs close to my vest due to potential social repurcussions in the small town where I live, but at the same time, I feel more content and at peace than I ever did relying on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you directed your statement toward Avatar so I'm sorry if you didn't want my opinion. But I thought it might be helpful to tell you I was having the same questions you had in the past. I drew a different conclusion. I am sure we both had different experiences because we were raised in to different social circles in different parts of the world. Might I suggest you give the Book of Mormon a try. I would really respect your opinion on it. I'm very curious as to what you would think about it. But there is only one way to read it; cover to cover in order without stopping in the middle and never giving the rest of it a chance.
> You can't spot read. It won't make sense. Like entering into the middle of a movie like The Game(Michael Douglas).
> Also part of the caveat is that you must(and I know you will) read it very carefully and ask questions about things you don't understand right away. I would love to hear what you have to say.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I have a lot of books packed away at a former residence.  I thought I had brought a copy of the BoM with me, but I must have left it.  I will have to wait until I can swing by and find my copy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to believe.  I prayed.  I asked for wisdom.  I have read the bible many times.  In fact, I planned on being a minister.  I participated in bible studies, went to church retreats during the summer, evangelized in the community, and even delivered a few sermons during evening services.
> 
> I no longer believe.  It wasn't sudden or asked for.  I had never even met a self-declared unbeliever when I lost my faith.  There was no literature or propoganda.  Just simply thinking critically and searching for the truth- initially the true "faith" or better understanding of god's will - I carefully studied and gradually chipped away the inconsistencies that were questionable or appeared contrived by man.  Eventually there was nothing left and I surprised myself with the realization that I honestly no longer believed.
> 
> A quest for the truth present in the word of god led me to the conclusion that god is only a word.  Just like language is a way of ordering and labeling the world to communicate, the concept of god is a way of ordering and labeling the unknown.  There is no evidence of its actual existence as a "being".
> My search was done in good faith and led to no faith.   How does that fit into the ideology you presented, Avatar?  I was humble, willing, and had abundant faith. I have to keep my (lack of) beliefs close to my vest due to potential social repurcussions in the small town where I live, but at the same time, I feel more content and at peace than I ever did relying on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you directed your statement toward Avatar so I'm sorry if you didn't want my opinion. But I thought it might be helpful to tell you I was having the same questions you had in the past. I drew a different conclusion. I am sure we both had different experiences because we were raised in to different social circles in different parts of the world. Might I suggest you give the Book of Mormon a try. I would really respect your opinion on it. I'm very curious as to what you would think about it. But there is only one way to read it; cover to cover in order without stopping in the middle and never giving the rest of it a chance.
> You can't spot read. It won't make sense. Like entering into the middle of a movie like The Game(Michael Douglas).
> Also part of the caveat is that you must(and I know you will) read it very carefully and ask questions about things you don't understand right away. I would love to hear what you have to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have a lot of books packed away at a former residence.  I thought I had brought a copy of the BoM with me, but I must have left it.  I will have to wait until I can swing by and find my copy.
Click to expand...


I can have one sent to you for free, no questions asked.


----------



## Eightball

The N.T. is filled with eye witnesses to Jesus' ressurrection.

Paul even stated in one of his epistles that several hundred people were still living who witnessed the ressurrected Jesus when he wrote that epistle.

I didn't see Abe Lincoln get shot and die 149 years ago, but eye witnesses who are now dead and gone left their testimonies of the fact that still exist in written accounts.

So we have folks who lived nearly 2,000 years ago that testified to seeing and witnessing both the crucifixion and the ressurrection.  Is their testimony any less valid?

Now, who are the witnesses to J.S. Jr.'s ecounter with an angel, and the Golden plates that no longer exist?  If Mormonism is the truth, why did God allow the Golden plates to be lost, and basically the whole testimony of this latter day visitation from an angel.

Also, you might note that Demons are angels, and they project themselves in deceiving ways.  How do you know that Moroni the angel wasn't one of Satan's cohorts sent to deceive man and lead him away from the biblical Christianity?


----------



## Eightball

The N.T. is filled with eye witnesses to Jesus' ressurrection.

Paul even stated in one of his epistles that several hundred people were still living who witnessed the ressurrected Jesus when he wrote that epistle.

I didn't see Abe Lincoln get shot and die 149 years ago, but eye witnesses who are now dead and gone left their testimonies of the fact that still exist in written accounts.

So we have folks who lived nearly 2,000 years ago that testified to seeing and witnessing both the crucifixion and the ressurrection.  Is their testimony any less valid?

Now, who are the witnesses to J.S. Jr.'s ecounter with an angel, and the Golden plates that no longer exist?  If Mormonism is the truth, why did God allow the Golden plates to be lost, and basically the whole testimony of this latter day visitation from an angel.  Oh, yeah, Moroni has them.  As for witnesses "3" folks the rest claim visitations via visions.  Boy, that real evidenciary stuff there. 

Also, you might note that Demons are angels, and they project themselves in deceiving ways.  How do you know that Moroni the angel wasn't one of Satan's cohorts sent to deceive man and lead him away from the biblical Christianity?

Some day the bubble will pop, and this whole paradigm that you've built your life upon will tumble down.

This Mormon tag-team comprised of Truth Speaker and Avatar are so badly duped into this LDS cult, that foundationally is a laughing hoot, but in reality is a very sad and tragic thing.

TruthSpeaker, no doubt your an elder.  You haven't mentioned it yet, but your threads reak of the typical elitist atitude that Mormon elders and bishops carry.  You play the role of the oppressed religious victim, yet you are what the Jesus referred to as "ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing".  You prey on those with nominal biblical understanding or those that have been disenchanted by their experiences in the mainstream biblical churches, and woo them with sweet, encouragement.

You know your BOM is filled with plagarisms from the bible, with title or name changes to the books within, and then sprinkled with J.S. Jr's ambitious mind.  The BOM reveals some very crafty deception, but also reveals that the author was very uneducated in geography, ancient history, and understanding of the development of ancient cultures.

Someday, hopefully, God will intervene in your life in a way that will cause you to ponder the merits of your belief system.  Hopefully you will actually face the facts, and not lean on your skewed definition of faith.  Faith is no validated by visions, or dreams.  Visions and dreams and words from God to your psyche can be valid, but Satan also has access to your soul and is the Prince of this World.  He can work up some very vivid visions and dreams that seem like sweet honey.  He/Satan even can give you a dream of a dead relative you so admired and in that dream that relative will tell you, "Mormonis is the truth".  It happens all the time.  

If during one of those visions, you were to say to that messenger, "Is Jesus Christ the one and only Son of God, and God in the Flesh, and there are no other Gods before Him.", you will have a very big surprise.  That vision will turn ugly, and you'll think you got hit with a hammer.  You will then know that you have tested the spirits, and the spirits have revealed who they really are.

Are you brave enough to test the spirits, next time you have a burning bosom type encounter.

I've prayed in my dreams when encounter that which seemed evil, and boy oh boy, did that dream ever change in a hurry.

Satan is alive and well, prowling about the earth  with his principalities, or army of fallen twisted angels/demons, going about whispering lies, into visions, dreams, and other phenomena.  

The Mormon church is one of his most glorious pieces of art and design, as it centers on the fleshly side of man and his needs, and disregards the gospel of forgiveness through grace.

The cross is never to be seen on the steeple of a Mormon church.  It holds little importance, yet the Gospel of Jesus Christ starts at the cross for all who seek salvation.  There is no other road to eternal life.  It is a narrow road and man seeks the easy road.  Mormonism is that wide road authored by the Prince of this World.

Ever wonder why a Moroni stands atop the roof of the Mormon church and not the symbol of the cross where Jesus gave it all for humanity?


----------



## Avatar4321

geauxtohell said:


> All organized religions believe silly stuff and have their fair share of skeletons in their closet, so I don't take exception with any of them.
> 
> I will say that Mormons, as a group, are some of the nicest and most polite people I have ever met.



Not sure i agree. I think silly is a rather relative term. What's silly to one person may make perfect sense to another.

Oh and we dont have any skeletons in our closet. Any so called skeleton has been out for decades.


----------



## Avatar4321

geauxtohell said:


> Dammit!
> 
> Must you people be so nice?



Friendship is one of the three grand principles of mormonism. That's why.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> The N.T. is filled with eye witnesses to Jesus' ressurrection.
> 
> Paul even stated in one of his epistles that several hundred people were still living who witnessed the ressurrected Jesus when he wrote that epistle.
> 
> I didn't see Abe Lincoln get shot and die 149 years ago, but eye witnesses who are now dead and gone left their testimonies of the fact that still exist in written accounts.
> 
> So we have folks who lived nearly 2,000 years ago that testified to seeing and witnessing both the crucifixion and the ressurrection.  Is their testimony any less valid?
> 
> Now, who are the witnesses to J.S. Jr.'s ecounter with an angel, and the Golden plates that no longer exist?  If Mormonism is the truth, why did God allow the Golden plates to be lost, and basically the whole testimony of this latter day visitation from an angel.
> 
> Also, you might note that Demons are angels, and they project themselves in deceiving ways.  How do you know that Moroni the angel wasn't one of Satan's cohorts sent to deceive man and lead him away from the biblical Christianity?



We have more witnesses for the Book of Mormon and the plates than we do in the Bible for the resurrection. To somehow claim we can accept those eye witnesses and must dismiss the Book of Mormon witnesses is absurd.

Olivery Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all saw the plates. They saw the angel and heard the voice of God declaring the Book of Mormon true. They went to their graves affirming that.

8 other witnesses wrote their witness of the plates. They handled them with their hands. 

Their witness is in the beginning of the Book of Mormon. There are other witnesses of the plates that werent published with the Book. I know a man who saw the plates for himself.

Oliver was with Joseph when the Aaronic and Melchesidek Priesthood was restored.

Sidney Rigdon was with Joseph along with 27 other people when they recieve the Vision of the Degrees of Glory.

Oliver was once again with Joseph when Christ appeared at the Kirtland Temple along with Elijah, Elias, and Moses with the keys of the Kingdom.

Wilford Wooddruff and others of the brethren were with Joseph when they went about healing the sick and afflicted in Nauvoo with the power of God. Hundreds were healed. One man was even brought back from the dead.

The entire School of the Prophets were visited by the Father and Jesus Christ during one of their meetings.

In fact, the only major event of the Restoration that wasnt witnessed by multiple people was Joseph's first vision. Joseph even went to his death with his brother and both of their murdered bodies have sealed their witness for the Book of Mormon and the Restoration in their blood.

So you are honestly going to pretend there are no eye witnesses to anything Joseph did? Seriously?? I mean much of whats so amazing about Joseph Smith is he was continually bringing other people into the revelations he was recieving. He wasnt just saying "Hey believe me when I claim to talk to God." He was saying "Here is what God has told me and why dont you come and find out from God yourself?"

Yet there are always people who seem to think going to the source of all information is somehow wrong and ungodly. It makes no sense that people preach of a relationship with God and then refuse to believe He says anything to people outside of the Bible. What kind of relationship can you possibily have with someone who you claim ignores you?


----------



## Ceasaro

So Jo lost the plates? lol.
And is Jo now a god?
And if god really did reveal himself.... to mormons, why didn't god show himself in the same way to everyone, including non-mormons?
Why is it that god only reveals himself to one person, or even just a few. Why not show everyone in the world that he's real and all this fighting would stop?
And why are the only "witnesses" from Jo's inner circle? Again, why would god only reveal himself to that pedophilic and polygamist nutjob?

And Truthspeaker, so you admit that Jo was a pedophile? Nice.


----------



## Arawyn

Ceasaro said:


> So Jo lost the plates? lol.
> And is Jo now a god?
> And if god really did reveal himself.... to mormons, why didn't god show himself in the same way to everyone, including non-mormons?
> Why is it that god only reveals himself to one person, or even just a few. Why not show everyone in the world that he's real and all this fighting would stop?
> And why are the only "witnesses" from Jo's inner circle? Again, why would god only reveal himself to that pedophilic and polygamist nutjob?
> 
> And Truthspeaker, so you admit that *Jo was a pedophile?* Nice.



How old were your ancestors during those times when they got married? Hmmm?


----------



## Avatar4321

Ceasaro said:


> So Jo lost the plates? lol.



No. He didn't lose the plates



> And is Jo now a god?



I have no reason to believe he is yet. Final judgment has not occured. And Joseph to the best of my knowledge, has not been resurrected yet.



> And if god really did reveal himself.... to mormons, why didn't god show himself in the same way to everyone, including non-mormons?



Because many non-mormons refuse to use the methods mormons use to ask God in the name of Christ. Those that do become mormon and lose credibility in your eyes.

The Lord will reveal the Book of Mormon to a non-mormon the same way He will to a mormon. He will reveal His Son the same way to a non-mormon as He does to a Mormon. If you are confident He wont, why not take the test and find out? We can get you a Book of Mormon for free.



> Why is it that god only reveals himself to one person, or even just a few. Why not show everyone in the world that he's real and all this fighting would stop?



Because you dont understand human nature if you believe that. There are people who will deny that the world is round or that the earth circles the Sun. You think God appearing to the world isnt going to change who they are? The time will come when the Lord does appear before the world. That time is not yet but soon. In the mean time, we have the mission to prepare the world and make it ready for a time when Christ will once again walk it. The Lord understands the timing and has His reasons. And His reasons are to provide an opportunity for those who dont believe to repent and come to Him. 




> And why are the only "witnesses" from Jo's inner circle? Again, why would god only reveal himself to that pedophilic and polygamist nutjob?



Why did Christ appear only to His disciples? The fact still remains there are witnesses and convincing ones considering they still held to their testimonies despite falling out with Joseph and losing all benefits of the faith for a time



> And Truthspeaker, so you admit that Jo was a pedophile? Nice.



I highly doubt he would considering there is zero evidence that he was a pedophile. Tell me, do you have any evidence that Joseph had any sexual relations with anyone other than his wife Emma?


----------



## Ceasaro

WoW! 

So where are the plates?
Ok Jo's no god, but how many gods are there anyways?
So I have to read and agree with your mormon book to see and know god? That's doesn't even make any sense. So your tiny minority of mormons are the only ones who have this god thing right?
"*There are people who will deny that the world is round or that the earth circles the Sun*." LOL, I didn't know that. Outside of insane asylums, of course.

" *His reasons are to provide an opportunity for those who dont believe to repent and come to Him*." 

Why doesn't he just do an interview on CNN and get it over with? Again, that makes no sense.

"*Why did Christ appear only to His disciples?*" I never said he did. Christians suffer from the same lack of reasoning.

Truthguy said Jo slept with minors. 

Arawyn: we're talking about holy people, try and keep up please.


----------



## Arawyn

Ceasaro said:


> WoW!
> 
> So where are the plates?
> Ok Jo's no god, but how many gods are there anyways?
> So I have to read and agree with your mormon book to see and know god? That's doesn't even make any sense. So your tiny minority of mormons are the only ones who have this god thing right?
> "*There are people who will deny that the world is round or that the earth circles the Sun*." LOL, I didn't know that. Outside of insane asylums, of course.
> 
> " *His reasons are to provide an opportunity for those who dont believe to repent and come to Him*."
> 
> Why doesn't he just do an interview on CNN and get it over with? Again, that makes no sense.
> 
> "*Why did Christ appear only to His disciples?*" I never said he did. Christians suffer from the same lack of reasoning.
> 
> Truthguy said Jo slept with minors.
> 
> Arawyn: we're talking about holy people, try and keep up please.



Oh, so there's a different set of standards? Well, Joseph and Mary were married when Mary hit puberty.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> WoW!
> 
> So where are the plates?
> Ok Jo's no god, but how many gods are there anyways?
> So I have to read and agree with your mormon book to see and know god? That's doesn't even make any sense. So your tiny minority of mormons are the only ones who have this god thing right?
> "*There are people who will deny that the world is round or that the earth circles the Sun*." LOL, I didn't know that. Outside of insane asylums, of course.
> 
> " *His reasons are to provide an opportunity for those who dont believe to repent and come to Him*."
> 
> Why doesn't he just do an interview on CNN and get it over with? Again, that makes no sense.
> 
> "*Why did Christ appear only to His disciples?*" I never said he did. Christians suffer from the same lack of reasoning.
> 
> Truthguy said Jo slept with minors.
> 
> Arawyn: we're talking about holy people, try and keep up please.



Cesaro, It seems you are 40% interested in learning why we think the way we do and 60% interested in being sarcastic. You aren't going to get anywhere with the sarcasm. You ask the sarcastic questions as if there is no answer. But they really are quite easily dealt with if you care to know truthfully. So to answer your questions:
1. The plates were ordered to be given back to the angel Moroni for safekeeping as Joseph went to such extreme measures to hide them from mobs and thieves that it was taking up too much of his time from the ministry. Once the purpose of the plates was fulfilled(translation), there was no more need for the burden of protecting them from thieves who wholeheartedly believed he had them on account of the testimonies of trusted men in the community,however mormon. he was losing sleep and constantly had his life threatened while he had the plates. The lord told him the purpose was fulfilled so he could attend to more pressing duties in building the church. It was also foretold the plates would also be brought forth to the naysayers before it's all said and done. Everyone will eventually see and touch for themselves.

2. Jesus said in the Bible there are Gods many and Lord's many. If there is more than one than there is no difference between 2 and 1000. 

3. It's always been a minority who know the mysteries of God. That's why they're called mysteries. In order to know God you need to have your own personal private soul searching and prayers with God. He will reveal to you the way you will best understand. It could come in the form of a book, it could come in the form of another person. It could be a vision. Joseph never read the book of mormon in order to get a vision. He didn't even expect a vision. He just wanted to know what church to join as a 14 year old boy. He had no idea how God was going to answer his prayer but he believed he would get an answer. You need to do the same thing. We all do. the answers come in different ways. And if we are the only ones who really understand the most about God's plan then it doesn't even matter, because we don't think we are better than others. We don't think we are the only ones to receive the ultimate reward from God. That's not our place to judge. Part of God's plan is the beautiful truth that each individual will stand to be judged of Jesus for the deeds done in the body and the cleanliness of their heart. The church you belong to will largely be irrelevant. The book of Mormon states "For charity is the pure love of Christ, and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him."
Who can say anything negative about that piece of eternal truth. It is statements like this that make our religion refreshing to us. That make us not worry as much about some of the injustices in the world. 

4. Why doesn't he do an interview on CNN? Because that would defeat the whole purpose of us learning the principle of faith. The reason we had our memory of the pre-Earth life wiped away was because there would have been no test. God wants to test our ability to accept truth as we go through life and learn piece by piece. He wants to test a lot of other things too. Like our ability to endure pain and suffering without blaming God for everything that goes wrong. Like finding out how selfish we will ultimately be. How will we treat the poor? How will we react when we truly comprehend the truth? Will we make ourselves available to serve others? Will we hoard all our riches to ourselves? Will we do our best, no matter what the circumstances? If Jesus appeared and told us everything to do, he would take away our choices, and wouldn't discover who we truly are. Plus if Jesus appeared on CNN the message would only reach the liberals


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> WoW!
> 
> So where are the plates?
> Ok Jo's no god, but how many gods are there anyways?
> So I have to read and agree with your mormon book to see and know god? That's doesn't even make any sense. So your tiny minority of mormons are the only ones who have this god thing right?
> "*There are people who will deny that the world is round or that the earth circles the Sun*." LOL, I didn't know that. Outside of insane asylums, of course.
> 
> " *His reasons are to provide an opportunity for those who dont believe to repent and come to Him*."
> 
> Why doesn't he just do an interview on CNN and get it over with? Again, that makes no sense.
> 
> "*Why did Christ appear only to His disciples?*" I never said he did. Christians suffer from the same lack of reasoning.
> 
> Truthguy said Jo slept with minors.
> 
> Arawyn: we're talking about holy people, try and keep up please.



Also, when you say "Jo" slept with minors. that is entirely incorrect. Today a minor is someone under the age of 18 by law. That law didn't exist until the united states created it in the 1930's. The law isn't accepted in all of the countries in the world even today, how much less than back in Joseph Smith's time. Also, these "minors" you talk about were his legally and lawfully married wives. Consent not only given by the women themselves but by their fathers and mothers who approved of their daughters choices. Women in those times were grown up by the time they were 14. They were trained in those days and parts for motherhood from birth. They knew they were eligible shortly after puberty and were far more mature than most 18 year olds today. Again I need to repeat, they made their own choices to marry Joseph. You must understand history and why things are different today. If you grew up in those times you would think nothing of it.


----------



## Ceasaro

1. Ok, so no plates, just like the tablets with the 10 commandments, they don't exist either. I guess Jo figured that no tablets didn't stop people from believing them, so he copied the bible.
Plus, your story doesn't even make any sense because even if he got rid of them, nobody would have believed him and would have probably tortured him to find out where they were.

2. So a) you don't know how many there are in your religion, and b) you're religion is copying the bible again.

3. Again, that barely makes any sense. There's been a super minority of people that have had something extraordinary apparently happen to them. Jo with the plates, moses with the tablets, jesus, mohammed and a few other founders of other religions. So a) god gave different plans to different people to start different religions. b) god really only revealed himself properly to a handful of guys (more like con men). And c) Your religion is just like all the others, you all think you're right and everyone else is wrong. Religion splits everyone up into groups that go at each other constantly. No eternal truth there.

4. That's so lame. He doesn't want everyone to know about him/her? LOL, ya sure. Then why did he send plates and tablets and visions to people so they could spread his/her word? Again, a serious lack of logic.

As for Jo banging minors, he did, end of story. In fact, mormons STILL do it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> 1. Ok, so no plates, just like the tablets with the 10 commandments, they don't exist either. I guess Jo figured that no tablets didn't stop people from believing them, so he copied the bible.
> Plus, your story doesn't even make any sense because even if he got rid of them, nobody would have believed him and would have probably tortured him to find out where they were.
> 
> 2. So a) you don't know how many there are in your religion, and b) you're religion is copying the bible again.
> 
> 3. Again, that barely makes any sense. There's been a super minority of people that have had something extraordinary apparently happen to them. Jo with the plates, moses with the tablets, jesus, mohammed and a few other founders of other religions. So a) god gave different plans to different people to start different religions. b) god really only revealed himself properly to a handful of guys (more like con men). And c) Your religion is just like all the others, you all think you're right and everyone else is wrong. Religion splits everyone up into groups that go at each other constantly. No eternal truth there.
> 
> 4. That's so lame. He doesn't want everyone to know about him/her? LOL, ya sure. Then why did he send plates and tablets and visions to people so they could spread his/her word? Again, a serious lack of logic.
> 
> As for Jo banging minors, he did, end of story. In fact, mormons STILL do it.



I can see there's no convincing you since you seem to have your mind made up. Hey it's a free country and I can totally understand where you are coming from in your opinions. On the surface I would tend to agree with you on a lot of things, if I didn't know better about my church's history. 

To state that "Jo" copied the bible is absurd. You obviously have zero understanding about the book of Mormon and have not read a word of it. If you did you would realize it's claim is entirely different from the Bible. It quotes the bible a few times but as for copying it,...like I said, it's absurd.

How many Gods are there in my religion? I do know. There are Three. God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost. It's a presidency that is united in organization and purpose. This presidency rules over all others. That's all that matters.

Also I think it's quite funny that you mention people would have tortured Joseph to find the plates if they thought he had them. It's so funny because that very thing happened. He was tarred and feathered after his house was ransacked trying to find the plates. That classifies as torture in my book. His infant also perished in the raid as a result of the cold exposure. He was beaten and his tooth was chipped when one of the mobbers tried to forced a vial of poison down his throat. he kept his teeth closed  and the vial chipped his front tooth. 
There are at least two such recorded accounts of these raids in search of the plates.

Also, yes we do believe we have the truth. The difference between us and all the others who claim to have the truth? We don't condemn them to hell because we know God is the judge of individuals and not churches. All others claim theirs to be the only way while others go to hell. that is the worst claim I have ever heard. We do not make such a claim because it's God's call and we don't know. In fact we preach that many of our faith will miss out on eternal reward while many more not of our faith will achieve eternal reward.

Did I miss something? Where did I ever say that God didn't want all of us to know about Him? I told you that everyone will get a fair shot whether in this life or the next. This will happen before judgment day.

Ok since YOU are now the self appointed authority on what goes on behind closed doors in Mormon life please answer me these questions? Since you know so much, please tell me what was the legal marriage age back in the 1800's. Also answer me this? Who specifically among us "mormons" is "banging minors" today and which minors? Excommunicated mormons and backwoods self proclaimed mormons who are not on our written church membership records do not count. they are on their own and not sanctioned by the official church but are condemned for practicing illegal activies.

You might also answer what is the legal marriage age in the state of Mississippi?


----------



## Ceasaro

It's not that I have my mind made up, it's that I've always been interested in the why and how someone who appears to have all their marbles chooses to believe a certain religion and their outlandish stories. If I ever find a religion that makes sense, I might consider myself of that religion, but I have not found anything plausible so far in any religion.

Ok, so back to the plates. Your story is getting more convoluted by the chapter: God is the president of all gods. And there's only three. But in the mormon stories, isn't it something like earth is ruled by an alien who was made a god? (I read that in some earlier posts in this thread I believe). So isn't that number 4? And didn't you say that Jo might become a god too?
And Jo was tar and feathered? That's torture? To tell you the truth, it sounds more like he was tarred and feathered by being a charlatan, that's why they did that in those days. Torture is roasting him over and open pit tied to a wagon wheel. Or something like that. Plus he chipped his tooth on a bottle of poison? Man, that's so dumb, I'm surprised you even believe that one. So if he got poison on his lips, he would have died anyways. And a couple of boots to the crotch would have gotten his mouth open.

I know you believe you have the truth, all religions do. Just think for a second, why would god only reveal himself to some scraggly cowboy in the middle of nowhere? Does that even make any sense?

Then if god DOES want everyone to know him, why doesn't he just reveal himself to everyone? Or go on CNN? Why the fuck is he hiding? He think he's Osama bin Laden? Or is ObL god?

Civilized societies have evolved to not marry minors. That Jo married minors only goes to show how much less civilized or un-civilized they were back then. 
There are still polygamous mormon communities in at least the US and Canada. To say that they aren't real mormons is pure sophistry. Just like kalam who claims that suicide bombers for jihad aren't real muslims. It's kalam who's not a real muslim.

Mississippi? Probably about 8 years old, but it has to be a family member.


----------



## amrchaos

Before we start comparing testimonies of one instance with testimonies for another, the question of the witnesses reputation must come to the bearing.

For instance, the testimonies of Jesus disciples have an air of disingenuity only in the case that they were followers of Christ.  *Adoration is the greatest form of delusion*, mind you.  But in the case of Lincoln, you can find testimonies from people tha did not think highly of Lincoln himself, yet wrote about his assasination.

Also, the question about why god does not present himself to everyone in the world, and just a few individuals is a very poignant question that was brushed away to casually.

Is our all powerful, all knowing "God" yet to figure out that a great miracle every generation is necessary to keep people from questioning his existance?  Or is it that "God" only favors a few individuals and only confide in them because the rest of us are not as important or understanding of "Gods" nature.  Or maybe the information is not as important as the messanger want us to believe, "God" is just testing the individual, and knowledge of "the truth" is not really important--remember, "god" did create us in ignorance.  So why would it be important for you to know something he did not care about informing you during your making?

Or maybe it is this simple--there is no god.  The disciples, John Smith and all the prophets of the world, both past and present, are just delusionals that hear, sense, and confess things that occured only in their minds eye.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> It's not that I have my mind made up, it's that I've always been interested in the why and how someone who appears to have all their marbles chooses to believe a certain religion and their outlandish stories. If I ever find a religion that makes sense, I might consider myself of that religion, but I have not found anything plausible so far in any religion.
> 
> Ok, so back to the plates. Your story is getting more convoluted by the chapter: God is the president of all gods. And there's only three. But in the mormon stories, isn't it something like earth is ruled by an alien who was made a god? (I read that in some earlier posts in this thread I believe). So isn't that number 4? And didn't you say that Jo might become a god too?
> And Jo was tar and feathered? That's torture? To tell you the truth, it sounds more like he was tarred and feathered by being a charlatan, that's why they did that in those days. Torture is roasting him over and open pit tied to a wagon wheel. Or something like that. Plus he chipped his tooth on a bottle of poison? Man, that's so dumb, I'm surprised you even believe that one. So if he got poison on his lips, he would have died anyways. And a couple of boots to the crotch would have gotten his mouth open.
> 
> I know you believe you have the truth, all religions do. Just think for a second, why would god only reveal himself to some scraggly cowboy in the middle of nowhere? Does that even make any sense?
> 
> Then if god DOES want everyone to know him, why doesn't he just reveal himself to everyone? Or go on CNN? Why the fuck is he hiding? He think he's Osama bin Laden? Or is ObL god?
> 
> Civilized societies have evolved to not marry minors. That Jo married minors only goes to show how much less civilized or un-civilized they were back then.
> There are still polygamous mormon communities in at least the US and Canada. To say that they aren't real mormons is pure sophistry. Just like kalam who claims that suicide bombers for jihad aren't real muslims. It's kalam who's not a real muslim.
> 
> Mississippi? Probably about 8 years old, but it has to be a family member.



I guess I'll take it as a compliment that you think I still have all my marbles. True a lot of our claims are outlandish. That doesn't make them false. To tell someone back in the 1800's there would be people walking on the moon would have been considered insane. Not so insane when it was true.

You can thank the infamous 8-ball, purveyor of anti-mormon stories, for the alien-God comment. That is stated in a way as to make God himself seem like a little green alien with a big head and giant black eyes. Since God was from another part of the universe, I guess technically you could call him an "alien" but he's not a green monster from the old 50's sci fi movies. He looks just like us since we are created  in his image.
Your idea of torture is what is convoluted. Do you know what it means to be tarred and feathered? It's having someone spread boiling tar all over your body with a broom. After it scalds your skin, it sticks to it like a road. It then needs to be carefully peeled off which large chunks of skin along with it. This process took hours without pain pills. It is not only extremely painful but also humiliating and disfiguring. Just because the poison touched his lips and teeth doesn't mean he ingested it. His lips were burned but he didn't die. Fortunately Joseph was the undisputed toughest man in the county. Perhaps he exerted all his strength trying to protect his crotch. Maybe the mobbers didn't think to kick him there. Whatever. You would fight pretty hard to keep arsenic out of your mouth too. 

 By the way one of the reasons for which he was arrested and tried in court in Missouri was the charge of "being a charlatan." He was acquitted after the judge and jury found "no evidence" of his being such a rascal. If these things don't qualify as torture I don't know what does.

By the way, in our religion, the aspiration we have is to go back and live with God our father. Our father wants us to have all he has. He wants to teach us all he knows. When at some future time we attain to the same knowledge and perfection as God under his instruction, we will be considered gods as well. The concept isn't so sacreligious as people make it out to be. What good father doesn't want his children to grow up to be as good or better than him?

Like I said before, since this life is a test, and we are eventually going to see God again anyway, why would God give all the answers to the test right before we take the test. Your teachers in school want you to pass the test too but they aren't going to give you the answers while you are taking the test. That's the principle. They will give you the book and say, go study this. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are such books. If you genuinely want to know why a guy like me who seemingly has all his marbles would believe in such outlandish stories, then you would have to travel the road I traveled. Read those books, meditate on them and pray to God to see if he will answer your questions. That's the only way you will ever know. I don't have the power to convince you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

amrchaos said:


> Before we start comparing testimonies of one instance with testimonies for another, the question of the witnesses reputation must come to the bearing.
> 
> For instance, the testimonies of Jesus disciples have an air of disingenuity only in the case that they were followers of Christ.  *Adoration is the greatest form of delusion*, mind you.  But in the case of Lincoln, you can find testimonies from people tha did not think highly of Lincoln himself, yet wrote about his assasination.
> 
> Also, the question about why god does not present himself to everyone in the world, and just a few individuals is a very poignant question that was brushed away to casually.
> 
> Is our all powerful, all knowing "God" yet to figure out that a great miracle every generation is necessary to keep people from questioning his existance?  Or is it that "God" only favors a few individuals and only confide in them because the rest of us are not as important or understanding of "Gods" nature.  Or maybe the information is not as important as the messanger want us to believe, "God" is just testing the individual, and knowledge of "the truth" is not really important--remember, "god" did create us in ignorance.  So why would it be important for you to know something he did not care about informing you during your making?
> 
> Or maybe it is this simple--there is no god.  The disciples, John Smith and all the prophets of the world, both past and present, are just delusionals that hear, sense, and confess things that occured only in their minds eye.



Interesting you mention witnesses and their point of view. Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all had a major falling out with Joseph Smith for personal reasons. All three left the church and therefore were not in the state of adoration you speak of. Yet they all made it very clear that their viewing and handling of the plates was true reality. the same situation is true for 6 of the 8 other witnesses who viewed and hefted the plates.

The local non mormon paper testified that Joseph Smith was "murdered in cold blood." This came as a fulfillment of a prophecy that Joseph made saying "I go like a lamb to the slaughter and it shall yet be said of me 'He was murdered in cold blood'." It wasn't just the adoring mormons who saw the body of work he put forth.

By the way, if you had read much of this very long thread, you would have seen that I have not brushed away any questions in the slightest. You assume to know the mind of a God that you don't even believe in, saying that god hasn't figured out how to keep people from questioning him. How do you know that God IS trying to keep people from questioning him. In fact, he is trying to do the opposite. He has caused it to be written, Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. God condemns dogmas. A dogma is a teaching that is not to be questioned. Dogmas are instituted by man. God wants people to ask as many questions as we can come up with. That is the big secret most organized religion has been trying to keep from you.

If there is no God, there there is nothing to hope for. We are just going to die at some random moment with truly no purpose in life. I'd much rather stand from a position of hope.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before we start comparing testimonies of one instance with testimonies for another, the question of the witnesses reputation must come to the bearing.
> 
> For instance, the testimonies of Jesus disciples have an air of disingenuity only in the case that they were followers of Christ.  *Adoration is the greatest form of delusion*, mind you.  But in the case of Lincoln, you can find testimonies from people tha did not think highly of Lincoln himself, yet wrote about his assasination.
> 
> Also, the question about why god does not present himself to everyone in the world, and just a few individuals is a very poignant question that was brushed away to casually.
> 
> Is our all powerful, all knowing "God" yet to figure out that a great miracle every generation is necessary to keep people from questioning his existance?  Or is it that "God" only favors a few individuals and only confide in them because the rest of us are not as important or understanding of "Gods" nature.  Or maybe the information is not as important as the messanger want us to believe, "God" is just testing the individual, and knowledge of "the truth" is not really important--remember, "god" did create us in ignorance.  So why would it be important for you to know something he did not care about informing you during your making?
> 
> Or maybe it is this simple--there is no god.  The disciples, John Smith and all the prophets of the world, both past and present, are just delusionals that hear, sense, and confess things that occured only in their minds eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting you mention witnesses and their point of view. Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer all had a major falling out with Joseph Smith for personal reasons. All three left the church and therefore were not in the state of adoration you speak of. Yet they all made it very clear that their viewing and handling of the plates was true reality. the same situation is true for 6 of the 8 other witnesses who viewed and hefted the plates.
> 
> The local non mormon paper testified that Joseph Smith was "murdered in cold blood." This came as a fulfillment of a prophecy that Joseph made saying "I go like a lamb to the slaughter and it shall yet be said of me 'He was murdered in cold blood'." It wasn't just the adoring mormons who saw the body of work he put forth.
> 
> By the way, if you had read much of this very long thread, you would have seen that I have not brushed away any questions in the slightest. You assume to know the mind of a God that you don't even believe in, saying that god hasn't figured out how to keep people from questioning him. How do you know that God IS trying to keep people from questioning him. In fact, he is trying to do the opposite. He has caused it to be written, Ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. God condemns dogmas. A dogma is a teaching that is not to be questioned. Dogmas are instituted by man. God wants people to ask as many questions as we can come up with. That is the big secret most organized religion has been trying to keep from you.
> 
> If there is no God, there there is nothing to hope for. We are just going to die at some random moment with truly no purpose in life. I'd much rather stand from a position of hope.
Click to expand...


The Mormon "Lamb To The Slaughter" shot at least two folks while being a martyr.  Hardly the definition of a martyr.

Rewriting history is all the LDS church does.  It has to constantly put out "fires" that are valid questions, and concerns about the ever leaking-out of sordid and strange doctrines.



> Difficult Questions for Mormons to Answer
> 
> If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision).
> 
> If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)
> 
> How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, p. 262, 34th ed.)
> 
> If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)
> 
> Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13).
> 
> Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60).
> 
> If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50).
> 
> How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17).
> 
> Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, p. 324).
> 
> God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I have my mind made up, it's that I've always been interested in the why and how someone who appears to have all their marbles chooses to believe a certain religion and their outlandish stories. If I ever find a religion that makes sense, I might consider myself of that religion, but I have not found anything plausible so far in any religion.
> 
> Ok, so back to the plates. Your story is getting more convoluted by the chapter: God is the president of all gods. And there's only three. But in the mormon stories, isn't it something like earth is ruled by an alien who was made a god? (I read that in some earlier posts in this thread I believe). So isn't that number 4? And didn't you say that Jo might become a god too?
> And Jo was tar and feathered? That's torture? To tell you the truth, it sounds more like he was tarred and feathered by being a charlatan, that's why they did that in those days. Torture is roasting him over and open pit tied to a wagon wheel. Or something like that. Plus he chipped his tooth on a bottle of poison? Man, that's so dumb, I'm surprised you even believe that one. So if he got poison on his lips, he would have died anyways. And a couple of boots to the crotch would have gotten his mouth open.
> 
> I know you believe you have the truth, all religions do. Just think for a second, why would god only reveal himself to some scraggly cowboy in the middle of nowhere? Does that even make any sense?
> 
> Then if god DOES want everyone to know him, why doesn't he just reveal himself to everyone? Or go on CNN? Why the fuck is he hiding? He think he's Osama bin Laden? Or is ObL god?
> 
> Civilized societies have evolved to not marry minors. That Jo married minors only goes to show how much less civilized or un-civilized they were back then.
> There are still polygamous mormon communities in at least the US and Canada. To say that they aren't real mormons is pure sophistry. Just like kalam who claims that suicide bombers for jihad aren't real muslims. It's kalam who's not a real muslim.
> 
> Mississippi? Probably about 8 years old, but it has to be a family member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'll take it as a compliment that you think I still have all my marbles. True a lot of our claims are outlandish. That doesn't make them false. To tell someone back in the 1800's there would be people walking on the moon would have been considered insane. Not so insane when it was true.
> 
> You can thank the infamous 8-ball, purveyor of anti-mormon stories, for the alien-God comment. That is stated in a way as to make God himself seem like a little green alien with a big head and giant black eyes. Since God was from another part of the universe, I guess technically you could call him an "alien" but he's not a green monster from the old 50's sci fi movies. He looks just like us since we are created  in his image.
> Your idea of torture is what is convoluted. Do you know what it means to be tarred and feathered? It's having someone spread boiling tar all over your body with a broom. After it scalds your skin, it sticks to it like a road. It then needs to be carefully peeled off which large chunks of skin along with it. This process took hours without pain pills. It is not only extremely painful but also humiliating and disfiguring. Just because the poison touched his lips and teeth doesn't mean he ingested it. His lips were burned but he didn't die. Fortunately Joseph was the undisputed toughest man in the county. Perhaps he exerted all his strength trying to protect his crotch. Maybe the mobbers didn't think to kick him there. Whatever. You would fight pretty hard to keep arsenic out of your mouth too.
> 
> By the way one of the reasons for which he was arrested and tried in court in Missouri was the charge of "being a charlatan." He was acquitted after the judge and jury found "no evidence" of his being such a rascal. If these things don't qualify as torture I don't know what does.
> 
> By the way, in our religion, the aspiration we have is to go back and live with God our father. Our father wants us to have all he has. He wants to teach us all he knows. When at some future time we attain to the same knowledge and perfection as God under his instruction, we will be considered gods as well. The concept isn't so sacreligious as people make it out to be. What good father doesn't want his children to grow up to be as good or better than him?
> 
> Like I said before, since this life is a test, and we are eventually going to see God again anyway, why would God give all the answers to the test right before we take the test. Your teachers in school want you to pass the test too but they aren't going to give you the answers while you are taking the test. That's the principle. They will give you the book and say, go study this. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are such books. If you genuinely want to know why a guy like me who seemingly has all his marbles would believe in such outlandish stories, then you would have to travel the road I traveled. Read those books, meditate on them and pray to God to see if he will answer your questions. That's the only way you will ever know. I don't have the power to convince you.
Click to expand...


Totally and conviently mis-quoted me about aliens.

Only said that your Planet Kolob isn't much different from the Hubbard/Scientology doctrine/religion of human life being a perpetual continuation from planet to planet.

Actually, the alien concept isn't at all that inaccurate.


----------



## Ceasaro

Nostradamus predicted walking on the moon way before the 1800s. So it wasn't even a novel concept at that time.
So we're created in god's image. So he's androgynous looking?
So if your god is from another part of the universe, then who made the universe?
So if they were trying to poison Jo and he wouldn't open his mouth or they couldn't get him to (LOL), why didn't they just shoot him if they wanted to kill him? Then they would have never been able to find the plates. Again, makes no sense.
If our Father wants us to have everything that he has, as you say, why didn't he make us in his real image? 
Life is a test? Most kids in my daughter's class can't even pass english. God is going to have to accept a lot of retards. 
So we all can become gods? So there must be millions/billions of gods then. Make up your mind. Although if I could get my own planet to rule over, how cool would that be?
If you don't have to power to convert me, then why do you all go door to door? For fun?
Man, you don't sound like you have a good grasp on your religion.


----------



## N4mddissent

Eightball said:


> The N.T. is filled with eye witnesses to Jesus' ressurrection.
> 
> Paul even stated in one of his epistles that several hundred people were still living who witnessed the ressurrected Jesus when he wrote that epistle.
> 
> I didn't see Abe Lincoln get shot and die 149 years ago, but eye witnesses who are now dead and gone left their testimonies of the fact that still exist in written accounts.
> 
> So we have folks who lived nearly 2,000 years ago that testified to seeing and witnessing both the crucifixion and the ressurrection.  Is their testimony any less valid?



In a word, yes- their testimony is less valid.  For one thing, we have multiple corroborating accounts of the assasination of Lincoln.  We have multiple accounts from various sources that Lincoln did live.  We also have Lincoln's bloodstained pillow and photographs of his body. We have newspapers recording the event.  And we know exactly where Lincoln is buried, so we can dig up his body if we have any further doubts.

Furthermore, someone being shot is not an equal claim to resurrection of the dead.  If you tell me you have a cat, I will likely believe you, eightball, since you seem like an honest guy.  If you tell me you have a blue alien with a penchant for anal probes in your basement, I would demand much more evidence before conceding my conviction.  

In the case of Jesus, we have less evidence for a much more extraordinary claim.  So the two situations are not equivalent.   As a better example, I don't believe Adam Weishaupt killed Washington and took his place as president- not enough evidence- though both men existed- and an extraordinary claim.  Though it doesn't hold a candle to "resurrection" as extraordinary.

And you know Paul claiming that hundreds of people witnessed it only counts as one source, not hundreds.  Funny thing is, I don't recall Paul saying he actually witnessed it.  

You know, once Grand Funk Railroad was performing a concert.  After a guitar solo most of the audience was cheering wildly, but band members heard a distince "boo" emanating near the front row.  As the audience quieted, the heckler's booing was audible and guitarist Mark Farner stepped up to the mike and said, "I don't know who didn't like my playing, but if you think you can do better, you're welcome to come try".  To his shock, someone got up and climbed the steps onto the stage.  To his dismay, the heckler was a smiling Eric Clapton.  I heard this story from someone who knew somebody at that concert.  Thousands witnessed this happen.  A lot of people know the story and if you ask around, you'll eventually find someone else who knows about it or who is within a few degrees of someone who went to this concert.  

All of this could be used to argue the validity of this event.  Except, it didn't happen. 

Gotta keep standards high for evidence.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ceasaro said:


> It's not that I have my mind made up, it's that I've always been interested in the why and how someone who appears to have all their marbles chooses to believe a certain religion and their outlandish stories. If I ever find a religion that makes sense, I might consider myself of that religion, but I have not found anything plausible so far in any religion.



Perhaps because the so called outlandish stories are a bunch of bs told by people trying to convince people to be blindly prejudiced against a faith. You want to learn the faith, you need to learn it from a believers perspective if you ever want to understand why they believe it.

I can promise you if you read the Book of Mormon and asked the Lord if it was true, He would reveal it to you. And you wouldnt think it outlandish at all. In fact, you would find alot of the questions of life answered in it's pages.



> Ok, so back to the plates. Your story is getting more convoluted by the chapter: God is the president of all gods. And there's only three. But in the mormon stories, isn't it something like earth is ruled by an alien who was made a god? (I read that in some earlier posts in this thread I believe). So isn't that number 4? And didn't you say that Jo might become a god too?



And you wonder why we dont ever take you seriously?



> And Jo was tar and feathered? That's torture? To tell you the truth, it sounds more like he was tarred and feathered by being a charlatan, that's why they did that in those days. Torture is roasting him over and open pit tied to a wagon wheel. Or something like that. Plus he chipped his tooth on a bottle of poison? Man, that's so dumb, I'm surprised you even believe that one. So if he got poison on his lips, he would have died anyways. And a couple of boots to the crotch would have gotten his mouth open.



The mob did chip his tooth trying to force poison in his mouth. Its an undisputable fact. His speech was affected by it. Sydney Rigdon was beaten with him so badly that he had brain damage that effected him later in his life.



> I know you believe you have the truth, all religions do. Just think for a second, why would god only reveal himself to some scraggly cowboy in the middle of nowhere? Does that even make any sense?



Who says God only reveals Himself to anyone? The whole message Joseph had is that God will reveal Himself to those who have faith. We can recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost and know God intimately.



> Then if god DOES want everyone to know him, why doesn't he just reveal himself to everyone? Or go on CNN? Why the fuck is he hiding? He think he's Osama bin Laden? Or is ObL god?



To give people the opportunity to repent. 



> Civilized societies have evolved to not marry minors. That Jo married minors only goes to show how much less civilized or un-civilized they were back then.



The fact that Joseph was sealed to multiple women does not mean that he was married in this life to any of them. The sealing power isnt something so lightly understood.



> There are still polygamous mormon communities in at least the US and Canada. To say that they aren't real mormons is pure sophistry. Just like kalam who claims that suicide bombers for jihad aren't real muslims. It's kalam who's not a real muslim.



No there arent. The Mormon Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its clearly defined who is mormon and who is not. Those who are baptized into the Church are mormon. Those who arent arent. Those who are excommunicated are not. To pretend that they are somehow Mormon is ridiculous.  Those who currently practice polygamy have either never been baptized or been excommunicated. 

Now if all it took was a profession of belief to be mormon, you might have a point. But when you have to take measured action to become a member, its impossible to claim someone who hasnt taken that action is mormon. And its completely dishonest to claim that those people are in anyway associated with us.

The fact that you dont see the difference between taking affirmative action and merely making an affirmation of belief makes me question whether you have actually studied the matter.


----------



## Ceasaro

*"Perhaps because the so called outlandish stories are a bunch of bs told by people trying to convince people to be blindly prejudiced against a faith."* Huh? Just pick up the bible or the mormon book and open it to any page.

*"I can promise you if you read the Book of Mormon and asked the Lord if it was true"*
I just asked the lord if the book of mormons is true and he said "no". Having to read a book to find god is ...um... sorry to say... retarded.

The chipped tooth story still doesn't make any sense. If they were trying to poison him to kill him, why didn't they just shoot the fucker. But I can understand why he got beat up a lot, we had guys in school like that too. And being tarred and feathered like truthguy said would have killed him if it was so burning hot that flesh was melted and peeled off. Shit, you'd probably die from that today even with all our medical prowess. 

*"Who says God only reveals Himself to anyone?"* Huh?

*" The whole message Joseph had is that God will reveal Himself to those who have faith. We can recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost and know God intimately."* So you don't need to be a mormon specifically? Just have faith? Or is it faith in Jo?

*"Quote:
Then if god DOES want everyone to know him, why doesn't he just reveal himself to everyone? Or go on CNN? Why the fuck is he hiding? He think he's Osama bin Laden? Or is ObL god?
To give people the opportunity to repent. "*
How can we repent if we can't tell if he's there or not? Again, lack of reasoning.

*"The fact that Joseph was sealed to multiple women does not mean that he was married in this life to any of them. The sealing power isnt something so lightly understood."* Of course! Why didn't I see that!! (lol, makes no sense)

So you get excommunicated for polygamous marriages these days? Then Jo would have been tossed from his own club. I doubt that Jo would go along with that, he would say that it's you who's not the real mormon and tossed you out on your ass.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cesaro:

It's pointless for anyone to try and convince you. You really do have your mind made up. You don't even believe in God so repentance is the last thing from your mind. In order to consider repenting or Joseph Smith or any scriptures or Jesus for that matter, you have to first desire to believe. You are not going to invest the time and energy in seeking out a visually unseen God unless you are first willing to calm down, lose the rage and sarcasm, and WANT to know if there is a God.

It's funny you said God answered your prayer and told you the Book of Mormon is false yet you still claim there is no God. How could a non existant God answer your prayer? To steal one of your lines "It makes no sense."


----------



## Truthspeaker

For Good ol Stubborn 8-Ball, a supposed believer in God who sides more with an atheist than a Mormon: May I remind you I have already answered all of these very easy to deal with questions. But for the sake of newcomers I will do it again:
If the Book of Mormon is true, why do Indians fail to turn white when they become Mormons? (2 Nephi 30:6, prior to the 1981 revision). 

I already explained, the curse placed upon the Lamanites and his descendants was taken away before the Book of Mormon was even completed. There is no Lamanite curse today. 3rd Nephi states this. 

If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)
Oh those purposeless and miserable malcontents the Tanner's who have nothing better to do than promote their religion of Anti-Mormonism. They don't do anything except try and tear down their old faith. Serious sour grapes. What kind of life is that? Why don't they just go enjoy their lives and just say it wasn't for them. Why the persistant attacks? Weird. Anywhoo... It's been clearly shown that the only changes made were to enable grammatical and punctuational perfection. When an ancient language with Egyptian and Hebrew roots is being literally translated there are bound to be some head scratching moments since we don't know much about ancient idioms and customs. There were zero doctrinal changes and that is what is important. The education and english skills of Joseph and his translators were nothing compared to today's High School students. I don't see a problem. 

How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, p. 262, 34th ed.)

Again, another one of the easier to deal with questions. Either of these 2 answers will do:
1. If you believe the Bible and believe God has the power to give Samson the strength to kill a lion with his bare hands, it's not much to ask of God to give Joseph the strength to lift 250 pounds with ease. I'm sure the weight of the water removed from the part in the Red Sea weighed a little more than than. No biggie.
2. For those who don't believe in miracles there is a more practical answer. First, Joseph was the undisputed strongest man in the state. Second, the plates were never officially declared to be made of pure gold. A curious statement from Joseph is that the angel Moroni never said they were gold but simply there was a book deposited with engravings on them. When Joseph saw them and hefted them along with the other witnesses, they were quoted as saying the plates "had the appearance of gold." Recently discovered in Meso America is the gold like metal called Tumbaga, from which plates have been shown to be made in ancient times. They weigh half as much and considering the plates were not a solid block but were pages with engravings which further reduce the weight of the book we are looking at something more like 60 to 80 pounds compacted into a small Bible sized object. Certainly the strongest guy in the state with a little help from God could do the things he said he did with them. Isn't it just fun to hear about all the new stuff archaeology finds?


If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)
Interesting question. First it's not my job to play God and say who is going to be a god and who isn't. That's because final judgment hasn't occured yet. It doesn't matter what happens to Moroni though. Totally irrelevant, he has to answer for his own sins just like all of us.  Second, in his day the church wasn't called "Mormon". Mormon was his dad's name and the church they belonged to which was established by Jesus in person was called "The Church of Christ."

Why do Mormons emphasize part of the Word of Wisdom and ignore the part forbidding the eating of meat except in winter, cold or famine? (Doc. & Cov. 89:12,13). 

Actually we emphasize it all. It's just that even Mormons aren't perfect. They should be adhering to the health code much better than they currently are as a whole. We are all supposed to follow the whole Word, not just by abstaining from things but we are also commanded to eat healthy and wholesome foods and excercise. Read the Word of Wisdom some time. You will realize the food pyramid was revealed first by God to Joseph Smith and not by the FDA.

Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever? (Doc. & Cov. 124:56-60). 
Nowhere in the revelation does it state that the house would stand forever. It will be rebuilt in the same place and resume it's purpose in the millenium. Easy.

If Jesus was conceived as a result of a physical union between God and Mary, how was Jesus born of a virgin? (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50). 

For the hundredth time. Mary was a virgin. God was the father, but not through intercourse. Nowhere is it written as so. Only misinterpreted. Please don't ask this one again.

How did Nephi with a few men on a new continent build a temple like Solomon's while Solomon needed 163,300 workmen and seven years to build his temple? (1 Kings 5:13-18 and 2 Nephi 5:15-17).
Two reasons. Solomon's temple was made of much heavier materials and required far more precious metals etc. and Nephi stated that such things were not to be found in the land but he clearly discribed that his temple was just following guidelines along the blueprint for Solomons temple. He didn't try to copy exactly the temple but just the basic layout. 
We don't know how long it took Nephi to build his temple but I doubt it took as long. But I bet it wasn't built overnight. It doesn't really matter anyway. 

Reason two: 27 people under the direction of God can do some pretty amazing things

Why was Joseph Smith still preaching against polygamy in October 1843 after he got his revelation in July 1843 commanding the practice of polygamy? (Doc. & Cov. 132; and History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 46, or Teachings of the Prophet, p. 324). 

A just question which deserves a just answer. If you read the revelation in 132 you will understand that there are strict guidelines to follow and that it is not for any one person to say I just want to have more wives. It needs to be commanded specifically by God through his order and for a purpose. Many people were just taking extra wives without authorization from God. God picks the time and generation for the purpose of populating his church among other reasons. Not man. Joseph didn't initially want to practice polygamy but he was commanded due to circumstances that have already been explained. But I'm sure you'll ask me to explain them again.

God rejected the fig leaf aprons which Adam and Eve made (Gen. 3:21). Why do Mormons memorialize the fall by using fig leaf aprons in the secret temple ceremonies? 

The aprons talked about in the Bible were just haphazard towels the two grabbed to cover their bashfulness when God appeared to them. Once they had discovered their nakedness God would rather see them in better clothes. If you want to really know about the explanation of the apron in the temple ceremony you will have to become a mormon and go through the temple and meditate on the ceremony to get a better comprehension of such things. You won't get the true understanding through anti-mormon websites.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The N.T. is filled with eye witnesses to Jesus' ressurrection.
> 
> Paul even stated in one of his epistles that several hundred people were still living who witnessed the ressurrected Jesus when he wrote that epistle.
> 
> I didn't see Abe Lincoln get shot and die 149 years ago, but eye witnesses who are now dead and gone left their testimonies of the fact that still exist in written accounts.
> 
> So we have folks who lived nearly 2,000 years ago that testified to seeing and witnessing both the crucifixion and the ressurrection.  Is their testimony any less valid?
> 
> Now, who are the witnesses to J.S. Jr.'s ecounter with an angel, and the Golden plates that no longer exist?  If Mormonism is the truth, why did God allow the Golden plates to be lost, and basically the whole testimony of this latter day visitation from an angel.
> 
> Also, you might note that Demons are angels, and they project themselves in deceiving ways.  How do you know that Moroni the angel wasn't one of Satan's cohorts sent to deceive man and lead him away from the biblical Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have more witnesses for the Book of Mormon and the plates than we do in the Bible for the resurrection. To somehow claim we can accept those eye witnesses and must dismiss the Book of Mormon witnesses is absurd.
> 
> Olivery Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all saw the plates. They saw the angel and heard the voice of God declaring the Book of Mormon true. They went to their graves affirming that.
> 
> 8 other witnesses wrote their witness of the plates. They handled them with their hands.
> 
> Their witness is in the beginning of the Book of Mormon. There are other witnesses of the plates that werent published with the Book. I know a man who saw the plates for himself.
> 
> Oliver was with Joseph when the Aaronic and Melchesidek Priesthood was restored.
> 
> Sidney Rigdon was with Joseph along with 27 other people when they recieve the Vision of the Degrees of Glory.
> 
> Oliver was once again with Joseph when Christ appeared at the Kirtland Temple along with Elijah, Elias, and Moses with the keys of the Kingdom.
> 
> Wilford Wooddruff and others of the brethren were with Joseph when they went about healing the sick and afflicted in Nauvoo with the power of God. Hundreds were healed. One man was even brought back from the dead.
> 
> The entire School of the Prophets were visited by the Father and Jesus Christ during one of their meetings.
> 
> In fact, the only major event of the Restoration that wasnt witnessed by multiple people was Joseph's first vision. Joseph even went to his death with his brother and both of their murdered bodies have sealed their witness for the Book of Mormon and the Restoration in their blood.
> 
> So you are honestly going to pretend there are no eye witnesses to anything Joseph did? Seriously?? I mean much of whats so amazing about Joseph Smith is he was continually bringing other people into the revelations he was recieving. He wasnt just saying "Hey believe me when I claim to talk to God." He was saying "Here is what God has told me and why dont you come and find out from God yourself?"
> 
> Yet there are always people who seem to think going to the source of all information is somehow wrong and ungodly. It makes no sense that people preach of a relationship with God and then refuse to believe He says anything to people outside of the Bible. What kind of relationship can you possibily have with someone who you claim ignores you?
Click to expand...


*8 other witnesses wrote their witness of the plates. They handled them with their hands.*

We got plates at the restaurant...they get witnessed and touched by a couple o mexicans every day..we keep em in a special place called the dishwashing room.

Maybe they are magic plates.

Ya think god wants us to use these magic plates to serve up pizza and pasta?

Jesus is about comfort and we serve comfort food!  Is there a connection?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Nostradamus predicted walking on the moon way before the 1800s. So it wasn't even a novel concept at that time.

Just because Nostradamus predicted it doesn't mean he wasn't thought to be crazy. He had no proof or evidence to make his prediction make any sense at all. By the way it was a novel concept because most people on earth in his day had never heard of him.
So we're created in god's image. So he's androgynous looking?
No God is a male with all the same body parts as a man. Just better ones.

So if your god is from another part of the universe, then who made the universe? It would be more accurate to say God lives in another part of the universe he created. Not from the universe.

So if they were trying to poison Jo and he wouldn't open his mouth or they couldn't get him to (LOL), why didn't they just shoot him if they wanted to kill him? Then they would have never been able to find the plates. Again, makes no sense.

Easy. They had been frustrated so many times with near catches of the plates that they now believed the plates would never be found. They knew he would find a place they would never get to. They beat him out of frustration. Why didn't they just shoot him? Easy, they wanted to see him suffer more than to see him die. They wanted to see his eyes bug out in a painful poisonous death. After they couldn't get the poison down his throat, they decided it was better to tar and feather him and he would be more humiliated that way than by just a plain old boring shooting. After a while, they realized they couldn't get him to give up his faith through humiliation. Eventually they did just shoot him.

If our Father wants us to have everything that he has, as you say, why didn't he make us in his real image?  That's coming later. After the test of life we will get a resurrection to a perfect body like he has. One that is eternally strong and youthful with no imperfections.

Life is a test? Most kids in my daughter's class can't even pass english. God is going to have to accept a lot of retards. 

Yep.

So we all can become gods? So there must be millions/billions of gods then. Make up your mind. Although if I could get my own planet to rule over, how cool would that be? Pretty cool indeed. Sure there's going to be lots of Gods. But they will all be co equal and eternal with God their father who wants it to be that way. Everyone united in purpose. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

If you don't have to power to convert me, then why do you all go door to door? For fun?
Man, you don't sound like you have a good grasp on your religion. 

I went door to door in South Africa because I wanted to answer questions and lead them to God who will do the convincing.  People decide for themselves after they have all the information. In short. We do it because when you have a good thing. You want others to share it with you. It's more fun when you have others to share it with.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The N.T. is filled with eye witnesses to Jesus' ressurrection.
> 
> Paul even stated in one of his epistles that several hundred people were still living who witnessed the ressurrected Jesus when he wrote that epistle.
> 
> I didn't see Abe Lincoln get shot and die 149 years ago, but eye witnesses who are now dead and gone left their testimonies of the fact that still exist in written accounts.
> 
> So we have folks who lived nearly 2,000 years ago that testified to seeing and witnessing both the crucifixion and the ressurrection.  Is their testimony any less valid?
> 
> Now, who are the witnesses to J.S. Jr.'s ecounter with an angel, and the Golden plates that no longer exist?  If Mormonism is the truth, why did God allow the Golden plates to be lost, and basically the whole testimony of this latter day visitation from an angel.
> 
> Also, you might note that Demons are angels, and they project themselves in deceiving ways.  How do you know that Moroni the angel wasn't one of Satan's cohorts sent to deceive man and lead him away from the biblical Christianity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have more witnesses for the Book of Mormon and the plates than we do in the Bible for the resurrection. To somehow claim we can accept those eye witnesses and must dismiss the Book of Mormon witnesses is absurd.
> 
> Olivery Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer all saw the plates. They saw the angel and heard the voice of God declaring the Book of Mormon true. They went to their graves affirming that.
> 
> 8 other witnesses wrote their witness of the plates. They handled them with their hands.
> 
> Their witness is in the beginning of the Book of Mormon. There are other witnesses of the plates that werent published with the Book. I know a man who saw the plates for himself.
> 
> Oliver was with Joseph when the Aaronic and Melchesidek Priesthood was restored.
> 
> Sidney Rigdon was with Joseph along with 27 other people when they recieve the Vision of the Degrees of Glory.
> 
> Oliver was once again with Joseph when Christ appeared at the Kirtland Temple along with Elijah, Elias, and Moses with the keys of the Kingdom.
> 
> Wilford Wooddruff and others of the brethren were with Joseph when they went about healing the sick and afflicted in Nauvoo with the power of God. Hundreds were healed. One man was even brought back from the dead.
> 
> The entire School of the Prophets were visited by the Father and Jesus Christ during one of their meetings.
> 
> In fact, the only major event of the Restoration that wasnt witnessed by multiple people was Joseph's first vision. Joseph even went to his death with his brother and both of their murdered bodies have sealed their witness for the Book of Mormon and the Restoration in their blood.
> 
> So you are honestly going to pretend there are no eye witnesses to anything Joseph did? Seriously?? I mean much of whats so amazing about Joseph Smith is he was continually bringing other people into the revelations he was recieving. He wasnt just saying "Hey believe me when I claim to talk to God." He was saying "Here is what God has told me and why dont you come and find out from God yourself?"
> 
> Yet there are always people who seem to think going to the source of all information is somehow wrong and ungodly. It makes no sense that people preach of a relationship with God and then refuse to believe He says anything to people outside of the Bible. What kind of relationship can you possibily have with someone who you claim ignores you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *8 other witnesses wrote their witness of the plates. They handled them with their hands.*
> 
> We got plates at the restaurant...they get witnessed and touched by a couple o mexicans every day..we keep em in a special place called the dishwashing room.
> 
> Maybe they are magic plates.
> 
> Ya think god wants us to use these magic plates to serve up pizza and pasta?
> 
> Jesus is about comfort and we serve comfort food!  Is there a connection?
Click to expand...


Funny Huggy


----------



## Ceasaro

Trurhguy, after reading your recent answers, I would say: have fun in your fantasy world I guess. As long as your not hurting/converting anyone, I guess it's all good. My interest lies more in trying to figure out how you can believe such crazy shit. I guess it comes down to: someone musta snipped a hole in your marble bag, I don't know what else to say. Your stories are cool, but it's like believing that Alice in Wonderland is real too. It can be fun to let your mind go for the time of a movie, but I don't know, it's like you never came back to reality.
 I get preachy people coming to my door regularly, they all look like they're in some sort of trance, like an alien being is controlling their minds (although that's probably not far from doctrine, lol).
Last time 2 young people came to my door I told them: I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. So the guy stopped talking. I said: if god really did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door? The girl he was with burst out laughing before quickly controlling herself. And I went back in the house.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> Trurhguy, after reading your recent answers, I would say: have fun in your fantasy world I guess. As long as your not hurting/converting anyone, I guess it's all good. My interest lies more in trying to figure out how you can believe such crazy shit. I guess it comes down to: someone musta snipped a hole in your marble bag, I don't know what else to say. Your stories are cool, but it's like believing that Alice in Wonderland is real too. It can be fun to let your mind go for the time of a movie, but I don't know, it's like you never came back to reality.
> I get preachy people coming to my door regularly, they all look like they're in some sort of trance, like an alien being is controlling their minds (although that's probably not far from doctrine, lol).
> Last time 2 young people came to my door I told them: I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. So the guy stopped talking. I said: if god really did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door? The girl he was with burst out laughing before quickly controlling herself. And I went back in the house.




Well Cesaro if I hadn't been privy to some amazing personal experiences I would think much as you do. I certainly don't think you are crazy for your opinion but I see where you are coming from. We all have to draw our own conclusions. If you really want to know why I believe the "Crazy S!$@" I do, then you will have to read the Book of Mormon all the way through. It explains it better than I do. 
But I must say I came to this conclusion of mine over a period of 15 years of hard study and prayer. It's more immediate for some people but for me it took more time to really solidify my faith.


----------



## OregonJayBird

In Mormonism, it is a matter of absolutes: if one believes and practices and devotes themsleves to all that is their God and The Book of Mormon they are to be the chosen ones, Godly seated in the afterlife.  

If, however, they do not believe in praising the lifestyle and God laid forth in The Book or Mormon, they are considered on the side of the devil.  Explain, then, how a (theoretical) family in Africa worshipping a rock, yet believing in the blissful afterlife of all who believe otherwise, could be seen as people to be pitied for their lack of Mormon belief? 

Isn't indoctrinating in children that one religion is the correct and only religion really only teaching intollerance, or worse yet, hate?  Truthspeaker, we both know intollerance has never gotten the human race anywhere.  Why, then, do Mormons insist on barging into regions of the globe that have their own colorful ceremony and try to shame them out of those beliefs by either utilizing the "things won't be so bad if you convert to my religion" tactic, or by giving charity with one hand while asking acceptance of the Mormon God in return?  Why squash the diversity which makes the whole world go around?  Can't the church give without asking conversion or without plopping down temples in those places they bring aid to?  

I make a mean potato salad, Truthppeaker, but I don't go telling everyone mine's better than theirs when they seem so proud of theirs.  What good do you do the world to try and crush the peaceful going about of others?  And don't come back with "But I AM tollerant."  No, no you are not.  You specifically went on a mission to convert others.  They didn't stick you out there and just hope that Mormonism would come up in conversation over those two years... no, you got in people's face about it... because you believe you are right and they are wrong.  Period.  THAT is intollerance.  Getting in people's face is not only intollerance, but smug intollerance.  

As if you are being so helpful as to save them when really you just can't stand the thought of coming back with no conversions.  You want the GRAND SLAM, baby.  You want to be the guy who comes back with 500 conversions - "They'll write about me, ya know!" - not the guy who couldn't even sell a single candy bar for the school band trip.  We all know you'd have had just as good of a time (or better) surfing and springing beautiful women for two years.  But to come back home and say you surfed and worked as a lifeguard for two years isn't going to bring any Mormon Atta-Boys, is it.  

Finally, what are you so affraid of in this life that you would spend it frantically preparing for the afterlife?

"Whether it's God or The Bomb... it's just the same: it's only 'Fear' under another name."    

Why couldn't you be happy enough just living, dying, then being food and nutrients for another lifeform to take shape?  Not comforting enough to you?   That's sad.  That's really sad.  You look like a bright kid, too.  I hope then, for your sake, your Mormonism thing is right, 'cause boy oh boy are you going to be one SUPER bummed little soldier if the lights go out and that's all she wrote.

Plant me with the seed of a tree, and all that is me will live a thousand years more.

Good luck with your whole afterlife thing.  Keep spreading the word and anticipating (belief is a manmade concept) the unknown.  Sounds like religion is a really time-consuming hobby, filled with guilt and silly rules beyond those of "common sense" teachings of all mankind.  If it keeps you from killing people or stealing or cheating or lying, more power to ya bud.  But you don't need religion to be a grand person, or to feel happy and fulfilled...  Or... perhaps your free will has already died, and you truly do need Mormonism now.  
Eek, what shackles.


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.

The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).   

One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.  

We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?  

Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.

One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C. 

Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).  

Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?  

In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26

Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?


"For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15  

Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?  

Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I enjoy posts like the last one. They were insightful and made me laugh at the same time. I like guys who are a little feisty with a sense of humor. Cheers. That's the reason I keep coming back to this thread. Anywhoo....

In Mormonism, it is a matter of absolutes: if one believes and practices and devotes themsleves to all that is their God and The Book of Mormon they are to be the chosen ones, Godly seated in the afterlife. 

True but not just us. All those people who are pure in their hearts.

If, however, they do not believe in praising the lifestyle and God laid forth in The Book or Mormon, they are considered on the side of the devil. Explain, then, how a (theoretical) family in Africa worshipping a rock, yet believing in the blissful afterlife of all who believe otherwise, could be seen as people to be pitied for their lack of Mormon belief? 

Our doctrine does not condemn those people because it's not as important what religion you belong to as what kind of person you are. There are lots of mysteries which we will never find out about while we are alive but we will find the answers to all questions on the other side. Good people, no matter their religion, will be fine on the other side. 

Isn't indoctrinating in children that one religion is the correct and only religion really only teaching intollerance, or worse yet, hate? In principle I would agree. It all depends on the indoctrination. Does it teach tolerance, or hate. Our Prophet has preached from the pulpit "We say this to all those who are not of our faith: Keep all the good you have. We don't ask you to throw any of it away. Let us see if we can add to it." Our "indoctrination of our children is "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and constantly employ the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have done unto you. Hardly hateful or intolerant doctrines.

Truthspeaker, we both know intollerance has never gotten the human race anywhere. Why, then, do Mormons insist on barging into regions of the globe that have their own colorful ceremony and try to shame them out of those beliefs by either utilizing the "things won't be so bad if you convert to my religion" tactic, or by giving charity with one hand while asking acceptance of the Mormon God in return? We do nothing of the sort. We invite them to our church and ask them if they would like to join us. We never preach down to others because they believe different from us.

Why squash the diversity which makes the whole world go around? 

We don't try to squash diversity. We preach tolerance and celebration of the individual.

Can't the church give without asking conversion or without plopping down temples in those places they bring aid to? 

You should have seen the effort we did in New Orleans after the hurricane. We were there before the red cross because we didn't waste time alerting the media. Our humanitarian efforts are second to none in response time and amount of volunteer hours donated. There are many missions where proselyting isn't allowed so all missionaries do is look for service projects to do. I spent a large amount of my time in South Africa just plain working on people's back yards, lifting heavy loads, spending lots of time with Habitat for Humanity and anything we could look for to help others, big or small. We never asked many of the people who allowed us to serve them what church they belonged to or even if they wanted to come to our church. Just giving without expecting anything back.


I make a mean potato salad, Truthppeaker, but I don't go telling everyone mine's better than theirs when they seem so proud of theirs. What good do you do the world to try and crush the peaceful going about of others? 

Last I checked, I or my church haven't been going around trying to crush anyone's peace. How are we doing that? 

And don't come back with "But I AM tollerant." No, no you are not. You specifically went on a mission to convert others. They didn't stick you out there and just hope that Mormonism would come up in conversation over those two years... no, you got in people's face about it... because you believe you are right and they are wrong. Period. THAT is intollerance. Getting in people's face is not only intollerance, but smug intollerance. 

Definition of tolerate: To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.  We do all of those things in regards to everyone who thinks differently than others. Trying to spread information about my religion so that people will not have misconceptions about my church was the stated purpose of my mission. Such a mission cannot possibly be considered intolerant. And I certainly never got in people's face about it. Sure I met with people face to face who wanted to talk with me but never, never forced anything on anyone. Never condemned anyone. You got me all wrong. I'm curious as to how much of this lengthy thread you have read of mine. If you had read much of it, I think you would have a different opinion than the stereotype you have labeled me with.

As if you are being so helpful as to save them when really you just can't stand the thought of coming back with no conversions. You want the GRAND SLAM, baby. You want to be the guy who comes back with 500 conversions - "They'll write about me, ya know!" 

I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be delighted with many converts deciding to join us. But I know what is most important. My whole desire was to be of service on my mission. The Book of Mormon states "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God." All the rest falls in line as fruits of your labors. I could care less about atta boys. 


- not the guy who couldn't even sell a single candy bar for the school band trip. We all know you'd have had just as good of a time (or better) surfing and springing beautiful women for two years. But to come back home and say you surfed and worked as a lifeguard for two years isn't going to bring any Mormon Atta-Boys, is it. 

I guess I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks for assuming that I could gather beautiful women around me. I guess we'd have to poll the ladies about that one to know for sure. I can't surf so that wasn't a temptation. I tried once but couldn't get up on the board. I'll stick to baseball or basketball. All they had to play out there was soccer, which I did do my fair share of. But more importantly on a mission you are not allowed to date and for good reason. You don't need any extra distractions while on a full time mission. Actually one of the jokes on our mission is that the harder you serve on your mission the more beautiful your future wife will be. Those that break the rigorous mission rules are sent home immediately. But there aren't too many who do because they chose to go. They even paid out of pocket to go. No one gets paid. Weird huh? 

Finally, what are you so affraid of in this life that you would spend it frantically preparing for the afterlife?

Fear doesn't drive me. It's the pursuit of happiness that does. And I don't do anything frantically. Fervently would be a more appropriate word.

"Whether it's God or The Bomb... it's just the same: it's only 'Fear' under another name." 
Mormon chapter 8 verse 16 "...charity is the pure love of Christ, and perfect love casteth out all fear."


Why couldn't you be happy enough just living, dying, then being food and nutrients for another lifeform to take shape? Not comforting enough to you? 

Sorry, not comforting enough to me. I'd rather believe in conscious eternal life with my family and friends. If you would rather be food that's your desire and more power to you.

 You look like a bright kid, too. Why thank you

I hope then, for your sake, your Mormonism thing is right, 'cause boy oh boy are you going to be one SUPER bummed little soldier if the lights go out and that's all she wrote.If the lights go out and that's all she wrote, I'd rather go to my grave knowing I did what makes me happy and makes me a more honorable person than just living my life for individual selfish pleasures and following no principles except the principle of anything goes.


Plant me with the seed of a tree, and all that is me will live a thousand years more. To each their own desires.

Good luck with your whole afterlife thing. Keep spreading the word and anticipating (belief is a manmade concept) the unknown. Sounds like religion is a really time-consuming hobby, filled with guilt and silly rules beyond those of "common sense" teachings of all mankind. If it keeps you from killing people or stealing or cheating or lying, more power to ya bud. But you don't need religion to be a grand person, or to feel happy and fulfilled... Or... perhaps your free will has already died, and you truly do need Mormonism now. 
Eek, what shackles. 

I don't see it the way you do. I don't feel shackled at all. I feel set free by the truth. When people find something to believe in and wholeheartedly devote themselves to something, then are they truly happy. Because they have a plan for their lives and never feel lost. But thanks for the encouragement. Now I encourage you to to what you feel is the right thing to do for yourself to bring you true happiness and enlightenment.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.
> 
> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?
> 
> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.
> 
> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).
> 
> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?
> 
> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26
> 
> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
Click to expand...



Bravo on the questions. Unfortunately I don't have time tonight to answer them all. I have answered almost all of them throughout the lengthy dialogue of fantastic questions I have been getting on this thread. You may want to read it from the beginning but if you don't want to take the time you'll have to wait for me to repeat myself tomorrow. Or maybe Avatar will handle it before I get back on.

Adieu!


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.
> 
> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?
> 
> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.
> 
> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).
> 
> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?
> 
> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26
> 
> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo on the questions. Unfortunately I don't have time tonight to answer them all. I have answered almost all of them throughout the lengthy dialogue of fantastic questions I have been getting on this thread. You may want to read it from the beginning but if you don't want to take the time you'll have to wait for me to repeat myself tomorrow. Or maybe Avatar will handle it before I get back on.
> 
> Adieu!
Click to expand...


Just a couple more questions to ponder while you consult whatever source you must in an attempt to reconcile the faith of Mormonism with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures.   I don't know you from Adam....no pun intended.  But when and if you do attempt to propagate your faith as TRUTH....the very first mission that you will begin to trek is simple....as YOU MUST...if you wish to continue to propagate Mormonism as truth...is to begin with  an all out attack on the VALIDITY of the Holy Scriptures....to present the current format as containing ERROR and being Corrupted over the years by dogma....and tradition.    This is always mandatory...because of the obvious conflict of Doctrine that is found in the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament with the Book of Mormon.  But the strange thing?   While attempting to point out the corruption thereof.....you will NOT be able to empirically debunk one passage therein with any true OBJECTIVE empirical  evidence offered by physical science of history actual...yet you must continue to declare the scriptures as SUBJECTIVE TRUTH instead of the OBJECTIVE truth they are proven to be.   Why?   Because if you can make YOURSELF accept such a position then.....Mormonism is a far easier pill to swallow, as it is very easily debunked as having any empirical background in relation to science or history. 

A few examples of contradiction.   Mormonism "claims" to be represented by modern prophets, that have received NEW REVELATION from the God of Creation in a mere continuance of knowledge and divine guidance in relation to RIGHTEOUS Christian Doctrine that was first established in the New Testament of Christ. 

The very first question that must be asked in a most logical fashion is this.....Just how is "perfection" and "all" to be added unto in relation to Christian Doctrine?     We are told in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus, who commissioned the Holy Spirit of Truth, calling Him from Heaven to help establish doctrine in the infant kingdom of God...aka The Church of Christ, would provide 'ALL TRUTH' to the apostles of the 1st century through the divine inspiration of that same Holy Spirit of Truth.  (John 14:26, 16:13)   Once again...the basic question, "Just how does anyone add unto ALL TRUTH, and make the Perfect Law of Liberty ( James 1:25).....MORE PERFECT?"   Especially after the Holy Spirit of Truth inspired the truth as established ONCE FOR ALL TIME....by the saints of the 1st century (Jude 3).    

With the Apostle Peter informing us that we have been given EVERYTHING pertaining to LIFE and GODLINESS -- 2 Peter 1:3.    And the Apostle Paul informing us that the Holy Scriptures....which are ALL inspired by God, have the capacity to make the 'man of God' PERFECT by being "throughly furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS".....with the Holy Scriptures being profitable to establish Doctrine, and to use for CORRECTION, AND REPROOF ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17).....of course, with these revelations coming in the 1st century.  

With the next question....."Just where does the authority come from....to have PERFECTION and ALL added unto, and what signs and wonders accompanied that NEW REVELATION....to confirm this revelation as coming from God?"    Just how many dead were raised by Mr. Smith....how many lame were healed....how many blind from birth  were made to see?    Just asking....where is this witnessed conformation that accompanies all TRUE PROPHETS of God, as were those in the 1st century?   The recording of Miracles were to cause belief in Christ -- John 20:30-31.   Miracles showed the masses that the Apostles were messengers from God and were teaching truth (Heb. 2:1-4).....where is the record of the miraculous that was used to establish as truth....the message of Mormonism as being from God?  The Apostles Words were confirmed by Signs -- Mk. 16:20.  

The Need for the Miraculous has ceased.  The Holy Spirit was sent to teach and remind the Apostles (John 14:26)....not modern man after the Perfect Law of Liberty had already been established and Confirmed in Doctrine and TRUTH.    The Scriptures informed us that the Apostles were not ready to understand everything that Jesus had been instructing them in.....So, Jesus commissioned Him (The Holy Spirit) to continue to teach them (John 16:12-13).   And what that Holy Spirit taught them....they were to record for future generations of mankind ( 2 Peter 1:3, 12-15).   

Once written.....miraculous reminders of the past would no longer be needed nor required, as all anyone need do is OPEN THE BOOK to be enlightened and edified in both Truth and Doctrine (Jude 3).   It was only the Apostles that were informed they could work miracles in the name of Jesus....not all believers....(Mk. 16:14-20)....take note of the pronoun change in vs. 16.  

Also note that ONLY the Apostles could pass on those miraculous gifts....by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19).  No one else was recorded as having this divine ability of the Spirit...to pass on those gifts.   Paul clearly and quite unambiguously tells us....the need for the Miraculous would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-13).    This could not be the end of the age....as Faith, Hope and Charity would remain.    James tells us quite clearly and unambiguously the NEW TESTAMENT....is that which is PERFECT (James 1:25)...as it is the Perfect Law of Liberty.   

God is not the author of CONFUSION.....why then does Mr. Smith attempt to confuse us and tell us that man needs MORE truth....More Perfection....More Doctrine.....after God has revealed to us that we have EVERYTHING we need pertaining to Life and Godliness...in the words of truth already revealed by the Holy Spirit of Truth?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.
> 
> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?
> 
> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.
> 
> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).
> 
> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?
> 
> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26
> 
> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo on the questions. Unfortunately I don't have time tonight to answer them all. I have answered almost all of them throughout the lengthy dialogue of fantastic questions I have been getting on this thread. You may want to read it from the beginning but if you don't want to take the time you'll have to wait for me to repeat myself tomorrow. Or maybe Avatar will handle it before I get back on.
> 
> Adieu!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a couple more questions to ponder while you consult whatever source you must in an attempt to reconcile the faith of Mormonism with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures.   I don't know you from Adam....no pun intended.  But when and if you do attempt to propagate your faith as TRUTH....the very first mission that you will begin to trek is simple....as YOU MUST...if you wish to continue to propagate Mormonism as truth...is to begin with  an all out attack on the VALIDITY of the Holy Scriptures....to present the current format as containing ERROR and being Corrupted over the years by dogma....and tradition.    This is always mandatory...because of the obvious conflict of Doctrine that is found in the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament with the Book of Mormon.  But the strange thing?   While attempting to point out the corruption thereof.....you will NOT be able to empirically debunk one passage therein with any true OBJECTIVE empirical  evidence offered by physical science of history actual...yet you must continue to declare the scriptures as SUBJECTIVE TRUTH instead of the OBJECTIVE truth they are proven to be.   Why?   Because if you can make YOURSELF accept such a position then.....Mormonism is a far easier pill to swallow, as it is very easily debunked as having any empirical background in relation to science or history.
> 
> A few examples of contradiction.   Mormonism "claims" to be represented by modern prophets, that have received NEW REVELATION from the God of Creation in a mere continuance of knowledge and divine guidance in relation to RIGHTEOUS Christian Doctrine that was first established in the New Testament of Christ.
> 
> The very first question that must be asked in a most logical fashion is this.....Just how is "perfection" and "all" to be added unto in relation to Christian Doctrine?     We are told in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus, who commissioned the Holy Spirit of Truth, calling Him from Heaven to help establish doctrine in the infant kingdom of God...aka The Church of Christ, would provide 'ALL TRUTH' to the apostles of the 1st century through the divine inspiration of that same Holy Spirit of Truth.  (John 14:26, 16:13)   Once again...the basic question, "Just how does anyone add unto ALL TRUTH, and make the Perfect Law of Liberty ( James 1:25).....MORE PERFECT?"   Especially after the Holy Spirit of Truth inspired the truth as established ONCE FOR ALL TIME....by the saints of the 1st century (Jude 3).
> 
> With the Apostle Peter informing us that we have been given EVERYTHING pertaining to LIFE and GODLINESS -- 2 Peter 1:3.    And the Apostle Paul informing us that the Holy Scriptures....which are ALL inspired by God, have the capacity to make the 'man of God' PERFECT by being "throughly furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS".....with the Holy Scriptures being profitable to establish Doctrine, and to use for CORRECTION, AND REPROOF ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17).....of course, with these revelations coming in the 1st century.
> 
> With the next question....."Just where does the authority come from....to have PERFECTION and ALL added unto, and what signs and wonders accompanied that NEW REVELATION....to confirm this revelation as coming from God?"    Just how many dead were raised by Mr. Smith....how many lame were healed....how many blind from birth  were made to see?    Just asking....where is this witnessed conformation that accompanies all TRUE PROPHETS of God, as were those in the 1st century?   The recording of Miracles were to cause belief in Christ -- John 20:30-31.   Miracles showed the masses that the Apostles were messengers from God and were teaching truth (Heb. 2:1-4).....where is the record of the miraculous that was used to establish as truth....the message of Mormonism as being from God?  The Apostles Words were confirmed by Signs -- Mk. 16:20.
> 
> The Need for the Miraculous has ceased.  The Holy Spirit was sent to teach and remind the Apostles (John 14:26)....not modern man after the Perfect Law of Liberty had already been established and Confirmed in Doctrine and TRUTH.    The Scriptures informed us that the Apostles were not ready to understand everything that Jesus had been instructing them in.....So, Jesus commissioned Him (The Holy Spirit) to continue to teach them (John 16:12-13).   And what that Holy Spirit taught them....they were to record for future generations of mankind ( 2 Peter 1:3, 12-15).
> 
> Once written.....miraculous reminders of the past would no longer be needed nor required, as all anyone need do is OPEN THE BOOK to be enlightened and edified in both Truth and Doctrine (Jude 3).   It was only the Apostles that were informed they could work miracles in the name of Jesus....not all believers....(Mk. 16:14-20)....take note of the pronoun change in vs. 16.
> 
> Also note that ONLY the Apostles could pass on those miraculous gifts....by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19).  No one else was recorded as having this divine ability of the Spirit...to pass on those gifts.   Paul clearly and quite unambiguously tells us....the need for the Miraculous would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-13).    This could not be the end of the age....as Faith, Hope and Charity would remain.    James tells us quite clearly and unambiguously the NEW TESTAMENT....is that which is PERFECT (James 1:25)...as it is the Perfect Law of Liberty.
> 
> God is not the author of CONFUSION.....why then does Mr. Smith attempt to confuse us and tell us that man needs MORE truth....More Perfection....More Doctrine.....after God has revealed to us that we have EVERYTHING we need pertaining to Life and Godliness...in the words of truth already revealed by the Holy Spirit of Truth?
Click to expand...


If you want me to take time to answer these(which I will definitely do) You would do yourself and myself a favor by bringing the questions one at a time so I don't have to spend a half hour out of my workday repeating myself. You really should read from the beginning if you want to catch up to the point where the rest of us are. Just hold your horses. Hopefully you listen a little better than some others who simply copy and paste anti-mormon speak only to get their questions answered and forget and ask the same questions over and over. And by the way, I don't need to consult any more sources to answer your easy questions. I did all of that years ago. You should probably consult the answers already given in the thread. It's only going to take me time because I have to type all the answers in detail so that everyone can understand them. Happy catching up.


----------



## HUGGY

Gotta serious question for you TS.   Are you doing this campagne on your own or are you being egged on by the LDS formally or otherwise?


----------



## OregonJayBird

You seem a genuinely happy believer.  That makes me feel wonderful to know you're out there spreading tolerance within your fatih, my friend.  There are too few of you in ALL faiths.

Cheers to you and yours, and only the happiest, most fulfilling of journeys for you.   Thank you for the intelligible spar, and may your God bless you always and forever, Truthspeaker.  For regardless of how I feel about your religion as a whole I truly believe you house a kind and gentle soul.


----------



## Arawyn

HUGGY said:


> Gotta serious question for you TS.   Are you doing this campagne on your own or are you being egged on by the LDS formally or otherwise?




We LDS routinely send out marching orders that must be followed or excommunication will come. Why just yesterday, we ordered that members could only eat green jello salad for the day.......


----------



## Eightball

Arawyn said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta serious question for you TS.   Are you doing this campagne on your own or are you being egged on by the LDS formally or otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We LDS routinely send out marching orders that must be followed or excommunication will come. Why just yesterday, we ordered that members could only eat green jello salad for the day.......
Click to expand...


You joke over that, but you know that if you don't tow the line, and your LDS elder finds out, you'll be getting a knock at your door for a nice friendly talk.

I would hypothesize that Truthspeaker is an elder or higher.

LDS like to deflect the big questions that really stump them, and bascially throw-up the old "faith" defense, that God confirmed it via the H.S..  Sadly, their understanding of the work of the H.S. is all humanistically origined, and has no scriptural origin.

Depending on dreams, visions, and basic warm fuzzies is what keeps cults in vogue.  Satan is the author, and his "wide" road is crammed nearly to the point of gridlock.

Mormon missionaries regularly tell their "prey" at the porch of the home, to simply "pray and ask God to confirm if Mormonism is the truth", and folks who are ignorant of the ramifications of doing that will abide.  Satan marks up another soul to his bondage each time that prayer is thrown-up.  Why?  Cause the bible does not tell us to confirm God's reality/presence by prayer, but by gleaning it from His Word/Scripture, and then by faith, puting our faith in prayer, and confidence based on what scripture has revealed of His nature.

The bible is a two edged sword, that cuts to the very "marrow" of the individual.  It convicts, it reveals, it shines light, and lays open the very soul of every man/woman who is willing to allow His truth to bear down on their soul.  As a result, humanity has a choice; repent, in humility, with a contrite heart, and believe on the finished work of salvation through God's Son as it applies personally to oneself, or reject it as too much to give up, to gain everything plus more.

J.S. Jr. created a humanistic authored gospel, that fed into humanity's lost Adamic nature to a "tee".  Polygamy was allowed, and in the bible it wasn't, as it always caused calamity and discord in lives/families.

J.S. Jr. turned the virgin birth into a physical union between Mary and the LDS god, which agaiin devalued and humanized the biblical Holy God of the O.T. and N.T..

What is the LDS defense?

1. We are victims of the big old nasty bible believing world.
2. We are potential martyrs for our faith in our prophets and their doctrines set down.
3. Then they use the old "Mormon hater" defense, not unlike anyone that abhors homosexuality is called a homophobe by the "gay" community, and liberal pandering politicians.
4. We are the only true Christian church.  God restored His church through our prophet J.S. jr..
5. Mormons deny the obvious evidences that their BOM is built upon sand and know solid foundations, having withing it's pages retitled, plagerized bible scripture as well as fantastic of North and South American history that cannot to this day be confirmed.
6. J.S. Jr. must die a martyr regardless of the secular and non-Mormon authors of the press that record a very different story of his death.
7. There are myriads of holes to patch that have not to this day been patched.
8. Even the bible that was written thousands of years before the BOM saw all men as equals in God's eyes, yet the LDS church discriminated against Black people joining the LDS priesthood.  That is pathetic, and racist to the core.  Even the teaching that Cain's curse of was the Negroid race's curse of dark skin is absurd.
9. Brigham Young was just as much a false prophet as J.S. Jr..
10.To know that so many of the oaths, handshakes, rituals in the Temple are directly taken from Freemasonry, and still believe that your church is a calling from God is to really be "hooked" or to really "want to believe" that your church is right despite the evidences.





Post-1979 two-piece temple garments end just above the knee for both sexes. Women's garment have a rounded or sweetheart neckline with cap sleeves. Male tops are available in tee-shirt styles.[
Wikipedia





> Researchers who interviewed a sample of Latter-day Saints who wear the temple garment reported that virtually all wearers expressed a belief that wearing the garment provided "spiritual protection" and encouraged them to keep their covenants.[24] Some of those interviewed "asserted that the garment also provided physical protection, while others seemed less certain of any physical aspect to protection."[24] In Mormon folklore, tales are told of Latter-day Saints who credit their temple garments with helping them survive car wrecks, fires, and natural disasters


----------



## Montrovant

I'm wondering if anyone else in this thread finds it ironic that someone would question the veracity of one book of faith based on another book of faith?  That the book of Mormon cannot be true, it is full of contradiction, and this can be determined through the truth of the Bible seems funny to me 

Sorry for the interruption, feel free to get back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## BrokenAngel

NuuuU!!!!  Ebilness!  That poll is so wrong.  LoL  No offense meant to Mormons, I have plenty of Mormon friends, but I view Mormons about as Christian as I Christians are Jewish.  Once you add on a new book you should not try to associate yourself under the name your religion would have been if you hadn't had it.  You have Mormons, Christians/Catholics, and Jews... those titles should not be crossed or mixed because the belief structures are so extremely different thanks to what the newer Biblical text gives as instructions on life.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Gotta serious question for you TS.   Are you doing this campagne on your own or are you being egged on by the LDS formally or otherwise?



On my own. We don't get paid so there is no other motivation other than my stated purpose in the very first post.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Arawyn said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta serious question for you TS.   Are you doing this campagne on your own or are you being egged on by the LDS formally or otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We LDS routinely send out marching orders that must be followed or excommunication will come. Why just yesterday, we ordered that members could only eat green jello salad for the day.......
Click to expand...


I know it's tempting but you gotta be nicer you beautiful elvish mormon lady.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Montrovant said:


> I'm wondering if anyone else in this thread finds it ironic that someone would question the veracity of one book of faith based on another book of faith?  That the book of Mormon cannot be true, it is full of contradiction, and this can be determined through the truth of the Bible seems funny to me
> 
> Sorry for the interruption, feel free to get back to your regularly scheduled programming.



Ya know you and I are on exactly the same page. the same attacks on the Book of mormon could be leveled against the Bible. It's not one book versus the other, it's both of them on the same team. 
You seem a clever fellow.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BrokenAngel said:


> NuuuU!!!!  Ebilness!  That poll is so wrong.  LoL  No offense meant to Mormons, I have plenty of Mormon friends, but I view Mormons about as Christian as I Christians are Jewish.  Once you add on a new book you should not try to associate yourself under the name your religion would have been if you hadn't had it.  You have Mormons, Christians/Catholics, and Jews... those titles should not be crossed or mixed because the belief structures are so extremely different thanks to what the newer Biblical text gives as instructions on life.



We've never been "Mormons". We've always been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mormons is an old nickname the missourians gave us and because it's shorter it stuck. Mormon himself was just another Christian man from the church of Jesus Christ in his day.
We claim all salvation through Jesus Christ. What's more christian than that?


----------



## Sky Dancer

In all honesty and fairness I am both friendly to and bigoted toward LDS.  Friendly toward the human beings who happen to be LDS and biased against their anti-gay activism.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.
> 
> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?
> 
> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.
> 
> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).
> 
> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?
> 
> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26
> 
> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo on the questions. Unfortunately I don't have time tonight to answer them all. I have answered almost all of them throughout the lengthy dialogue of fantastic questions I have been getting on this thread. You may want to read it from the beginning but if you don't want to take the time you'll have to wait for me to repeat myself tomorrow. Or maybe Avatar will handle it before I get back on.
> 
> Adieu!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a couple more questions to ponder while you consult whatever source you must in an attempt to reconcile the faith of Mormonism with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures.   I don't know you from Adam....no pun intended.  But when and if you do attempt to propagate your faith as TRUTH....the very first mission that you will begin to trek is simple....as YOU MUST...if you wish to continue to propagate Mormonism as truth...is to begin with  an all out attack on the VALIDITY of the Holy Scriptures....to present the current format as containing ERROR and being Corrupted over the years by dogma....and tradition.    This is always mandatory...because of the obvious conflict of Doctrine that is found in the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament with the Book of Mormon.  But the strange thing?   While attempting to point out the corruption thereof.....you will NOT be able to empirically debunk one passage therein with any true OBJECTIVE empirical  evidence offered by physical science of history actual...yet you must continue to declare the scriptures as SUBJECTIVE TRUTH instead of the OBJECTIVE truth they are proven to be.   Why?   Because if you can make YOURSELF accept such a position then.....Mormonism is a far easier pill to swallow, as it is very easily debunked as having any empirical background in relation to science or history.
> 
> A few examples of contradiction.   Mormonism "claims" to be represented by modern prophets, that have received NEW REVELATION from the God of Creation in a mere continuance of knowledge and divine guidance in relation to RIGHTEOUS Christian Doctrine that was first established in the New Testament of Christ.
> 
> The very first question that must be asked in a most logical fashion is this.....Just how is "perfection" and "all" to be added unto in relation to Christian Doctrine?     We are told in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus, who commissioned the Holy Spirit of Truth, calling Him from Heaven to help establish doctrine in the infant kingdom of God...aka The Church of Christ, would provide 'ALL TRUTH' to the apostles of the 1st century through the divine inspiration of that same Holy Spirit of Truth.  (John 14:26, 16:13)   Once again...the basic question, "Just how does anyone add unto ALL TRUTH, and make the Perfect Law of Liberty ( James 1:25).....MORE PERFECT?"   Especially after the Holy Spirit of Truth inspired the truth as established ONCE FOR ALL TIME....by the saints of the 1st century (Jude 3).
> 
> With the Apostle Peter informing us that we have been given EVERYTHING pertaining to LIFE and GODLINESS -- 2 Peter 1:3.    And the Apostle Paul informing us that the Holy Scriptures....which are ALL inspired by God, have the capacity to make the 'man of God' PERFECT by being "throughly furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS".....with the Holy Scriptures being profitable to establish Doctrine, and to use for CORRECTION, AND REPROOF ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17).....of course, with these revelations coming in the 1st century.
> 
> With the next question....."Just where does the authority come from....to have PERFECTION and ALL added unto, and what signs and wonders accompanied that NEW REVELATION....to confirm this revelation as coming from God?"    Just how many dead were raised by Mr. Smith....how many lame were healed....how many blind from birth  were made to see?    Just asking....where is this witnessed conformation that accompanies all TRUE PROPHETS of God, as were those in the 1st century?   The recording of Miracles were to cause belief in Christ -- John 20:30-31.   Miracles showed the masses that the Apostles were messengers from God and were teaching truth (Heb. 2:1-4).....where is the record of the miraculous that was used to establish as truth....the message of Mormonism as being from God?  The Apostles Words were confirmed by Signs -- Mk. 16:20.
> 
> The Need for the Miraculous has ceased.  The Holy Spirit was sent to teach and remind the Apostles (John 14:26)....not modern man after the Perfect Law of Liberty had already been established and Confirmed in Doctrine and TRUTH.    The Scriptures informed us that the Apostles were not ready to understand everything that Jesus had been instructing them in.....So, Jesus commissioned Him (The Holy Spirit) to continue to teach them (John 16:12-13).   And what that Holy Spirit taught them....they were to record for future generations of mankind ( 2 Peter 1:3, 12-15).
> 
> Once written.....miraculous reminders of the past would no longer be needed nor required, as all anyone need do is OPEN THE BOOK to be enlightened and edified in both Truth and Doctrine (Jude 3).   It was only the Apostles that were informed they could work miracles in the name of Jesus....not all believers....(Mk. 16:14-20)....take note of the pronoun change in vs. 16.
> 
> Also note that ONLY the Apostles could pass on those miraculous gifts....by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19).  No one else was recorded as having this divine ability of the Spirit...to pass on those gifts.   Paul clearly and quite unambiguously tells us....the need for the Miraculous would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-13).    This could not be the end of the age....as Faith, Hope and Charity would remain.    James tells us quite clearly and unambiguously the NEW TESTAMENT....is that which is PERFECT (James 1:25)...as it is the Perfect Law of Liberty.
> 
> God is not the author of CONFUSION.....why then does Mr. Smith attempt to confuse us and tell us that man needs MORE truth....More Perfection....More Doctrine.....after God has revealed to us that we have EVERYTHING we need pertaining to Life and Godliness...in the words of truth already revealed by the Holy Spirit of Truth?
Click to expand...


I really, truly am chomping at the bit to get to these wonderful statements and questions of yours. I've got answers in my back pocket to all of them. I'll need an hour to fully address them satisfactorily because it'll take me time to go through them all. But I read them and am excited. I just need to spend more time with my family and two kids. Probably on Saturday night I'll take the necessary hour and put it clear to you. But thanks for your patience in waiting


----------



## Ralph

Well.....we do have an ETERNITY, you know.  Take your time.  Attempt to debunk the truth found in the Holy Scriptures that informed us that ALL TRUTH was delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth in the first century.   Thus far.....we have numerous retorts of DEFLECTION, but no answers.   Mormonism is much in the same boat as is ISLAM...both faiths were established by MAN, centuries after Jesus established His kingdom/church here on earth.  Islam 7th centuries after and Mormonism 19 centuries after....history even proves the Catholic Church was not established until the 4th century.  There is only ONE true Church and it was established on the day of Pentecost after the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, when Peter used the Keys to that Kingdom that Jesus had given him (Matthew 16:19)......Peter opened the door of that kingdom and informed everyone what they must do to become a citizen therein (Acts 2:38).  Peter had been given the authority to bind doctrine here on earth with his words of revelation, provided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  "And I (Jesus) will give to thee keys of the kingdom of heaven;  and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;  and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." -- Matthew 16:19

This is much like the nonsense that I have heard some espouse.  Paul was not a true apostle of Christ and was never accepted by the other apostles....Paul made up his own faith.  Strange that we find the very one that had been given the authority to establish New Testament Doctrine here on earth (Peter).....declaring and accepting all Paul's writings as truth and even comparing them with ALL OTHER SCRIPTURE...even old testament scripture all the while calling him a brother in the faith of Christianity, "....and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation -- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you, as also in his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, WHICH UNTAUGHT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, as they do THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES." -- 2 Peter 3:14


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.
> 
> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?
> 
> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.
> 
> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).
> 
> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?
> 
> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26
> 
> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo on the questions. Unfortunately I don't have time tonight to answer them all. I have answered almost all of them throughout the lengthy dialogue of fantastic questions I have been getting on this thread. You may want to read it from the beginning but if you don't want to take the time you'll have to wait for me to repeat myself tomorrow. Or maybe Avatar will handle it before I get back on.
> 
> Adieu!
Click to expand...


You don't have the time to rebuke God's Word the Bible.  You always have time to answer the questions that don't put you face to face with the bible.  Right?

Ralph has presented valid points from the bible.  Are you going to deflect?  I can't wait to see how you show "Ralph" how the bible is wrong, and how your churches' doctrine is correct. 

Oh, I forgot, your the Christian, we are the one's following the corrupted text called the bible. 

Oops, gotta go now, Avatar my Mormon tag-team member will answer all question while I leave town for awhile until these darn "biblical Christians" disappear from the thread.


----------



## Eightball

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.
> 
> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?
> 
> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.
> 
> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).
> 
> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?
> 
> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26
> 
> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
Click to expand...


Excellent post, Ralph.  Succinct, to the point, using direct biblical references.

The Word Of God is a Two Edged Sword.  It reveals man's intentions to the core of his/her innermost being.  It forces transparency of the soul, or deflection, in the form of denial, anger, anxiety, fleeing-away.
********


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ok I finally found some time. However after reading all of your posts and realizing you have a condescending spirit towards me and my church, I hope this message gets through. I also notice you quote scriptures after everything you state. That's great and all but you must understand that the reason there are so many different christian churches is because there are almost as many different interpretations of the Bible as there are churches. So just quoting lots of scriptures to me(all of which I have been familiar with for years) reeks more of trying to show off rather than trying to edify. Anywhoo, I hope we can have a respectful dialogue between the two of us.

Sure....Where to start? Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON. Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith. Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven. The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.

This scripture is very well known among us. Paul, while on his trip to Galatia was trying to warn recent converts of the perils of different doctrines other than the ones Christ taught to his apostles. Unity in doctrine among Christ's church is essential to the order of God. Simply stated, it doesn't matter who is teaching false doctrine, and angel or a man, we must reject anything that is outside the will of Christ. I agree whole-heartedly. That's why we never preach any other gospel besides the gospel of Christ. You should probably read the Book of Mormon if you love Jesus. You would find yourself very pleased by the Christian statements in the book you have launched an assault on.

The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21). 

Actually the older more correct version of the Bible, The King James version states that we are supposed to "Prove all things." Pretty much the same thing but in the verse just before it says despise not prophesyings. So it tells us in those two verses to prove the prophesyings we are going to hear. This indicates God will continue to speak to us and we need to have a discerning spirit and follow the rules God has set forth for identifying true and false prophets. Jesus said about false prophets that should arise in the last days"By their fruits ye shall know them." What they do and say must be in harmony with Jesus. Joseph's statements were in every way in harmony with Christ's.

One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD? I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not. When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically. 

We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents." "....WHICH WAS WROTE...", "...exceeding fraid.", "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...". One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no? Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no? 

I don't know why you said "One Question..." when you asked much more than that and continue to ask many more. It's just funny is all I'm saying.

Certainly when prophets inspired of God write you should expect to find no error in their doctrines. I don't think god ever made a rule about his prophets having perfect grammar or spelling. The doctrine is what is most important. If there was 1 single error in doctrine then it would not be inspired of God and could not be tolerated. That being said however, let's really take a look at how many "errors" there really were.

In order to intelligently understand the book of mormon, you must understand what it actually claims to be. This is a statement from Mormon, a man who lived in the mid 5th century, and in charge of watching over all the sacred records of the Nephite people. Listen Carefully to his claim which was found on the last leaf of the plates, which was effectively the first page of the book, because in their culture they read from right to left, like most near easter languages of the same origin:
THE
BOOK OF MORMON 
AN ACCOUNT WRITTEN BY

THE HAND OF MORMON

UPON PLATES

TAKEN FROM THE PLATES OF NEPHI 
Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites&#8212;Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile&#8212;Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation&#8212;Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed&#8212;To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof&#8212;Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile&#8212;The interpretation thereof by the gift of God. 
An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven&#8212;Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever&#8212;And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations&#8212;And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ. 


Ok I'm back now. Understand this is not a modern western man speaking to us in modern western terms. This is the understanding everyone must take when reading a record which is ancient, or claims to be ancient. You must understand how languages change over time and be willing to try and get into the minds of the people of the time, their culture, their religion, their customs etc. It is very easy to glance at some of the statements of any ancient book and take their statements out of context because of our ignorance of the ancient people we read about. Therefore, we must do true research before we embarrass ourselves by dismissing something which upon closer examination, has incredible authenticity.

The next bit of context to understand is the background and culture of the people in Joseph Smith's time compared to 2009. There are so many factors to consider that I won't go into them all but most importantly what we must understand is that God speaks to us in the language of our customs and times so when ancient scripture is translated it is going to have a different flavor than a modern prophets words because of the idioms of culture etc.

When God prepared the plates for Joseph Smith, and uneducated farm boy, he gave Joseph two seer stones to look through and decipher the ancient language. The words were given to him one at a time and Joseph would speak them to his translator. The Scribe would write the words one by one. Today's high school students are by and large far more accomplished in reading and writing than most school teachers in 1830. So the scribes who were more grammatically sound than Joseph smith would still make spellling mistakes. Many grammatical statements were noticed by the scribes in process of the translation but Joseph told him not to change them because the statements, however grammatically incorrect in English, were 100 percent accurate in terms of a literal translation from the ancient languages. These grammatically incorrect English statements now become powerful authenticity stamps as they show accuracy in the mind of the ancients. They reveal idioms and patterns of speech which don't make sense to a westerner but make perfect sense to a Bedouin Arab, or Jew or Egyptian, or all at the same time. The lack of education of the translator, long an excuse for mockery of the man and the book, has now become an immutable stamp of authenticity on the book. Certainly no westerner could have possibly written a book full of clear Bedouin Arab, Jewish, and Egyptian traditions with any accuracy. Especially since virtually all of what we have come to know about the ancient middle east has been learned within the last 100 years. Even the most learned scholars of 1830, had no clue about ancient customs in the old world of Jerusalem. Archaeology was only in it's infancy. Oh the things they would find out later!
So anywhoo, spelling mistakes can be corrected(Just like I sometimes make in my posts), so can grammar. Doctrinal mistakes cannot be corrected and have not been made to the book.

On to the next one. 

You see why I needed to take time to explain this. I'll be very impressed if you actually read all of this. There will be a quiz later.

I

Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK. Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.

One example is the use of a COMPASS. The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi. 18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D. 

This one is a piece of cake. There are two statements I have in response to the compass. The english word compass is the best word we have to describe the Liahona. But if it just read Liahona, the western reader would not understand the noun. It was an instrument sent from God to Lehi and his family to point the direction they should travel through the Arabian desert and across the Indian and Pacific Ocean. Compass is the best word in english to describe it since we are not of that language or time. So that is what God inspired Joseph to write. You see the focus on purpose rather than irrelevant statements like "the compass wasn't invented until 1100AD." 

Plus take this into consideration: The compass as we know it today was invented in 1100AD. But the world is a big place and back then there were to copyright laws or international communication. That's just the first widespread invention of the modern compass. History is always revealing new things. History is always changing. The Liahona may not even have been the first compass. There is a lot of undiscovered truth out there. You need to be more careful with such absolute historical statements that are subject to change upon the next big discovery. But for right now the Liahona is the first "compass" until further evidence shows. 

Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C. 

Another easy one. Adieu is as much an English word as a French word. Especially in the language and culture of Joseph Smith's day. The poignance and formality which Mormon was trying to convey in his farewell speech was more accurately described to English speakers as Adieu. You have to admit it carries a different feel than a simple goodbye or even farewell. Adieu, like many other words from other languages are adopted into English, like the also french Lassez-faire, or the German gazunteit. We all know what they mean, but have different origins. Very simple.  

Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10). However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4). 

I think you mean predicted and not predicated. This one is at once to an uneducated westerner appearing to be a contradiction but again upon close examination becomes another strong stamp of authenticity on the book. 

In Joseph's day and especially in the heavily Christian upstate new york area, EVERYONE KNEW, especially Joseph Smith that Jesus was born in bethlehem. It was more commonly known back then than it is today because everyone read the the bible. Many times it was the only book in the house. Joseph's mother read the book to them every night before all her children went to bed. Oliver Cowdery remarked upon the "Jerusalem" statement in the middle of translation. Joseph told him the same explanation I am going to tell you:

Alma was preaching a sermon at this time in 83 BC. 83 BC is important because remember it's now been over 500 years since their ancestors left the Holy Land. Bethlehem wasn't a big town even in Christ's day, then how much smaller would it have been in 600 BC. The first notice of the town was as the burial place of rachel in Genesis. So although it may be old, there is no indication of it ever being a big landmark type of place. Certainly not to Meso-American inhabitants of 83 BC. They had only heard that their ancestors came from "the land of Jerusalem", but knew nothing of it's topography or surrounding suburbs, of which Bethlehem was one. Now Alma in the same scripture you quoted would have been fine even if he did say "in" Jerusalem because the audience would have been confused if he said Bethlehem. they wouldn't know the part of the world Alma was talking about. It just so happens that the direct quote was "at Jerusalem" which encompasses the broader geography of the area and not so much the city of Jerusalem. Which is an impressive statement of accuracy now that we have taken a closer look at what is actually written instead of what is assumed. Joseph Smith understood the context and therefore was not bothered by the word Jerusalem. 

it's the same as when I tell people I'm from San Francisco but I'm really from an outlying suburb nearby that they've never heard of. Anybody heard of Walnut Creek? So it would be pointless for me to say I'm from Walnut Creek on a national Message board.

Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19). Strange...since Mary was told by an angel: YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35). Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah. Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST? Really? 

This one is so easy I can barely stand it. Just because Nephi had a vision into the future of Jesus' birth doesn't mean he named him. He just saw what Mary would name him. Nephi was not given naming rights for the Christ child. And guess what?! Jesus wasn't called Jesus or Christ by his people either. It was Yeshua or Messiah. 6 and a half of 1 or half a dozen of the other. It's the same thing. The bible translators did the same thing Joseph Smith did with the Book of Mormon; translated the words into the common english of the day. I don't see any problem with that.

In another portion of the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16). Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26

Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?

Yes perhaps you are misinformed. and I would like to enlighten you with the truth on the matter. 
It is a common misconception that Christ instituted his church first in Jerusalem during his living ministry. But since Jesus is the great I AM, even the Jehovah of the Old testament, I maintain he instituted his church with Adam, the first Priest of the church. All the sacrifices they were to perform, including the sacrifices given in the Law of Moses, were symbolic of the sacrifice Jesus would make on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane. Adam was the first Christian. And by the way since Christian, means "of Christ" and Christ is in greek "the annointed one" that means we have another greek word that has now become English. It was used in the translation of the English Bible the same way it was used in the 
translation of the English Book of Mormon: to convey to the western english reader more clearly what was going on. 
Remember the language of the Nephites and lamanites had undergone changes over several hundred years from the original hebrew and egyptian that their forefathers were educated in. The same way English has undergone dramatic changes since it's early days until now. For a group of followers who believed in Jesus, but used a different name for him, it would make sense to translate that word into the best possible substitute in english. since there is no English word for "Jesus" and no one word to describe "Christ". Jesus is a transliteration of the Hebrew name Joshua which means in English "Jehovah is Salvation"

If we were to do everything literally all the time we would have to write about Jesus baptism this way, " and Jehovah is salvation(Jeus) the anointed one(Christ) went to Jehovah is gracious(John) to be baptized of Jehovah is gracious and straightway came up out of the water.
Don't you see how cumbersome it would be. So please understand the process of translation is a give a little and take a little. It's never going to be perfect grammatically.

"For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15 
Here Paul sounds a warning against people who try to ascend to the head of leadership in the Church, trying to overthrow the authority of the current established apostles. There were many preachers in Corinth at the time who were preaching their own doctrines and setting themselves up to be popular with the people while setting aside the teachings of Jesus' established priesthood in the apostleship. The real apostles couldn't just jump in their jets and fly over and put down the priestcraft and prevent the imposters from spreading false teachings about Christ's true doctrine. So they had to write lots of letters. Some to the Corinthians, some to the thessalonians, galatians, etc.

Joseph Smith did no such thing. The angel who came to him preached of Christ and that he was the savior of the world. The angel Moroni was on errand from Jesus. Jesus himself appeared to Joseph and gave him instructions. It wasn't just the angel. To understand if Joseph was teaching Christ's original gospel or if he was simply priestcrafting you have to examine the teachings, pray to God and ask for the testimony of the Holy Ghost to confirm it.

Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know? They told us so...no? 

You and I both can agree on the depravity of the ACLU. 

Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.

Yes we are a cult, and so are you too. See definition of cult: A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
But I think you mean we're a bad cult.

BTW, we never called ourselves Mormons. The Missourians did that and the derogatory nickname stuck. 

There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated. Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.

You have demanded and you have received


----------



## Ceasaro

Truthguy, don't you get a little frustrated when no one believes any of the shit you tell them?

Ok, so god revealed himself to a hokey old barely literate cowboy who was banging a bunch of little girls and getting himself beaten up constantly for being a charlatan and a fool. Man, any dumber than that and you die.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Just a couple more questions to ponder while you consult whatever source you must in an attempt to reconcile the faith of Mormonism with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures. I don't know you from Adam....no pun intended. But when and if you do attempt to propagate your faith as TRUTH....the very first mission that you will begin to trek is simple....as YOU MUST...if you wish to continue to propagate Mormonism as truth...is to begin with an all out attack on the VALIDITY of the Holy Scriptures....

You are expecting an attack which will never come. Because I believe in all the Holy Scriptures.

to present the current format as containing ERROR and being Corrupted over the years by dogma....and tradition. This is always mandatory...because of the obvious conflict of Doctrine that is found in the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament with the Book of Mormon. But the strange thing? While attempting to point out the corruption thereof.....you will NOT be able to empirically debunk one passage therein with any true OBJECTIVE empirical evidence offered by physical science of history actual...yet you must continue to declare the scriptures as SUBJECTIVE TRUTH instead of the OBJECTIVE truth they are proven to be. Why? Because if you can make YOURSELF accept such a position then.....Mormonism is a far easier pill to swallow, as it is very easily debunked as having any empirical background in relation to science or history. 

Calm down Ralph. You're flinching before I've thrown any punches  I'm not gonna hit you.

AnywhooThere is no conflict in the doctrines of the two books when an intelligent comparison is done between the two. Why would I try to debunk a book(The Bible) I believe in? Granted there have been some human errors in the translation from Hebrew to Greek, to English, plus the fact that the original scrolls of the bible put together at the council of Nicea around 300 AD, are no longer available. These facts are undisputable. but it's ok because the translations were done by human scholars who meant well for the most part. The Bible just needs  little "cleaning up" so to speak. Wouldn't it be nice to have Isaiah appear at a news conference to explain exactly what he meant when he wrote his book. Or John the Revelator, or any of the gospel writers?
Joseph Smith is just such a modern advocate, as are all of his successors in our church, authoritative prophets to give the correct interpretation of the scriptures.

A few examples of contradiction. Mormonism "claims" to be represented by modern prophets, that have received NEW REVELATION from the God of Creation in a mere continuance of knowledge and divine guidance in relation to RIGHTEOUS Christian Doctrine that was first established in the New Testament of Christ. 

I don't see the contradiction. Jesus founded his church on apostles and prophets with Jesus being the chief cornerstone. (Ephesias 2:20) Why should it be different today?

The very first question that must be asked in a most logical fashion is this.....Just how is "perfection" and "all" to be added unto in relation to Christian Doctrine? 
I'm scratching my head because no where in the Bible does it say that it was perfect or that it contained every word of God. It nowhere states that God would never cause more to be written.

We are told in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus, who commissioned the Holy Spirit of Truth, calling Him from Heaven to help establish doctrine in the infant kingdom of God...aka The Church of Christ, would provide 'ALL TRUTH' to the apostles of the 1st century through the divine inspiration of that same Holy Spirit of Truth. (John 14:26, 16:13) 

Well I must say that is one of the grossest misinterpretations of scripture I have ever come across. Jesus was instructing his apostles how to know the truth of things to come. He was telling them the Holy Ghost(Holy Spirit) would answer their questions as they arose. That he would be there to testify of Christ to them individually in their individual moments of need. He was counseling them on how to behave while he was gone. I don't know where you got off thinking that that is a statement that there would be no more scripture. Think I'm making it up? Here's a little before and  little after the scripture you posted. Maybe you should actually read the Bible:

John chapter 14

12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 
  13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 
  14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 
  15 ¶ If ye alove me, keep my ccommandments. 
  16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 
  17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 
  18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 
  19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 
  20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 
  21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be beloved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 
  22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? 
  23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 
  24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father&#8217;s which sent me. 
  25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. 
  26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. 
  27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 


 John chapter16
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 
  13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 
  14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 
  15 All things that thebFather hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 
  16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
Jesus said the Holy Ghost would show us the truth of all things to come. Not the Bible. The bible is one section of the word of God, confirmed to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. I'm anxiously awaiting any word from God and not clinging to just one piece of it.


Once again...the basic question, "Just how does anyone add unto ALL TRUTH, and make the Perfect Law of Liberty ( James 1:25).....MORE PERFECT?" 

The Law of Liberty, cross referenced means the Gospel of Christ, which is the gospel of truth, which sets you free, hence the use of the word liberty. I've clearly established from your misuse of the the phrase ALL TRUTH in the previous statement, that any more testimonies of Jesus Christ outside the Bible are not to be condemned unless they are contradictory.

Especially after the Holy Spirit of Truth inspired the truth as established ONCE FOR ALL TIME....by the saints of the 1st century (Jude 3). 

Please don't tire me anymore with out of context scriptures anymore. First I think you meant to say Jude chater 1 verse 3 which reads in verse 3 and 4:


3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. 
  4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. 

I don't know where you get off throwing in the ONCE FOR ALL TIME statement. You can see that what Jude is talking about is 180 degrees different than what you are talking about. Please read up.

With the Apostle Peter informing us that we have been given EVERYTHING pertaining to LIFE and GODLINESS -- 2 Peter 1:3.
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.
Please read the scriptures for once. It's God's POWER that has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. Not any one book we read.

 What is that power? The Holy Ghost which bears record of the truth of Jesus Christ and all his teachings. His teachings can be found in The Bible, The Book of Mormon and many other books.

And the Apostle Paul informing us that the Holy Scriptures....which are ALL inspired by God, have the capacity to make the 'man of God' PERFECT by being "throughly furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS".....with the Holy Scriptures being profitable to establish Doctrine, and to use for CORRECTION, AND REPROOF ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17).....of course, with these revelations coming in the 1st century. 

Yes I agree. All scripture is given of God. Scripture is holy writ which is not confined to one book.



With the next question....."Just where does the authority come from....to have PERFECTION and ALL added unto, and what signs and wonders accompanied that NEW REVELATION....to confirm this revelation as coming from God?" 

Joseph Smith was ordained a priest by the laying on of hands on his head by the apostles Peter, James and John for authority to preach and also by John the Baptist for authority to baptize. All appeared as resurrected people and physically performed this act.

The same signs and wonders which followed Jesus. Healings, visions, speaking in tongues and two separate occasions of raising the dead.

Just how many dead were raised by Mr. Smith....how many lame were healed....how many blind from birth were made to see? 

answered above.

Just asking....where is this witnessed conformation that accompanies all TRUE PROPHETS of God, as were those in the 1st century? The recording of Miracles were to cause belief in Christ -- John 20:30-31. 

Miracles were never to be the cause of belief in Christ. The Holy Spirit was to teach them all things. Not signs and wonders. The devil can do signs and wonders too. That is why the Holy Ghost is far more important than signs and wonders. 

By the way did you catch the statement of Jesus to the pharisees,"Only a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign."

Focus on the doctrine and the Holy Ghost. Not signs. Everyone will always see signs. There's no need to look for them.


Miracles showed the masses that the Apostles were messengers from God and were teaching truth (Heb. 2:1-4).....

Miracles were a biproduct of the power of God, but it was the Holy Ghost which you brought up, that shows the truth of all things.

where is the record of the miraculous that was used to establish as truth....the message of Mormonism as being from God? The Apostles Words were confirmed by Signs -- Mk. 16:20. 
The Apostles word was strengthened by signs but only the Holy Ghost can confirm the word of Truth.

But there were many miracles and prophecies by Joseph Smith and other members of the church. The same kind as predicted would follow the believers of Christ. You see, Jesus said the signs would follow US, not that WE would follow signs.



The Need for the Miraculous has ceased. The Holy Spirit was sent to teach and remind the Apostles (John 14:26)....

Funny how you used this same scripture to mean something completely different earlier. This time you use it properly, but it can only mean one thing and not two. You need to be careful.
Here in the Book of Mormon it sums up miracles and how they should never cease.

Moroni 7: 27, 29, 35, 37
  27 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men? 
      &#8226;  &#8226;  &#8226;
  29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men. 
      &#8226;  &#8226;  &#8226;
  35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased? 
      &#8226;  &#8226;  &#8226;
  37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

Don't be so full of unbelief.

not modern man after the Perfect Law of Liberty had already been established and Confirmed in Doctrine and TRUTH. The Scriptures informed us that the Apostles were not ready to understand everything that Jesus had been instructing them in.....So, Jesus commissioned Him (The Holy Spirit) to continue to teach them (John 16:12-13). And what that Holy Spirit taught them....they were to record for future generations of mankind ( 2 Peter 1:3, 12-15). 

I'm repeating myself and have shown how you have convoluted your interpretation of the Bible. 

so funny that the apostles were instructed to record for future generations. At that time they hadn't recorded everything they were to eventually write. Many of their writings were voted out of the Bible by the council of Nicea. You would shut the mouths of the apostles if they knocked on your door to give you advice. I certainly think they should still be considered scripture. Another obvious showing that all truth is not contained in one book.

Once written.....miraculous reminders of the past would no longer be needed nor required, as all anyone need do is OPEN THE BOOK to be enlightened and edified in both Truth and Doctrine (Jude 3). It was only the Apostles that were informed they could work miracles in the name of Jesus....not all believers....(Mk. 16:14-20)....take note of the pronoun change in vs. 16.
Dude you seriously don't read the scriptures. Here's what Mark says in verse 16:

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 
  17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out edevils; they shall speak with new tongues; 
  18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 
  19 ¶ So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 
  20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs _following_(italics added). Amen.

No where did it say only the apostles. It said them that believe and are baptized. Read up.


Also note that ONLY the Apostles could pass on those miraculous gifts....by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19). 

Are you just copying and pasting a bunch of grossly misinterpreted scriptures from an anti mormon website? Why don't you read these scriptures. Simon who was recently baptized tried to buy the priesthood from Peter but was reprimanded severely for thinking that god's gift of authority could be bought with money. The apostles clearly gave this authority to others but Peter was only making a point that the gifts of god could not be bought. Read up. 

No one else was recorded as having this divine ability of the Spirit...to pass on those gifts. Paul clearly and quite unambiguously tells us....the need for the Miraculous would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-13). 
Mark 16 shows that it was them that believe, not just apostles who would gain this power. The apostles must of necessity given it to other worthy non-apostle believers since Jesus said about them,

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 
  18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.


This could not be the end of the age....as Faith, Hope and Charity would remain. James tells us quite clearly and unambiguously the NEW TESTAMENT....is that which is PERFECT (James 1:25)...as it is the Perfect Law of Liberty. 

I already showed your misunderstanding of James 1:25

God is not the author of CONFUSION.....why then does Mr. Smith attempt to confuse us and tell us that man needs MORE truth....More Perfection....More Doctrine.....after God has revealed to us that we have EVERYTHING we need pertaining to Life and Godliness...in the words of truth already revealed by the Holy Spirit of Truth? 

Confusion existed long before Joseph Smith arrived. The Church of Rome(not Jesus Christ) had been splintered into thousands of church's before Joseph was on the scene. All arguing different interpretations of the Bible. Certainly God was not the author such confusion either. But the confusion was there and so God stretched forth his hand to call another prophet to help end the confusion.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.
> 
> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?
> 
> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.
> 
> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.    Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.
> 
> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).
> 
> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?
> 
> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26
> 
> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo on the questions. Unfortunately I don't have time tonight to answer them all. I have answered almost all of them throughout the lengthy dialogue of fantastic questions I have been getting on this thread. You may want to read it from the beginning but if you don't want to take the time you'll have to wait for me to repeat myself tomorrow. Or maybe Avatar will handle it before I get back on.
> 
> Adieu!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have the time to rebuke God's Word the Bible.  You always have time to answer the questions that don't put you face to face with the bible.  Right?
> 
> Ralph has presented valid points from the bible.  Are you going to deflect?  I can't wait to see how you show "Ralph" how the bible is wrong, and how your churches' doctrine is correct.
> 
> Oh, I forgot, your the Christian, we are the one's following the corrupted text called the bible.
> 
> Oops, gotta go now, Avatar my Mormon tag-team member will answer all question while I leave town for awhile until these darn "biblical Christians" disappear from the thread.
Click to expand...



8-Ball you are some kind of piece of work. Sorry if my wife and kids come before a blog. 

anywhoo. You know full well, I was gonna get to it. You and Ralph I can tell are gonna be facebook buddies after this.

Now for the sake of not being cumbersome why don't you ask questions one at a time so that I'll have time to get to them quickly. 

Please no more novels that require novel responses. 
1

@  

A

Time!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Excellent post, Ralph.  Succinct, to the point, using direct biblical references.
> 
> The Word Of God is a Two Edged Sword.  It reveals man's intentions to the core of his/her innermost being.  It forces transparency of the soul, or deflection, in the form of denial, anger, anxiety, fleeing-away.
> ********



Some two edged sword huh?

Get a life 8-ball. Read the scriptures for once and weep.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> Truthguy, don't you get a little frustrated when no one believes any of the shit you tell them?
> 
> Ok, so god revealed himself to a hokey old barely literate cowboy who was banging a bunch of little girls and getting himself beaten up constantly for being a charlatan and a fool. Man, any dumber than that and you die.



Don't you get a little frustrated because you have no purpose in life that you are attached to? Really, what DO you stand for? Where are your answers to the questions Where did we come from? Why are we here? and where are going when we die?

Are you only committed to insulting those who think they have those answers? Where is your honor?

Where are your sources to back your claims that I don't know what I'm talking about. All you can do is sit back like a hokey old barely literate cowboy who bangs little girls and say that I'm dumb. No substance whatever. 

Get a life.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well.....we do have an ETERNITY, you know. Take your time. Attempt to debunk the truth found in the Holy Scriptures that informed us that ALL TRUTH was delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth in the first century. Thus far.....we have numerous retorts of DEFLECTION, but no answers. 
Surely you have gotten answers by now. One of the fruits of the Spirit is patience. You gotta know I wasn't gonna leave you hanging.



Mormonism is much in the same boat as is ISLAM...both faiths were established by MAN, centuries after Jesus established His kingdom/church here on earth. Islam 7th centuries after and Mormonism 19 centuries after....history even proves the Catholic Church was not established until the 4th century. 

What does that matter when the church was organized? I mean really?


There is only ONE true Church and it was established on the day of Pentecost after the ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, when Peter used the Keys to that Kingdom that Jesus had given him (Matthew 16:19)......Peter opened the door of that kingdom and informed everyone what they must do to become a citizen therein (Acts 2:38). Peter had been given the authority to bind doctrine here on earth with his words of revelation, provided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. "And I (Jesus) will give to thee keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." -- Matthew 16:19

so I'm assuming you are Pentecostal. 


This is much like the nonsense that I have heard some espouse. Paul was not a true apostle of Christ and was never accepted by the other apostles....Paul made up his own faith. Strange that we find the very one that had been given the authority to establish New Testament Doctrine here on earth (Peter).....declaring and accepting all Paul's writings as truth and even comparing them with ALL OTHER SCRIPTURE...even old testament scripture all the while calling him a brother in the faith of Christianity, "....and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation -- as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you, as also in his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, WHICH UNTAUGHT AND UNSTABLE PEOPLE TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, as they do THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES." -- 2 Peter 3:14 


Dude, what you are trying to quote is in verse 16 not 14 and it's wresting the scriptures, which means to twist the scriptures into what YOU want them to say instead of what they actually say. Here's what it ACTUALLY says.

16- As also in all his (Paul's) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are _unlearned_ and _unstable wrest_, as they do also the _other scriptures_, unto their own destruction.(italics added)

As I have shown by what is actually written. I'm not the one doing any wresting.


----------



## Ceasaro

*Don't you get a little frustrated because you have no purpose in life that you are attached to? Really, what DO you stand for? Where are your answers to the questions Where did we come from? Why are we here? and where are going when we die?*

Be careful, you almost got mad there, lol.

What makes you think I don't consider that I have a purpose? Just because it's not to obey some hokey religious nonsense? 
I stand for all good stuff like most regular people.
Where did we come from? The primordial soup that was earth over 4 billion years ago.
Why are we here? It is not possible to know this at this point in time
Where are we going when we die? Probably reborn into another life right here over and over again, but like I say, probably, not for sure, and what ultimately happens will happen, I don't spend my whole life worshipping one conclusion or the other. But to think that we have to follow some scraggly toothed cowboy to achieve anything is pure fantasy. I kinda feel sorry for you that you spend so much time and money on those stories. But like I've said, as long as you don't hurt anyone it's all good I guess.


----------



## Sky Dancer

We are born in order to die--yet we give little thought to that.  If we contemplate impermanence it makes life more meaningful.  JMO.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ceasaro said:


> *Don't you get a little frustrated because you have no purpose in life that you are attached to? Really, what DO you stand for? Where are your answers to the questions Where did we come from? Why are we here? and where are going when we die?*
> 
> Be careful, you almost got mad there, lol.There's nothing wrong with getting good and mad once in a while. Jesus cracked a whip and nailed plenty of guys abusing the temple.
> 
> What makes you think I don't consider that I have a purpose?
> 
> What forces me to say it is that you have no reservations about insulting someone who claims to believe in God when they haven't done anything to encroach on your beliefs or preferences.
> 
> Just because it's not to obey some hokey religious nonsense?
> 
> Again, when did I ever tell you to sit and roll over?
> 
> I stand for all good stuff like most regular people.
> 
> Ok then show it.
> 
> Where did we come from? The primordial soup that was earth over 4 billion years ago. How do you know and if that is true, where did the primordial soup come from? How did it all of sudden or not so all of a sudden go from soup to intelligent human beings that are better than soup?
> Why are we here?
> 
> 
> 
> It is not possible to know this at this point in time
> 
> It is possible but you have to be willing to investigate the claims of those who say they do.
> 
> 
> Where are we going when we die? Probably reborn into another life right here over and over again, but like I say, probably, not for sure, and what ultimately happens will happen, I don't spend my whole life worshipping one conclusion or the other. But to think that we have to follow some scraggly toothed cowboy to achieve anything is pure fantasy. I kinda feel sorry for you that you spend so much time and money on those stories. But like I've said, as long as you don't hurt anyone it's all good I guess.
> 
> 
> Well for one Joseph wasn't scraggly toothed. He was widely regarded as a handsome man. Chipped tooth, for sure, in the final third of his 38 year life. But not scraggly.
> 
> Plus I haven't asked you to follow any man. and If I did, I would start with Jesus.
> 
> Yeah I don't try to hurt anyones feelings but I can't help it sometimes. I guess it is all good I guess.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ceasaro said:


> *Don't you get a little frustrated because you have no purpose in life that you are attached to? Really, what DO you stand for? Where are your answers to the questions Where did we come from? Why are we here? and where are going when we die?*
> 
> Be careful, you almost got mad there, lol.
> 
> What makes you think I don't consider that I have a purpose? Just because it's not to obey some hokey religious nonsense?
> I stand for all good stuff like most regular people.
> Where did we come from? The primordial soup that was earth over 4 billion years ago.
> Why are we here? It is not possible to know this at this point in time
> Where are we going when we die? Probably reborn into another life right here over and over again, but like I say, probably, not for sure, and what ultimately happens will happen, I don't spend my whole life worshipping one conclusion or the other. But to think that we have to follow some scraggly toothed cowboy to achieve anything is pure fantasy. I kinda feel sorry for you that you spend so much time and money on those stories. But like I've said, as long as you don't hurt anyone it's all good I guess.



If you stand for all good stuff then why do you lie about a good men? Why do you comment on stuff you claim ignorance about? Why not actually learn?


----------



## Ceasaro

*"Jesus (cracked a whip and) nailed plenty of guys"*

I can't resist, lol: it's what I've always thought.

*How do you know and if that is true, where did the primordial soup come from? How did it all of sudden or not so all of a sudden go from soup to intelligent human beings that are better than soup?*

With all the scientific discoveries recently and in the past, it's looking like soup is where we came from. So let me ask you: if scientist find primordial soup life on another planet, at what point do you concede the point. I mean, you can't intellectually deny evolution, even humans have evolved since Jo's time, we're taller, live longer, smarter...

*It is not possible to know this at this point in time
It is possible but you have to be willing to investigate the claims of those who say they do.
*

Like the scraggly chip toothed and tar feathered cowboy who was banging little girls? C'mon man, gimme a break.


----------



## Avatar4321

First, please forgive me for chopping up the post quite a bit. its difficult to follow otherwise. Unfortunately, I cant guarentee my posts will help make it easier. But I can hope.



Ralph said:


> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.



And the first thing that pops into my mind is the promise of John in Revelation 14:6-7 that the Lord will send an angel proclaiming the everlasting Gospel in the last days and preparing the world for the judgments that come. May I presume that if you dont believe Moroni did fulfill this prophecy that you are currently looking foward to the Lord's fulfillment of this prophecy? You are awaiting angelic messengers carrying the Gospel? If so I would ask how do you propose to recognize them?

It seems to me the only way to recognize the Lord's messengers is through the Holy Spirit. Yet, you and your friends do nothing but claim that we have to rely on our own interpretations of the scriptures rather than the revelations of God. It makes absolutely no sense to rely on what God has said in the past and ignore what God says now. That was what the Pharisees did and Christ did not bless them for it.

Finally, it seems that you are unfamiliar with the Gospel that was revealed in the Book of Mormon. Which is that Jesus Christ the Son of God suffered and Atoned for the sins of the world, dying on the cross, and rose on the third day. If you believe in some Gospel other than this, than I would suggest that you might want to rethink whether or not you are believing the correct Gospel. I dont know your heart so you have to answer these questions yourself. But God knows us all and will judge according to the Truth and Justice which is in Him.



> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).



Which, of course, is why we encourage and ask all men to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and to pray to the Father in the name of Christ whether the Book is true in humility and with sincerity of heart. We ask all people to do this prior to being baptized. That way the Spirit can reveal to them the truth. 

And I can tell you from personal experience that the Spirit will answer that prayer. And that God is no respecter of persons. He will answer your sincere and humble prayers just as much as He would answer mine or anyone elses who prays to know the truth.

How do you propose to test the things of the Spirit if not by the Holy Spirit?



> One question....since God by definition is all-knowing and all-powerful, should we or anyone not expect a direct revelation from God to be ERROR free when it was directly translated to a true prophet of GOD?   I mean...Humans are known to Err...God is not.   When one looks through an ORIGINAL translation of that BOOK we find it laced with ERROR...both factual and grammatically.



Interesting question. Can anything touched by human hands be error free? Are your expectations reasonable? Should we disbelieve the Bible when there are factual and grammatical errors?



> We find such.....grammatical error as, ".....which WAS our first parents."   "....WHICH WAS WROTE...",  "...exceeding fraid.",  "....THEM DAYS", "...have took", "... waving the rent......the writing which he had wrote upon the rent...".   One would think that an angel from heaven would be the ultimate SPELL CHECK..no?  Regardless of the education of the one simply RECORDING the supposed information from GOD....as such would require only the ability to COPY WRITE....no?



Considering the angel wasnt the one providing a translation, im not sure that the question on whether an angel has a spell check is really relevant.



> Not to mention PHYSICAL errors of factual history found in the BOOK.   Some are simple Oddities....but others are quite serious as they actually CONTRADICT the writings from the HOLY SCRIPTURES....which is claimed to be the  COMPANION to the Book of Mormon.



And yet the supposed factual errors are rather lacking arent they? for example you cited:



> One example is the use of a COMPASS.  The "Nephites" are said to have used a compass about 550 B.C. ( 1 Nephi.  18:12), when the compass was not invented untill 1100 A. D.



Which of course is blatantly untrue. The Nephites didnt even exist in 550BC, nor did they use a compass. If you read the Book of Mormon, even so much as the first book of it, you would be very much aware of this.  



> Another oddity is the use of the FRENCH word "Adieu" used in (Jacob 7:27)....strange...that a FRENCH word was used in the correct English translation of a reformed "Egyptian" word  written upon metal plates by a HEBREW living on American soil in 421 B.C.



The fact that you are actually using the adieu argument makes it very difficult to take you serious. Especially considering Adieu is also an english word and anyone familiar with translating would realize it would make perfect sense to use an english word familiar to english speakers in translating a text. No one in their right mind would presume that the original text had a French word it. 

For example, the Bible is translated from Hebrew and Greek. It often uses the word God. There is no disputing that God is not a Hebrew or Greek word. Are you honestly suggesting that using an English word in an English translation from another language means that the original must have used the English word as well? its insane.

I dont think this is what you are actually proposing though. Because I dont think you've honestly thought about this. I dont think youve done any actual study in the claims of the Book of Mormon. I think you just took someone elses shoddy scholasticism as fact because its convenient to your world view.



> Another contradiction.....Alma predicated in 83 B.C that Jesus would be born in Jerusalem (Alma 7:10).  However in keeping with Micah's prophecy, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Luke 2:4).



Again, your incorrect. Alma predicted that Christ would be born in the land of Jerursalem. I say Im from Philadelphia very often. I dont actually live in Philadelphia I live nearby. Considering there is historic precedent, including in the Bible, of refering Bethlehem as being in the land of Jerusalem, I would conclude that you haven't bothered to research the issue. 

So unless you are prepared to conclude that 2 Kings 14:20 makes the Bible wrong, I dont see how you can honestly support this claim.



> Another.......Nephi called the savior "Jesus Christ, the Son of God"....almost 600 years before His birth ( 2 Nephi 25:19).   Strange...since Mary was told by an angel:   YOU...Mary, shall call his name Jesus...and He shall be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31,35).   Christ is not a NAME....it is a Greek word that means "anointed"...which merely corresponds to the Hebrew word Messiah.  Mr. Smith would have us believe that the correct English translation of the Reformed Egyptian word is the  Anglicized Greek word for CHRIST?    Really?



Again, you seem to be under some impression that a text that is translated into English is somehow wrong for using English words. Your logic makes no sense. Any translated text is going to use the words familiar to people in the language being translated to.

You also seem to indicate that you are unfamiliar with the fact that Jesus Christ is exactly what the Savior has been called for millinium. That just doesnt make sense. Sure. its not the name He was given by His mother. But it is the name He has been known by throughout the world. Many people are called by their titles. In fact, many famous titles become part of their name. Erik the Red for instance wasnt named that by his Mother. But that's what He was called. I doubt Queen Elizabeth of England was named Queen Elizabeth. but that is what the world knows her as.

Your remarkable "proofs" that the Book of Mormon is false dont seem to stand up to serious scrutiny. They never really have. When I was first studying to know whether the Book of Mormon was true or not, it was exactly arguments like these that made me lean towards believing it. I mean if after nearly 180 years this is the best you guys can come up with against it, there has to be something to the Book.




> In another portion of  the BOOK we find....even before the resurrection of Jesus, some Nephites were praised for being, "firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end" (Alma 27:27).....They even called themselves Christians (Alma 46:13-16).    Strange that this faith would label itself the Church of Christ.....200 years before the Christ even built His church, He being the chief CornerStone...no....as this directly contradicts the Holy Scriptures which clearly inform us, "the disciples were divinely called 'Christians' first at Antioch." -- Acts 11:26



Why does it surprise you that those who would be Christ's would be called after His name prior to His resurrection? Christ was prepared from before the foundations of the world. All the prophets from Adam to the Meridian of time prophecied of the coming of Christ. You think they didnt have faith in the Savior of the world? Do you think they didnt look forward to His coming with faith?

I would clearly excuse Luke's ignorance of those followers of Christ on the other side of the world. Seriously, if this is your serious factual problems, you dont really have much.



> Perhaps we are misinformed....care to enlighten us with the TRUTH?



Id love to, unfortunately, I dont have the ability to enlighten anyone. But the Holy Spirit does. And He will teach you the truth of all things if you let him. And if you want to prove the Book of Mormon, read it for yourself. You can get one for free. It wont cost you a cent to read the Book and pray to know whether it's true. Or do you doubt the Spirit can enlighten?






> "For such are false prophets, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.  And no wonder!  For Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is of no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:13-15



True verse, but you are assuming we are the false ones and that you are the true one. Did you ever consider that the adversasry has decieved you? Or are you somehow superior to all others?

Im supposed to believe that by believing the Witness of the Holy Ghost, I am decieved by the advesary based solely on the fact that you say so and that you interpret scriptures differently? I hope you dont find it wrong of me to believe God and what He tells me over what you say. Nor do I hope you think its wrong of me to reject poorly crafted and uninformed arguments that have been responded to millions of times.



> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?



Doesnt seem to be at all relevant to the conversation. So Im going to have to say: Como what?



> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.



Convenient. Doesnt have to be demonstrated because you say so. Joseph's only "crime" was stating He saw Jesus Christ and being naive enough to expect those who profess belief in Christ to actually believe Him.

If you demand truth, you really need to raise your standards alittle. If you demand truth, read the Book of Mormon for yourself. If you demand truth, pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal it to you. Because God will reveal His work with power to those who ask and seek it from Him. But if youd rather put your Eternal destiny in your own understanding, you can do that. If you think it wise to reject the Book of Mormon for whatever reason, so be it, but as for me and my house, we will follow the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ralph said:


> Just a couple more questions to ponder while you consult whatever source you must in an attempt to reconcile the faith of Mormonism with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures.   I don't know you from Adam....no pun intended.  But when and if you do attempt to propagate your faith as TRUTH....the very first mission that you will begin to trek is simple....as YOU MUST...if you wish to continue to propagate Mormonism as truth...is to begin with  an all out attack on the VALIDITY of the Holy Scriptures....to present the current format as containing ERROR and being Corrupted over the years by dogma....and tradition.    This is always mandatory...because of the obvious conflict of Doctrine that is found in the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament with the Book of Mormon.  But the strange thing?   While attempting to point out the corruption thereof.....you will NOT be able to empirically debunk one passage therein with any true OBJECTIVE empirical  evidence offered by physical science of history actual...yet you must continue to declare the scriptures as SUBJECTIVE TRUTH instead of the OBJECTIVE truth they are proven to be.   Why?   Because if you can make YOURSELF accept such a position then.....Mormonism is a far easier pill to swallow, as it is very easily debunked as having any empirical background in relation to science or history.



Which, of course, is why we boldly declare that the Bible is true. That the Testimonies of the Apostles are true. That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, atoned and died for the sins of the world and rose the third day. That is why we boldly teach the doctrines found in the scriptures such as the pre mortal life, the doctrine of diefication. That's why we teach as the Apostles taught of revelation. That's why we preach and share the keys of the Kingdom as taught in the Bible. That is why we teach the Nature of the fall and Atonement. This is why we study the Bible in depth. Because according to you we have to debunk it to have valid faith.

But what you fail to realize is our faith does not contradict the Bible. Quite the opposite. our faith may contradict your private interpretations of scripture. But that is not our fault.



> A few examples of contradiction.   Mormonism "claims" to be represented by modern prophets, that have received NEW REVELATION from the God of Creation in a mere continuance of knowledge and divine guidance in relation to RIGHTEOUS Christian Doctrine that was first established in the New Testament of Christ.



We have received new revelation. And we hope to recieve more revelation because the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of revelation and Has revealed His secrets to the Prophets in every age of man. Why should we presume God has changed when He made no statements to that effect?





> The very first question that must be asked in a most logical fashion is this.....Just how is "perfection" and "all" to be added unto in relation to Christian Doctrine?     We are told in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus, who commissioned the Holy Spirit of Truth, calling Him from Heaven to help establish doctrine in the infant kingdom of God...aka The Church of Christ, would provide 'ALL TRUTH' to the apostles of the 1st century through the divine inspiration of that same Holy Spirit of Truth.  (John 14:26, 16:13)   Once again...the basic question, "Just how does anyone add unto ALL TRUTH, and make the Perfect Law of Liberty ( James 1:25).....MORE PERFECT?"   Especially after the Holy Spirit of Truth inspired the truth as established ONCE FOR ALL TIME....by the saints of the 1st century (Jude 3).



So because the Holy Spirit reveals all truth, we are to presume that all truth is found in the scriptures? We are to presume because you misquote Jude 1:3 that God will never speak again from the Heavens despite explicit promises in the Book of Revelation and other areas of scripture that He will once again make will known in the last days?

Do you honestly think everything God has ever done or said is contained in the Bible when the Bible itself says that there is no book big enough to contain all the words and works of Christ? And when the Apostles clearly say there are things they cant speak of? Paul saw visions he couldnt share. The Apostles were taught 40 days after the resurrection of Christ and we know nothing of the great truths He shared with them then. Paul spoke of teaching the People the milk of the Gospel in His Epistles. Why are you satisfied with only milk when the Lord will give us meat if we ask for it?



> With the Apostle Peter informing us that we have been given EVERYTHING pertaining to LIFE and GODLINESS -- 2 Peter 1:3.    And the Apostle Paul informing us that the Holy Scriptures....which are ALL inspired by God, have the capacity to make the 'man of God' PERFECT by being "throughly furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS".....with the Holy Scriptures being profitable to establish Doctrine, and to use for CORRECTION, AND REPROOF ( 2 Tim. 3:16-17).....of course, with these revelations coming in the 1st century.



The Apostle Peter was speaking to a crowd who has been given everything. In fact, you could have everything if you didnt put limitations on God. But you think everything means whats just in the Bible and nothing else. That just makes no sense when the scripture teach of God revealing all things to us through His Holy Spirit. So we should deny the Holy Spirit when He tries to teach us more than what we know? it makes no sense.

If you have faith in Jesus Christ, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and recieve the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. And the Holy Ghost will teach you all the things that you should do.

And all scripture is inspired of God and profitable to establish doctrine and use for correction and reproof. Which is exactly why I think its absurd to limit the scriptures to those in the Bible when the Bible itself gives no such limitation and the Spirit says otherwise. Anything spoken or written under the influence of the Holy Spirit is Holy scripture if those who recieve it receive it with that same Spirit.




> With the next question....."Just where does the authority come from....to have PERFECTION and ALL added unto, and what signs and wonders accompanied that NEW REVELATION....to confirm this revelation as coming from God?"    Just how many dead were raised by Mr. Smith....how many lame were healed....how many blind from birth  were made to see?    Just asking....where is this witnessed conformation that accompanies all TRUE PROPHETS of God, as were those in the 1st century?   The recording of Miracles were to cause belief in Christ -- John 20:30-31.   Miracles showed the masses that the Apostles were messengers from God and were teaching truth (Heb. 2:1-4).....where is the record of the miraculous that was used to establish as truth....the message of Mormonism as being from God?  The Apostles Words were confirmed by Signs -- Mk. 16:20.



I dont know that anyone's ever quantified the miracles Joseph did. I know he raised one man from the dead. He healed countless with members of the 12 in Nauvoo. He healed Mrs. Johnson in Kirtland, which lead to the conversion of hundreds in that area. He cast the devil out of Newel K Whitney. What more do you want? Seriously?

Many of the Twelve have done so since. Ive seen miracles. Ive been healed by the Power of God. Ive seen hearts do 180 degrees in a manner of seconds because the Holy Spirit touched the live of someone.



> The Need for the Miraculous has ceased.  The Holy Spirit was sent to teach and remind the Apostles (John 14:26)....not modern man after the Perfect Law of Liberty had already been established and Confirmed in Doctrine and TRUTH.    The Scriptures informed us that the Apostles were not ready to understand everything that Jesus had been instructing them in.....So, Jesus commissioned Him (The Holy Spirit) to continue to teach them (John 16:12-13).   And what that Holy Spirit taught them....they were to record for future generations of mankind ( 2 Peter 1:3, 12-15).



The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of miracles. Miracles will never cease so long as there is one person on earth with the faith necessary to perform them. You seem to think God has finished revealing His will and performing miracles. Yet, you also proclaim that you believe the Bible. Which speaks of the miracles God will perform in the last days. He will gather the Children of Israel together into one body. He will set up an Ensign to the nations. He will establish His House in the Top of the Mountains. He will send two prophets to preach in Jerusalem and save it from invading armies.

Yet we are to beleive that miracles have ceased? We are supposed to disbelieve the whisperings of the Spirit in our lives in order to diefy the instructions given to our forefathers when all they have ever asked us to do is believe the Lord and listen to His voice? Should I disbelieve my eyes because you have declared an end to miracles? Should I pretend I wasnt healed by the power of God because you say its not possible?



> Once written.....miraculous reminders of the past would no longer be needed nor required, as all anyone need do is OPEN THE BOOK to be enlightened and edified in both Truth and Doctrine (Jude 3).   It was only the Apostles that were informed they could work miracles in the name of Jesus....not all believers....(Mk. 16:14-20)....take note of the pronoun change in vs. 16.



Any who was authorized to act in Christ's name can perform miracles. The Seventy Christ called were told to perform miracles in His name. James commanded the Elders of the Church to heal the sick when called to do so. 



> Also note that ONLY the Apostles could pass on those miraculous gifts....by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19).  No one else was recorded as having this divine ability of the Spirit...to pass on those gifts.   Paul clearly and quite unambiguously tells us....the need for the Miraculous would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-13).    This could not be the end of the age....as Faith, Hope and Charity would remain.    James tells us quite clearly and unambiguously the NEW TESTAMENT....is that which is PERFECT (James 1:25)...as it is the Perfect Law of Liberty.



Then who was Stephen? He wasnt an Apostle but was given authority. If none but the Apostles have the power to give the Holy Ghost, then but your own admission you dont have the Gift of the Holy Ghost because there has been no Apostle give it to you by the laying on of hands. Why did they give the Gift of the Holy Ghost if there was no need to?



> God is not the author of CONFUSION.....why then does Mr. Smith attempt to confuse us and tell us that man needs MORE truth....More Perfection....More Doctrine.....after God has revealed to us that we have EVERYTHING we need pertaining to Life and Godliness...in the words of truth already revealed by the Holy Spirit of Truth?



You're right God is not the author of confusion. You think God ordained thousands of different denominations each teaching different doctrine straight from the Bible? You think learning more about God confuses people? And how can you have the words of truth revealed by the Holy Spirit of truth if you dont have the Holy Spirit teaching you? By your own admission you havent recieved the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands from the Apostles. So how can you know what He teaches if you havent recieved Him?

Revelation from God doesnt confuse the mind. It enlightens and expands the mind. You can learn to recognize the whispers of the Spirit by recognizing when pure intelligence flows into your mind.

But if you want the Holy Ghost you have to recieve it as all others have by the laying on of hands by someone authorized to give it.

Everything in the Kingdom of God has an order the is to be followed.


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent post, Ralph.  Succinct, to the point, using direct biblical references.
> 
> The Word Of God is a Two Edged Sword.  It reveals man's intentions to the core of his/her innermost being.  It forces transparency of the soul, or deflection, in the form of denial, anger, anxiety, fleeing-away.
> ********
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some two edged sword huh?
> 
> Get a life 8-ball. Read the scriptures for once and weep.
Click to expand...


Show "US"....as in YOU and I, sitting here in the 21st century, that YOU and I can do greater works?   Strange, since the context clearly establishes the fact that Jesus was TEACHING only HIS disciples.  Take note.....We begin in Chapter 13.....the passover meal, taken in context Jesus is sitting to sup with only his disciples"......and supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him."  John 13:2   In context further along we find Jesus directly addressing only  Peter, while Peter is asking Him about the washing of the feet, with the Christ telling him that NOT all you....the disciples... are clean (of Spirit was the reference...Vs. 11)....Moving further along we still find Jesus addressing and teaching only his close disciples.   Jesus comes straight out and informs them....."....one of YOU shall betray Me." (Vs.21).   Still in context we find....THE DISCIPLES LOOKED at one another (Vs. 22).  

Thus, so far we find the Christ directly speaking and teaching ONLY His close disciples.  Then we find Judas....going out into the night to betray Him (Vs. 30).  Next we find Jesus informing them that He will be leaving them shortly....(knowing His death was rapidly approaching) -- Vs. 36   Also informing THEM they could not follow.   Next Peter said...not so, I would give my live for yours...then comes the famous line about the Peter denying the Christ 3 times before the Cock Crows (Vss. 37-38).    We proceed into Chapter 14.....taken in context.....Jesus is still addressing only His close disciples.    

Still IN CONTEXT....the Christ is addressing non-other than His close disciples, "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also: and greater works than these shall he do;  BECAUSE I GO TO MY FATHER. -- John 14:12


Are you attempting to claim that Jesus promised YOU and I to be granted POWER from Heaven as He did the original Apostles?   Jesus directly PROMISED these men that after His death He would send the comforter, "....even the Spirit of Truth;  WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE......" -- John 14:17   I do not know about you....but I would declare that both YOU and I are apart of the WORLD...no?    And as hard as I try to recollect.....I cannot remember the arisen Christ making this promise to me, "When they (the apostles) were come together, they asked of Him (Jesus), saying, Lord wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel?   And He (Jesus) said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power.  BUT YE SHALL RECEIVE POWER........after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you......and ye shall be witness unto ME both in Jerusalem , and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." -- Acts 1:6-8   And The promise was fulfilled......Acts 2:1-4


Are you declaring that YOU were PERSONALLY privy to that meeting between the Arisen Christ and His apostles....when He directly informed them THEY WOULD RECEIVE POWER?    I would venture to declare that YOU are much in the same boat as was Simon the Sorcerer....When He witnessed that through the LAYING ON OF THE HANDS of an APOSTLE whom JESUS had commissioned with SUCH power through the Holy Spirit of God...they could make the Holy Ghost fall upon those whom they simply laid hands on, passing on the gift of the Spirit..who had not fallen on any of them as yet.   Simon, being jealous and envious of that power...he wanted it for PERSONAL GAIN, and this is what the Apostle informed him...much as HE would now inform you, "But Peter said unto him....Thy money perish with thee......BECAUSE THOU HAST THOUGHT THE GIFT OF GOD MAY BE PURCHASED WITH MONEY........Thous, hast neither LOT NOR PART IN THIS MATTER....." -- Acts 8:9-22.   

Indeed....if you are propagating the same LIE that Simon the Sorcerer DID...you are DEFLECTING from the truth that is actually recorded.   No?   One should Study, and rightly divide the word of truth ( 2 Tim. 2:15).   Clearly...it is the SUM/Total of God's word that establishes TRUTH and everlasting laws, not cherry picked HALF/TRUTHS which can be used as whole lies. -- Ps 119:160


When YOU BEGIN with an easily proven FALSE PRECEPT.......you end with an exposed lie.


----------



## Ralph

Avatar4321 said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a couple more questions to ponder while you consult whatever source you must in an attempt to reconcile the faith of Mormonism with the truth revealed in the Holy Scriptures.   I don't know you from Adam....no pun intended.  But when and if you do attempt to propagate your faith as TRUTH....the very first mission that you will begin to trek is simple....as YOU MUST...if you wish to continue to propagate Mormonism as truth...is to begin with  an all out attack on the VALIDITY of the Holy Scriptures....to present the current format as containing ERROR and being Corrupted over the years by dogma....and tradition.    This is always mandatory...because of the obvious conflict of Doctrine that is found in the Canon of the 27 books of the New Testament with the Book of Mormon.  But the strange thing?   While attempting to point out the corruption thereof.....you will NOT be able to empirically debunk one passage therein with any true OBJECTIVE empirical  evidence offered by physical science of history actual...yet you must continue to declare the scriptures as SUBJECTIVE TRUTH instead of the OBJECTIVE truth they are proven to be.   Why?   Because if you can make YOURSELF accept such a position then.....Mormonism is a far easier pill to swallow, as it is very easily debunked as having any empirical background in relation to science or history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why we boldly declare that the Bible is true. That the Testimonies of the Apostles are true. That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, atoned and died for the sins of the world and rose the third day. That is why we boldly teach the doctrines found in the scriptures such as the pre mortal life, the doctrine of diefication. That's why we teach as the Apostles taught of revelation. That's why we preach and share the keys of the Kingdom as taught in the Bible. That is why we teach the Nature of the fall and Atonement. This is why we study the Bible in depth. Because according to you we have to debunk it to have valid faith.
> 
> But what you fail to realize is our faith does not contradict the Bible. Quite the opposite. our faith may contradict your private interpretations of scripture. But that is not our fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few examples of contradiction.   Mormonism "claims" to be represented by modern prophets, that have received NEW REVELATION from the God of Creation in a mere continuance of knowledge and divine guidance in relation to RIGHTEOUS Christian Doctrine that was first established in the New Testament of Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have received new revelation. And we hope to recieve more revelation because the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of revelation and Has revealed His secrets to the Prophets in every age of man. Why should we presume God has changed when He made no statements to that effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because the Holy Spirit reveals all truth, we are to presume that all truth is found in the scriptures? We are to presume because you misquote Jude 1:3 that God will never speak again from the Heavens despite explicit promises in the Book of Revelation and other areas of scripture that He will once again make will known in the last days?
> 
> Do you honestly think everything God has ever done or said is contained in the Bible when the Bible itself says that there is no book big enough to contain all the words and works of Christ? And when the Apostles clearly say there are things they cant speak of? Paul saw visions he couldnt share. The Apostles were taught 40 days after the resurrection of Christ and we know nothing of the great truths He shared with them then. Paul spoke of teaching the People the milk of the Gospel in His Epistles. Why are you satisfied with only milk when the Lord will give us meat if we ask for it?
> 
> 
> 
> The Apostle Peter was speaking to a crowd who has been given everything. In fact, you could have everything if you didnt put limitations on God. But you think everything means whats just in the Bible and nothing else. That just makes no sense when the scripture teach of God revealing all things to us through His Holy Spirit. So we should deny the Holy Spirit when He tries to teach us more than what we know? it makes no sense.
> 
> If you have faith in Jesus Christ, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and recieve the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. And the Holy Ghost will teach you all the things that you should do.
> 
> And all scripture is inspired of God and profitable to establish doctrine and use for correction and reproof. Which is exactly why I think its absurd to limit the scriptures to those in the Bible when the Bible itself gives no such limitation and the Spirit says otherwise. Anything spoken or written under the influence of the Holy Spirit is Holy scripture if those who recieve it receive it with that same Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know that anyone's ever quantified the miracles Joseph did. I know he raised one man from the dead. He healed countless with members of the 12 in Nauvoo. He healed Mrs. Johnson in Kirtland, which lead to the conversion of hundreds in that area. He cast the devil out of Newel K Whitney. What more do you want? Seriously?
> 
> Many of the Twelve have done so since. Ive seen miracles. Ive been healed by the Power of God. Ive seen hearts do 180 degrees in a manner of seconds because the Holy Spirit touched the live of someone.
> 
> 
> 
> The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of miracles. Miracles will never cease so long as there is one person on earth with the faith necessary to perform them. You seem to think God has finished revealing His will and performing miracles. Yet, you also proclaim that you believe the Bible. Which speaks of the miracles God will perform in the last days. He will gather the Children of Israel together into one body. He will set up an Ensign to the nations. He will establish His House in the Top of the Mountains. He will send two prophets to preach in Jerusalem and save it from invading armies.
> 
> Yet we are to beleive that miracles have ceased? We are supposed to disbelieve the whisperings of the Spirit in our lives in order to diefy the instructions given to our forefathers when all they have ever asked us to do is believe the Lord and listen to His voice? Should I disbelieve my eyes because you have declared an end to miracles? Should I pretend I wasnt healed by the power of God because you say its not possible?
> 
> 
> 
> Any who was authorized to act in Christ's name can perform miracles. The Seventy Christ called were told to perform miracles in His name. James commanded the Elders of the Church to heal the sick when called to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also note that ONLY the Apostles could pass on those miraculous gifts....by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-19).  No one else was recorded as having this divine ability of the Spirit...to pass on those gifts.   Paul clearly and quite unambiguously tells us....the need for the Miraculous would cease (1 Cor. 13:8-13).    This could not be the end of the age....as Faith, Hope and Charity would remain.    James tells us quite clearly and unambiguously the NEW TESTAMENT....is that which is PERFECT (James 1:25)...as it is the Perfect Law of Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then who was Stephen? He wasnt an Apostle but was given authority. If none but the Apostles have the power to give the Holy Ghost, then but your own admission you dont have the Gift of the Holy Ghost because there has been no Apostle give it to you by the laying on of hands. Why did they give the Gift of the Holy Ghost if there was no need to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is not the author of CONFUSION.....why then does Mr. Smith attempt to confuse us and tell us that man needs MORE truth....More Perfection....More Doctrine.....after God has revealed to us that we have EVERYTHING we need pertaining to Life and Godliness...in the words of truth already revealed by the Holy Spirit of Truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right God is not the author of confusion. You think God ordained thousands of different denominations each teaching different doctrine straight from the Bible? You think learning more about God confuses people? And how can you have the words of truth revealed by the Holy Spirit of truth if you dont have the Holy Spirit teaching you? By your own admission you havent recieved the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands from the Apostles. So how can you know what He teaches if you havent recieved Him?
> 
> Revelation from God doesnt confuse the mind. It enlightens and expands the mind. You can learn to recognize the whispers of the Spirit by recognizing when pure intelligence flows into your mind.
> 
> But if you want the Holy Ghost you have to recieve it as all others have by the laying on of hands by someone authorized to give it.
> 
> Everything in the Kingdom of God has an order the is to be followed.
Click to expand...


Does it really matter WHAT I THINK?  My words do not establish Christian Doctrine or Truth, but God's words do, and they are found only in one place, the Holy Scriptures. (John 17:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).......You have presented many passages taken out of content, not directly proving or disproving anything.   Demonstrate in the word of God, just where THERE IS MORE TRUTH to come once ALL TRUTH has been established.....while proving Mormonism and its  false message does not  rescind the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" (If something is Perfect....why add more?) to that which was established by the saints of the 1st century? -- Jude 3.   Thus, Making the word of God a lie....and invalidating His promise not to have his word corrupted once established.   God did promise to have His word of truth last an eternity WITHOUT BEING CORRUPTED ( 1 Peter 1:23,25, Matthew 24:35, Ps. 12:6-7), yet here you are attempting to inform us that God is not capable of keeping his promise. 

This is much like the false circular reasoning and lies of attempting to inform everyone that man can and will become God.   Even though this nonsense is throughly debunked by the simple truth found in the Holy Scriptures.   Even if you attempt to make one passage of Gods word into a lie....you are not working with the Holy Spirit of Truth, "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen:  that ye may know and believe Me and understand that I am He; BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME."   Contrary to what Joseph Smith recorded in the Book of Mormon...."God is not a man..." -- Numbers 23:19, nor was He ever a man, as God is a Spirit (John 4:24).  

If Mormonism were a House....it is such constructed in lacking any Biblical Truth...that one could throw a cat through it.   The most obvious of which is the lack of the signs of a true messenger of God and its conformation.  Signs and Wonders.  No where in history is there any record of the Book of Mormon being validated as was the New Testament of Grace...with accompanying signs and wonders.  No where is there a PROVEN example of anyone being raised from the dead, or divinely healed....and stranger still is the supposed fact of MODERN day apostles....just why should anyone have to go to school to learn a NEW LANGUAGE to spread the gospel...it appears that all it would take would be a simple laying on of the hands of a MODERN APOSTLE and...bingo, people could speak in tongues they were never taught before.  Just like the true messengers of God in the 1st century (Acts 2:4-6)


----------



## Avatar4321

Ralph said:


> Does it really matter WHAT I THINK?  My words do not establish Christian Doctrine or Truth, but God's words do, and they are found only in one place, the Holy Scriptures. (John 17:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).......You have presented many passages taken out of content, not directly proving or disproving anything.   Demonstrate in the word of God, just where THERE IS MORE TRUTH to come once ALL TRUTH has been established.....while proving Mormonism and its  false message does not  rescind the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" (If something is Perfect....why add more?) to that which was established by the saints of the 1st century? -- Jude 3.   Thus, Making the word of God a lie....and invalidating His promise not to have his word corrupted once established.   God did promise to have His word of truth last an eternity WITHOUT BEING CORRUPTED ( 1 Peter 1:23,25, Matthew 24:35, Ps. 12:6-7), yet here you are attempting to inform us that God is not capable of keeping his promise.



You have yet to prove the faulty assumption that all truth is found in the Bible when the Bible clearly states that there are many things not revealed to the saints in general. Simply repeating the same verses after its been demonstrated that you are incorrectly citing them not convincing argument. 

God has been clear that He will do a mighty work in the last days. He has prophecied through His servants many of the miracles He will perform. He has promised to send an angel carrying the everlasting Gospel to the world. Either he has, or he will. Your argumenet that He wont and He has said everything He will ever say just doesnt fly with any serious consideration of the prophecies. How can the two prophets protect Jerusalem before Christ's appearance doing mighty miracles if miracles have ceased? How can men prophecy if God will tell us no more? Your position makes absolutely no sense.



> This is much like the false circular reasoning and lies of attempting to inform everyone that man can and will become God.   Even though this nonsense is throughly debunked by the simple truth found in the Holy Scriptures.   Even if you attempt to make one passage of Gods word into a lie....you are not working with the Holy Spirit of Truth, "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen:  that ye may know and believe Me and understand that I am He; BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME."   Contrary to what Joseph Smith recorded in the Book of Mormon...."God is not a man..." -- Numbers 23:19, nor was He ever a man, as God is a Spirit (John 4:24).



Is it not written ye are gods? If he called those who recieved the word of God, gods and the scriptures cannot be broken, how can you say that those who have recieved the Gospel and be sanctified that the spirit cannot be gods?

If Christ Himself stated that those who recieve the word are gods, who are you to say otherwise? You think you understand the scriptures better than the Savior of the World? Do you think Paul was lying when He promised that we would become joint heirs with Christ and recieve all the Father has? Do you think John lied when He promised us dominions? Do you think Peter lied when He stated that we are made partakers of the Divine nature through Christ?

The New Testament is a glorious testimony that indeed God became a man that men can become gods. For when we see Him, we will know Him, because we will be like Him.




> If Mormonism were a House....it is such constructed in lacking any Biblical Truth...that one could throw a cat through it.



That sentence makes absolutely no sense. 



> The most obvious of which is the lack of the signs of a true messenger of God and its conformation.  Signs and Wonders.  No where in history is there any record of the Book of Mormon being validated as was the New Testament of Grace...with accompanying signs and wonders.



The written witness of Angelic ministry isnt enough for you? The casting out of devils isnt sign enough for you? The fulfillment of prophecy isnt sign enough for you? The raising of the dead isnt enough for you?




> No where is there a PROVEN example of anyone being raised from the dead, or divinely healed....



Of course not, I mean i just pulled those examples and my own personal experiences out of thin air. The sick in Nauvoo were never healed despite the countless eyewitnesses journal entries. Im sure Elijah Fordham. or Joseph Noble were revived by accident right at the time Joseph commanded them in the name of Christ to be healed. 

Im sure the blind woman Parley P Pratt restored sight to just happened to regain her sight when He commanded it return by the power of Christ?

Or perhaps the miracles that Elder Matthew Cowley did were just coincidences? Or that Alma Smith regrowing a hip was just chance?



> and stranger still is the supposed fact of MODERN day apostles....just why should anyone have to go to school to learn a NEW LANGUAGE to spread the gospel...it appears that all it would take would be a simple laying on of the hands of a MODERN APOSTLE and...bingo, people could speak in tongues they were never taught before.  Just like the true messengers of God in the 1st century (Acts 2:4-6)



That just shows your ignorance of the gift of tongues and of what happened at Pentecost. It also demonstrates ignorance of what happens nowadays. You have a form of godliness but deny the power of such.  I can tell you that you will find countless miracles in the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, the greatest miracle is found in the witness of the Holy Ghost who will let all who ask God know the truth of it. The only sure way to stay close to the Lord is to seek Him in prayer and accept the promptings of the Spirit.

But if you want to continue to pretend as though there are no signs given, you shall see no signs. You should not tempt God to satisfy your lusts. It's unwise. Because the signs you recieve when you do that are the ones you wish you never would see.


----------



## Ralph

Avatar4321 said:


> First, please forgive me for chopping up the post quite a bit. its difficult to follow otherwise. Unfortunately, I cant guarentee my posts will help make it easier. But I can hope.
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....Where to start?  Lets begin with the BOOK OF MORMON.  Mormons claim that it is a book directly revealed by God to Joseph Smith.  Smith was propagated as being a prophet of God and was said to directly translate the Book of Mormon from "golden plates" delivered to him by an angel from heaven.   The very first thing that pops into my Spirit are words delivered by the Holy Spirit of Truth to the Apostle Paul, "But even through, we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be ANATHEMA." -- Gal. 1:8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the first thing that pops into my mind is the promise of John in Revelation 14:6-7 that the Lord will send an angel proclaiming the everlasting Gospel in the last days and preparing the world for the judgments that come. May I presume that if you dont believe Moroni did fulfill this prophecy that you are currently looking foward to the Lord's fulfillment of this prophecy? You are awaiting angelic messengers carrying the Gospel? If so I would ask how do you propose to recognize them?
> 
> It seems to me the only way to recognize the Lord's messengers is through the Holy Spirit. Yet, you and your friends do nothing but claim that we have to rely on our own interpretations of the scriptures rather than the revelations of God. It makes absolutely no sense to rely on what God has said in the past and ignore what God says now. That was what the Pharisees did and Christ did not bless them for it.
> 
> Finally, it seems that you are unfamiliar with the Gospel that was revealed in the Book of Mormon. Which is that Jesus Christ the Son of God suffered and Atoned for the sins of the world, dying on the cross, and rose on the third day. If you believe in some Gospel other than this, than I would suggest that you might want to rethink whether or not you are believing the correct Gospel. I dont know your heart so you have to answer these questions yourself. But God knows us all and will judge according to the Truth and Justice which is in Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The next thing that pops up is the passage by the same Holy Spirit of Truth that admonishes us to TEST ALL THINGS.....( 1 Thess. 5:21).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why we encourage and ask all men to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and to pray to the Father in the name of Christ whether the Book is true in humility and with sincerity of heart. We ask all people to do this prior to being baptized. That way the Spirit can reveal to them the truth.
> 
> And I can tell you from personal experience that the Spirit will answer that prayer. And that God is no respecter of persons. He will answer your sincere and humble prayers just as much as He would answer mine or anyone elses who prays to know the truth.
> 
> How do you propose to test the things of the Spirit if not by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting question. Can anything touched by human hands be error free? Are your expectations reasonable? Should we disbelieve the Bible when there are factual and grammatical errors?
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the angel wasnt the one providing a translation, im not sure that the question on whether an angel has a spell check is really relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the supposed factual errors are rather lacking arent they? for example you cited:
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course is blatantly untrue. The Nephites didnt even exist in 550BC, nor did they use a compass. If you read the Book of Mormon, even so much as the first book of it, you would be very much aware of this.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are actually using the adieu argument makes it very difficult to take you serious. Especially considering Adieu is also an english word and anyone familiar with translating would realize it would make perfect sense to use an english word familiar to english speakers in translating a text. No one in their right mind would presume that the original text had a French word it.
> 
> For example, the Bible is translated from Hebrew and Greek. It often uses the word God. There is no disputing that God is not a Hebrew or Greek word. Are you honestly suggesting that using an English word in an English translation from another language means that the original must have used the English word as well? its insane.
> 
> I dont think this is what you are actually proposing though. Because I dont think you've honestly thought about this. I dont think youve done any actual study in the claims of the Book of Mormon. I think you just took someone elses shoddy scholasticism as fact because its convenient to your world view.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your incorrect. Alma predicted that Christ would be born in the land of Jerursalem. I say Im from Philadelphia very often. I dont actually live in Philadelphia I live nearby. Considering there is historic precedent, including in the Bible, of refering Bethlehem as being in the land of Jerusalem, I would conclude that you haven't bothered to research the issue.
> 
> So unless you are prepared to conclude that 2 Kings 14:20 makes the Bible wrong, I dont see how you can honestly support this claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you seem to be under some impression that a text that is translated into English is somehow wrong for using English words. Your logic makes no sense. Any translated text is going to use the words familiar to people in the language being translated to.
> 
> You also seem to indicate that you are unfamiliar with the fact that Jesus Christ is exactly what the Savior has been called for millinium. That just doesnt make sense. Sure. its not the name He was given by His mother. But it is the name He has been known by throughout the world. Many people are called by their titles. In fact, many famous titles become part of their name. Erik the Red for instance wasnt named that by his Mother. But that's what He was called. I doubt Queen Elizabeth of England was named Queen Elizabeth. but that is what the world knows her as.
> 
> Your remarkable "proofs" that the Book of Mormon is false dont seem to stand up to serious scrutiny. They never really have. When I was first studying to know whether the Book of Mormon was true or not, it was exactly arguments like these that made me lean towards believing it. I mean if after nearly 180 years this is the best you guys can come up with against it, there has to be something to the Book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does it surprise you that those who would be Christ's would be called after His name prior to His resurrection? Christ was prepared from before the foundations of the world. All the prophets from Adam to the Meridian of time prophecied of the coming of Christ. You think they didnt have faith in the Savior of the world? Do you think they didnt look forward to His coming with faith?
> 
> I would clearly excuse Luke's ignorance of those followers of Christ on the other side of the world. Seriously, if this is your serious factual problems, you dont really have much.
> 
> 
> 
> Id love to, unfortunately, I dont have the ability to enlighten anyone. But the Holy Spirit does. And He will teach you the truth of all things if you let him. And if you want to prove the Book of Mormon, read it for yourself. You can get one for free. It wont cost you a cent to read the Book and pray to know whether it's true. Or do you doubt the Spirit can enlighten?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True verse, but you are assuming we are the false ones and that you are the true one. Did you ever consider that the adversasry has decieved you? Or are you somehow superior to all others?
> 
> Im supposed to believe that by believing the Witness of the Holy Ghost, I am decieved by the advesary based solely on the fact that you say so and that you interpret scriptures differently? I hope you dont find it wrong of me to believe God and what He tells me over what you say. Nor do I hope you think its wrong of me to reject poorly crafted and uninformed arguments that have been responded to millions of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this can be compared to the ACLU...the American Communist Lawyer Union....who was founded by the Communist Party, and was quoted as being "The Transmission that Drives the Communist Party in America".....but once exposed to the history of their recorded deeds and mission statement, as documented in Congressional Record.......They had a change of heart...how do we know?   They told us so...no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesnt seem to be at all relevant to the conversation. So Im going to have to say: Como what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many crimes against American Society and Orthodox Christianity were committed by the cult that called themselves Mormons.  There is no need to go into a detailed history...but such record can be easily demonstrated.   Personally I have nothing against anyone's personal belief....I simply DEMAND the truth, and will accept nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Convenient. Doesnt have to be demonstrated because you say so. Joseph's only "crime" was stating He saw Jesus Christ and being naive enough to expect those who profess belief in Christ to actually believe Him.
> 
> If you demand truth, you really need to raise your standards alittle. If you demand truth, read the Book of Mormon for yourself. If you demand truth, pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal it to you. Because God will reveal His work with power to those who ask and seek it from Him. But if youd rather put your Eternal destiny in your own understanding, you can do that. If you think it wise to reject the Book of Mormon for whatever reason, so be it, but as for me and my house, we will follow the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


1)  Concerning the ANGEL ARGUMENT....You subjectively OPINE the ANGEL mentioned by John in REV. 14:6-7 is "Moroni".....but you do so by declaring the LAST days of mankind as being at some distant point of time in the future...LIKE 1830   You SUBJECTIVELY propagate a message that is delivered in symbols as declared in the very first chapter of REV., ".....and HE sent and "signified" (in the original Greek language.....symbolic in nature) it by an angel unto His servant JOHN -- Rev. 1:1.....and present YOUR OPINION as if it where LITERAL...and propagate a false message that the last days of mankind was yet to come...when clearly the SCRIPTURES declare the last days of mankind began in the 1st century A.D., ".......and it shall come to pass in the LAST DAYS......" -- Acts 2:17  Peter very clearly said, "This is what was spoken by the prophet JOEL" -- Acts 2:16....informing everyone they were witnessing...in the 1st century...the last days of mankind, as the spirit of God was poured out.  (Acts 2:1-4)  Also....you do not take note of the LITERAL words of John, these symbolic revelations that were being presented to him, "....which MUST "SHORTLY" come to pass....." Rev. 1:1   Do you expect anyone to believe that your LITERAL PRIVATE...subjective interpretation of things that must shortly come to pass in a self professed book of symbolism.....happened 1900 years after John made this literal statement.......to the 7 churches of Asia Minor...not to Joseph Smith, "......John to the 7 churches in Asia...." -- Rev. 1:4

2.)  Again....you offer nothing but SUBJECTIVE opinion and present it as truth.  You present YOUR FALSE claim of having HOLY SPIRIT inspiration in this modern DAY...as being equal to that which was delivered by the same Spirit in the 1st century.  "All Scripture is given by INSPIRATION of GOD....."  -- 2 Tim. 3:16.  Yet it is strange that the BOOK of Mormon....which is said to be inspired by the same God that inspired both the Old and New Testament....clearly contradicts the inspired word of the 1st century.  What?  Did God change His mind, and decide to contradict what He has formerly revealed?   

3.)  You SUBJECTIVELY ask us to pray....to test the BOOK of MORMON?  Why?  When I have already presented OBJECTIVE, Demonstrable, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that the Book of MORMON holds many MISTAKES that are common to MAN...but not to GOD, IN AN ORIGINAL REVELATION.   Are we not ADMONISHED to worship in SPIRIT and TRUTH? -- John 4:24.   Just how is that truth....when I can look at something in demonstrable, objective, empirical evidential findings and declare that which is obviously false as if it were not?  

4.)  Declaring, the Angel as not the one giving the translation is somewhat self defeating...no?   That begs to ask the question....if the angel did not provide the supposed revealed truth....does that not PROVE that Joseph Smith attempted to translate something....claiming to be a prophet of God, yet making mistake after mistake as do all men?  This speaks volumes in relation to his self professed position as being a true prophet of God........and YES, its very relevant, AS GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION.  If the Holy Spirit of God has the power to allow men to speak in languages they have never been instructed in....just what prohibited God from allowing Mr. Smith to translate that revelation CORRECTLY the first time....God does not need Mulligans....nor does a true Prophet of God. 

5.)  Again....you claim in total SUBJECTIVITY of YOUR OPINION that someone is interpreting the Holy Scriptures.......INTERPRETATION? that is the job of he prophet..no?  All we need do is COMPREHEND what is revealed as the SCRIPTURES interpret themselves...when they are allowed, without  injecting PERSONAL opinionated dogma or tradition there in.   Please inform me.....just how is one to interpret this passage of scripture, "Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth;  for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and shew it unto you." -- John 16:13.   You don't interpret it....you simply read and comprehend it....in the contextual integrity in which it was recorded.  And very clearly that context informs us that Jesus was speaking to His disciples....not to YOU OR I.   Thus, it is YOU that is found guilty of injecting YOUR private interpretation into a very unambiguous passage of scripture....which is strictly FORBIDDEN.    As no prophecy is of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION -- 2 Peter 1:19-21

6.)  Your statement about the Christ arising on the 3rd day is all but moot.....as nothing that I made retort of concerned the known scriptural fact of Jesus arising on the 3rd day...but clearly the scriptures inform us that when He ascended into the clouds, it was not to go preach the gospel to anyone else on earth....He was going to sit directly on the throne of David...on the right hand side of Father God...IN HEAVEN (Acts 1:11, 2:26-36).  And Jesus could not have traveled the earth before ascending to Heaven and becoming a Spirit....because up until that time Jesus was still in the flesh, and this flesh did not see corruption, "Behold my hands and My feet, that it is I myself;  handle Me, and see;  for a Spirit hath not FLESH AND BONES, AS YE SEE ME HAVE." -- Luke 24:39   This of course...after His death...burial....and resurrection, proving that He was still flesh and bones until such time as He ascended into heaven.


----------



## Ralph

Avatar4321 said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter WHAT I THINK?  My words do not establish Christian Doctrine or Truth, but God's words do, and they are found only in one place, the Holy Scriptures. (John 17:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).......You have presented many passages taken out of content, not directly proving or disproving anything.   Demonstrate in the word of God, just where THERE IS MORE TRUTH to come once ALL TRUTH has been established.....while proving Mormonism and its  false message does not  rescind the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" (If something is Perfect....why add more?) to that which was established by the saints of the 1st century? -- Jude 3.   Thus, Making the word of God a lie....and invalidating His promise not to have his word corrupted once established.   God did promise to have His word of truth last an eternity WITHOUT BEING CORRUPTED ( 1 Peter 1:23,25, Matthew 24:35, Ps. 12:6-7), yet here you are attempting to inform us that God is not capable of keeping his promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to prove the faulty assumption that all truth is found in the Bible when the Bible clearly states that there are many things not revealed to the saints in general. Simply repeating the same verses after its been demonstrated that you are incorrectly citing them not convincing argument.
> 
> God has been clear that He will do a mighty work in the last days. He has prophecied through His servants many of the miracles He will perform. He has promised to send an angel carrying the everlasting Gospel to the world. Either he has, or he will. Your argumenet that He wont and He has said everything He will ever say just doesnt fly with any serious consideration of the prophecies. How can the two prophets protect Jerusalem before Christ's appearance doing mighty miracles if miracles have ceased? How can men prophecy if God will tell us no more? Your position makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is much like the false circular reasoning and lies of attempting to inform everyone that man can and will become God.   Even though this nonsense is throughly debunked by the simple truth found in the Holy Scriptures.   Even if you attempt to make one passage of Gods word into a lie....you are not working with the Holy Spirit of Truth, "Ye are My witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen:  that ye may know and believe Me and understand that I am He; BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, NEITHER SHALL THERE BE AFTER ME."   Contrary to what Joseph Smith recorded in the Book of Mormon...."God is not a man..." -- Numbers 23:19, nor was He ever a man, as God is a Spirit (John 4:24).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not written ye are gods? If he called those who recieved the word of God, gods and the scriptures cannot be broken, how can you say that those who have recieved the Gospel and be sanctified that the spirit cannot be gods?
> 
> If Christ Himself stated that those who recieve the word are gods, who are you to say otherwise? You think you understand the scriptures better than the Savior of the World? Do you think Paul was lying when He promised that we would become joint heirs with Christ and recieve all the Father has? Do you think John lied when He promised us dominions? Do you think Peter lied when He stated that we are made partakers of the Divine nature through Christ?
> 
> The New Testament is a glorious testimony that indeed God became a man that men can become gods. For when we see Him, we will know Him, because we will be like Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sentence makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The written witness of Angelic ministry isnt enough for you? The casting out of devils isnt sign enough for you? The fulfillment of prophecy isnt sign enough for you? The raising of the dead isnt enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No where is there a PROVEN example of anyone being raised from the dead, or divinely healed....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not, I mean i just pulled those examples and my own personal experiences out of thin air. The sick in Nauvoo were never healed despite the countless eyewitnesses journal entries. Im sure Elijah Fordham. or Joseph Noble were revived by accident right at the time Joseph commanded them in the name of Christ to be healed.
> 
> Im sure the blind woman Parley P Pratt restored sight to just happened to regain her sight when He commanded it return by the power of Christ?
> 
> Or perhaps the miracles that Elder Matthew Cowley did were just coincidences? Or that Alma Smith regrowing a hip was just chance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and stranger still is the supposed fact of MODERN day apostles....just why should anyone have to go to school to learn a NEW LANGUAGE to spread the gospel...it appears that all it would take would be a simple laying on of the hands of a MODERN APOSTLE and...bingo, people could speak in tongues they were never taught before.  Just like the true messengers of God in the 1st century (Acts 2:4-6)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That just shows your ignorance of the gift of tongues and of what happened at Pentecost. It also demonstrates ignorance of what happens nowadays. You have a form of godliness but deny the power of such.  I can tell you that you will find countless miracles in the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, the greatest miracle is found in the witness of the Holy Ghost who will let all who ask God know the truth of it. The only sure way to stay close to the Lord is to seek Him in prayer and accept the promptings of the Spirit.
> 
> But if you want to continue to pretend as though there are no signs given, you shall see no signs. You should not tempt God to satisfy your lusts. It's unwise. Because the signs you recieve when you do that are the ones you wish you never would see.
Click to expand...


That's some real LOGICAL reasoning Pal.   First, we find that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of God...not some, but ALL, and such is profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Re-proof....to make the man of God...PERFECT. (2 Tim 3:16-17)  Thus by your REASONING and LOGIC.......THE WORDS of CHRIST Contradict other passages of SCRIPTURES...but ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by the same source....GOD, thus God is contradicting HIMSELF?  Of course we are speaking of the Passages where God declares the truth...there will be NO OTHER GODS as mankind is nothing but servants to the righteousness of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD OF CREATION. -- Isaiah 43:10.  With other passages of Scripture clearly and unambiguously declaring that man was created to be a servant of God, (Eccl. 12:13-14)  With God once again being very clear that  HE alone is God, "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is NO GOD beside Me......" -- Isaiah 45:5, 46:9.    With (Eph. 4:6) declaring, "....one God and Father of ALL..."     Thus...you attempt to CHERRY PICK a single passage presented by the Christ and expect this ONE MISREPRESENTED passage to make null and void...ALL the other very clear and unambiguous passages?   The scriptures are very clear...when man stands before God in heaven...he will not be the equal of God...but will be there as WORSHIPERS of the One and Only God, -- Rev. 4:10

What you have done is take the Reference that Christ was using....in relation to men becoming JUDGES of other MEN....as the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament that represented JUDGES...were also called gods...with a small "g" because of the authority their decisions held over man.  Jesus is merely demonstrating the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees for abusing their position as being the judge of others while they committed the same breaches of law and failed to keep the standards by which they judged others.


----------



## Ceasaro

What's sadder, ralph having studied mormonism so much that he can ask his questions, or avatar pretending to be an elder and speak for the mormon church.


----------



## KittenKoder

Ceasaro said:


> What's sadder, ralph having studied mormonism so much that he can ask his questions, or avatar pretending to be an elder and speak for the mormon church.



I recommend you learn a bit more yourself. I could engage Avatar (and have a few times) in Q&A regarding "Mormonism" as well, I was forced into the religion, which is probably the primary reason I avoid it now. It's core system of values is pure and decent, the zealots like "TruthSpeaker" give it a bad name and have perverted it, that is the flaw with all organized religion though, when only a few have too much power they will become corrupt, no matter from where they believe the power comes. Atheists are just as prone to this flaw, look at our higher education professors and government sanctioned scientists.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ralph said:


> [
> 
> That's some real LOGICAL reasoning Pal.   First, we find that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of God...not some, but ALL, and such is profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Re-proof....to make the man of God...PERFECT. (2 Tim 3:16-17)  Thus by your REASONING and LOGIC.......THE WORDS of CHRIST Contradict other passages of SCRIPTURES...but ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by the same source....GOD, thus God is contradicting HIMSELF?



I never made any claim that the words of Christ contradict other passages of scriptures. Im saying the words of Christ contradict your faulty interpretations of other passages. So logically you cannot be correct in your interpretation. 

As I said, all scripture is inspired and profitable. So it's foolish to ignore new scripture when God reveals it. It's foolish to claim that no one can be inspired of God and then claim that you somehow have a living faith. Your positions are not internally consistant with what we learn from the Scriptures and from the Holy Spirit.





> Of course we are speaking of the Passages where God declares the truth...there will be NO OTHER GODS as mankind is nothing but servants to the righteousness of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD OF CREATION. -- Isaiah 43:10.  With other passages of Scripture clearly and unambiguously declaring that man was created to be a servant of God, (Eccl. 12:13-14)  With God once again being very clear that  HE alone is God, "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is NO GOD beside Me......" -- Isaiah 45:5, 46:9.    With (Eph. 4:6) declaring, "....one God and Father of ALL..."     Thus...you attempt to CHERRY PICK a single passage presented by the Christ and expect this ONE MISREPRESENTED passage to make null and void...ALL the other very clear and unambiguous passages?   The scriptures are very clear...when man stands before God in heaven...he will not be the equal of God...but will be there as WORSHIPERS of the One and Only God, -- Rev. 4:10



The scriptures are very clear. Though there be in the heavens and on the earth many gods and lords, to us there is but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

The scriptures are clear that those who recieve the Word are gods. They are clear that we will stand before God and we will be like Him. 

We will become one with the Father, as Christ is one with the Father. Just as Christ promised. That is the whole point of Christ's sacrifice. 



> What you have done is take the Reference that Christ was using....in relation to men becoming JUDGES of other MEN....as the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament that represented JUDGES...were also called gods...with a small "g" because of the authority their decisions held over man.  Jesus is merely demonstrating the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees for abusing their position as being the judge of others while they committed the same breaches of law and failed to keep the standards by which they judged others.



So what Christ is saying is: Ye are called judges, so therefore I don't Blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God?

Yeah, that makes Christ's arguments very valid.

And you are wrong, the Pharisees and Scribes never recieved the words. They could never be gods.

So Peter was lying about partaking of the Divine nature? Paul was lying when He promised us that we would be joint heirs and inherit all the Father has? If we recieve all the knowledge and power God has through being His servant, you think we are just judges?

You think that because the Lord is the only God of Israel, that somehow negates all the other scriptures which speak of the doctrine of diefication? This is hardly a Mormon only doctrine. Read Mere Christianity sometime. You will find one of the greatest Christian theologians of the 20th century speaking of the doctrine. Read the Church Fathers, you will find the doctrine all throughout their teachings. 

Because Protestant Christianity rejects this doctrine, you think that somehow its any less true? Why? Because you know better than those who were taught directly from the Apostles? Because your interpretation of the Bible ignores all the clear teachings to the contrary?

Who am I to deny what the scriptures say? Who am I to deny the power of the Atonement? And why should I accept your interpretation of the scriptures that ignore context, history, and all other verses of scripture?

You have admitted you have no gifts of the Spirit. You've admitted you have no recieved the Holy Ghost. Why should anyone accept your interpretation of scriptures as valid when you admit yourself that you dont have the Spirit to reveal it to you? You have a form of godliness but deny the power of such. And there is power that comes with the Gospel. Yet you profess to believe and deny anyone who teaches the true power of the Atonement.

With the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be made to be without sin. With the Atonement of Jesus Christ we can recieve all the truth God has. We can gain the knowledge and power God has. He isnt lying when He says we will recieve all He has. Through the Atonement of Christ we will become as He is. Call it whatever you want. Whether you agree with Christ and say we can become gods by recieving word, or if you call us something else, this is exactly what we will be if we use the Atonement of Christ. The scriptures are clear about that. Why should we deny it? What would you call us? We will be perfect beings with all knowledge and power and whose wills will be One with the Father. 

Man truly has not seen a glimpse of what the Lord plans to make of us. You can't concieve it. I know I am barely seeing a fraction. But I want to know more. Which is why I have no desire to tell God He cant show me more or tell me more. Which is why I am not going to pretend God has ceased to be God and show His power to men after Ive seen it.

And I dont think it's arrogant to say such things because I believe all men can if they just will let God work in their life. The promises are extended to all who will exercise faith and covenant with Christ.

Tell me, what exactly do you think God has gone to all this trouble for us for? Why do you think He sent His Son to die for us? Why do you think He loves us so much?


----------



## Eightball

Ralph said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really matter WHAT I THINK?  My words do not establish Christian Doctrine or Truth, but God's words do, and they are found only in one place, the Holy Scriptures. (John 17:17, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).......You have presented many passages taken out of content, not directly proving or disproving anything.   Demonstrate in the word of God, just where THERE IS MORE TRUTH to come once ALL TRUTH has been established.....while proving Mormonism and its  false message does not  rescind the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" (If something is Perfect....why add more?) to that which was established by the saints of the 1st century? -- Jude 3.   Thus, Making the word of God a lie....and invalidating His promise not to have his word corrupted once established.   God did promise to have His word of truth last an eternity WITHOUT BEING CORRUPTED ( 1 Peter 1:23,25, Matthew 24:35, Ps. 12:6-7), yet here you are attempting to inform us that God is not capable of keeping his promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to prove the faulty assumption that all truth is found in the Bible when the Bible clearly states that there are many things not revealed to the saints in general. Simply repeating the same verses after its been demonstrated that you are incorrectly citing them not convincing argument.
> 
> God has been clear that He will do a mighty work in the last days. He has prophecied through His servants many of the miracles He will perform. He has promised to send an angel carrying the everlasting Gospel to the world. Either he has, or he will. Your argumenet that He wont and He has said everything He will ever say just doesnt fly with any serious consideration of the prophecies. How can the two prophets protect Jerusalem before Christ's appearance doing mighty miracles if miracles have ceased? How can men prophecy if God will tell us no more? Your position makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not written ye are gods? If he called those who recieved the word of God, gods and the scriptures cannot be broken, how can you say that those who have recieved the Gospel and be sanctified that the spirit cannot be gods?
> 
> If Christ Himself stated that those who recieve the word are gods, who are you to say otherwise? You think you understand the scriptures better than the Savior of the World? Do you think Paul was lying when He promised that we would become joint heirs with Christ and recieve all the Father has? Do you think John lied when He promised us dominions? Do you think Peter lied when He stated that we are made partakers of the Divine nature through Christ?
> 
> The New Testament is a glorious testimony that indeed God became a man that men can become gods. For when we see Him, we will know Him, because we will be like Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sentence makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The written witness of Angelic ministry isnt enough for you? The casting out of devils isnt sign enough for you? The fulfillment of prophecy isnt sign enough for you? The raising of the dead isnt enough for you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, I mean i just pulled those examples and my own personal experiences out of thin air. The sick in Nauvoo were never healed despite the countless eyewitnesses journal entries. Im sure Elijah Fordham. or Joseph Noble were revived by accident right at the time Joseph commanded them in the name of Christ to be healed.
> 
> Im sure the blind woman Parley P Pratt restored sight to just happened to regain her sight when He commanded it return by the power of Christ?
> 
> Or perhaps the miracles that Elder Matthew Cowley did were just coincidences? Or that Alma Smith regrowing a hip was just chance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and stranger still is the supposed fact of MODERN day apostles....just why should anyone have to go to school to learn a NEW LANGUAGE to spread the gospel...it appears that all it would take would be a simple laying on of the hands of a MODERN APOSTLE and...bingo, people could speak in tongues they were never taught before.  Just like the true messengers of God in the 1st century (Acts 2:4-6)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That just shows your ignorance of the gift of tongues and of what happened at Pentecost. It also demonstrates ignorance of what happens nowadays. You have a form of godliness but deny the power of such.  I can tell you that you will find countless miracles in the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, the greatest miracle is found in the witness of the Holy Ghost who will let all who ask God know the truth of it. The only sure way to stay close to the Lord is to seek Him in prayer and accept the promptings of the Spirit.
> 
> But if you want to continue to pretend as though there are no signs given, you shall see no signs. You should not tempt God to satisfy your lusts. It's unwise. Because the signs you recieve when you do that are the ones you wish you never would see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's some real LOGICAL reasoning Pal.   First, we find that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of God...not some, but ALL, and such is profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Re-proof....to make the man of God...PERFECT. (2 Tim 3:16-17)  Thus by your REASONING and LOGIC.......THE WORDS of CHRIST Contradict other passages of SCRIPTURES...but ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by the same source....GOD, thus God is contradicting HIMSELF?  Of course we are speaking of the Passages where God declares the truth...there will be NO OTHER GODS as mankind is nothing but servants to the righteousness of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD OF CREATION. -- Isaiah 43:10.  With other passages of Scripture clearly and unambiguously declaring that man was created to be a servant of God, (Eccl. 12:13-14)  With God once again being very clear that  HE alone is God, "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is NO GOD beside Me......" -- Isaiah 45:5, 46:9.    With (Eph. 4:6) declaring, "....one God and Father of ALL..."     Thus...you attempt to CHERRY PICK a single passage presented by the Christ and expect this ONE MISREPRESENTED passage to make null and void...ALL the other very clear and unambiguous passages?   The scriptures are very clear...when man stands before God in heaven...he will not be the equal of God...but will be there as WORSHIPERS of the One and Only God, -- Rev. 4:10
> 
> What you have done is take the Reference that Christ was using....in relation to men becoming JUDGES of other MEN....as the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament that represented JUDGES...were also called gods...with a small "g" because of the authority their decisions held over man.  Jesus is merely demonstrating the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees for abusing their position as being the judge of others while they committed the same breaches of law and failed to keep the standards by which they judged others.
Click to expand...


*Great Post Ralph:* They/Mormons have plagarized what was once the Levitical priesthood with what started with Aaron, Moses' brother and sons, and created this heirarchy within their church based on "works", rather than "faith" through "grace".

Hebrews of the N.T. alone pounds away at the Jews, that there is indeed a Priest, but not of human/created origin, and it is Jesus Christ.  The time of formal, ritualistic priesthood has been over since Christ's death, and ressurrection.  When the veil in the great temple was ripped in two, to reveal the Holy of Holies to all Jews, and all gentiles, it was clear that God said all may enter through His Son, the only Priest, capable of actually attoning for our sins not for one year at a time as the Levites, but for eternity.

The Aaronic Priesthood of the Mormons is "hog wash".  It accomplishes nothing, nada, ........zilch!  If anything, it creates a heirarchy within the church dividing the "haves" from the "have nots".  Some years ago, it went even further and excluded those of African/Negroid race.

In their P.C. political expediance, their President/Prophet had a "word from their god" that Blacks could now be included in their priesthood.  How convenient, how secular pressure from the media seem to coincide with a "word from their god"?

*Kitten: * I realize that you had some bad experiences with the LDS church, and you say that the "Truthspeaker/Avatars" are the reason, as they are so radical.

Actually, Kitten, Truthspeaker and Avatar reflect the true "inner core" of LDS doctrine.  To the novice who doesn't go into the temple rites, priesthood, the LDS church appears very benign, as it is for monogamous marriage, American patriotism, clean living, apple pie, "leave to beaver" family living, the American flag.

All of these things are good habits of life, but don't "earn" us a place in God's favor, as they are usually "works" in order to please the LDS god.

God surely wants us to be good neighbors, be helpful to others, and servants, but true biblical faith in God, is based on a inner-most transformation that God performs in man, on a one-on-one basis.  None of us gain heavenly residence after death based on how we lived our lives alone.  How we live our lives is suppose to be a result of our transformed lives from Adamic lost sinners, to New Adamic(Christ the New Adam) humans deemed righteous and Holy before God, pardoned of our sinful natures, and given new natures alive to God and dead to the world.

The Mormon church has for years been wooing in folks who believe that being a Christian involves living a good spotless life, including good deeds to others.  It just isn't as the bible says!  God says that we can't "earn" heaven and an abiding relationship with Him, through goodie-two-shoes works.

Why do you think that of all major religions in our country that Mormons have the highest per-capita rate of alcoholism?  

From a biblical perspective, it's very plain to discern from scripture where good deeds, and clean living fit into God's paradigm of humanity.  Biblical Christians live out a life based on gratitude, because of the unmerited favor/grace of God.  Also, the life change in a true born-again Christian is the result of the H.S. coming to reside in the formerly lost/sinners soul(mind, will, emotions).

In some ways you can metaphorically draw a picture of the human soul, with three important properties, a wil/chooser, feelings/emotions, and mind/thought processor.  But there is one very important piece of furniture in the center of these three human qualities;  a throne, or the place intended to seat the most important influence in a person's life.  This throne, was designed to seat Christ, so that the human will, emotions, and mind, would operate or finalize all that was to happen through the one holding the final decision.  You might want to say that the throne of a man's soul was intended to seat the Spirit of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, both being the same.

This is why Christ told Nicodemus that "yee must be born again or from above"; meaning that new life comes from a heavenly source not from "you" Nicodemus.  Sadly, Nicodemus didn't get it and thought that somehow he must be born physically from his mother's womb all over again.  Without the H.S. to enlighten Nicodemus, he thought humanistically along the same realm that Mormons do good deeds/works in order to please God.

Mormons work hard to "Be".  True born again/saved Christians do good things because their new identity is already established, and the good deeds are a natural out-pouring of their new nature placed within them at the time of salvation.

You can work your darn butt off all your life trying to please God, yet not be saved.  Even Abraham was considered righteous in God's eyes not based on deeds, but that he/Abraham believed.  As we see in Abrahams later life, he did many awful things, yet God said he/abram was His for eternity.

Most folks believe that if God really loves humanity, He won't allow any of them perish eternally, from His presence.  That's humanistic, unbiblical approach that is the easy or wide road mentioned in Revelations.  God's road is narrow, as it involves man accepting his sins, his limitations, his fallen Adamic nature, and accepting in his heart that He/God is truly Lord of all, and that Christ is the only true Priest that is capable of accepting all our sin; past, present, future.

The true Christian must internally bow his/her knees in contrite heart, and accepty transparency of their soul before their Maker.  With that, God enters into that life, not by good deeds, but by that person's faith/belief that Christ is the only "life boat" in this drowning sea of human life.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ceasaro said:


> What's sadder, ralph having studied mormonism so much that he can ask his questions, or avatar pretending to be an elder and speak for the mormon church.



I dont have to speak for the Church. I can speak for myself. I dont have to pretend to be anything.

However, what's truly sad is you think that ralph has done any actual studying of Mormonism. Studying requires more than regurgitation of questions that have been answered decades ago. Studying requires actually looking for answers instead of establishing predrawn conclusions. It requires reflection and attempts to understand opposing positions.

I started really studying the Gospel over 10 years ago. I looked at everything I could get my hands on pro or con. I thought every argument for and against out. And you know what? The more i saw the critisms, the more I believed because the distortions were so easy to find. The arguments were poorly done and often answered long in the past with the answers ignored. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be a Restoration of the New Testament Church.  If Joseph Smith just made up wild doctrine, there should be sign of it in early Christianity. Yet some of the most controversial doctrines that somehow prove Mormonism false are all found in the early Church. The so-called "unchristian doctrines" have far more support in ancient Christianity than modern doctrines of protestant theology.

I have nothing against protestant Christianity. I think it was a necessary development which helped bring what scriptures we have in the Bible to the people. It helped provide fertile ground for religious freedom. But no man has power to reform God's Church, no matter how well intentioned. We can not reform what was lost. Only God can restore what was the lost. The gifts, the power, the authority, the keys of the Kingdom.

No man, however well intentioned can reform these back into existance. Only God could call men and give them power from on High. Even many of the reformers acknowledged their limitations and looked forward to the day when the Lord would once again send Apostles to preach with power.

I dont think it was a coincidence that the second the people started to become literate the reformation began. The scriptures made it clear there was something lost. And I also dont think that it's a coincidence that there was a Restoration the first generation after there was finally a nation that guarenteed religious freedom.

Ive gotten off my point. Studying requires reflextion. Ive seen no evidence that this was done.


----------



## Avatar4321

KittenKoder said:


> I recommend you learn a bit more yourself. I could engage Avatar (and have a few times) in Q&A regarding "Mormonism" as well, I was forced into the religion, which is probably the primary reason I avoid it now. It's core system of values is pure and decent, the zealots like "TruthSpeaker" give it a bad name and have perverted it, that is the flaw with all organized religion though, when only a few have too much power they will become corrupt, no matter from where they believe the power comes. Atheists are just as prone to this flaw, look at our higher education professors and government sanctioned scientists.



Sadly, though I think this is mainly because many of the Saints fail to realize that few don't have the power. If what we were taught was actually followed, it would be clear that all who exercise faith can have great power.

And its also because people exercise power unrighteously all the time. Its a hard lesson to learn. Which is why many are called but few are chosen.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> *Great Post Ralph:* They/Mormons have plagarized what was once the Levitical priesthood with what started with Aaron, Moses' brother and sons, and created this heirarchy within their church based on "works", rather than "faith" through "grace".



You still dont get it? Works mean nothing. Pretending as though that's what Mormonism teaches demonstrates that you don't actually understand it. Its not about what we do, but what we become through the atonement.



> Hebrews of the N.T. alone pounds away at the Jews, that there is indeed a Priest, but not of human/created origin, and it is Jesus Christ.  The time of formal, ritualistic priesthood has been over since Christ's death, and ressurrection.  When the veil in the great temple was ripped in two, to reveal the Holy of Holies to all Jews, and all gentiles, it was clear that God said all may enter through His Son, the only Priest, capable of actually attoning for our sins not for one year at a time as the Levites, but for eternity.



"Pounds away at the jews"? I dont think any scriptures pound away at anything. All scriptures were written to teach and edify and to bring men and women closer to Christ. They werent written to put people down, but to lift people up.

However, your point is completely irrelevant, no one has ever claimed that anyone other than Christ can Atone for our sins. Even the rituals of the Law of Moses were symbolically pointing to Christ, not actually atoning.




> The Aaronic Priesthood of the Mormons is "hog wash".  It accomplishes nothing, nada, ........zilch!  If anything, it creates a heirarchy within the church dividing the "haves" from the "have nots".  Some years ago, it went even further and excluded those of African/Negroid race.



Divides the haves and the have nots? Your proposition makes little to no sense. The Aaronic Priesthood accomplishes quite a bit in the Church. It takes care of the temporal well being of the Church. It is through the ministration of the Aaronic Priesthood that the poor and needy are provided with the sustenance they need. Through the Aaronic Priesthood comes baptism for the remission of sins.



> In their P.C. political expediance, their President/Prophet had a "word from their god" that Blacks could now be included in their priesthood.  How convenient, how secular pressure from the media seem to coincide with a "word from their god"?



Secular pressures? Please... I assume it was secular pressures that persuaded Peter to extend the word of God to the Gentiles? 



> *Kitten: * I realize that you had some bad experiences with the LDS church, and you say that the "Truthspeaker/Avatars" are the reason, as they are so radical.



I dont believe she said that at all. But she can speak for herself.



> Actually, Kitten, Truthspeaker and Avatar reflect the true "inner core" of LDS doctrine.  To the novice who doesn't go into the temple rites, priesthood, the LDS church appears very benign, as it is for monogamous marriage, American patriotism, clean living, apple pie, "leave to beaver" family living, the American flag.



I wonder how all those British Saints feel about American Patriotism. Or the French Saints.. Or the Chinese Saints.

There is no inner core of doctrine. If there was, you wouldnt know it.



> All of these things are good habits of life, but don't "earn" us a place in God's favor, as they are usually "works" in order to please the LDS god.



Again, you fail to understand the place works are nor do you honestly recognize our reliance on Christ to achieve what we do.




> God surely wants us to be good neighbors, be helpful to others, and servants, but true biblical faith in God, is based on a inner-most transformation that God performs in man, on a one-on-one basis.  None of us gain heavenly residence after death based on how we lived our lives alone.  How we live our lives is suppose to be a result of our transformed lives from Adamic lost sinners, to New Adamic(Christ the New Adam) humans deemed righteous and Holy before God, pardoned of our sinful natures, and given new natures alive to God and dead to the world.



And yet you whine about people doing exactly that because you dont like their theology. 




> The Mormon church has for years been wooing in folks who believe that being a Christian involves living a good spotless life, including good deeds to others.  It just isn't as the bible says!  God says that we can't "earn" heaven and an abiding relationship with Him, through goodie-two-shoes works.



Once again I implore you to actually read the Book of Mormon so you fail to speak so ignorantly.



> Why do you think that of all major religions in our country that Mormons have the highest per-capita rate of alcoholism?



A man once said there are three types of lies: Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

The saints have their faults, alcohol isnt one of them.



> From a biblical perspective, it's very plain to discern from scripture where good deeds, and clean living fit into God's paradigm of humanity.  Biblical Christians live out a life based on gratitude, because of the unmerited favor/grace of God.  Also, the life change in a true born-again Christian is the result of the H.S. coming to reside in the formerly lost/sinners soul(mind, will, emotions).



Yet, you reject the Book of Mormon and Mormonism for teaching the same exact thing. Funny.



> In some ways you can metaphorically draw a picture of the human soul, with three important properties, a wil/chooser, feelings/emotions, and mind/thought processor.  But there is one very important piece of furniture in the center of these three human qualities;  a throne, or the place intended to seat the most important influence in a person's life.  This throne, was designed to seat Christ, so that the human will, emotions, and mind, would operate or finalize all that was to happen through the one holding the final decision.  You might want to say that the throne of a man's soul was intended to seat the Spirit of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, both being the same.



I can sum up what you are saying: We are Temples to the Holy Spirit.

Which, of course, is nothing any mormon would disagree with.



> This is why Christ told Nicodemus that "yee must be born again or from above"; meaning that new life comes from a heavenly source not from "you" Nicodemus.  Sadly, Nicodemus didn't get it and thought that somehow he must be born physically from his mother's womb all over again.  Without the H.S. to enlighten Nicodemus, he thought humanistically along the same realm that Mormons do good deeds/works in order to please God.





> 34 ¶ Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
> 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts 10:34-35)



Now i understand your athema to good works. You seem to think they are unpleasing to God. Yet, Peter says he who works righteousness is accepted of God.

You seem to have this idea that doing God is somehow rejecting the Atonement of Christ? That God somehow hates when we do good. This makes no sense Biblically or rationally.

God is pleased when we do good. He isnt pleased when we dont. Does that mean our good works save us? Of course not, we are saved by Christ. Yet, you dont like the idea that God actually expects us to do anything to show our faith and love to Him. It just doesnt make sense.



> Mormons work hard to "Be".  True born again/saved Christians do good things because their new identity is already established, and the good deeds are a natural out-pouring of their new nature placed within them at the time of salvation.



Of course we try hard to "be". The Lord has asked us for our best. We love Him. So we try do our best. We show our Him our Faith by acting, not just professing. I understand you find this to be blasphemy, but honestly, that's not my problem. I have to listen to what the Lord whispers to me. You do the same. He will judge us according to our actions, our thoughts, and desires of our hearts.



> You can work your darn butt off all your life trying to please God, yet not be saved.  Even Abraham was considered righteous in God's eyes not based on deeds, but that he/Abraham believed.  As we see in Abrahams later life, he did many awful things, yet God said he/abram was His for eternity.



We dont work to be saved. Ive told you this countless times, yet you still refuse to listen.

Ive read much of Abraham, where did he do many awful things?



> Most folks believe that if God really loves humanity, He won't allow any of them perish eternally, from His presence.  That's humanistic, unbiblical approach that is the easy or wide road mentioned in Revelations.  God's road is narrow, as it involves man accepting his sins, his limitations, his fallen Adamic nature, and accepting in his heart that He/God is truly Lord of all, and that Christ is the only true Priest that is capable of accepting all our sin; past, present, future.



This seems rather pointless since we agree with you. God loves us. He gives us free will. And not all of us will recieve Eternal Life.



> The true Christian must internally bow his/her knees in contrite heart, and accepty transparency of their soul before their Maker.  With that, God enters into that life, not by good deeds, but by that person's faith/belief that Christ is the only "life boat" in this drowning sea of human life.



No one disagrees with this. Why do you keep repeating it as though you are making some startling and earth shattering point?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.


----------



## Ralph

Avatar4321 said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> That's some real LOGICAL reasoning Pal.   First, we find that ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired of God...not some, but ALL, and such is profitable for Doctrine, Correction, Re-proof....to make the man of God...PERFECT. (2 Tim 3:16-17)  Thus by your REASONING and LOGIC.......THE WORDS of CHRIST Contradict other passages of SCRIPTURES...but ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired by the same source....GOD, thus God is contradicting HIMSELF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never made any claim that the words of Christ contradict other passages of scriptures. Im saying the words of Christ contradict your faulty interpretations of other passages. So logically you cannot be correct in your interpretation.
> 
> As I said, all scripture is inspired and profitable. So it's foolish to ignore new scripture when God reveals it. It's foolish to claim that no one can be inspired of God and then claim that you somehow have a living faith. Your positions are not internally consistant with what we learn from the Scriptures and from the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we are speaking of the Passages where God declares the truth...there will be NO OTHER GODS as mankind is nothing but servants to the righteousness of the ONE and ONLY TRUE GOD OF CREATION. -- Isaiah 43:10.  With other passages of Scripture clearly and unambiguously declaring that man was created to be a servant of God, (Eccl. 12:13-14)  With God once again being very clear that  HE alone is God, "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is NO GOD beside Me......" -- Isaiah 45:5, 46:9.    With (Eph. 4:6) declaring, "....one God and Father of ALL..."     Thus...you attempt to CHERRY PICK a single passage presented by the Christ and expect this ONE MISREPRESENTED passage to make null and void...ALL the other very clear and unambiguous passages?   The scriptures are very clear...when man stands before God in heaven...he will not be the equal of God...but will be there as WORSHIPERS of the One and Only God, -- Rev. 4:10
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The scriptures are very clear. Though there be in the heavens and on the earth many gods and lords, to us there is but one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> The scriptures are clear that those who recieve the Word are gods. They are clear that we will stand before God and we will be like Him.
> 
> We will become one with the Father, as Christ is one with the Father. Just as Christ promised. That is the whole point of Christ's sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you have done is take the Reference that Christ was using....in relation to men becoming JUDGES of other MEN....as the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament that represented JUDGES...were also called gods...with a small "g" because of the authority their decisions held over man.  Jesus is merely demonstrating the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees for abusing their position as being the judge of others while they committed the same breaches of law and failed to keep the standards by which they judged others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what Christ is saying is: Ye are called judges, so therefore I don't Blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God?
> 
> Yeah, that makes Christ's arguments very valid.
> 
> And you are wrong, the Pharisees and Scribes never recieved the words. They could never be gods.
> 
> So Peter was lying about partaking of the Divine nature? Paul was lying when He promised us that we would be joint heirs and inherit all the Father has? If we recieve all the knowledge and power God has through being His servant, you think we are just judges?
> 
> You think that because the Lord is the only God of Israel, that somehow negates all the other scriptures which speak of the doctrine of diefication? This is hardly a Mormon only doctrine. Read Mere Christianity sometime. You will find one of the greatest Christian theologians of the 20th century speaking of the doctrine. Read the Church Fathers, you will find the doctrine all throughout their teachings.
> 
> Because Protestant Christianity rejects this doctrine, you think that somehow its any less true? Why? Because you know better than those who were taught directly from the Apostles? Because your interpretation of the Bible ignores all the clear teachings to the contrary?
> 
> Who am I to deny what the scriptures say? Who am I to deny the power of the Atonement? And why should I accept your interpretation of the scriptures that ignore context, history, and all other verses of scripture?
> 
> You have admitted you have no gifts of the Spirit. You've admitted you have no recieved the Holy Ghost. Why should anyone accept your interpretation of scriptures as valid when you admit yourself that you dont have the Spirit to reveal it to you? You have a form of godliness but deny the power of such. And there is power that comes with the Gospel. Yet you profess to believe and deny anyone who teaches the true power of the Atonement.
> 
> With the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be made to be without sin. With the Atonement of Jesus Christ we can recieve all the truth God has. We can gain the knowledge and power God has. He isnt lying when He says we will recieve all He has. Through the Atonement of Christ we will become as He is. Call it whatever you want. Whether you agree with Christ and say we can become gods by recieving word, or if you call us something else, this is exactly what we will be if we use the Atonement of Christ. The scriptures are clear about that. Why should we deny it? What would you call us? We will be perfect beings with all knowledge and power and whose wills will be One with the Father.
> 
> Man truly has not seen a glimpse of what the Lord plans to make of us. You can't concieve it. I know I am barely seeing a fraction. But I want to know more. Which is why I have no desire to tell God He cant show me more or tell me more. Which is why I am not going to pretend God has ceased to be God and show His power to men after Ive seen it.
> 
> And I dont think it's arrogant to say such things because I believe all men can if they just will let God work in their life. The promises are extended to all who will exercise faith and covenant with Christ.
> 
> Tell me, what exactly do you think God has gone to all this trouble for us for? Why do you think He sent His Son to die for us? Why do you think He loves us so much?
Click to expand...


I can see that LYING, does not seem to concern  the brethren....no?   An implied lie is the same as an applied lie.   Just as there are sins of omission as well as co-mission. The words of God debunk the nonsensical SUBJECTIVE opinion that you suggested the CHRIST was making in claiming that men have the power and ability to become GODS.    Clearly when the cult of Mormonism is confronted with the TRUTH and LOGIC of the actual content of the SCRIPTURES  all  their proponents seem capable of doing is deflecting.


Not one BIBLICAL TRUTH that was presented was even attempted to be reconciled to the false ideology of Mormonism.......as not ONE OBJECTIVE answer was given that came from the passages of the Holy Scriptures, were the truth of God lies (John 17:17), a truth that WE or anyone that professes to be a true servant of God are admonished to be sanctified in.    All you characters have been able to do is SUBJECTIVELY OPINE about what YOU BELIEVE the SCRIPTURES to be declaring.......but when read and comprehend in the CONTEXT of OBJECTIVE HONESTY, the scriptures cut the cult of Mormonism to the core. 

I just fail to see how anyone could have faith in the SUBJECTIVE mind of man, as that is all the Mormon faith consists of.  I especially enjoyed the way YOU VALIDATED YOUR OPINION in scriptural conformation by presenting Book, Chapter, and Verse.    I was of the understanding that we were going to have a debate on the ACTUAL CONTENT of the HOLY SCRIPTURES...not some 7th grade submission of SUBJECTIVITY to emotionalism.  

Whatever YOU BELIEVE is moot to the authority of GOD, and what He has revealed in order that we might follow His righteous precepts (Deut 29:29)....even the demons believe, AND TREMBLE. -- 2 James 2:19.   We are to continue in the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY"....not attempt to add unto such...without the OBJECTIVE PROF of conformation of GOD. ".....he who looks in the Perfect Law of Liberty (the New Testament Covenant) and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." -- James 1:25


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.



Very nice example of ad hominem emotionalism based upon personal bigotry.  That sure is the way to establish an example of worshiping in Spirit and Truth.   Can you spell   D E F L E C T I O N............due to the inability to present any OBJECTIVE scriptural conformation of your SUBJECTIVE FAITH?    You folks....have simply overwhelmed me, with empirical evidential presentations.   As Apostles, Angels, Messengers.....to your god ( 2 Cor. 4:4).


----------



## Ralph

The False Ideology presented in deceit attempts to present the Christ as claiming all men have the capacity to become Gods.   Of course the passage...which is referenced in SUBJECTIVE OPINION and presented as PROOF would be the reference that Jesus used in the passages of John 10:33-36.   

First...we must keep this passage in the CONTEXT in which it was presented.   Jesus was speaking to a crowd that was angered by the truth of His message.  They were upset because Jesus had made the Claim to be the Son of God.  They realized He was claiming to be DEITY....with His words holding the authority of Law.    Jesus simply rebuked and reproved them by making reference to (Ps. 82) of the Old Book where PEOPLE ARE CALLED "gods".   Where Father God had allowed their fathers to be JUDGES over the lives of others....and now they were falsely judging HIM..in hypocrisy.   

This is not at all confusing.  Is Jesus actually declaring that ALL PEOPLE are gods?  Of course not....if you are to reason such as this....you must reason in contradictory fashion to the MANY PASSAGES of scriptures, which were all inspired by the same God (2 Tim. 3:16) which quite clearly and unambiguously declare the direct revealed words of God which declare the fact of there being only ONE GOD, with none other to EVER come. (Isaiah 43:10, 45:5, 46:9, Eph. 4:6, Numbers 23:19, Deut. 4:35-39)....and the fact that man was created as servants to God (Eccl. 12:3-4),  And after the judgment when in Heaven will remain servants to God, not the equal but worshipers (Rev.4:10)

Even if one attempts to argue that Jesus was a man and this PROVES that men can become Gods...they do so by beginning with a false precept.....that Jesus was CREATED as a man, which is not supported by the Scriptures.   Jesus was never CREATED.....He is presented in scripture as an eternal being that has always existed, He was ALWAYS GOD...even before assuming the form of man He was in heaven and the equal of God as He was with God and was God (John 1:1-5, 1 Tim. 3:16).   With the inspired Apostle informing us, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God....BUT MADE HIMSELF OF NO REPUTATION, AND TOOK UPON THE FORM OF A SERVANT......." -- Phil. 2:6-7).    Thus, God can take on the form of a man....but man who was never God...cannot become God, because MAN will ALWAYS be in  subjection to GOD ( 1 Cor. 11:1)  The scriptures further declare that Jesus was not CREATED, because He always was....but inversely.....HE CREATED THE WORLDS (Col. 1:15-18).  Its a  simple scriptural declaration.....  God consists of 3 divine beings(Father God, The Word/Jesus/Son, and the Holy Spirit)  existing in the Divine entity known as the GODHEAD ( 1 John 5:7, Acts 5:4-5, Romans 1:7, Hebrews 1:8)

The Mormons........as we can see.......in direct contradiction to all the OBJECTIVE and viewable evidence offered in the Holy Scriptures in Actual Record...still SUBJECTIVELY CLAIM....as demonstrated they cannot offer any scriptural support for the false ideology, that mankind has the power to become GODs, so they DISTORT the true word and record by CHERRY PICKING this one misapplied passage (John 10:33-36)....and present it as if Jesus is declaring that ALL MEN are Gods or can become Gods. 

Its a very simple thing to go DIRECTLY to the passage that was referenced by the Christ in John 10 to reprove the angry crowd (Ps. 82) and establish....IN CONTEXT just what was being referenced.  

In two different verses of Ps. 82....1 and 9, the Hebrew word, in the original language "elohim" is used to refer to humans.   Depending upon what translation is used this word can mean...god or ruler in verse 1.  It is consistently translated  "gods" with a small "g" and in the plural instead of the singular.   In the majority of the passages this word is clearly referenced to mean GOD..the Almighty.....a few times it is used in describing Idols and then in few cases as in Ps. 82...it is clearly made in reference to people....who hold authority as ruler over others. 

Example;   Ex. 22:9.  The only translation that uses "Elohim" as GOD is the American Standard translation....."all" others represent the word as JUDGES...rulers holding authority over others.    

The reason the word Elohim is used?  Because God appointed the judges of men...by taking the first born from each family and dedicating them to the JUDGING tribe of LEVITES.....and these JUDGES SPEAK in authority FOR GOD ALMIGHTY, "Then he set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, 'Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for MAN BUT FOR THE LORD....WHO IS WITH YOU IN THE JUDGMENT." -- 2 Chronicles 19:5-6........The leaders, the judges, deliver God's judgments to the people -- Deut. 1:15-17.   

All words have meanings.....depending upon the CONTEXT of the subject they are addressing.  The Hebrew word "EL" means...mighty, The word ELOHIM is simply the PLURAL form of the word MIGHTY.   It can be most difficult sometimes in referencing the words of the Old Book which was originally drafted in the Hebrew Language....with less letters in their alphabet...often the same word carried several different meanings........and as ALWAYS, one must address the CONTEXT when making a determination as to the use of any word...especially when there is NO VERBATIM translation available from the original HEBREW into any modern language. 

But clearly.....anyone can see, if you misrepresent the reference of JESUS to make pretense that He was even suggesting that MEN are actually EQUAL to the ALMIGHTY......you must CONTRADICT many other very CLEAR passages of SCRIPTURE in order to mold this one passage into your ideology....in a VERY SUBJECTIVE MANNER.

As EVERYONE can see based upon the PRIMA FACIE evidence of their own retorts.......where they cherry pick only selected passages.....and offer no BOOK, CHAPTER, or VERSE in any other negation of their opinion in retort........THE ENTIRE 'MO' of this CULT is based on nothing but emotional SUBJECTIVITY, and PRIDE in hoping to DEFLECT what they Obviously cannot prove....as we also see, the condescending AD HOMINEM personal attacks that come forth in making pretension of their supposed divine guidance while attempting to declare everyone that disagrees with them....as STUPID.   But, a good belly laughed is always enjoyed while viewing the pomposity of the prideful.    As always....I enjoy a good SHOW.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice example of ad hominem emotionalism based upon personal bigotry.  That sure is the way to establish an example of worshiping in Spirit and Truth.   Can you spell   D E F L E C T I O N............due to the inability to present any OBJECTIVE scriptural conformation of your SUBJECTIVE FAITH?    You folks....have simply overwhelmed me, with empirical evidential presentations.   As Apostles, Angels, Messengers.....to your god ( 2 Cor. 4:4).
Click to expand...


I took a good amount of time to respond to everything you brought up. I exposed that you not only misquoted scriptures far out of context but sometimes didn't even quote the right scripture. I took all of your points and highlighted them red. then I posted the answer to all of them. Since then, you haven't addressed a single one of my answers. That is why you are overmatched. You and 8 ball just love repeating yourselves. 

You don't understand the point of this thread. I am clarifying misconceptions about what we believe. I'm not here to prove anyone wrong. I just want people to get the straight dope on what we believe. If you disagree, I won't try to sway you. But if you attack my church saying we believe things that we really don't, then I need to answer those attacks. 

I get that you don't agree with my religion. More power to you. But don't try to misrepresent my religion. I am the authority on my religion. Not you. 

Go believe what you want. I have never tried to tear down anyone else's religion. But you and people like 8-ball have nothing better to do with your time other than try to misrepresent my church.

Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm not interested in debate.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.



Overmatched? It's not a competition. They arent my enemies. Im not trying to out do them. They arent your enemies. Your zeal is good, but zeal without charity can be more damaging than good. Joseph said:



> "If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst."



This isnt a competition. We are supposed to be lifting people up not putting them down.


----------



## Eightball

Ralph: Another concise, and extremely accurate post!  Your ability to reveal/show Holy Bible scripture that directly refutes Mormon/LDS doctrine, and the claims of the OP, and other LDS members posting here is breath-taking. 

For anyone to even suggest that you and I are the same person posting under different monikers is simply a desperate attempt at deflection.

Even if we were the same person covertly posting under two names, they've yet to contest the evidence of scripture and secular history that demands a verdict.  They say they have, but they go back to the BOM or use "inductive" methods with the bible, lacking proper theological technique to guard against error.

It's still the same.  If you want, you can "make" the bible say what "you want" it to say to assuage your conscience, but to "let" the bible speak in "full context" is to "chance" that your paradigm of God, and existence itself is wrong, and is in need of correction.

Joseph Smith revealed that either he was extremely crafty, or extremely ignorant of what God was revealing through the Holy Scriptures.  Anyway you look at it, he/Smith created a monolith of a movement, that has not doubt grieved God to no end.

Mormons "mean well", as I've shared about some dear Christian friends of mine who didn't keep close to the bible, and were basically immature in their faith, and joined the LDS church, not because of doctrine, but because of the pro-family, atmosphere.  No doubt myriads who didn't grow up in Mormon families and joined the church did so, because of the "family friendly" external presentation of the LDS/Mormon church.

All my wife and I could do was pray for our dear friends and their children, that God would lead them out of this "cult", as it was impossible to reason with them at the time that they were members of it.

God indeed answered prayers!  A few years later, the husband of the couple and family came to visit us, and shared about their journey in Mormonism, and how hard it was for them to face the "Truth" that as Christians they had made a horrible mistake.  They officially left the LDS/Mormon church, but did fondly remember a lot of wonderful friendships they had with Mormons, and hoped that they could mainting those friendships.  Sadly, the church hunkered down, and basically encouraged their old Mormons friends to avoid, and drift away from contact.

Our Christian friends realized that when they joined the Mormon church, it was a result of not knowing the "bible" as Paul had taught over and over again in the N.T. epistles.  They were "taken in" by what "appeared" to be Christian fruit, or the family, closeness of the LDS/Mormon church congregation, but didn't know that under that veneer, was a most convoluted anti-Christian, humanistic based doctrine, that fed the flesh, and not the Spirit.

The wife had always had a hard time with Jesus saying that there is no, "Marriage" between husband and wife in heaven.  It saddened her, as she couldn't picture her and her husband in heaven not being married still.  It is indeed a difficult thing to ponder as a Christian, but our earthly bonds with our loved ones will not compare one bit to the heavenly/eternal bonds that we will share with our "saved" spouse, or parents relatives/friends in heaven.

Anyway, the LDS/Mormon anti-biblical doctrine of continued husband and wife marriages in heaven was one of those humanistic/earthly offerings of that cult, and our friends found comfort in that.

It was only after continuing to study the bible while being Mormon members that they gradually were convicted of their error, and realized that they must exit.

Nowadays, this couple has found a bible church-home, and stays very much in the Word of God.  

They harbor no ill feelings towards the Mormons, but they do tell others of the snare that awaits those that enter into membership in Mormonism.

Surprisingly, those who have come out of Mormonism have very similar testimonies in regards to how the Holy bible or scripture study while being a Mormon, gradually convinced them through the counsel of the Holy Spirit that they needed to leave.  The scripture revealed to them that below the thick family oriented veneer of Mormonism, was an unbiblical paradigm.

One last sad finish to our Christian friend's saga of coming out of the clutches of Mormonism:  Their two sons are still in the Mormon church.  In fact the oldest son and his very devout Mormon wife have basically shunned our friends, their parents.  The kids recently had a baby, and the son's Mormon wife is doing all she can to make contact by these Christian grandparents as little as possible.

That is one of the tell-tail finger prints of how a cult operates, and keeps it's members from straying.


----------



## Ralph

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overmatched? It's not a competition. They arent my enemies. Im not trying to out do them. They arent your enemies. Your zeal is good, but zeal without charity can be more damaging than good. Joseph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isnt a competition. We are supposed to be lifting people up not putting them down.
Click to expand...


More "Prima Facie" evidence of deflection by use of AD Hominem Pride?  As clearly evidenced....YOU or no one in this man made cult can oppose the TRUTH offered in the Holy Scriptures.   Its a simple task....just present Book, Chapter and Verse in DEFENSE of what you propagate.  EVERY TIME that you retort by mere SUBJECTIVE prideful attempts of personal insult you merely drive another nail in your own coffin.....and expose another truth offered in the Holy Scriptures, "And no wonder!  For Satan himself transforms into an angel of light.  Therefore IT IS NO GREAT THING if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." -- 2 Cor. 11:14-15

ONE SUCH WORK recorded in history actual.  Vengeance.  "....vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the LORD" -- Romans 12:19, as directly referenced by Deut: 32:35.....it does not belong to nor does the Mormon Cult have the Authority for 'Blood Vengeance". 

Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention.....a history of Polygamy, and Open Revolt against the United States of America...and of course....YOUR CULT has had a change of Heart..no?   Why?  Not by free will, but because of Forced Service.  Proving that YOUR cult lives by the Iron Rule of Life...not the Golden Rule....you conformed YOUR stance simply because of the FEAR of Restitution.  If what you were propagating as truth were the truth of God, would it not be your place to..."Obey God rather than MEN"? (Acts 5:29).   For Indeed....we as righteous Christians are admonished to obey the laws of man......as long they are righteous in the sight of God, as their duty as being appointed by God requires said Law to be established to "Punish the Wicked and Reward the Righteous." -- Romans 13:1-7.  When said Government fails to obey the righteous laws of God......We are admonished to obey the TRANSCENDING AUTHORITY of GOD....who indeed was approached on appeal by the very founders of this nation In our Declaration of Independence.

It is our place to LIFT people up instead of letting them down?   How...by allowing their eternal soul to burn in hell?   What?  Should we Do evil (lies and deceit) so that GOOD may come from it?  Hardly.  We must stay grounded in the TRUTH of God's Word...for that is the ONLY PLACE where the truth of God exists -- John 17:17  We are commanded to worship in SPIRIT and "TRUTH"....not the deceit of "tickling the ears" of the hearers. -- John 4:24. 

"For when they speak great swelling words OF EMPTINESS, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error.  WHILE THEY PROMISE THEM LIBERTY, THEY THEMSELVES ARE SLAVES OF CORRUPTION, for whom by a person is overcome, by him he is brought into BONDAGE." -- 2 Peter 2:18-19.


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice example of ad hominem emotionalism based upon personal bigotry.  That sure is the way to establish an example of worshiping in Spirit and Truth.   Can you spell   D E F L E C T I O N............due to the inability to present any OBJECTIVE scriptural conformation of your SUBJECTIVE FAITH?    You folks....have simply overwhelmed me, with empirical evidential presentations.   As Apostles, Angels, Messengers.....to your god ( 2 Cor. 4:4).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took a good amount of time to respond to everything you brought up. I exposed that you not only misquoted scriptures far out of context but sometimes didn't even quote the right scripture. I took all of your points and highlighted them red. then I posted the answer to all of them. Since then, you haven't addressed a single one of my answers. That is why you are overmatched. You and 8 ball just love repeating yourselves.
> 
> You don't understand the point of this thread. I am clarifying misconceptions about what we believe. I'm not here to prove anyone wrong. I just want people to get the straight dope on what we believe. If you disagree, I won't try to sway you. But if you attack my church saying we believe things that we really don't, then I need to answer those attacks.
> 
> I get that you don't agree with my religion. More power to you. But don't try to misrepresent my religion. I am the authority on my religion. Not you.
> 
> Go believe what you want. I have never tried to tear down anyone else's religion. But you and people like 8-ball have nothing better to do with your time other than try to misrepresent my church.
> 
> Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm not interested in debate.
Click to expand...


Your TIME and RESPONSE is moot....unless it is grounded in the truth of God's revealed word.   You are wasting your time as well as mine in even attempting to address the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE presented by  Book, Chapter, and Verse by DEFLECTING with your "feel good" Subjective Rhetoric.    If I wanted to simply "feel good" or be entertained there are far better escapes from reality than addressing your ad hominem diatribe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very nice example of ad hominem emotionalism based upon personal bigotry.  That sure is the way to establish an example of worshiping in Spirit and Truth.   Can you spell   D E F L E C T I O N............due to the inability to present any OBJECTIVE scriptural conformation of your SUBJECTIVE FAITH?    You folks....have simply overwhelmed me, with empirical evidential presentations.   As Apostles, Angels, Messengers.....to your god ( 2 Cor. 4:4).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took a good amount of time to respond to everything you brought up. I exposed that you not only misquoted scriptures far out of context but sometimes didn't even quote the right scripture. I took all of your points and highlighted them red. then I posted the answer to all of them. Since then, you haven't addressed a single one of my answers. That is why you are overmatched. You and 8 ball just love repeating yourselves.
> 
> You don't understand the point of this thread. I am clarifying misconceptions about what we believe. I'm not here to prove anyone wrong. I just want people to get the straight dope on what we believe. If you disagree, I won't try to sway you. But if you attack my church saying we believe things that we really don't, then I need to answer those attacks.
> 
> I get that you don't agree with my religion. More power to you. But don't try to misrepresent my religion. I am the authority on my religion. Not you.
> 
> Go believe what you want. I have never tried to tear down anyone else's religion. But you and people like 8-ball have nothing better to do with your time other than try to misrepresent my church.
> 
> Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm not interested in debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your TIME and RESPONSE is moot....unless it is grounded in the truth of God's revealed word.   You are wasting your time as well as mine in even attempting to address the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE presented by  Book, Chapter, and Verse by DEFLECTING with your "feel good" Subjective Rhetoric.    If I wanted to simply "feel good" or be entertained there are far better escapes from reality than addressing your ad hominem diatribe.
Click to expand...


Where are your responses to the statements made? Talk about me deflecting.... How come you ignored my responses to your posts. It's like you have no ears. You must not be reading my posts. I would like you to read them. You know the ones where I put your statements in red and mine below them. Everything you just said and brought up since then has already been dealt with on this thread. Stop repeating yourself. Instead, quote my words and rebut them if you have to. But I don't think you have the capacity to do it. You probably didn't even read the last sentence I just wrote. Probly just skipped right over it.


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took a good amount of time to respond to everything you brought up. I exposed that you not only misquoted scriptures far out of context but sometimes didn't even quote the right scripture. I took all of your points and highlighted them red. then I posted the answer to all of them. Since then, you haven't addressed a single one of my answers. That is why you are overmatched. You and 8 ball just love repeating yourselves.
> 
> You don't understand the point of this thread. I am clarifying misconceptions about what we believe. I'm not here to prove anyone wrong. I just want people to get the straight dope on what we believe. If you disagree, I won't try to sway you. But if you attack my church saying we believe things that we really don't, then I need to answer those attacks.
> 
> I get that you don't agree with my religion. More power to you. But don't try to misrepresent my religion. I am the authority on my religion. Not you.
> 
> Go believe what you want. I have never tried to tear down anyone else's religion. But you and people like 8-ball have nothing better to do with your time other than try to misrepresent my church.
> 
> Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm not interested in debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your TIME and RESPONSE is moot....unless it is grounded in the truth of God's revealed word.   You are wasting your time as well as mine in even attempting to address the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE presented by  Book, Chapter, and Verse by DEFLECTING with your "feel good" Subjective Rhetoric.    If I wanted to simply "feel good" or be entertained there are far better escapes from reality than addressing your ad hominem diatribe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are your responses to the statements made? Talk about me deflecting.... How come you ignored my responses to your posts. It's like you have no ears. You must not be reading my posts. I would like you to read them. You know the ones where I put your statements in red and mine below them. Everything you just said and brought up since then has already been dealt with on this thread. Stop repeating yourself. Instead, quote my words and rebut them if you have to. But I don't think you have the capacity to do it. You probably didn't even read the last sentence I just wrote. Probly just skipped right over it.
Click to expand...


You CONFUSE....non response with deflecting.

"Your" responses are not worthy of retort  simply because they are based upon nothing but your subjective opinion void of any response whatsoever that would negate the objective evidence provided by book, chapter and verse clearly debunking your supposed faith as the false ideology that it is.   As I said, if I wanted entertained or falsely informed about the LOVE that our creator has for us, I would tune into any number of like minded grifters that populate the Sunday morning air ways that cherry pick a single passage of scripture and go about ENLIGHTENING us of their private interpretation of how this single passage subjectively effects their daily lives, falsely telling us "God loves YOU...but, SEND YOUR MONEY TO OUR ADDRESS."

Until such time as you actually want to DEBATE the ACTUAL content of the Holy Scriptures as compared to the subjective ad hominem rhetoric that you continue to propagate......I find nothing worth responding to.  If I wanted to argue with a fool that continues to circumnavigate in ever expanding circles of deflection I could prompt any number of web sites that are visited by secular politicians that speak from either side of their face.   

Simply inform me when you have any real response to the information provided.   Until such time....I will not engage in the pretension of having any kind of intelligent dialogue with someone that has yet to present the first reference to any objective and demonstrable evidence that supports his position.

"Like the legs of the lame that hang limp is a proverb in the mouth of fools.  Like one who binds a stone in a sling is he who gives honor to a fool.  Like a thorn that goes into the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of a fool." -- Proverbs 26:7-9.

In circular arguments...such as you are attempting to bait someone into engaging....a person shows that certain "IDEAS" lead to a conclusion, but only in the subjective opinion gestated between their ears.   They have already accepted the false premise as a fact...and now attempt to persuade others of its truth...without offering any demonstrable evidence.  To prove his/her point HE only assumes the conclusion to be true then uses this assumption to prove something else.......a faith constructed on SAND as its foundation, and waste of time in engaging.  

If this circular reasoning does not work.....next we are exposed to an EMOTIONAL APPEAL, attempting to reach a persons heart instead of his intellect.    The very reason we are asked to PRAY about a subject that has already been proven false by Demonstrable, Empirical, Objective TEXT of the Holy Scriptures of God.   

True Christianity is not based upon emotionalism.   Emotions are a BENEFIT of our faith....NOT the source to our faith, as our faith comes from ONE SOURCE, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the WORD OF GOD." -- Romans 10:17.    Why attempt to place the plow in front of the mule?  Simple....it far easier to deceive the emotional that are void of any cognition to logic in their thought process. 

False doctrine is easily presented in a very emotional mannerism.....who's very purpose is intended to MAKE someone FEEL GOOD....or as your cohort retorted.......LIFT someone UP...by any means possible.  When such lifting is preformed IT IS but temporary and fleeting because it is not grounded in the truth of God's word...when trouble comes, this GOOD feeling is quickly replaced by the rejection of God entirely.   You hear it all the time......If there were truly a God in Heaven...why did HE take my child, spouse, loved one...etc.  

The Holy Spirit of Truth warned us of such Doctrine, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have ITCHING EARS, they will heap up for themselves TEACHERS;  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables (or as I like to call it....unprovable subjectivity of the human mind)"  -- 2 Tim 3:3-4   Or as SpongeBob said, "I M I G I N A T I O N".

I do not PLAY nor PRETEND to be a CHRISTIAN........I build my faith on the Objective and TESTABLE faith that is gestated in the Word of God.   And I have no problem whatsoever when I am queried as to the faith that rests in my heart -- 1 Peter 3:15     I simply go to the source, and demonstrate where MY FAITH is grounded....and its most certainly not based upon the quicksand of emotionalism....but Demonstrable TRUTH.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overmatched? It's not a competition. They arent my enemies. Im not trying to out do them. They arent your enemies. Your zeal is good, but zeal without charity can be more damaging than good. Joseph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isnt a competition. We are supposed to be lifting people up not putting them down.
Click to expand...


Look Avatar, you and I are on the same page. But these guys are clearly nothing more than left field hecklers. I'm not even trying to prove them wrong in their own beliefs. All I do is fight off the incessant attacks of erroneous slanders against my church. 

When I say they are overmatched it's not in a sense of me versus them. It's in their assault on our religion's doctrine and history. Here is the microcosm of a discussion between the likes of an 8-Ball and myself or even you:

8-Ball: You Mormons don't believe in the real Jesus. You believe Adam is God. You are racist against Blacks. You believe in blood atonement.Joseph was not a martyr. Joseph was a felon.  Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You believe God(who would effectively be Adam) had sex with Mary and produced Jesus.

Truthspeaker: The above statements are indisputably, unchangeably, maliciously, despicable falsehoods.

Where upon you or I will go into great detail and show direct quotes from scripture or church History etc, how those statements are false. 

Whereupon 8 ball will mindlessly repeat the same thing again.

Whereupon 8-Ball will try to debate points of doctrine to try and prove us wrong. Here's how the next bit of conversation will go.

8-Ball/Ralph: Your works based religion, leave it to Beaver, the american flag, and apple pie will not save you but send you to hell. 

Truthspeaker/Avatar: We don't believe in works alone. By the way we don't preach that any tv show, citizenship, or dessert item on the menu will save you. by the way. It's fine if you want to believe whatever religion you want. Just let us have ours. We let you have yours.


Cut copy and paste this dialogue over and over again. So from now on, for the likes of 8-Ball and Ralphy. I ask you again. Which questions of yours have I deflected?

1 at a time please. We are not getting anywhere with exchanging wordy answers.


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anywhoo. I see Ralph was completely overmatched and is another 8-Ball. Perhaps they are both the same guy trying to appear more often in the thread. How come the same questions keep coming up even though all the answers have been given. Only one person could be so unreceptive to answers: The 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overmatched? It's not a competition. They arent my enemies. Im not trying to out do them. They arent your enemies. Your zeal is good, but zeal without charity can be more damaging than good. Joseph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If I esteem mankind to be in error shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isnt a competition. We are supposed to be lifting people up not putting them down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look Avatar, you and I are on the same page. But these guys are clearly nothing more than left field hecklers. I'm not even trying to prove them wrong in their own beliefs. All I do is fight off the incessant attacks of erroneous slanders against my church.
> 
> When I say they are overmatched it's not in a sense of me versus them. It's in their assault on our religion's doctrine and history. Here is the microcosm of a discussion between the likes of an 8-Ball and myself or even you:
> 
> 8-Ball: You Mormons don't believe in the real Jesus. You believe Adam is God. You are racist against Blacks. You believe in blood atonement.Joseph was not a martyr. Joseph was a felon.  Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You believe God(who would effectively be Adam) had sex with Mary and produced Jesus.
> 
> Truthspeaker: The above statements are indisputably, unchangeably, maliciously, despicable falsehoods.
> 
> Where upon you or I will go into great detail and show direct quotes from scripture or church History etc, how those statements are false.
> 
> Whereupon 8 ball will mindlessly repeat the same thing again.
> 
> Whereupon 8-Ball will try to debate points of doctrine to try and prove us wrong. Here's how the next bit of conversation will go.
> 
> 8-Ball/Ralph: Your works based religion, leave it to Beaver, the american flag, and apple pie will not save you but send you to hell.
> 
> Truthspeaker/Avatar: We don't believe in works alone. By the way we don't preach that any tv show, citizenship, or dessert item on the menu will save you. by the way. It's fine if you want to believe whatever religion you want. Just let us have ours. We let you have yours.
> 
> 
> Cut copy and paste this dialogue over and over again. So from now on, for the likes of 8-Ball and Ralphy. I ask you again. Which questions of yours have I deflected?
> 
> 1 at a time please. We are not getting anywhere with exchanging wordy answers.
Click to expand...


My O my......judging from all the use of the CARTOONS of expression, you still are presenting nothing but ad hominem Deflection.   My work is done.........You nor your cohorts have answered any questions....presented any answers.....nor sustained your faith as gestating in the word of God.    It becomes most difficult to talk in circles when the truth CORNERS YOU....no?       Later....fake dude.   Your frustration level is showing like granny's slip. 

If you could.....you would.....you can't so you ain't.  ABLE TO RESPOND to THE SIMPLE TRUTH.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overmatched? It's not a competition. They arent my enemies. Im not trying to out do them. They arent your enemies. Your zeal is good, but zeal without charity can be more damaging than good. Joseph said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isnt a competition. We are supposed to be lifting people up not putting them down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look Avatar, you and I are on the same page. But these guys are clearly nothing more than left field hecklers. I'm not even trying to prove them wrong in their own beliefs. All I do is fight off the incessant attacks of erroneous slanders against my church.
> 
> When I say they are overmatched it's not in a sense of me versus them. It's in their assault on our religion's doctrine and history. Here is the microcosm of a discussion between the likes of an 8-Ball and myself or even you:
> 
> 8-Ball: You Mormons don't believe in the real Jesus. You believe Adam is God. You are racist against Blacks. You believe in blood atonement.Joseph was not a martyr. Joseph was a felon.  Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You believe God(who would effectively be Adam) had sex with Mary and produced Jesus.
> 
> Truthspeaker: The above statements are indisputably, unchangeably, maliciously, despicable falsehoods.
> 
> Where upon you or I will go into great detail and show direct quotes from scripture or church History etc, how those statements are false.
> 
> Whereupon 8 ball will mindlessly repeat the same thing again.
> 
> Whereupon 8-Ball will try to debate points of doctrine to try and prove us wrong. Here's how the next bit of conversation will go.
> 
> 8-Ball/Ralph: Your works based religion, leave it to Beaver, the american flag, and apple pie will not save you but send you to hell.
> 
> Truthspeaker/Avatar: We don't believe in works alone. By the way we don't preach that any tv show, citizenship, or dessert item on the menu will save you. by the way. It's fine if you want to believe whatever religion you want. Just let us have ours. We let you have yours.
> 
> 
> Cut copy and paste this dialogue over and over again. So from now on, for the likes of 8-Ball and Ralphy. I ask you again. Which questions of yours have I deflected?
> 
> 1 at a time please. We are not getting anywhere with exchanging wordy answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My O my......judging from all the use of the CARTOONS of expression, you still are presenting nothing but ad hominem Deflection.   My work is done.........You nor your cohorts have answered any questions....presented any answers.....nor sustained your faith as gestating in the word of God.    It becomes most difficult to talk in circles when the truth CORNERS YOU....no?       Later....fake dude.   Your frustration level is showing like granny's slip.
> 
> If you could.....you would.....you can't so you ain't.  ABLE TO RESPOND to THE SIMPLE TRUTH.
Click to expand...


Like I said, what questions didn't I answer?


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look Avatar, you and I are on the same page. But these guys are clearly nothing more than left field hecklers. I'm not even trying to prove them wrong in their own beliefs. All I do is fight off the incessant attacks of erroneous slanders against my church.
> 
> When I say they are overmatched it's not in a sense of me versus them. It's in their assault on our religion's doctrine and history. Here is the microcosm of a discussion between the likes of an 8-Ball and myself or even you:
> 
> 8-Ball: You Mormons don't believe in the real Jesus. You believe Adam is God. You are racist against Blacks. You believe in blood atonement.Joseph was not a martyr. Joseph was a felon.  Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre. You believe God(who would effectively be Adam) had sex with Mary and produced Jesus.
> 
> Truthspeaker: The above statements are indisputably, unchangeably, maliciously, despicable falsehoods.
> 
> Where upon you or I will go into great detail and show direct quotes from scripture or church History etc, how those statements are false.
> 
> Whereupon 8 ball will mindlessly repeat the same thing again.
> 
> Whereupon 8-Ball will try to debate points of doctrine to try and prove us wrong. Here's how the next bit of conversation will go.
> 
> 8-Ball/Ralph: Your works based religion, leave it to Beaver, the american flag, and apple pie will not save you but send you to hell.
> 
> Truthspeaker/Avatar: We don't believe in works alone. By the way we don't preach that any tv show, citizenship, or dessert item on the menu will save you. by the way. It's fine if you want to believe whatever religion you want. Just let us have ours. We let you have yours.
> 
> 
> Cut copy and paste this dialogue over and over again. So from now on, for the likes of 8-Ball and Ralphy. I ask you again. Which questions of yours have I deflected?
> 
> 1 at a time please. We are not getting anywhere with exchanging wordy answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My O my......judging from all the use of the CARTOONS of expression, you still are presenting nothing but ad hominem Deflection.   My work is done.........You nor your cohorts have answered any questions....presented any answers.....nor sustained your faith as gestating in the word of God.    It becomes most difficult to talk in circles when the truth CORNERS YOU....no?       Later....fake dude.   Your frustration level is showing like granny's slip.
> 
> If you could.....you would.....you can't so you ain't.  ABLE TO RESPOND to THE SIMPLE TRUTH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, what questions didn't I answer?
Click to expand...


Ahh....none?   You have subjectively opined your brains out....answering any questions that stand up to the truth....0.   You might as well troll another thread...as I have witnessed there are no debates to be had on this one...in any OBJECTIVE fashion.   Thus....I shall waste my time no longer casting pearls.   I am always open to enlightenment or edification.  As the scriptures declare, "Come.....let us reason together."  When the reason is presented along a one way street its time to CHANGE DIRECTIONS...NO?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> My O my......judging from all the use of the CARTOONS of expression, you still are presenting nothing but ad hominem Deflection.   My work is done.........You nor your cohorts have answered any questions....presented any answers.....nor sustained your faith as gestating in the word of God.    It becomes most difficult to talk in circles when the truth CORNERS YOU....no?       Later....fake dude.   Your frustration level is showing like granny's slip.
> 
> If you could.....you would.....you can't so you ain't.  ABLE TO RESPOND to THE SIMPLE TRUTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, what questions didn't I answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh....none?   You have subjectively opined your brains out....answering any questions that stand up to the truth....0.   You might as well troll another thread...as I have witnessed there are no debates to be had on this one...in any OBJECTIVE fashion.   Thus....I shall waste my time no longer casting pearls.   I am always open to enlightenment or edification.  As the scriptures declare, "Come.....let us reason together."  When the reason is presented along a one way street its time to CHANGE DIRECTIONS...NO?
Click to expand...

Ok, so then let us reason together one question at a time. Where would you like to start? Where do you think I err most prominently?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Also for those who label my responses subjective or ad hominem even after I cite chapter, verse, date and fact, it is incumbent upon that person to demostrate my subjectiveness or ad hominemality. 

Simply stating adolescently that I am such without substance of your own is irresponsible.


----------



## Buster Beez

Mormons are damned for their idol worshipping of the invisible plates. Hell awaits you.


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Also for those who label my responses subjective or ad hominem even after I cite chapter, verse, date and fact, it is incumbent upon that person to demostrate my subjectiveness or ad hominemality.
> 
> Simply stating adolescently that I am such without substance of your own is irresponsible.



You are YET to offer ONE passage of scripture that declares...IN OBJECTIVE CONTEXT, (void of YOUR subjective private interpretation).....that PROVES or supports any of YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinions.   Anyone can cherry pick passages and take them away from their contextual message of declaration........YOUR "MO" is to PICK A SINGLE passage and write a 450 word narrative attempting to manipulate your false premise  of opinion into empirical truth....and build upon that false "beginning", declaring your assumption as truth worthy to build faith.    When it is pointed out that several other passages of scripture directly contradict your false premise.........you offer the CHRISTS words as paramount to other words of scripture when its very obvious that ALL scripture, regardless of who presents them come from the same source...........GOD.  As they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth who was commissioned by the Christ to lead them into ALL TRUTH  (2 Tim. 3:16, John 16:13), and one must consider the "SUM" (total) of God's words to establish a law...or truth that is everlasting -- Ps. 119:160

An OBJECTIVE CONTEXT would be a clear undeniable construction of words found in the Holy Scriptures.   A SUBJECTIVE context would be someone OPINING about what that passage represents with nothing  RECORDED in that clear message to support that ASSUMPTION.   For instance, your cohort......made TWO, very easily proven FALSE....SUBJECTIVE (private interpretation) declarations concerning his attempted defense of having an angel  reveal more TRUTH after ALL TRUTH had been delivered ONCE in the first century (Jude 3).     First he subjectively opined in a false assumption of premise that the LAST days of mankind were not inclusive to the 1st century...but must be directed  at a point of time in the future.....implying that date to be 1900 years latter.  But this false premise is easily debunked by SCRIPTURE.   Acts 2:17 makes it quite clear....the last days or the last age of mankind began on the day of Pentecost in the 1st century.   Another false premise based upon SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION would be  declaring as TRUTH the assumption that any angel mentioned in the book of Rev. is making reference to the angel that delivered the supposed NEW REVELATION to JOE SMITH in the 1830s........when the OBJECTIVE CONTEXT clearly defines the Book of REV to be addressed to the 7 churches of Asia in the late 1st century or early 2nd century (Rev. 1:4).....not to JOE SMITH 1900 years later, as these symbolic revelations (Rev. 1:1) where to SHORTLY come to pass.   Thus, NONE OF THE OBJECTIVE (clearly demonstrable) passages support YOUR FALSE doctrine..........UNLESS, "YOU" offer and INJECT the SUBJECTIVITY of YOUR PRIVATE interpretation to them.  When such a method of interpretation is directly forbidden by Scripture ( 2 Peter 1:19-21).  This simply means that no prophecy of scripture that is revealed by God can mean one thing to one person and something different to another.  All Scripture, thus.........should be rightly divided, by studying in a method that would have no one passage of scriptures presented by the same Holy Spirit of Truth....contradict or negate another passage of scripture. (2 Tim 3:15).  If such is happening........the word of TRUTH is not rightly divided, because TRUTH does not contradict ITSELF. 


 Example....ONCE again, SHOW ME the passages that support your false doctrine that MEN will become GODS...and provide the context of the subject matter these passages where addressing, before you plucked them from the comfort thereof.    You and your cohort have presented numerous WORDS OF OPINION...but no scriptural conformation of what you subjectively opine about.   You pick a passage and declare this is what it means.....When the scriptural way to define a Biblical concept is to find all the passages of scriptures that contain that particular subject matter and CONSIDER THE SUM/TOTAL before attempting to establish one passage as a blanket truth.  The very method used by the Christ when He defeated Satan during His days in the wilderness.......When Satan attempted to use a single verse to support His false premise the Christ declared, "....it is ALSO WRITTEN..." 

Have you even attempted to study the scriptures in a "hermenetuic" fashion......considering ALL the words of context (every iota, every tittle as the Christ declares, Matthew 5:7).....before attempting to mold it around your indoctrinated reasoning?


----------



## Wize Owl

Mormons are like the little retarded kid of the christian family. You just hope that they're happy in their retarded world and can shit on their own.


----------



## Eightball

Wize Owl said:


> Mormons are like the little retarded kid of the christian family. You just hope that they're happy in their retarded world and can shit on their own.



Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.

It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.


----------



## Ralph

Eightball said:


> Wize Owl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are like the little retarded kid of the christian family. You just hope that they're happy in their retarded world and can shit on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.
> 
> It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.
Click to expand...


The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.  

For instance the Retort offered by the Mormon Doctrine.   Post #1593.   Directly quoting Rev. 14:6-7......then openly declaring a presumption by ADDING onto WORDS not revealed or written in this book of prophecy...as if they have Authority to ADD UNTO these things.   As hard I have looked, I can find no mention of an Angel named "Moroni" being referenced might less OBJECTIVELY declared in the entirety of this book.   Yet,  the accusation is propagated that "others" are deflecting by not accepting this EXTRA....SUBJECTIVE opinion as truth.  

The scriptures are very clear in their admonishment.....do not GO BEYOND what is written.

Respect for the 'Silence' of God's will is COMMANDED....as demonstrated with the warning at the end of Revelations (Rev. 22:18-21).     Don't go beyond what is written -- 1 Cor. 4:6   The secret things.....NOT revealed,  belong TO GOD...not man, to SUBJECTIVELY and falsely define the will of God, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, but what is revealed belongs TO US, and OUR CHILDREN for ever...the faithful, so that we might do the works of the LAW  -- Deut. 29:29.   

Just what is beyond the written and revealed word?  It is ALL THINGS not said or declared by God.   We are commanded to stay within the bounds of God's teachings -- 2 John 9.   If it is not written in the Holy Scriptures.....just how are we to know with any OBJECTIVE proof that what is being presented as God's revelation are indeed God's revelations?   Such revelation is always confirmed by signs and wonders that are worthy of a true prophet of God. (John 20:31-32, Hebrews 2:1-4, Mark 16:20).....these signs and wonders where not only witnessed by believers but by enemies of the Gospel, they did not require the FAITH of someone to confirm the word that was spoken, nor did you ever hear an Apostle of Christ declare....come back tomorrow, I sense a non- believer in the room...the Entire book of Acts is filled with the miraculous signs preformed by the Apostles and those they blessed by the laying on of hands.  And no where is there any doubt that what was witnessed by either a believer or non-believer that a miracle had taken place....as the signs were accepted by both believer and non-believer alike.   Not like the FAKE miracles that are presented as proof.   Does anyone really doubt that if anyone had been raised from the dead after being buried, or any MIRACLE would take place.....this NEWS would not be confirmed world wide, in this day and age of instant communication?  

The reason we are commanded not to go beyond what is written?   Because NO ONE knows the mind of God....except the Spirit of God, if indeed it is the Spirit of God giving new revelation, such will always be confirmed by God and there will be NO DOUBT...nor any  possibility of contradiction to previous revealed truths by the same spirit -- 1 Cor. 2:9-11, states very clearly that Only God knows what is in the mind of God.  

No one can PRESUME to know what God has not revealed.    In our.....the Christians speech we are commanded to speak as if they were the words of God (The Oracles or prophesies of God), -- 1 Peter 4:11,  and today...the only way to confirm that we are speaking the words of God, would be to go to the source.  Thus the constant reference to Book, Chapter, and Verse to prove where these references came from..........NOT MY WILL....NOT MY OPINION.....but the revealed word of God.  

If the book of Mormon is true........then does not the Holy Spirit of God contradict His own divine revelations of the past?   If we need more revelation, 1900 years after these statements were made? "All scripture is inspired of God.......and makes the Man of God PERFECT/Complete (in the original Greek, the same Greek word used in..."when that which is PERFECT/complete comes" in 1 Cor. 13) and THROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK." -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17.   Or, "....has given us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness...." -- 2 Peter 1:3

If we are capable of being made COMPLETE or PERFECT ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) by the New Testament and the Old Testament, and already (in the 1st century) have everything provided that pertains to LIFE and GODLINESS...........tell us just one more time, WHY the BOOK of MORMON was revealed almost 2000 years after mankind had obtained these things through the knowledge of the revealed word.    And do so in OBJECTIVE, DEMONSTRABLE, CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT......passages of BOOK, Chapter, and Verse, from God's revealed word, which was in its entirety INSPIRED (the breath of God in the original Greek) by GOD. 

Mormonism would have us believe the scriptures do not make mention of not going past what is written....again by presenting their SUBJECTIVE OPINION only.   Yet, when we reference this subject matter....we find that God has addressed this subject IN DETAIL....as presented.    When we consider the SUM/Total thereof.......we have firmly established the TRUTH, as revealed by God.


----------



## Eightball

Ralph said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wize Owl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are like the little retarded kid of the christian family. You just hope that they're happy in their retarded world and can shit on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.
> 
> It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.
> 
> For instance the Retort offered by the Mormon Doctrine.   Post #1593.   Directly quoting Rev. 14:6-7......then openly declaring a presumption by ADDING onto WORDS not revealed or written in this book of prophecy...as if they have Authority to ADD UNTO these things.   As hard I have looked, I can find no mention of an Angel named "Moroni" being referenced might less OBJECTIVELY declared in the entirety of this book.   Yet,  the accusation is propagated that "others" are deflecting by not accepting this EXTRA....SUBJECTIVE opinion as truth.
> 
> The scriptures are very clear in their admonishment.....do not GO BEYOND what is written.
> 
> Respect for the 'Silence' of God's will is COMMANDED....as demonstrated with the warning at the end of Revelations (Rev. 22:18-21).     Don't go beyond what is written -- 1 Cor. 4:6   The secret things.....NOT revealed,  belong TO GOD...not man, to SUBJECTIVELY and falsely define the will of God, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, but what is revealed belongs TO US, and OUR CHILDREN for ever...the faithful, so that we might do the works of the LAW  -- Deut. 29:29.
> 
> Just what is beyond the written and revealed word?  It is ALL THINGS not said or declared by God.   We are commanded to stay within the bounds of God's teachings -- 2 John 9.   If it is not written in the Holy Scriptures.....just how are we to know with any OBJECTIVE proof that what is being presented as God's revelation are indeed God's revelations?   Such revelation is always confirmed by signs and wonders that are worthy of a true prophet of God. (John 20:31-32, Hebrews 2:1-4, Mark 16:20).....these signs and wonders where not only witnessed by believers but by enemies of the Gospel, they did not require the FAITH of someone to confirm the word that was spoken, nor did you ever hear an Apostle of Christ declare....come back tomorrow, I sense a non- believer in the room...the Entire book of Acts is filled with the miraculous signs preformed by the Apostles and those they blessed by the laying on of hands.  And no where is there any doubt that what was witnessed by either a believer or non-believer that a miracle had taken place....as the signs were accepted by both believer and non-believer alike.   Not like the FAKE miracles that are presented as proof.   Does anyone really doubt that if anyone had been raised from the dead after being buried, or any MIRACLE would take place.....this NEWS would not be confirmed world wide, in this day and age of instant communication?
> 
> The reason we are commanded not to go beyond what is written?   Because NO ONE knows the mind of God....except the Spirit of God, if indeed it is the Spirit of God giving new revelation, such will always be confirmed by God and there will be NO DOUBT...nor any  possibility of contradiction to previous revealed truths by the same spirit -- 1 Cor. 2:9-11, states very clearly that Only God knows what is in the mind of God.
> 
> No one can PRESUME to know what God has not revealed.    In our.....the Christians speech we are commanded to speak as if they were the words of God (The Oracles or prophesies of God), -- 1 Peter 4:11,  and today...the only way to confirm that we are speaking the words of God, would be to go to the source.  Thus the constant reference to Book, Chapter, and Verse to prove where these references came from..........NOT MY WILL....NOT MY OPINION.....but the revealed word of God.
> 
> If the book of Mormon is true........then does not the Holy Spirit of God contradict His own divine revelations of the past?   If we need more revelation, 1900 years after these statements were made? "All scripture is inspired of God.......and makes the Man of God PERFECT/Complete (in the original Greek, the same Greek word used in..."when that which is PERFECT/complete comes" in 1 Cor. 13) and THROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK." -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17.   Or, "....has given us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness...." -- 2 Peter 1:3
> 
> If we are capable of being made COMPLETE or PERFECT ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) by the New Testament and the Old Testament, and already (in the 1st century) have everything provided that pertains to LIFE and GODLINESS...........tell us just one more time, WHY the BOOK of MORMON was revealed almost 2000 years after mankind had obtained these things through the knowledge of the revealed word.    And do so in OBJECTIVE, DEMONSTRABLE, CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT......passages of BOOK, Chapter, and Verse, from God's revealed word, which was in its entirety INSPIRED (the breath of God in the original Greek) by GOD.
> 
> Mormonism would have us believe the scriptures do not make mention of not going past what is written....again by presenting their SUBJECTIVE OPINION only.   Yet, when we reference this subject matter....we find that God has addressed this subject IN DETAIL....as presented.    When we consider the SUM/Total thereof.......we have firmly established the TRUTH, as revealed by God.
Click to expand...


Ralph, this post makes such plain, common sense.

I am also waiting for our resident Mormon experts to answer your very concise, well-researched post.

The Mormons, though they say that the Holy Bible is corrupted by man over time, still use it's scripture to confront Christians, and prove their doctrine to non-Christians.

As you mentioned, they use the bible in a "piece meal" way, pulling verses out of  context, and when truly confronted with their convoluted beliefs, fall back on the "subjective" rather than the "objective" to defend their beliefs.

I've quoted to these two outspoken Mormons on this thread Romans 10:17, so many times, yet I've yet to get a response or defense based on that quoted verse from Paul's letter to the early Christian church in Rome.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word(scripture/bible) of God."

I get all kinds of deflective responses, such as: "I just know I'm right, cause the holy spirit has confirmed to me that LDS/Mormonism is the truth, or the true church.".

As you/Ralph have mentioned, faith is based on evidences, and the Holy Spirit is intended to confirm through the "Word".

The Mormons push the emotional or subjective as the sole means of confirming that their church is is true.  As you and I know, that is very unstable ground, and is likened to building one's faith upon a foundation of "sand".  Emotions/feelings are a wonderful God-endowed attribute of humanity, that was/is intended to enhance our lives, but not to be the "COMPASS" of decision-making.

To say, "I just know I'm right." is to totally cut-off or ignore one's God-given mind, and will, in the mix.

Satan goes about the earth like a roaring lion, devouring those of humanity that let their guards down.  Mormonism's premise for existence is built upon the idea that what ever comes to one's dreams, or visions, or gut feeling/thoughts' must be "of God".

Add to that mix that Satan will inject a nice little dream that often includes a potential Mormon's relative or deceased loved one confirming that "Mormonism is the Truth!", and you have the ingredients for potential deception of the nth degree.

The most unscriptural move by these door to door missionarys is when they encourage folks to "pray, and ask God if Mormonism is the truth?".  No where in the bible are Christians suppose to ask God if witchcraft, sorcery, occult, polygamy, Aaronic Priesthoods, etc are the truth.  The Christian has been given the bible, that has been omnipotently protected by the Omnipotent God who authored it through inspiring men/women.

That's another bugaboo, that Mormons on this thread will not face with objectivity.  How can they say that the bible is corrupted by man, yet agree that God is omnipotent?  To say that God is omnipotent is to "agree" that God can easily protect His inspired Word since it's inception.  Yet, when the LDS/Mormon says that Moroni & J.S. jr. and company restored the corrupted message of God to mankind, they are overtly saying that God is weak, and anemic, and can't keep track of His creation nor His messages to mankind.  What will it be, LDS/Mormons?  Why restore what your omnipotent God kept complete care of?

Also, they/TruthSkpr Pooh's my mentioned of Mormon Blood Attonement, yet this teaching I believe started by Brigham Young flies in the face of Jesus' work on the cross.  Either Jesus took all sins and paid for all sins, or again we have a very absentminded god, authored by the LDS/Mormon church.

Man, indeed will pay the price of for sin as what goes around, comes around in life, in most cases.  Even when we apologize, often our transgressions cause a domino affect and hurt others in ways that can't be mended.  Never the less, God forgives us through the total attonement of Christ work on the cross.

I've yet to receive any solid answers based on God's Word by these two Mormon spokesmen on this thread.  I've been told that I am a manufacturer of slander and lies, yet that's all they say.  They don't tell me or the board how or why they are lies.  The fall back on Mormon historian based facts to defend their premises, yet Mormon historians have a natural and obvious bias to enhance their system of belief.

I've brought up inductive and deductive reasoning, and I know these two Mormons are intelligent people, but they breeze over this most important subject that is instrumental in true, bonafide investigational processes.  

I've been called a Mormon hater, and many other things.  

Truthspeaker?  I've often wondered and have asked you why you picked that moniker for an online name.  IMO, it exudes pride, and a total lake of humility, and is the antithesis of what Jesus and the Apostles revealed as the true "abider" in Christ.  

I could never perceive or picture any true Christian who was abiding in God, who would want to brandy-about that name/title for their belief system.  God levels the playing field, and humbles man to the point of hopeful repentance, which is a condition of humility and transparency of the soul.  The true Christian counts his words carefully, and he/she realizes that tongue can set a "forest aflame"
metaphorically speaking.

It is one thing to be proud to be a "Christ one", and to be totally "honored" that God reached down from heaven and even considered us.  It's another thing to tell through one's moniker that "we have arrived at the truth", and are here take the role of Moromon/bible answerman.


----------



## Ralph

Eightball said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.
> 
> It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.
> 
> For instance the Retort offered by the Mormon Doctrine.   Post #1593.   Directly quoting Rev. 14:6-7......then openly declaring a presumption by ADDING onto WORDS not revealed or written in this book of prophecy...as if they have Authority to ADD UNTO these things.   As hard I have looked, I can find no mention of an Angel named "Moroni" being referenced might less OBJECTIVELY declared in the entirety of this book.   Yet,  the accusation is propagated that "others" are deflecting by not accepting this EXTRA....SUBJECTIVE opinion as truth.
> 
> The scriptures are very clear in their admonishment.....do not GO BEYOND what is written.
> 
> Respect for the 'Silence' of God's will is COMMANDED....as demonstrated with the warning at the end of Revelations (Rev. 22:18-21).     Don't go beyond what is written -- 1 Cor. 4:6   The secret things.....NOT revealed,  belong TO GOD...not man, to SUBJECTIVELY and falsely define the will of God, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, but what is revealed belongs TO US, and OUR CHILDREN for ever...the faithful, so that we might do the works of the LAW  -- Deut. 29:29.
> 
> Just what is beyond the written and revealed word?  It is ALL THINGS not said or declared by God.   We are commanded to stay within the bounds of God's teachings -- 2 John 9.   If it is not written in the Holy Scriptures.....just how are we to know with any OBJECTIVE proof that what is being presented as God's revelation are indeed God's revelations?   Such revelation is always confirmed by signs and wonders that are worthy of a true prophet of God. (John 20:31-32, Hebrews 2:1-4, Mark 16:20).....these signs and wonders where not only witnessed by believers but by enemies of the Gospel, they did not require the FAITH of someone to confirm the word that was spoken, nor did you ever hear an Apostle of Christ declare....come back tomorrow, I sense a non- believer in the room...the Entire book of Acts is filled with the miraculous signs preformed by the Apostles and those they blessed by the laying on of hands.  And no where is there any doubt that what was witnessed by either a believer or non-believer that a miracle had taken place....as the signs were accepted by both believer and non-believer alike.   Not like the FAKE miracles that are presented as proof.   Does anyone really doubt that if anyone had been raised from the dead after being buried, or any MIRACLE would take place.....this NEWS would not be confirmed world wide, in this day and age of instant communication?
> 
> The reason we are commanded not to go beyond what is written?   Because NO ONE knows the mind of God....except the Spirit of God, if indeed it is the Spirit of God giving new revelation, such will always be confirmed by God and there will be NO DOUBT...nor any  possibility of contradiction to previous revealed truths by the same spirit -- 1 Cor. 2:9-11, states very clearly that Only God knows what is in the mind of God.
> 
> No one can PRESUME to know what God has not revealed.    In our.....the Christians speech we are commanded to speak as if they were the words of God (The Oracles or prophesies of God), -- 1 Peter 4:11,  and today...the only way to confirm that we are speaking the words of God, would be to go to the source.  Thus the constant reference to Book, Chapter, and Verse to prove where these references came from..........NOT MY WILL....NOT MY OPINION.....but the revealed word of God.
> 
> If the book of Mormon is true........then does not the Holy Spirit of God contradict His own divine revelations of the past?   If we need more revelation, 1900 years after these statements were made? "All scripture is inspired of God.......and makes the Man of God PERFECT/Complete (in the original Greek, the same Greek word used in..."when that which is PERFECT/complete comes" in 1 Cor. 13) and THROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK." -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17.   Or, "....has given us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness...." -- 2 Peter 1:3
> 
> If we are capable of being made COMPLETE or PERFECT ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) by the New Testament and the Old Testament, and already (in the 1st century) have everything provided that pertains to LIFE and GODLINESS...........tell us just one more time, WHY the BOOK of MORMON was revealed almost 2000 years after mankind had obtained these things through the knowledge of the revealed word.    And do so in OBJECTIVE, DEMONSTRABLE, CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT......passages of BOOK, Chapter, and Verse, from God's revealed word, which was in its entirety INSPIRED (the breath of God in the original Greek) by GOD.
> 
> Mormonism would have us believe the scriptures do not make mention of not going past what is written....again by presenting their SUBJECTIVE OPINION only.   Yet, when we reference this subject matter....we find that God has addressed this subject IN DETAIL....as presented.    When we consider the SUM/Total thereof.......we have firmly established the TRUTH, as revealed by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ralph, this post makes such plain, common sense.
> 
> I am also waiting for our resident Mormon experts to answer your very concise, well-researched post.
> 
> The Mormons, though they say that the Holy Bible is corrupted by man over time, still use it's scripture to confront Christians, and prove their doctrine to non-Christians.
> 
> As you mentioned, they use the bible in a "piece meal" way, pulling verses out of  context, and when truly confronted with their convoluted beliefs, fall back on the "subjective" rather than the "objective" to defend their beliefs.
> 
> I've quoted to these two outspoken Mormons on this thread Romans 10:17, so many times, yet I've yet to get a response or defense based on that quoted verse from Paul's letter to the early Christian church in Rome.
> 
> "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word(scripture/bible) of God."
> 
> I get all kinds of deflective responses, such as: "I just know I'm right, cause the holy spirit has confirmed to me that LDS/Mormonism is the truth, or the true church.".
> 
> As you/Ralph have mentioned, faith is based on evidences, and the Holy Spirit is intended to confirm through the "Word".
> 
> The Mormons push the emotional or subjective as the sole means of confirming that their church is is true.  As you and I know, that is very unstable ground, and is likened to building one's faith upon a foundation of "sand".  Emotions/feelings are a wonderful God-endowed attribute of humanity, that was/is intended to enhance our lives, but not to be the "COMPASS" of decision-making.
> 
> To say, "I just know I'm right." is to totally cut-off or ignore one's God-given mind, and will, in the mix.
> 
> Satan goes about the earth like a roaring lion, devouring those of humanity that let their guards down.  Mormonism's premise for existence is built upon the idea that what ever comes to one's dreams, or visions, or gut feeling/thoughts' must be "of God".
> 
> Add to that mix that Satan will inject a nice little dream that often includes a potential Mormon's relative or deceased loved one confirming that "Mormonism is the Truth!", and you have the ingredients for potential deception of the nth degree.
> 
> The most unscriptural move by these door to door missionarys is when they encourage folks to "pray, and ask God if Mormonism is the truth?".  No where in the bible are Christians suppose to ask God if witchcraft, sorcery, occult, polygamy, Aaronic Priesthoods, etc are the truth.  The Christian has been given the bible, that has been omnipotently protected by the Omnipotent God who authored it through inspiring men/women.
> 
> That's another bugaboo, that Mormons on this thread will not face with objectivity.  How can they say that the bible is corrupted by man, yet agree that God is omnipotent?  To say that God is omnipotent is to "agree" that God can easily protect His inspired Word since it's inception.  Yet, when the LDS/Mormon says that Moroni & J.S. jr. and company restored the corrupted message of God to mankind, they are overtly saying that God is weak, and anemic, and can't keep track of His creation nor His messages to mankind.  What will it be, LDS/Mormons?  Why restore what your omnipotent God kept complete care of?
> 
> Also, they/TruthSkpr Pooh's my mentioned of Mormon Blood Attonement, yet this teaching I believe started by Brigham Young flies in the face of Jesus' work on the cross.  Either Jesus took all sins and paid for all sins, or again we have a very absentminded god, authored by the LDS/Mormon church.
> 
> Man, indeed will pay the price of for sin as what goes around, comes around in life, in most cases.  Even when we apologize, often our transgressions cause a domino affect and hurt others in ways that can't be mended.  Never the less, God forgives us through the total attonement of Christ work on the cross.
> 
> I've yet to receive any solid answers based on God's Word by these two Mormon spokesmen on this thread.  I've been told that I am a manufacturer of slander and lies, yet that's all they say.  They don't tell me or the board how or why they are lies.  The fall back on Mormon historian based facts to defend their premises, yet Mormon historians have a natural and obvious bias to enhance their system of belief.
> 
> I've brought up inductive and deductive reasoning, and I know these two Mormons are intelligent people, but they breeze over this most important subject that is instrumental in true, bonafide investigational processes.
> 
> I've been called a Mormon hater, and many other things.
> 
> Truthspeaker?  I've often wondered and have asked you why you picked that moniker for an online name.  IMO, it exudes pride, and a total lake of humility, and is the antithesis of what Jesus and the Apostles revealed as the true "abider" in Christ.
> 
> I could never perceive or picture any true Christian who was abiding in God, who would want to brandy-about that name/title for their belief system.  God levels the playing field, and humbles man to the point of hopeful repentance, which is a condition of humility and transparency of the soul.  The true Christian counts his words carefully, and he/she realizes that tongue can set a "forest aflame"
> metaphorically speaking.
> 
> It is one thing to be proud to be a "Christ one", and to be totally "honored" that God reached down from heaven and even considered us.  It's another thing to tell through one's moniker that "we have arrived at the truth", and are here take the role of Moromon/bible answerman.
Click to expand...


Indeed....if God LIED to us when He declared and VOWED  that His word would never see corruption and would be used until the end of time ( 1 Peter 1:23-25, Matthew 24:35, Ps. 119:160, Ps. 12:6-7).  Just how do they justify their beliefs based upon nothing but Subjective Emotionalism.......how do they know they are not being lied to?   If the Holy Scriptures are defined by them as being CORRUPT.....while they cannot find contradiction of pure Physical Science or History Actual within its pages....Just how is the Book of Mormon declared incorruptible by them......when there are many Falsehoods and Errors proven to exist therein?   Indeed, one must demonstrate extreme faith to BELIEVE a proven lie.  It must indeed take a lot of praying, when your eyes demonstrate one thing....but you have been indoctrinated to ignore the obvious and believe YOUR HEART.   But, did not the Apostle Paul believe that he was doing the will of God when he hunted down the believers of Jesus and persecuted them....even leading to the death of some?   Thus...one can not always trust his/her heart. 

Paul was present at the death of Stephen, and he simply stood there encouraging the mob in the murder of this righteous man. -- Acts 7:57:8:1.   Yet, He felt in his heart that he was doing the will of God....his actions were based upon what he felt...not what was correct.  Paul was one of the leaders in the persecution of the early church, where he was responsible for many going to prison and even the death of some -- Acts 8:3.   Yet....just as we are called out from among the world by the WORD, when we begin to believe the things we read (because they are sustained by factual history..etc, .....Paul was called out from the world by the Word/Jesus...who sought out Paul, and Paul was given salvation because HE FOUND THE TRUTH...and that truth was not what HE FELT it was -- 1 Tim. 1:12-15 

I realize that none of the mistakes made by Paul will be considered by those that propagate the Mormon faith, as they have already decided to throw away the truth presented in the New Testament in favor of a man made ideology.....because it feels right....and because it CONTRADICTS their position....so obviously, we are expected to accept them at their word....Clearly they are greater than the Apostles ever where.  But, I do hope they understand that I simply cannot share in their delusion, as I still base my faith upon the cognition to logic and reason instead of emotions that are often misleading.   I do have emotions in a demonstration of my faith...hope, joy, and fulfillment.......but I do not have faith because of these emotions, these emotions are a product of my faith, NOT THE foundation thereof.   As I accept the command, "One must worship in Spirit......AND "TRUTH", to enter the kingdom of God." -- John 4:24.   I simply cannot convince MY SELF to believe a lie....as indeed, the only one that can keep you from entering that kingdom....IS YOU, as that kingdom rests in the heart of each individual Christian -- Luke 17:20-21.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Buster Beez said:


> Mormons are damned for their idol worshipping of the invisible plates. Hell awaits you.



We don't worship any object. but if you think we are going to hell, that's your opinion. I won't argue with you about it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also for those who label my responses subjective or ad hominem even after I cite chapter, verse, date and fact, it is incumbent upon that person to demostrate my subjectiveness or ad hominemality.
> 
> Simply stating adolescently that I am such without substance of your own is irresponsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are YET to offer ONE passage of scripture that declares...IN OBJECTIVE CONTEXT, (void of YOUR subjective private interpretation).....that PROVES or supports any of YOUR SUBJECTIVE opinions.   Anyone can cherry pick passages and take them away from their contextual message of declaration........YOUR "MO" is to PICK A SINGLE passage and write a 450 word narrative attempting to manipulate your false premise  of opinion into empirical truth....and build upon that false "beginning", declaring your assumption as truth worthy to build faith.    When it is pointed out that several other passages of scripture directly contradict your false premise.........you offer the CHRISTS words as paramount to other words of scripture when its very obvious that ALL scripture, regardless of who presents them come from the same source...........GOD.  As they are all inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth who was commissioned by the Christ to lead them into ALL TRUTH  (2 Tim. 3:16, John 16:13), and one must consider the "SUM" (total) of God's words to establish a law...or truth that is everlasting -- Ps. 119:160
> 
> An OBJECTIVE CONTEXT would be a clear undeniable construction of words found in the Holy Scriptures.   A SUBJECTIVE context would be someone OPINING about what that passage represents with nothing  RECORDED in that clear message to support that ASSUMPTION.   For instance, your cohort......made TWO, very easily proven FALSE....SUBJECTIVE (private interpretation) declarations concerning his attempted defense of having an angel  reveal more TRUTH after ALL TRUTH had been delivered ONCE in the first century (Jude 3).     First he subjectively opined in a false assumption of premise that the LAST days of mankind were not inclusive to the 1st century...but must be directed  at a point of time in the future.....implying that date to be 1900 years latter.  But this false premise is easily debunked by SCRIPTURE.   Acts 2:17 makes it quite clear....the last days or the last age of mankind began on the day of Pentecost in the 1st century.   Another false premise based upon SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION would be  declaring as TRUTH the assumption that any angel mentioned in the book of Rev. is making reference to the angel that delivered the supposed NEW REVELATION to JOE SMITH in the 1830s........when the OBJECTIVE CONTEXT clearly defines the Book of REV to be addressed to the 7 churches of Asia in the late 1st century or early 2nd century (Rev. 1:4).....not to JOE SMITH 1900 years later, as these symbolic revelations (Rev. 1:1) where to SHORTLY come to pass.   Thus, NONE OF THE OBJECTIVE (clearly demonstrable) passages support YOUR FALSE doctrine..........UNLESS, "YOU" offer and INJECT the SUBJECTIVITY of YOUR PRIVATE interpretation to them.  When such a method of interpretation is directly forbidden by Scripture ( 2 Peter 1:19-21).  This simply means that no prophecy of scripture that is revealed by God can mean one thing to one person and something different to another.  All Scripture, thus.........should be rightly divided, by studying in a method that would have no one passage of scriptures presented by the same Holy Spirit of Truth....contradict or negate another passage of scripture. (2 Tim 3:15).  If such is happening........the word of TRUTH is not rightly divided, because TRUTH does not contradict ITSELF.
> 
> 
> Example....ONCE again, SHOW ME the passages that support your false doctrine that MEN will become GODS...and provide the context of the subject matter these passages where addressing, before you plucked them from the comfort thereof.    You and your cohort have presented numerous WORDS OF OPINION...but no scriptural conformation of what you subjectively opine about.   You pick a passage and declare this is what it means.....When the scriptural way to define a Biblical concept is to find all the passages of scriptures that contain that particular subject matter and CONSIDER THE SUM/TOTAL before attempting to establish one passage as a blanket truth.  The very method used by the Christ when He defeated Satan during His days in the wilderness.......When Satan attempted to use a single verse to support His false premise the Christ declared, "....it is ALSO WRITTEN..."
> 
> Have you even attempted to study the scriptures in a "hermenetuic" fashion......considering ALL the words of context (every iota, every tittle as the Christ declares, Matthew 5:7).....before attempting to mold it around your indoctrinated reasoning?
Click to expand...


You really don't want me to quote scriptures because just like you accuse me of, you have your own interpretation which I disagree with. You can wrest the scriptures to mean whatever you like. But like I have said from the beginning. I am not here to debate my religion as being better than yours. I just want people to know what it is that we actually believe. 

First of all, we accept many more books than the Bible as scripture. So when you say "All scripture is inspired of God." I agree with you. But you are not considering there is more scripture. 

With one Bible there are thousands of christian churches each with their own interpretations that contradict each other. 

I'm not going to perpetuate an argument that puts my view of the Bible over yours. It is pointless because I read the Book of Mormon also. I believe in modern revelation. 

We can argue till doomsday over Biblical interpretations. You might ask where my authority comes from in a sneering sort of way. I would challenge your authority. But this gets us nowhere.

Contention is of the devil. If you would really like to reason with me and learn more about my church then you will gain something from our discussions.

If all you want to do is try and debunk my religion, you are wasting your time. I have proven my religion to myself and that's all that matters. 

 I have not tried to debunk your religion because I would rather focus my attention on my own beliefs that make me happy. I don't care if you think you won an argument against me. Go on with your own beliefs. More power to you. I just don't understand people who waste their time trying to tear down the beliefs of a people who are firm in their faith in Christ. 

So what do you want from me?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Wize Owl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are like the little retarded kid of the christian family. You just hope that they're happy in their retarded world and can shit on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.
> 
> It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.
Click to expand...


Wow 8-Ball. I'm impressed. Are you trying to actually be respectful to us now? If so. Much Kudos.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wize Owl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are like the little retarded kid of the christian family. You just hope that they're happy in their retarded world and can shit on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.
> 
> It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.
> 
> For instance the Retort offered by the Mormon Doctrine.   Post #1593.   Directly quoting Rev. 14:6-7......then openly declaring a presumption by ADDING onto WORDS not revealed or written in this book of prophecy...as if they have Authority to ADD UNTO these things.   As hard I have looked, I can find no mention of an Angel named "Moroni" being referenced might less OBJECTIVELY declared in the entirety of this book.   Yet,  the accusation is propagated that "others" are deflecting by not accepting this EXTRA....SUBJECTIVE opinion as truth.
> 
> The scriptures are very clear in their admonishment.....do not GO BEYOND what is written.
> 
> Respect for the 'Silence' of God's will is COMMANDED....as demonstrated with the warning at the end of Revelations (Rev. 22:18-21).     Don't go beyond what is written -- 1 Cor. 4:6   The secret things.....NOT revealed,  belong TO GOD...not man, to SUBJECTIVELY and falsely define the will of God, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, but what is revealed belongs TO US, and OUR CHILDREN for ever...the faithful, so that we might do the works of the LAW  -- Deut. 29:29.
> 
> Just what is beyond the written and revealed word?  It is ALL THINGS not said or declared by God.   We are commanded to stay within the bounds of God's teachings -- 2 John 9.   If it is not written in the Holy Scriptures.....just how are we to know with any OBJECTIVE proof that what is being presented as God's revelation are indeed God's revelations?   Such revelation is always confirmed by signs and wonders that are worthy of a true prophet of God. (John 20:31-32, Hebrews 2:1-4, Mark 16:20).....these signs and wonders where not only witnessed by believers but by enemies of the Gospel, they did not require the FAITH of someone to confirm the word that was spoken, nor did you ever hear an Apostle of Christ declare....come back tomorrow, I sense a non- believer in the room...the Entire book of Acts is filled with the miraculous signs preformed by the Apostles and those they blessed by the laying on of hands.  And no where is there any doubt that what was witnessed by either a believer or non-believer that a miracle had taken place....as the signs were accepted by both believer and non-believer alike.   Not like the FAKE miracles that are presented as proof.   Does anyone really doubt that if anyone had been raised from the dead after being buried, or any MIRACLE would take place.....this NEWS would not be confirmed world wide, in this day and age of instant communication?
> 
> The reason we are commanded not to go beyond what is written?   Because NO ONE knows the mind of God....except the Spirit of God, if indeed it is the Spirit of God giving new revelation, such will always be confirmed by God and there will be NO DOUBT...nor any  possibility of contradiction to previous revealed truths by the same spirit -- 1 Cor. 2:9-11, states very clearly that Only God knows what is in the mind of God.
> 
> No one can PRESUME to know what God has not revealed.    In our.....the Christians speech we are commanded to speak as if they were the words of God (The Oracles or prophesies of God), -- 1 Peter 4:11,  and today...the only way to confirm that we are speaking the words of God, would be to go to the source.  Thus the constant reference to Book, Chapter, and Verse to prove where these references came from..........NOT MY WILL....NOT MY OPINION.....but the revealed word of God.
> 
> If the book of Mormon is true........then does not the Holy Spirit of God contradict His own divine revelations of the past?   If we need more revelation, 1900 years after these statements were made? "All scripture is inspired of God.......and makes the Man of God PERFECT/Complete (in the original Greek, the same Greek word used in..."when that which is PERFECT/complete comes" in 1 Cor. 13) and THROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK." -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17.   Or, "....has given us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness...." -- 2 Peter 1:3
> 
> If we are capable of being made COMPLETE or PERFECT ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) by the New Testament and the Old Testament, and already (in the 1st century) have everything provided that pertains to LIFE and GODLINESS...........tell us just one more time, WHY the BOOK of MORMON was revealed almost 2000 years after mankind had obtained these things through the knowledge of the revealed word.    And do so in OBJECTIVE, DEMONSTRABLE, CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT......passages of BOOK, Chapter, and Verse, from God's revealed word, which was in its entirety INSPIRED (the breath of God in the original Greek) by GOD.
> 
> Mormonism would have us believe the scriptures do not make mention of not going past what is written....again by presenting their SUBJECTIVE OPINION only.   Yet, when we reference this subject matter....we find that God has addressed this subject IN DETAIL....as presented.    When we consider the SUM/Total thereof.......we have firmly established the TRUTH, as revealed by God.
Click to expand...


It seems like all you are trying to do is prove the Book of Mormon wrong. I understand you don't believe in it because of your view of the Bible. We don't have the same view. We believe the Bible does not condemn other scripture like the Book of Mormon. I think every halfway serious student of the Bible realizes that it was not chronologically written in order. Intelligent scholars know that the last chronologically written book is the book of John. Interestingly enough the last verse reads thus: John chapter 21 verse 25

 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

That would be very interesting if the Bible were put in chronological order. Leaving the reader anxious for more of the actions of Jesus. If there were more of the doings of Jesus life available, wouldn't you want to know about them? We have found some more of those doings. 

Disagree all you like but this is our view of the scriptures. You can view them however you want but this is how we understand them. Please don't take this as an attack. We'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.
> 
> It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.
> 
> For instance the Retort offered by the Mormon Doctrine.   Post #1593.   Directly quoting Rev. 14:6-7......then openly declaring a presumption by ADDING onto WORDS not revealed or written in this book of prophecy...as if they have Authority to ADD UNTO these things.   As hard I have looked, I can find no mention of an Angel named "Moroni" being referenced might less OBJECTIVELY declared in the entirety of this book.   Yet,  the accusation is propagated that "others" are deflecting by not accepting this EXTRA....SUBJECTIVE opinion as truth.
> 
> The scriptures are very clear in their admonishment.....do not GO BEYOND what is written.
> 
> Respect for the 'Silence' of God's will is COMMANDED....as demonstrated with the warning at the end of Revelations (Rev. 22:18-21).     Don't go beyond what is written -- 1 Cor. 4:6   The secret things.....NOT revealed,  belong TO GOD...not man, to SUBJECTIVELY and falsely define the will of God, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, but what is revealed belongs TO US, and OUR CHILDREN for ever...the faithful, so that we might do the works of the LAW  -- Deut. 29:29.
> 
> Just what is beyond the written and revealed word?  It is ALL THINGS not said or declared by God.   We are commanded to stay within the bounds of God's teachings -- 2 John 9.   If it is not written in the Holy Scriptures.....just how are we to know with any OBJECTIVE proof that what is being presented as God's revelation are indeed God's revelations?   Such revelation is always confirmed by signs and wonders that are worthy of a true prophet of God. (John 20:31-32, Hebrews 2:1-4, Mark 16:20).....these signs and wonders where not only witnessed by believers but by enemies of the Gospel, they did not require the FAITH of someone to confirm the word that was spoken, nor did you ever hear an Apostle of Christ declare....come back tomorrow, I sense a non- believer in the room...the Entire book of Acts is filled with the miraculous signs preformed by the Apostles and those they blessed by the laying on of hands.  And no where is there any doubt that what was witnessed by either a believer or non-believer that a miracle had taken place....as the signs were accepted by both believer and non-believer alike.   Not like the FAKE miracles that are presented as proof.   Does anyone really doubt that if anyone had been raised from the dead after being buried, or any MIRACLE would take place.....this NEWS would not be confirmed world wide, in this day and age of instant communication?
> 
> The reason we are commanded not to go beyond what is written?   Because NO ONE knows the mind of God....except the Spirit of God, if indeed it is the Spirit of God giving new revelation, such will always be confirmed by God and there will be NO DOUBT...nor any  possibility of contradiction to previous revealed truths by the same spirit -- 1 Cor. 2:9-11, states very clearly that Only God knows what is in the mind of God.
> 
> No one can PRESUME to know what God has not revealed.    In our.....the Christians speech we are commanded to speak as if they were the words of God (The Oracles or prophesies of God), -- 1 Peter 4:11,  and today...the only way to confirm that we are speaking the words of God, would be to go to the source.  Thus the constant reference to Book, Chapter, and Verse to prove where these references came from..........NOT MY WILL....NOT MY OPINION.....but the revealed word of God.
> 
> If the book of Mormon is true........then does not the Holy Spirit of God contradict His own divine revelations of the past?   If we need more revelation, 1900 years after these statements were made? "All scripture is inspired of God.......and makes the Man of God PERFECT/Complete (in the original Greek, the same Greek word used in..."when that which is PERFECT/complete comes" in 1 Cor. 13) and THROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK." -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17.   Or, "....has given us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness...." -- 2 Peter 1:3
> 
> If we are capable of being made COMPLETE or PERFECT ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) by the New Testament and the Old Testament, and already (in the 1st century) have everything provided that pertains to LIFE and GODLINESS...........tell us just one more time, WHY the BOOK of MORMON was revealed almost 2000 years after mankind had obtained these things through the knowledge of the revealed word.    And do so in OBJECTIVE, DEMONSTRABLE, CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT......passages of BOOK, Chapter, and Verse, from God's revealed word, which was in its entirety INSPIRED (the breath of God in the original Greek) by GOD.
> 
> Mormonism would have us believe the scriptures do not make mention of not going past what is written....again by presenting their SUBJECTIVE OPINION only.   Yet, when we reference this subject matter....we find that God has addressed this subject IN DETAIL....as presented.    When we consider the SUM/Total thereof.......we have firmly established the TRUTH, as revealed by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ralph, this post makes such plain, common sense.
> 
> I am also waiting for our resident Mormon experts to answer your very concise, well-researched post.
> 
> The Mormons, though they say that the Holy Bible is corrupted by man over time, still use it's scripture to confront Christians, and prove their doctrine to non-Christians.
> 
> As you mentioned, they use the bible in a "piece meal" way, pulling verses out of  context, and when truly confronted with their convoluted beliefs, fall back on the "subjective" rather than the "objective" to defend their beliefs.
> 
> I've quoted to these two outspoken Mormons on this thread Romans 10:17, so many times, yet I've yet to get a response or defense based on that quoted verse from Paul's letter to the early Christian church in Rome.
> 
> "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word(scripture/bible) of God."
> 
> I get all kinds of deflective responses, such as: "I just know I'm right, cause the holy spirit has confirmed to me that LDS/Mormonism is the truth, or the true church.".
> 
> As you/Ralph have mentioned, faith is based on evidences, and the Holy Spirit is intended to confirm through the "Word".
> 
> The Mormons push the emotional or subjective as the sole means of confirming that their church is is true.  As you and I know, that is very unstable ground, and is likened to building one's faith upon a foundation of "sand".  Emotions/feelings are a wonderful God-endowed attribute of humanity, that was/is intended to enhance our lives, but not to be the "COMPASS" of decision-making.
> 
> To say, "I just know I'm right." is to totally cut-off or ignore one's God-given mind, and will, in the mix.
> 
> Satan goes about the earth like a roaring lion, devouring those of humanity that let their guards down.  Mormonism's premise for existence is built upon the idea that what ever comes to one's dreams, or visions, or gut feeling/thoughts' must be "of God".
> 
> Add to that mix that Satan will inject a nice little dream that often includes a potential Mormon's relative or deceased loved one confirming that "Mormonism is the Truth!", and you have the ingredients for potential deception of the nth degree.
> 
> The most unscriptural move by these door to door missionarys is when they encourage folks to "pray, and ask God if Mormonism is the truth?".  No where in the bible are Christians suppose to ask God if witchcraft, sorcery, occult, polygamy, Aaronic Priesthoods, etc are the truth.  The Christian has been given the bible, that has been omnipotently protected by the Omnipotent God who authored it through inspiring men/women.
> 
> That's another bugaboo, that Mormons on this thread will not face with objectivity.  How can they say that the bible is corrupted by man, yet agree that God is omnipotent?  To say that God is omnipotent is to "agree" that God can easily protect His inspired Word since it's inception.  Yet, when the LDS/Mormon says that Moroni & J.S. jr. and company restored the corrupted message of God to mankind, they are overtly saying that God is weak, and anemic, and can't keep track of His creation nor His messages to mankind.  What will it be, LDS/Mormons?  Why restore what your omnipotent God kept complete care of?
> 
> Also, they/TruthSkpr Pooh's my mentioned of Mormon Blood Attonement, yet this teaching I believe started by Brigham Young flies in the face of Jesus' work on the cross.  Either Jesus took all sins and paid for all sins, or again we have a very absentminded god, authored by the LDS/Mormon church.
> 
> Man, indeed will pay the price of for sin as what goes around, comes around in life, in most cases.  Even when we apologize, often our transgressions cause a domino affect and hurt others in ways that can't be mended.  Never the less, God forgives us through the total attonement of Christ work on the cross.
> 
> I've yet to receive any solid answers based on God's Word by these two Mormon spokesmen on this thread.  I've been told that I am a manufacturer of slander and lies, yet that's all they say.  They don't tell me or the board how or why they are lies.  The fall back on Mormon historian based facts to defend their premises, yet Mormon historians have a natural and obvious bias to enhance their system of belief.
> 
> I've brought up inductive and deductive reasoning, and I know these two Mormons are intelligent people, but they breeze over this most important subject that is instrumental in true, bonafide investigational processes.
> 
> I've been called a Mormon hater, and many other things.
> 
> Truthspeaker?  I've often wondered and have asked you why you picked that moniker for an online name.  IMO, it exudes pride, and a total lake of humility, and is the antithesis of what Jesus and the Apostles revealed as the true "abider" in Christ.
> 
> I could never perceive or picture any true Christian who was abiding in God, who would want to brandy-about that name/title for their belief system.  God levels the playing field, and humbles man to the point of hopeful repentance, which is a condition of humility and transparency of the soul.  The true Christian counts his words carefully, and he/she realizes that tongue can set a "forest aflame"
> metaphorically speaking.
> 
> It is one thing to be proud to be a "Christ one", and to be totally "honored" that God reached down from heaven and even considered us.  It's another thing to tell through one's moniker that "we have arrived at the truth", and are here take the role of Moromon/bible answerman.
Click to expand...


You can think what you want about me but the reason I call myself truthspeaker is because I never tell lies. The other reason is this. There is false information about my church and true information about my church. I will authoritatively tell the truth about what Mormons really believe. And yes I am an elder, so I do know my religion better than you do. I'm sure you know about the history and doctrine of YOUR church better than I do.

You have spoken many falsehoods about our church, saying we believe in things we don't believe in. I have corrected you multiple times citing chapter, verse, historical statements, etc that clarify our actual beliefs. My frustration with you is that you ignore me when I tell you about false statements you are accusing me and all other Mormon's of. I repeat myself endlessly but you just don't listen. so every time I am forced to repeat myself now, I will simply copy and paste from my Word application the responses to your repeated questions. That way I don't have to take the time to write it over and over again.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Common Misconceptions About Mormons:

*1.	Mormons believe in having lots of wives.*
This misconception exists because there were instances of polygamy involving many of our early church leaders. It was a commandment of God at the time for two reasons: First to populate the church. Second to provide protection and providence for women whose husbands were murdered by mobocrats in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois in the early frontiers of the 1830&#8217;s and 40s. Just the way Abraham and other biblical figures were justly sanctioned in doing so. The time came to cease polygamy when the United States declared it illegal. Since then God has revealed that we are to obey the laws of the land and that polygamy is to cease for the time being. Members of our church do not practice polygamy. Individuals have decided to leave the church and engage in illegal activities under their own interpretations calling themselves Mormons. These individuals are not sanctioned by our church. Polygamy is grounds for excommunication in the church today.

*2.	Mormons believe only they are going to heaven.*

This misconception exists because people do not understand our doctrine. We believe the pure in heart are the ones who will inherit God&#8217;s kingdom. All the rest will work itself out. Church affiliation has little to do with one&#8217;s salvation. It is entirely left in the hands of Jesus Christ and his Father.

*3.	Mormons hate Black people.*
This misconception arises out of lack of understanding of our doctrine. I served my mission in South Africa, and so naturally would get this question often. In the book the Pearl of Great price, part of which is a translation from some ancient Egyptian scrolls which came into the hands of Joseph Smith, there is a book called the book of Moses and the book of Abraham. In the book of Abraham, there was described the punishment of Cain for his crimes. He was cut off from the Lord and was cast into a land separate from the other children of Adam. It was then because of Cain&#8217;s transgression, the LAND in which he lived was cursed with much heat, which we now know to be the land of Africa. We do believe that original Africans were descended from Cain but don't get twisted into a bundle just yet. Cain and his children then had a "mark" placed upon them to distinguish them from other children of Adam. This mark was described by Brigham Young as the dark skin and flat nose. Still not time to get riled up yet.
The curse was not to be confused with the mark. It is nowhere described that the descendants of Cain were cursed, only marked. In fact this marking was a huge blessing for a couple of reasons. The LAND being cursed with much heat was and still is a very inhospitable place because of the sun exposure. How on earth would they be expected to survive such conditions without God preparing them for their environment. As we all know, dark skin is a built in sunburn defense. And yes I know black people can sunburn too, but certainly not to a fried crisp like if I were to stand out there for 15 minutes. The flat nose was also a blessing. We all know that hunting in Africa is difficult and requires lots of running and stamina if you are going to track and hunt prey in the African wilderness. Hence as we all can see, most of the best and naturally gifted long distance runners and sprinters are Africans, the nose shape playing a huge role in the amount of oxygen they are able to breathe in and out of their nostrils to keep up such a pace. Can white people be trained to run long distance? Of course, but they have to work a little harder to develop the same level of stamina because of the shape of the nose. Starting to make sense?
It gets better. The reason a lot of Mormons and non-Mormons alike confused the skin color of Cain's descendants with a curse is because of an UNRELATED and temporary physical curse placed on the Lamanites to distinguish them from the Nephites and cause that they should not be enticing unto the Nephites during much of the Book of Mormon years. The curse, we read in 3rd Nephi was eventually taken away and had nothing to do with having a flat nose. It is easy to see how this can be misunderstood through lack of study.
Nowhere is it written in our official doctrine that blacks were cursed with dark skin as a result of poor performance in the pre existence. That unfortunately has been misunderstood by too many members and non-Mormons.

Oh I almost forgot to address the priesthood issue. My bad. Yes Cain&#8217;s descendants were cursed as to the obtaining the authority of the Priesthood which would allow them to officiate in Church ordinances. This was done in part as a punishment to Cain, not his children, and in part to help fulfill the prophecy that the first should be last and the last should be first. Meaning the first people to receive the priesthood and gospel(Jews) would be the last ones to fully accept it, and the last ones to receive the priesthood and gospel(seed of Cain) would be the first to accept and embrace it. That is why 1978 was so important. Joseph Smith foretold back in 1830 that blacks would eventually hold the priesthood before the coming of Christ. It wasn't because they were spiritually unworthy as it was to fulfill the word of the Lord. This is amazing that the huge numbers of blacks in Africa were pleading and praying daily to the leaders of our church to let them receive the missionaries in the 70's, because they knew the gospel was true and understood the prophecies. African membership now is the fastest growing portion of converts among all races. This is a story about a glorious triumph, not a lame argument about racism. They are reaping the glory of this with great happiness in Africa right now and it's only going to get bigger.
Also you might want to bear in mind the wisdom of God in his timing. We all know how racist the country was for a long time up until the civil rights movement. In the early days of the church in the 1830's, part of the hatred for Mormons was that they were branded ****** lovers because they preached against slavery and invited blacks into their congregations. You didn't hear about it very often though because many anti-Mormons conceal this information. With general hostility towards blacks already an undercurrent of society at the time, it would have only brought more vicious attacks against us like church burnings and murders to have ordained black priests and bishops back then.
But if the Lord had given the revelation back then, Joseph Smith wouldn't have hesitated to ordain them. He grieved about the issue and actually pleaded with the Lord to restore them to the priesthood but was told they must wait for the due time of the Lord.

Not everyone gets everything at the same time. This is why many people live their whole lives without ever even hearing the name of Jesus Christ. Is it that the Lord just discriminating against his sons and daughters. NOOO! He knows when the time is right and knows that there is far more to it than just this earthly life. If not so, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and all other non-Christians, including babies who die before learning the gospel, must be condemned to hell. But good thing that is not the case, God is a little more loving and just than that......Whew! 
__________________

*4.	Mormons worship Joseph Smith.*
This misconception arises for reasons which I am not sure. Joseph Smith taught us to worship God and Jesus Christ. Joseph is considered a prophet to us. Not a God.

*5.	Mormons drink blood.*
This is a pernicious lie.

*6.	Mormons believe in personal blood atonement.*
This myth arises from some of the words of Brigham Young who once spoke about personal blood atonement in the hypothetical. Some have taken his words out of context and labeled him as having taught this as doctrine for individuals. Brigham young consistently taught that Christ atoned for the sins of man and no one else.

*7.	Mormons don&#8217;t believe the Bible.*
Yes we do. However, the Bible has some errors in translation due to careless transcribers and designing and corrupt priests. This problem has led to many different interpretations of the Bible and therefore many different churches. The Book of Mormon and modern prophets have helped us to understand the Bible&#8217;s original meaning.

*8.	Mormons believe works alone will save them.*
No we don&#8217;t. We believe mankind will be saved by the grace of God, after we put forth our best effort. Our best effort alone is not enough.

*9.	Mormons don&#8217;t believe in Jesus Christ.*
The name of our Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. All mankind will be redeemed from physical death by Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. The Saviour of all mankind. I don&#8217;t know how better to put it.

*10.	Mormons believe Adam is God.*
This is a falsehood. Adam will one day join God among the council of Gods, but will not take the place of God himself.

*11.	Brigham Young ordered The Mountain Meadows Massacre.*
This is a vicious lie. Brigham Young wept like a child when he heard of the renegade Mormons who perpetrated this act. These were individuals who acted alone and without sanction from the church. They were excommunicated and pursued by the law.

*12.	Mormons hate Gay People.*
This is not true. The reason people think this is because we were encouraged to vote Yes on Prop 8 in California. We do not condone sinful activities and therefore cannot in good conscience support any sinful act. Everyone is welcome in our church. We all have temptations to overcome. Some have temptations with homosexual attractions. Through Jesus Christ, all temptation can be conquered.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ralph said:


> The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.



Is this really the best you have? This is the most damning declaration you have against Mormonism? Then I feel very confident that the Spirit is leading me correctly. Because this verse cannot be interpretted to end new revelation from heaven. And This is for the following reasons:

1) The verse is refering to the Book of Revelation. Not the Bible. The Bible was not compiled till centuries later. There was no "Bible" at this time. John was not writing the final book in the Bible. He was writing a book independent of any others which was later compiled into a collection of books of scripture and later placed at the end since it refers to the end of days.

2) If we are to believe your own interpretation of this verse, the Apostle John has condemned himself since he wrote His Gospel and Epistles afterwards. He also condemned Jude.

3) If your interpretation is valid, it must be equally applied to exact same warning provided in Deuteronomy 4:2. That would mean that every single solitary person who wrote in the Bible after Moses is condemned to hell. Including the Lord Jesus Christ who shared New Revelation and commandments in the Meridian of time. It would also apply to the verse in proverbs with a similiar result.

4) The most compelling reason your interpretation of this verse to condemn The Church of Jesus Christ is ironically, one of the parts of the verse you emphasized by capitalizing it. The scripture puts a prohibition to man to add or remove anything. It says absolutely nothing about God ceasing to reveal His will to His Servants. It does not prevent God from adding or deleting anything. 

God can say whatever the heck He pleases. He can command and revoke commands at His will. And you cant limit it simply because you misinterpret clear passages. So the question remains, how do we know what God says? And the answer is clear: The Holy Spirit. We go to God to ask of Him and He reveals it to us.

Are you honestly going to claim that revelation and prophecy have ceased?



> For instance the Retort offered by the Mormon Doctrine.   Post #1593.   Directly quoting Rev. 14:6-7......then openly declaring a presumption by ADDING onto WORDS not revealed or written in this book of prophecy...as if they have Authority to ADD UNTO these things.   As hard I have looked, I can find no mention of an Angel named "Moroni" being referenced might less OBJECTIVELY declared in the entirety of this book.   Yet,  the accusation is propagated that "others" are deflecting by not accepting this EXTRA....SUBJECTIVE opinion as truth.



So because you dont see the angel named specifically in the passage, you refuse to investigate it this was the actual angel prophecied to come? The Lord said He would send an angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the world. If it's not Moroni, it must be some other angel. Yet you reject the minstering of angels. You tell us God cant reveal anything to us anymore. So why is God telling us He is going to reveal His Gospel to us in the last days???



> The scriptures are very clear in their admonishment.....do not GO BEYOND what is written.



How on earth do you get this? The scriptures are clearly stating the opposite. The scriptures teach us that we should ask so we can recieve. We should seek so we can find. We should knock so it can be given to us. The Lord promised those who ask in faith wisdom. He has told us we can recieve all truth through the power of the Holy Ghost. We are told that the few scriptures we have are nothing but the milk before the meat. That we cant even begin to contain all the teachings and acts of Christ.

The scriptures are teaching us to go to God and learn from Him. 




> Respect for the 'Silence' of God's will is COMMANDED....as demonstrated with the warning at the end of Revelations (Rev. 22:18-21).     Don't go beyond what is written -- 1 Cor. 4:6   The secret things.....NOT revealed,  belong TO GOD...not man, to SUBJECTIVELY and falsely define the will of God, WITHOUT AUTHORITY, but what is revealed belongs TO US, and OUR CHILDREN for ever...the faithful, so that we might do the works of the LAW  -- Deut. 29:29.



But God is _not_ silent. That is the whole point of the New Testament. God speaks to man. The fact that God is not speaking to you tells me something is very very very very very wrong in your relationship with God. The fact is you cant have a relationship with someone you don't know. You have to talk with Him and learn from Him if you can be saved. because you cant be saved without revelation.

And no matter how many scriptures you take out of context, you arent going to be able to silence God.




> Just what is beyond the written and revealed word?  It is ALL THINGS not said or declared by God.   We are commanded to stay within the bounds of God's teachings -- 2 John 9.   If it is not written in the Holy Scriptures.....just how are we to know with any OBJECTIVE proof that what is being presented as God's revelation are indeed God's revelations?



The same way the saints knew what Gods teachings were when teh Apostles taught them: *The Holy Spirit told them.*

Of course, this requires you trust God more than yourself. 




> Such revelation is always confirmed by signs and wonders that are worthy of a true prophet of God. (John 20:31-32, Hebrews 2:1-4, Mark 16:20).....these signs and wonders where not only witnessed by believers but by enemies of the Gospel, they did not require the FAITH of someone to confirm the word that was spoken, nor did you ever hear an Apostle of Christ declare....come back tomorrow, I sense a non- believer in the room...the Entire book of Acts is filled with the miraculous signs preformed by the Apostles and those they blessed by the laying on of hands.  And no where is there any doubt that what was witnessed by either a believer or non-believer that a miracle had taken place....as the signs were accepted by both believer and non-believer alike.   Not like the FAKE miracles that are presented as proof.   Does anyone really doubt that if anyone had been raised from the dead after being buried, or any MIRACLE would take place.....this NEWS would not be confirmed world wide, in this day and age of instant communication?



Fake miracles? The only difference between the miracles of the Bible and the miracles nowadays is you believe in one and say the other is impossible. It reminds me alot of Christ's warnings to the Pharisees:



> 27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead mens bones, and of all uncleanness.
> 
> 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
> 
> 29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
> 
> 30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
> 
> 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
> 
> 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
> 
> 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
> 
> 34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
> 
> 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
> 
> 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
> 
> 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, *how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
> *38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
> 
> 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Matthew: 23:27-39)



Christ is there ready to teach you. He calls you still. He will teach you by the power of His Holy Ghost. He will reveal to you things that have never before been revealed if you just come to Him and cease denying the gifts of God.



> The reason we are commanded not to go beyond what is written?   Because NO ONE knows the mind of God....except the Spirit of God, if indeed it is the Spirit of God giving new revelation, such will always be confirmed by God and there will be NO DOUBT...nor any  possibility of contradiction to previous revealed truths by the same spirit -- 1 Cor. 2:9-11, states very clearly that Only God knows what is in the mind of God.



There is no doubt when the Spirit speaks. You would know that if you had heard the voice of the Spirit. When the whispers of the Spirit come no doubt remains. Which is exactly why I can tell you that I know the Bible is true. Which is why I can tell you I know the Book of Mormon is true. Which is why I can tell you that I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And why I can tell you that I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. Because when the Spirit spoke to me, all doubt was taken away.




> No one can PRESUME to know what God has not revealed.



No one _is_. We are telling you quite the opposite. We are telling you exactly what God has revealed to us and inviting you to God to the Lord to learn for yourself.



> In our.....the Christians speech we are commanded to speak as if they were the words of God (The Oracles or prophesies of God), -- 1 Peter 4:11,  and today...the only way to confirm that we are speaking the words of God, would be to go to the source.  Thus the constant reference to Book, Chapter, and Verse to prove where these references came from..........NOT MY WILL....NOT MY OPINION.....but the revealed word of God.



The source isnt the Bible. The Bible is just a record of what the source said. The Source is God Himself. We go to the source which is the Lord Almighty and you say we are condemned because we dont try to intepret the revelations of the past according to our own knowledge and understanding. It makes absolutely no sense.



> If the book of Mormon is true........then does not the Holy Spirit of God contradict His own divine revelations of the past?   If we need more revelation, 1900 years after these statements were made? "All scripture is inspired of God.......and makes the Man of God PERFECT/Complete (in the original Greek, the same Greek word used in..."when that which is PERFECT/complete comes" in 1 Cor. 13) and THROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK." -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17.   Or, "....has given us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness...." -- 2 Peter 1:3



The Holy Spirit hasnt contradicted anything. You keep quoting Timothy as if it somehow proves your point. The Book of Mormon _is_ scripture. The verse you quote in Timothy Encompasses _all_ scripture. It encompasses all scripture we have now and all that will be revealed in the future.

And we are given all things that pertain unto life and godliness when we recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But when you deny that gift. When you deny the power of the Revelator. When you deny the gifts He gives because of your lack of faith, you are not included in the "us" because you are in a state of rebellion against God. Have you repented and been baptized? Have you recieved the Laying on of hands, Then you dont have all things that pertain unto life and godliness.

The Bible is pointing you somewhere. All scripture is. But its useless unless you actually go to God and let Him take you where it's pointing.



> If we are capable of being made COMPLETE or PERFECT ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) by the New Testament and the Old Testament, and already (in the 1st century) have everything provided that pertains to LIFE and GODLINESS...........tell us just one more time, WHY the BOOK of MORMON was revealed almost 2000 years after mankind had obtained these things through the knowledge of the revealed word.    And do so in OBJECTIVE, DEMONSTRABLE, CONTEXTUALLY CORRECT......passages of BOOK, Chapter, and Verse, from God's revealed word, which was in its entirety INSPIRED (the breath of God in the original Greek) by GOD.



Because arent made perfect by the Old and New Testament. We are made perfect through Jesus Christ. and God has given us more records to learn about the Savior, about our Fallen condition, about the Atonement. And quite frankly, if God wants to reveal some new truth about Jesus Christ, I am going to listen to Him. Because Christ is the Word of God. And while you have the right to do what you want, I am not going to tell God what He can and cant do. 

The Book of Mormon was revealed to prove to both Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Savior of the world. The Book of Mormon was revealed to provide a second witness along with the Bible that Jesus lives for our stiffnecked and unbelieving generation. The Book of Mormon was revealed to show the children of men that God remembers His covenants and make His arm bear in the last days to redeem His people from the horrors that are to come.

That is why the Book of Mormon was revealed. That is why there were 12 witnesses called to testify of its power. That is why Elijah came to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers. Its why 12 Apostles were called and given the keys of the Kingdom. It's why men have power to do Gods work in the present as they had in the past.



> Mormonism would have us believe the scriptures do not make mention of not going past what is written....again by presenting their SUBJECTIVE OPINION only.   Yet, when we reference this subject matter....we find that God has addressed this subject IN DETAIL....as presented.    When we consider the SUM/Total thereof.......we have firmly established the TRUTH, as revealed by God.



If you think the Holy Spirit is subjective opinion, then you really don't know the Spirit. We don't know a fraction of what God has revealed to man.

What Mormonism would have you believe is that you dont have to rely on the witness of anyone else. You can go to God and learn from yourself. What Mormonism would have you believe is that the Lord still gives gifts to His Children. What Mormonism would have you believe is that Jesus Christ lives and loves us. And there is so much more to learn about Him that we need to go to God and learn from Him personally.

I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon for yourself. Dont look to what others have said about it. Not even me. I can promise you if you read it and ask the Lord with real intent and faith, If you ask in humility and with a sincere desire to serve the Lord no matter what the answer, that you will be told by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. That it's testimony of Christ is true. That He does live. And He does work in the world today. He is not silent. nor will He ever be. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
And when the Spirit speaks to you directly, you will have no doubts. You will have undisputed proof that this is God's work.

I feel impressed to end my post here with the words of Nephi:



> 10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
> 
> 11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge yefor Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
> 
> 12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day. (2 Nephi 33:10-12)


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker's Moniker = "I never lie."   

1. You've out-done every disciple in the bible.  

Oh, by the way, "Hello there, "God"".  

Also, if we ever meet in person "Truthspeaker", I hope I'm wearing a asbestos suit to protect me from that big old bolt of lightening from heaven headed downward towards my new acquaintence.   "There will be no other god's before Me."

Notice:  Other gods has a lower case "g" signifying not diety as the only One God, but of a lesser manmade diety.


----------



## Ralph

Avatar4321 said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the best you have? This is the most damning declaration you have against Mormonism? Then I feel very confident that the Spirit is leading me correctly. Because this verse cannot be interpretted to end new revelation from heaven. And This is for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) The verse is refering to the Book of Revelation. Not the Bible. The Bible was not compiled till centuries later. There was no "Bible" at this time. John was not writing the final book in the Bible. He was writing a book independent of any others which was later compiled into a collection of books of scripture and later placed at the end since it refers to the end of days.
> 
> 2) If we are to believe your own interpretation of this verse, the Apostle John has condemned himself since he wrote His Gospel and Epistles afterwards. He also condemned Jude.
> 
> 3) If your interpretation is valid, it must be equally applied to exact same warning provided in Deuteronomy 4:2. That would mean that every single solitary person who wrote in the Bible after Moses is condemned to hell. Including the Lord Jesus Christ who shared New Revelation and commandments in the Meridian of time. It would also apply to the verse in proverbs with a similiar result.
> 
> 4) The most compelling reason your interpretation of this verse to condemn The Church of Jesus Christ is ironically, one of the parts of the verse you emphasized by capitalizing it. The scripture puts a prohibition to man to add or remove anything. It says absolutely nothing about God ceasing to reveal His will to His Servants. It does not prevent God from adding or deleting anything.
> 
> God can say whatever the heck He pleases. He can command and revoke commands at His will. And you cant limit it simply because you misinterpret clear passages. So the question remains, how do we know what God says? And the answer is clear: The Holy Spirit. We go to God to ask of Him and He reveals it to us.
> 
> Are you honestly going to claim that revelation and prophecy have ceased?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For instance the Retort offered by the Mormon Doctrine.   Post #1593.   Directly quoting Rev. 14:6-7......then openly declaring a presumption by ADDING onto WORDS not revealed or written in this book of prophecy...as if they have Authority to ADD UNTO these things.   As hard I have looked, I can find no mention of an Angel named "Moroni" being referenced might less OBJECTIVELY declared in the entirety of this book.   Yet,  the accusation is propagated that "others" are deflecting by not accepting this EXTRA....SUBJECTIVE opinion as truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because you dont see the angel named specifically in the passage, you refuse to investigate it this was the actual angel prophecied to come? The Lord said He would send an angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the world. If it's not Moroni, it must be some other angel. Yet you reject the minstering of angels. You tell us God cant reveal anything to us anymore. So why is God telling us He is going to reveal His Gospel to us in the last days???
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you get this? The scriptures are clearly stating the opposite. The scriptures teach us that we should ask so we can recieve. We should seek so we can find. We should knock so it can be given to us. The Lord promised those who ask in faith wisdom. He has told us we can recieve all truth through the power of the Holy Ghost. We are told that the few scriptures we have are nothing but the milk before the meat. That we cant even begin to contain all the teachings and acts of Christ.
> 
> The scriptures are teaching us to go to God and learn from Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But God is _not_ silent. That is the whole point of the New Testament. God speaks to man. The fact that God is not speaking to you tells me something is very very very very very wrong in your relationship with God. The fact is you cant have a relationship with someone you don't know. You have to talk with Him and learn from Him if you can be saved. because you cant be saved without revelation.
> 
> And no matter how many scriptures you take out of context, you arent going to be able to silence God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way the saints knew what Gods teachings were when teh Apostles taught them: *The Holy Spirit told them.*
> 
> Of course, this requires you trust God more than yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake miracles? The only difference between the miracles of the Bible and the miracles nowadays is you believe in one and say the other is impossible. It reminds me alot of Christ's warnings to the Pharisees:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ is there ready to teach you. He calls you still. He will teach you by the power of His Holy Ghost. He will reveal to you things that have never before been revealed if you just come to Him and cease denying the gifts of God.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt when the Spirit speaks. You would know that if you had heard the voice of the Spirit. When the whispers of the Spirit come no doubt remains. Which is exactly why I can tell you that I know the Bible is true. Which is why I can tell you I know the Book of Mormon is true. Which is why I can tell you that I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And why I can tell you that I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. Because when the Spirit spoke to me, all doubt was taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one _is_. We are telling you quite the opposite. We are telling you exactly what God has revealed to us and inviting you to God to the Lord to learn for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The source isnt the Bible. The Bible is just a record of what the source said. The Source is God Himself. We go to the source which is the Lord Almighty and you say we are condemned because we dont try to intepret the revelations of the past according to our own knowledge and understanding. It makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The Holy Spirit hasnt contradicted anything. You keep quoting Timothy as if it somehow proves your point. The Book of Mormon _is_ scripture. The verse you quote in Timothy Encompasses _all_ scripture. It encompasses all scripture we have now and all that will be revealed in the future.
> 
> And we are given all things that pertain unto life and godliness when we recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But when you deny that gift. When you deny the power of the Revelator. When you deny the gifts He gives because of your lack of faith, you are not included in the "us" because you are in a state of rebellion against God. Have you repented and been baptized? Have you recieved the Laying on of hands, Then you dont have all things that pertain unto life and godliness.
> 
> The Bible is pointing you somewhere. All scripture is. But its useless unless you actually go to God and let Him take you where it's pointing.
> 
> 
> 
> Because arent made perfect by the Old and New Testament. We are made perfect through Jesus Christ. and God has given us more records to learn about the Savior, about our Fallen condition, about the Atonement. And quite frankly, if God wants to reveal some new truth about Jesus Christ, I am going to listen to Him. Because Christ is the Word of God. And while you have the right to do what you want, I am not going to tell God what He can and cant do.
> 
> The Book of Mormon was revealed to prove to both Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Savior of the world. The Book of Mormon was revealed to provide a second witness along with the Bible that Jesus lives for our stiffnecked and unbelieving generation. The Book of Mormon was revealed to show the children of men that God remembers His covenants and make His arm bear in the last days to redeem His people from the horrors that are to come.
> 
> That is why the Book of Mormon was revealed. That is why there were 12 witnesses called to testify of its power. That is why Elijah came to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers. Its why 12 Apostles were called and given the keys of the Kingdom. It's why men have power to do Gods work in the present as they had in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism would have us believe the scriptures do not make mention of not going past what is written....again by presenting their SUBJECTIVE OPINION only.   Yet, when we reference this subject matter....we find that God has addressed this subject IN DETAIL....as presented.    When we consider the SUM/Total thereof.......we have firmly established the TRUTH, as revealed by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think the Holy Spirit is subjective opinion, then you really don't know the Spirit. We don't know a fraction of what God has revealed to man.
> 
> What Mormonism would have you believe is that you dont have to rely on the witness of anyone else. You can go to God and learn from yourself. What Mormonism would have you believe is that the Lord still gives gifts to His Children. What Mormonism would have you believe is that Jesus Christ lives and loves us. And there is so much more to learn about Him that we need to go to God and learn from Him personally.
> 
> I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon for yourself. Dont look to what others have said about it. Not even me. I can promise you if you read it and ask the Lord with real intent and faith, If you ask in humility and with a sincere desire to serve the Lord no matter what the answer, that you will be told by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. That it's testimony of Christ is true. That He does live. And He does work in the world today. He is not silent. nor will He ever be. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
> And when the Spirit speaks to you directly, you will have no doubts. You will have undisputed proof that this is God's work.
> 
> I feel impressed to end my post here with the words of Nephi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
> 
> 11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye&#8212;for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
> 
> 12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day. (2 Nephi 33:10-12)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So many words....so much falsehood needing only one passage of truth to debunk, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of OUR COMMON SALVATION, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort  you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH..................."THAT WAS (such a little word that holds so much truth and power)............ONCE..............DELIVERED unto the saints." -- Jude 3

Now we hear from a false prophet that denies the truth of such a simple statement.   THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANITY was delivered only one time and that FAITH which was ONCE delivered (clearly before the drafting of the passage which was inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth) should be EARNESTLY CONTENDED or sought after with that FAITH which has been demonstrated by other scripture to be PERFECT/COMPLETE ( 2 Tim. 3-16-17, 1 Cor. 13:10, James 1:25) as recorded in the original Greek.   

Clearly this FALSE PROPHET is calling the source that inspired theses passages "The Holy Spirit of Truth" a liar....as he is now informing us that the faith that was ONCE DELIVERED by the SAINTS in the first Century (Jude 3), was not COMPLETE/PERFECT..........1. )  Is not a PERFECT/COMPLETE source of DOCTRINE to have the MAN OF GOD  THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS of RIGHTEOUSNESS, that we need MORE than perfect or complete knowledge, WE NEED THE BOOK OF MORMON ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) as HE...the Holy Spirit of Truth....has informed us that      

 2.)   When that which is PERFECT/Complete comes......that which is in part......divine revelation, that was not inspired of EVERYONE....shall cease ( 1 Cor. 13:10).  And a list of that which is in part is listed, the gifts of supernatural (Prophecy, Tongues, and Supernatural knowledge)....all shall cease, when the PERFECT/COMPLETE has arrived.   But clearly  This is in complete contradiction of the false doctrine of Mormonism....they still claim all these SUPERNATURAL GIFTS......but if they were supernatural.....would the product of that Supernatural Prophecy...THE BOOK of MORMON...be filled with errors and lies of both Science and History, and contradictions of the revealed word of truth from the Holy Spirit of Truth?  

  3.) James, under the same divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit of Truth informs us that we now have the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" in the form of the New Testament of Grace (James 1:25)....with the exact same original Greek word used to indicate that which is PERFECT or COMPLETE....OR made whole is  referenced in both authors words (James 1:25, 1 Cor. 13:10)....but clearly     

  4.)  Some wish to call the Holy Spirit of Truth a liar while denying the Command of the Christ Himself to worship in SPIRIT and in "TRUTH" (John 4:24).......and lie to themselves and the world and continue to attempt and PLAY LIKE they are INFANT CHRISTIANS of the kingdom of God still needing the TIT MILK of DIVINE GUIDANCE from the Holy Spirit of TRUTH....and PRETEND to have NEW REVELATIONS from God

But the Inspired Apostle informed us there would come a time when  we, the Christian, would be ready for hard truth and MEAT in our diet of divine knowledge because we would be on our own with a COMPLETE REVELATION of GOD in consideration of this KINGDOM...and we were to,  STOP acting like Children, "When I was a Child (comparing the infant kingdom/church in its new birth), I understood as a child (needed divine guidance in doctrine, feed to them like a mother allowing a child to nurse on her breast), I thought as a Child, (had not wisdom, because it had not yet been established):  but, when I became a Man (the church was given the PERFECT/COMPLETE revelation of God concerning church/kingdom doctrine, no longer requiring to be nursed by our divine parent)..........I PUT AWAY CHILDISH THINGS." -- 1 Cor. 13:11)

No some wish to remain as that child while refusing to mature and take responsibility for his/her own action in this life.......and falsely expect the continued TIT NURSING from our HEAVENLY parent.   Just like children...they do not worship in TRUTH, but PRETEND to have some divine gift of the Spirit...which we were directly informed would cease......once that which was PERFECT/COMPLETE came........THE PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY......no, they even pretend to receive more revelation form HEAVEN in pretense that can easily be debunked by  the revealed word of God.......Physical Science........and History Actual.  

As I said......there comes a time when we must GROW UP, and stop acting like children while pretending to be something that clearly we are not.   And use the REMAINING GIFTS of the SPIRIT that help and guide us through this path that we call life........" Faith, Hope, and Charity/love.........with LOVE the greatest of these gifts." -- 1 Cor. 13:13

We shall stand back and simply allow the CHILDREN TO PLAY....at the expense of their souls and the souls of their loved ones.    We have attempted to feed them the strong meat of TRUTH, but they cannot digest it.......I fear they shall starve to death......IN SPIRIT as long as refuse to accept the TRUTH that was ONCE DELIVERED to the Saints of the 1st century.


YOURS......as ALWAYS.....in LOVE and HOPE,   Ralph


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker's Moniker = "I never lie."
> 
> 1. You've out-done every disciple in the bible.
> 
> Oh, by the way, "Hello there, "God"".
> 
> Also, if we ever meet in person "Truthspeaker", I hope I'm wearing a asbestos suit to protect me from that big old bolt of lightening from heaven headed downward towards my new acquaintence.   "There will be no other god's before Me."
> 
> Notice:  Other gods has a lower case "g" signifying not diety as the only One God, but of a lesser manmade diety.



I applaud you for your first short post ever. C'mon now, I have other imperfections. I just don't lie. That by no means makes me a god. I would have to achieve perfection to do that. Which I am far from. If God wanted me dead, he wouldn't around for you and I to be in the same room.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ralph said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most damning declaration in the Holy Bible in consideration of the supposed NEW revelation from heaven...i.e., the Book of Mormon are the very last passages of Scripture in the Book of Revelations.  "For I testify unto EVERY MAN that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If ANY MAN shall ADD unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book............" -- Rev. 22:18-21.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the best you have? This is the most damning declaration you have against Mormonism? Then I feel very confident that the Spirit is leading me correctly. Because this verse cannot be interpretted to end new revelation from heaven. And This is for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) The verse is refering to the Book of Revelation. Not the Bible. The Bible was not compiled till centuries later. There was no "Bible" at this time. John was not writing the final book in the Bible. He was writing a book independent of any others which was later compiled into a collection of books of scripture and later placed at the end since it refers to the end of days.
> 
> 2) If we are to believe your own interpretation of this verse, the Apostle John has condemned himself since he wrote His Gospel and Epistles afterwards. He also condemned Jude.
> 
> 3) If your interpretation is valid, it must be equally applied to exact same warning provided in Deuteronomy 4:2. That would mean that every single solitary person who wrote in the Bible after Moses is condemned to hell. Including the Lord Jesus Christ who shared New Revelation and commandments in the Meridian of time. It would also apply to the verse in proverbs with a similiar result.
> 
> 4) The most compelling reason your interpretation of this verse to condemn The Church of Jesus Christ is ironically, one of the parts of the verse you emphasized by capitalizing it. The scripture puts a prohibition to man to add or remove anything. It says absolutely nothing about God ceasing to reveal His will to His Servants. It does not prevent God from adding or deleting anything.
> 
> God can say whatever the heck He pleases. He can command and revoke commands at His will. And you cant limit it simply because you misinterpret clear passages. So the question remains, how do we know what God says? And the answer is clear: The Holy Spirit. We go to God to ask of Him and He reveals it to us.
> 
> Are you honestly going to claim that revelation and prophecy have ceased?
> 
> 
> 
> So because you dont see the angel named specifically in the passage, you refuse to investigate it this was the actual angel prophecied to come? The Lord said He would send an angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the world. If it's not Moroni, it must be some other angel. Yet you reject the minstering of angels. You tell us God cant reveal anything to us anymore. So why is God telling us He is going to reveal His Gospel to us in the last days???
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you get this? The scriptures are clearly stating the opposite. The scriptures teach us that we should ask so we can recieve. We should seek so we can find. We should knock so it can be given to us. The Lord promised those who ask in faith wisdom. He has told us we can recieve all truth through the power of the Holy Ghost. We are told that the few scriptures we have are nothing but the milk before the meat. That we cant even begin to contain all the teachings and acts of Christ.
> 
> The scriptures are teaching us to go to God and learn from Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But God is _not_ silent. That is the whole point of the New Testament. God speaks to man. The fact that God is not speaking to you tells me something is very very very very very wrong in your relationship with God. The fact is you cant have a relationship with someone you don't know. You have to talk with Him and learn from Him if you can be saved. because you cant be saved without revelation.
> 
> And no matter how many scriptures you take out of context, you arent going to be able to silence God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way the saints knew what Gods teachings were when teh Apostles taught them: *The Holy Spirit told them.*
> 
> Of course, this requires you trust God more than yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake miracles? The only difference between the miracles of the Bible and the miracles nowadays is you believe in one and say the other is impossible. It reminds me alot of Christ's warnings to the Pharisees:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ is there ready to teach you. He calls you still. He will teach you by the power of His Holy Ghost. He will reveal to you things that have never before been revealed if you just come to Him and cease denying the gifts of God.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt when the Spirit speaks. You would know that if you had heard the voice of the Spirit. When the whispers of the Spirit come no doubt remains. Which is exactly why I can tell you that I know the Bible is true. Which is why I can tell you I know the Book of Mormon is true. Which is why I can tell you that I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And why I can tell you that I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. Because when the Spirit spoke to me, all doubt was taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one _is_. We are telling you quite the opposite. We are telling you exactly what God has revealed to us and inviting you to God to the Lord to learn for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The source isnt the Bible. The Bible is just a record of what the source said. The Source is God Himself. We go to the source which is the Lord Almighty and you say we are condemned because we dont try to intepret the revelations of the past according to our own knowledge and understanding. It makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The Holy Spirit hasnt contradicted anything. You keep quoting Timothy as if it somehow proves your point. The Book of Mormon _is_ scripture. The verse you quote in Timothy Encompasses _all_ scripture. It encompasses all scripture we have now and all that will be revealed in the future.
> 
> And we are given all things that pertain unto life and godliness when we recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But when you deny that gift. When you deny the power of the Revelator. When you deny the gifts He gives because of your lack of faith, you are not included in the "us" because you are in a state of rebellion against God. Have you repented and been baptized? Have you recieved the Laying on of hands, Then you dont have all things that pertain unto life and godliness.
> 
> The Bible is pointing you somewhere. All scripture is. But its useless unless you actually go to God and let Him take you where it's pointing.
> 
> 
> 
> Because arent made perfect by the Old and New Testament. We are made perfect through Jesus Christ. and God has given us more records to learn about the Savior, about our Fallen condition, about the Atonement. And quite frankly, if God wants to reveal some new truth about Jesus Christ, I am going to listen to Him. Because Christ is the Word of God. And while you have the right to do what you want, I am not going to tell God what He can and cant do.
> 
> The Book of Mormon was revealed to prove to both Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Savior of the world. The Book of Mormon was revealed to provide a second witness along with the Bible that Jesus lives for our stiffnecked and unbelieving generation. The Book of Mormon was revealed to show the children of men that God remembers His covenants and make His arm bear in the last days to redeem His people from the horrors that are to come.
> 
> That is why the Book of Mormon was revealed. That is why there were 12 witnesses called to testify of its power. That is why Elijah came to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers. Its why 12 Apostles were called and given the keys of the Kingdom. It's why men have power to do Gods work in the present as they had in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think the Holy Spirit is subjective opinion, then you really don't know the Spirit. We don't know a fraction of what God has revealed to man.
> 
> What Mormonism would have you believe is that you dont have to rely on the witness of anyone else. You can go to God and learn from yourself. What Mormonism would have you believe is that the Lord still gives gifts to His Children. What Mormonism would have you believe is that Jesus Christ lives and loves us. And there is so much more to learn about Him that we need to go to God and learn from Him personally.
> 
> I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon for yourself. Dont look to what others have said about it. Not even me. I can promise you if you read it and ask the Lord with real intent and faith, If you ask in humility and with a sincere desire to serve the Lord no matter what the answer, that you will be told by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. That it's testimony of Christ is true. That He does live. And He does work in the world today. He is not silent. nor will He ever be. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
> And when the Spirit speaks to you directly, you will have no doubts. You will have undisputed proof that this is God's work.
> 
> I feel impressed to end my post here with the words of Nephi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.
> 
> 11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge yefor Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.
> 
> 12 And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day. (2 Nephi 33:10-12)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So many words....so much falsehood needing only one passage of truth to debunk, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of OUR COMMON SALVATION, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort  you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH..................."THAT WAS (such a little word that holds so much truth and power)............ONCE..............DELIVERED unto the saints." -- Jude 3
> 
> Now we hear from a false prophet that denies the truth of such a simple statement.   THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANITY was delivered only one time and that FAITH which was ONCE delivered (clearly before the drafting of the passage which was inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth) should be EARNESTLY CONTENDED or sought after with that FAITH which has been demonstrated by other scripture to be PERFECT/COMPLETE ( 2 Tim. 3-16-17, 1 Cor. 13:10, James 1:25) as recorded in the original Greek.
> 
> Clearly this FALSE PROPHET is calling the source that inspired theses passages "The Holy Spirit of Truth" a liar....as he is now informing us that the faith that was ONCE DELIVERED by the SAINTS in the first Century (Jude 3), was not COMPLETE/PERFECT..........1. )  Is not a PERFECT/COMPLETE source of DOCTRINE to have the MAN OF GOD  THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS of RIGHTEOUSNESS, that we need MORE than perfect or complete knowledge, WE NEED THE BOOK OF MORMON ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) as HE...the Holy Spirit of Truth....has informed us that
> 
> 2.)   When that which is PERFECT/Complete comes......that which is in part......divine revelation, that was not inspired of EVERYONE....shall cease ( 1 Cor. 13:10).  And a list of that which is in part is listed, the gifts of supernatural (Prophecy, Tongues, and Supernatural knowledge)....all shall cease, when the PERFECT/COMPLETE has arrived.   But clearly  This is in complete contradiction of the false doctrine of Mormonism....they still claim all these SUPERNATURAL GIFTS......but if they were supernatural.....would the product of that Supernatural Prophecy...THE BOOK of MORMON...be filled with errors and lies of both Science and History, and contradictions of the revealed word of truth from the Holy Spirit of Truth?
> 
> 3.) James, under the same divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit of Truth informs us that we now have the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" in the form of the New Testament of Grace (James 1:25)....with the exact same original Greek word used to indicate that which is PERFECT or COMPLETE....OR made whole is  referenced in both authors words (James 1:25, 1 Cor. 13:10)....but clearly
> 
> 4.)  Some wish to call the Holy Spirit of Truth a liar while denying the Command of the Christ Himself to worship in SPIRIT and in "TRUTH" (John 4:24).......and lie to themselves and the world and continue to attempt and PLAY LIKE they are INFANT CHRISTIANS of the kingdom of God still needing the TIT MILK of DIVINE GUIDANCE from the Holy Spirit of TRUTH....and PRETEND to have NEW REVELATIONS from God
> 
> But the Inspired Apostle informed us there would come a time when  we, the Christian, would be ready for hard truth and MEAT in our diet of divine knowledge because we would be on our own with a COMPLETE REVELATION of GOD in consideration of this KINGDOM...and we were to,  STOP acting like Children, "When I was a Child (comparing the infant kingdom/church in its new birth), I understood as a child (needed divine guidance in doctrine, feed to them like a mother allowing a child to nurse on her breast), I thought as a Child, (had not wisdom, because it had not yet been established):  but, when I became a Man (the church was given the PERFECT/COMPLETE revelation of God concerning church/kingdom doctrine, no longer requiring to be nursed by our divine parent)..........I PUT AWAY CHILDISH THINGS." -- 1 Cor. 13:11)
> 
> No some wish to remain as that child while refusing to mature and take responsibility for his/her own action in this life.......and falsely expect the continued TIT NURSING from our HEAVENLY parent.   Just like children...they do not worship in TRUTH, but PRETEND to have some divine gift of the Spirit...which we were directly informed would cease......once that which was PERFECT/COMPLETE came........THE PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY......no, they even pretend to receive more revelation form HEAVEN in pretense that can easily be debunked by  the revealed word of God.......Physical Science........and History Actual.
> 
> As I said......there comes a time when we must GROW UP, and stop acting like children while pretending to be something that clearly we are not.   And use the REMAINING GIFTS of the SPIRIT that help and guide us through this path that we call life........" Faith, Hope, and Charity/love.........with LOVE the greatest of these gifts." -- 1 Cor. 13:13
> 
> We shall stand back and simply allow the CHILDREN TO PLAY....at the expense of their souls and the souls of their loved ones.    We have attempted to feed them the strong meat of TRUTH, but they cannot digest it.......I fear they shall starve to death......IN SPIRIT as long as refuse to accept the TRUTH that was ONCE DELIVERED to the Saints of the 1st century.
> 
> 
> YOURS......as ALWAYS.....in LOVE and HOPE,   Ralph
Click to expand...


If you interpret "ONCE DELIVERED" to mean that God will never cause holy writings to be written, then go ahead. But you are wasting time trying to convince me to adopt your view. It doesn't make sense to me or Avatar. So go on being happy with your intepretation and we will go on believing ours.


----------



## Ralph

Truthspeaker said:


> Ralph said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this really the best you have? This is the most damning declaration you have against Mormonism? Then I feel very confident that the Spirit is leading me correctly. Because this verse cannot be interpretted to end new revelation from heaven. And This is for the following reasons:
> 
> 1) The verse is refering to the Book of Revelation. Not the Bible. The Bible was not compiled till centuries later. There was no "Bible" at this time. John was not writing the final book in the Bible. He was writing a book independent of any others which was later compiled into a collection of books of scripture and later placed at the end since it refers to the end of days.
> 
> 2) If we are to believe your own interpretation of this verse, the Apostle John has condemned himself since he wrote His Gospel and Epistles afterwards. He also condemned Jude.
> 
> 3) If your interpretation is valid, it must be equally applied to exact same warning provided in Deuteronomy 4:2. That would mean that every single solitary person who wrote in the Bible after Moses is condemned to hell. Including the Lord Jesus Christ who shared New Revelation and commandments in the Meridian of time. It would also apply to the verse in proverbs with a similiar result.
> 
> 4) The most compelling reason your interpretation of this verse to condemn The Church of Jesus Christ is ironically, one of the parts of the verse you emphasized by capitalizing it. The scripture puts a prohibition to man to add or remove anything. It says absolutely nothing about God ceasing to reveal His will to His Servants. It does not prevent God from adding or deleting anything.
> 
> God can say whatever the heck He pleases. He can command and revoke commands at His will. And you cant limit it simply because you misinterpret clear passages. So the question remains, how do we know what God says? And the answer is clear: The Holy Spirit. We go to God to ask of Him and He reveals it to us.
> 
> Are you honestly going to claim that revelation and prophecy have ceased?
> 
> 
> 
> So because you dont see the angel named specifically in the passage, you refuse to investigate it this was the actual angel prophecied to come? The Lord said He would send an angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the world. If it's not Moroni, it must be some other angel. Yet you reject the minstering of angels. You tell us God cant reveal anything to us anymore. So why is God telling us He is going to reveal His Gospel to us in the last days???
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you get this? The scriptures are clearly stating the opposite. The scriptures teach us that we should ask so we can recieve. We should seek so we can find. We should knock so it can be given to us. The Lord promised those who ask in faith wisdom. He has told us we can recieve all truth through the power of the Holy Ghost. We are told that the few scriptures we have are nothing but the milk before the meat. That we cant even begin to contain all the teachings and acts of Christ.
> 
> The scriptures are teaching us to go to God and learn from Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But God is _not_ silent. That is the whole point of the New Testament. God speaks to man. The fact that God is not speaking to you tells me something is very very very very very wrong in your relationship with God. The fact is you cant have a relationship with someone you don't know. You have to talk with Him and learn from Him if you can be saved. because you cant be saved without revelation.
> 
> And no matter how many scriptures you take out of context, you arent going to be able to silence God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way the saints knew what Gods teachings were when teh Apostles taught them: *The Holy Spirit told them.*
> 
> Of course, this requires you trust God more than yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fake miracles? The only difference between the miracles of the Bible and the miracles nowadays is you believe in one and say the other is impossible. It reminds me alot of Christ's warnings to the Pharisees:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ is there ready to teach you. He calls you still. He will teach you by the power of His Holy Ghost. He will reveal to you things that have never before been revealed if you just come to Him and cease denying the gifts of God.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt when the Spirit speaks. You would know that if you had heard the voice of the Spirit. When the whispers of the Spirit come no doubt remains. Which is exactly why I can tell you that I know the Bible is true. Which is why I can tell you I know the Book of Mormon is true. Which is why I can tell you that I know Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And why I can tell you that I know Joseph Smith was a prophet. Because when the Spirit spoke to me, all doubt was taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one _is_. We are telling you quite the opposite. We are telling you exactly what God has revealed to us and inviting you to God to the Lord to learn for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> The source isnt the Bible. The Bible is just a record of what the source said. The Source is God Himself. We go to the source which is the Lord Almighty and you say we are condemned because we dont try to intepret the revelations of the past according to our own knowledge and understanding. It makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> The Holy Spirit hasnt contradicted anything. You keep quoting Timothy as if it somehow proves your point. The Book of Mormon _is_ scripture. The verse you quote in Timothy Encompasses _all_ scripture. It encompasses all scripture we have now and all that will be revealed in the future.
> 
> And we are given all things that pertain unto life and godliness when we recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost. But when you deny that gift. When you deny the power of the Revelator. When you deny the gifts He gives because of your lack of faith, you are not included in the "us" because you are in a state of rebellion against God. Have you repented and been baptized? Have you recieved the Laying on of hands, Then you dont have all things that pertain unto life and godliness.
> 
> The Bible is pointing you somewhere. All scripture is. But its useless unless you actually go to God and let Him take you where it's pointing.
> 
> 
> 
> Because arent made perfect by the Old and New Testament. We are made perfect through Jesus Christ. and God has given us more records to learn about the Savior, about our Fallen condition, about the Atonement. And quite frankly, if God wants to reveal some new truth about Jesus Christ, I am going to listen to Him. Because Christ is the Word of God. And while you have the right to do what you want, I am not going to tell God what He can and cant do.
> 
> The Book of Mormon was revealed to prove to both Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Savior of the world. The Book of Mormon was revealed to provide a second witness along with the Bible that Jesus lives for our stiffnecked and unbelieving generation. The Book of Mormon was revealed to show the children of men that God remembers His covenants and make His arm bear in the last days to redeem His people from the horrors that are to come.
> 
> That is why the Book of Mormon was revealed. That is why there were 12 witnesses called to testify of its power. That is why Elijah came to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers. Its why 12 Apostles were called and given the keys of the Kingdom. It's why men have power to do Gods work in the present as they had in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think the Holy Spirit is subjective opinion, then you really don't know the Spirit. We don't know a fraction of what God has revealed to man.
> 
> What Mormonism would have you believe is that you dont have to rely on the witness of anyone else. You can go to God and learn from yourself. What Mormonism would have you believe is that the Lord still gives gifts to His Children. What Mormonism would have you believe is that Jesus Christ lives and loves us. And there is so much more to learn about Him that we need to go to God and learn from Him personally.
> 
> I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon for yourself. Dont look to what others have said about it. Not even me. I can promise you if you read it and ask the Lord with real intent and faith, If you ask in humility and with a sincere desire to serve the Lord no matter what the answer, that you will be told by the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true. That it's testimony of Christ is true. That He does live. And He does work in the world today. He is not silent. nor will He ever be. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
> And when the Spirit speaks to you directly, you will have no doubts. You will have undisputed proof that this is God's work.
> 
> I feel impressed to end my post here with the words of Nephi:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many words....so much falsehood needing only one passage of truth to debunk, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of OUR COMMON SALVATION, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort  you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH..................."THAT WAS (such a little word that holds so much truth and power)............ONCE..............DELIVERED unto the saints." -- Jude 3
> 
> Now we hear from a false prophet that denies the truth of such a simple statement.   THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANITY was delivered only one time and that FAITH which was ONCE delivered (clearly before the drafting of the passage which was inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth) should be EARNESTLY CONTENDED or sought after with that FAITH which has been demonstrated by other scripture to be PERFECT/COMPLETE ( 2 Tim. 3-16-17, 1 Cor. 13:10, James 1:25) as recorded in the original Greek.
> 
> Clearly this FALSE PROPHET is calling the source that inspired theses passages "The Holy Spirit of Truth" a liar....as he is now informing us that the faith that was ONCE DELIVERED by the SAINTS in the first Century (Jude 3), was not COMPLETE/PERFECT..........1. )  Is not a PERFECT/COMPLETE source of DOCTRINE to have the MAN OF GOD  THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS of RIGHTEOUSNESS, that we need MORE than perfect or complete knowledge, WE NEED THE BOOK OF MORMON ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) as HE...the Holy Spirit of Truth....has informed us that
> 
> 2.)   When that which is PERFECT/Complete comes......that which is in part......divine revelation, that was not inspired of EVERYONE....shall cease ( 1 Cor. 13:10).  And a list of that which is in part is listed, the gifts of supernatural (Prophecy, Tongues, and Supernatural knowledge)....all shall cease, when the PERFECT/COMPLETE has arrived.   But clearly  This is in complete contradiction of the false doctrine of Mormonism....they still claim all these SUPERNATURAL GIFTS......but if they were supernatural.....would the product of that Supernatural Prophecy...THE BOOK of MORMON...be filled with errors and lies of both Science and History, and contradictions of the revealed word of truth from the Holy Spirit of Truth?
> 
> 3.) James, under the same divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit of Truth informs us that we now have the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" in the form of the New Testament of Grace (James 1:25)....with the exact same original Greek word used to indicate that which is PERFECT or COMPLETE....OR made whole is  referenced in both authors words (James 1:25, 1 Cor. 13:10)....but clearly
> 
> 4.)  Some wish to call the Holy Spirit of Truth a liar while denying the Command of the Christ Himself to worship in SPIRIT and in "TRUTH" (John 4:24).......and lie to themselves and the world and continue to attempt and PLAY LIKE they are INFANT CHRISTIANS of the kingdom of God still needing the TIT MILK of DIVINE GUIDANCE from the Holy Spirit of TRUTH....and PRETEND to have NEW REVELATIONS from God
> 
> But the Inspired Apostle informed us there would come a time when  we, the Christian, would be ready for hard truth and MEAT in our diet of divine knowledge because we would be on our own with a COMPLETE REVELATION of GOD in consideration of this KINGDOM...and we were to,  STOP acting like Children, "When I was a Child (comparing the infant kingdom/church in its new birth), I understood as a child (needed divine guidance in doctrine, feed to them like a mother allowing a child to nurse on her breast), I thought as a Child, (had not wisdom, because it had not yet been established):  but, when I became a Man (the church was given the PERFECT/COMPLETE revelation of God concerning church/kingdom doctrine, no longer requiring to be nursed by our divine parent)..........I PUT AWAY CHILDISH THINGS." -- 1 Cor. 13:11)
> 
> No some wish to remain as that child while refusing to mature and take responsibility for his/her own action in this life.......and falsely expect the continued TIT NURSING from our HEAVENLY parent.   Just like children...they do not worship in TRUTH, but PRETEND to have some divine gift of the Spirit...which we were directly informed would cease......once that which was PERFECT/COMPLETE came........THE PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY......no, they even pretend to receive more revelation form HEAVEN in pretense that can easily be debunked by  the revealed word of God.......Physical Science........and History Actual.
> 
> As I said......there comes a time when we must GROW UP, and stop acting like children while pretending to be something that clearly we are not.   And use the REMAINING GIFTS of the SPIRIT that help and guide us through this path that we call life........" Faith, Hope, and Charity/love.........with LOVE the greatest of these gifts." -- 1 Cor. 13:13
> 
> We shall stand back and simply allow the CHILDREN TO PLAY....at the expense of their souls and the souls of their loved ones.    We have attempted to feed them the strong meat of TRUTH, but they cannot digest it.......I fear they shall starve to death......IN SPIRIT as long as refuse to accept the TRUTH that was ONCE DELIVERED to the Saints of the 1st century.
> 
> 
> YOURS......as ALWAYS.....in LOVE and HOPE,   Ralph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you interpret "ONCE DELIVERED" to mean that God will never cause holy writings to be written, then go ahead. But you are wasting time trying to convince me to adopt your view. It doesn't make sense to me or Avatar. So go on being happy with your intepretation and we will go on believing ours.
Click to expand...


Interpret?  Again.....that is the duty of the prophet.......all the believer has to do is believe the prophet.  As this is where OUR FAITH comes from, the revealed word of God, "...faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." -- Romans 10:17   After.......he comprehends what the prophet has REVEALED.  There aren't many interpretations of a single  revealed prophecy, OR PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS THEREOF.  It is your duty...as admonished, to ".....STUDY to shew thyself approved of God, A WORKMAN that neeth not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH." -- 2 Tim. 2:15.   And that word of truth is divided to be comprehend in a way that does not pit one passage of scripture against another........implying that one is correct and the other errant, as they all were inspired by the same source.......God (2 Tim. 3:16).   When the Sum/total of Gods words are considered in their entirety -- Ps. 119:160......and everlasting truth is established. 


   The Apostles "CONFIRMED" that truth of prophecy......all we need do is walk therein.  "And so we have the prophetic word CONFIRMED, WHICH YOU DO WELL TO HEED as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your heart (the morning STAR, a clear reference that represents the Arisen Christ --Rev. 22:16).........KNOWING THIS FIRST, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE is of any private interpretation, for prophecy NEVER CAME BY THE WILL OF MAN, but holy men of God spoke as they where moved by the Holy Spirit (of truth)." -- 2 Peter 121    As you can see....THE "MORNING STAR" is referenced as rising in YOUR HEART....because it was the MORNING STAR that informed all of us of just where the kingdom of God can be located, "......the kingdom of God cometh not with OBSERVATION:  Neither shall they say, Lo here! or Lo there! for, BEHOLD.......THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS WITHIN..........YOU (my friend)." -- Luke 17:20-21   It IS NOT located in SALT LAKE CITY UTAH.   Thus, it is up to YOU and you alone to build that kingdom on the faith that was delivered by accepting the revealed word of TRUTH....NOT rejecting it, so that you might attempt to mold your own private INTERPRETATION.   You will never know the truth, if you continue to deny the WORD, as revealed....for that is the only source of TRUTH, and we are admonished to be sanctified therein. -- John 17:17


Thus......there is no interpretation required to comprehend the revealed word, simply allow the word to be accepted as delivered by the prophet.   JUST HOW IS ANYONE going to declare "ONCE".....to mean this time and ANOTHER TIME, 1900 years later?   The only way for you to do as much is to inject YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION into a place where it has NO BUSINESS being inserted...or as the Inspired Peter declared, ".......thou hast neither lot nor part in this matter;" -- Acts 8:21

By the way.........say hello to my little friends while you are in NEVER, NEVER LAND......."Big Bird", and "Barney".......for they hold as much truth of Doctrine as does the Mormon church, as ALL was gestated in the same place......BETWEEN THE EARS OF MAN.


----------



## Truthspeaker

*Ralphy*

Nice rant. The reason I won't argue with you is not because I don't have ample ammunition to combat you scripturally. It's simply that I'm not *interested* in arguing. You say I am twisting the scriptures to mean something subjective. I laugh to myself and think you are a victim of the same thing. I agree with all those scriptures you posted. I believe what they say. I believe what they actually mean. 

You think they mean one thing and I think they mean exactly what they read as. So we are at an impass. That is why an argument between the two of us is juvenile. I refuse to argue points of doctrine with you. Your mind is made up and so is mine. So what is the point of arguing?

I repeat. I only want people to know what it IS that we believe. If you don't like it, then fantastic. At least you have something YOU believe in. I'm just warning you that if you try to tear down or argue with me to convince me over to YOUR point of view, you will be frustrated, because I don't care. Your insults do nothing but diminish your own credibility and make you look like a sanctimonious zealot.

All I care is that people know what it is we ACTUALLY stand for. Then people can intelligently make their mind up about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Capish?

I'll be waiting for a respectful dialogue out of you.


----------



## Avatar4321

Ralph said:


> So many words....so much falsehood needing only one passage of truth to debunk, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of OUR COMMON SALVATION, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort  you that ye should EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH..................."THAT WAS (such a little word that holds so much truth and power)............ONCE..............DELIVERED unto the saints." -- Jude 3
> 
> Now we hear from a false prophet that denies the truth of such a simple statement.   THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANITY was delivered only one time and that FAITH which was ONCE delivered (clearly before the drafting of the passage which was inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth) should be EARNESTLY CONTENDED or sought after with that FAITH which has been demonstrated by other scripture to be PERFECT/COMPLETE ( 2 Tim. 3-16-17, 1 Cor. 13:10, James 1:25) as recorded in the original Greek.
> 
> Clearly this FALSE PROPHET is calling the source that inspired theses passages "The Holy Spirit of Truth" a liar....as he is now informing us that the faith that was ONCE DELIVERED by the SAINTS in the first Century (Jude 3), was not COMPLETE/PERFECT..........1. )  Is not a PERFECT/COMPLETE source of DOCTRINE to have the MAN OF GOD  THROUGHLY furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS of RIGHTEOUSNESS, that we need MORE than perfect or complete knowledge, WE NEED THE BOOK OF MORMON ( 2 Tim 3:16-17) as HE...the Holy Spirit of Truth....has informed us that
> 
> 2.)   When that which is PERFECT/Complete comes......that which is in part......divine revelation, that was not inspired of EVERYONE....shall cease ( 1 Cor. 13:10).  And a list of that which is in part is listed, the gifts of supernatural (Prophecy, Tongues, and Supernatural knowledge)....all shall cease, when the PERFECT/COMPLETE has arrived.   But clearly  This is in complete contradiction of the false doctrine of Mormonism....they still claim all these SUPERNATURAL GIFTS......but if they were supernatural.....would the product of that Supernatural Prophecy...THE BOOK of MORMON...be filled with errors and lies of both Science and History, and contradictions of the revealed word of truth from the Holy Spirit of Truth?
> 
> 3.) James, under the same divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit of Truth informs us that we now have the "PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY" in the form of the New Testament of Grace (James 1:25)....with the exact same original Greek word used to indicate that which is PERFECT or COMPLETE....OR made whole is  referenced in both authors words (James 1:25, 1 Cor. 13:10)....but clearly
> 
> 4.)  Some wish to call the Holy Spirit of Truth a liar while denying the Command of the Christ Himself to worship in SPIRIT and in "TRUTH" (John 4:24).......and lie to themselves and the world and continue to attempt and PLAY LIKE they are INFANT CHRISTIANS of the kingdom of God still needing the TIT MILK of DIVINE GUIDANCE from the Holy Spirit of TRUTH....and PRETEND to have NEW REVELATIONS from God
> 
> But the Inspired Apostle informed us there would come a time when  we, the Christian, would be ready for hard truth and MEAT in our diet of divine knowledge because we would be on our own with a COMPLETE REVELATION of GOD in consideration of this KINGDOM...and we were to,  STOP acting like Children, "When I was a Child (comparing the infant kingdom/church in its new birth), I understood as a child (needed divine guidance in doctrine, feed to them like a mother allowing a child to nurse on her breast), I thought as a Child, (had not wisdom, because it had not yet been established):  but, when I became a Man (the church was given the PERFECT/COMPLETE revelation of God concerning church/kingdom doctrine, no longer requiring to be nursed by our divine parent)..........I PUT AWAY CHILDISH THINGS." -- 1 Cor. 13:11)
> 
> No some wish to remain as that child while refusing to mature and take responsibility for his/her own action in this life.......and falsely expect the continued TIT NURSING from our HEAVENLY parent.   Just like children...they do not worship in TRUTH, but PRETEND to have some divine gift of the Spirit...which we were directly informed would cease......once that which was PERFECT/COMPLETE came........THE PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY......no, they even pretend to receive more revelation form HEAVEN in pretense that can easily be debunked by  the revealed word of God.......Physical Science........and History Actual.
> 
> As I said......there comes a time when we must GROW UP, and stop acting like children while pretending to be something that clearly we are not.   And use the REMAINING GIFTS of the SPIRIT that help and guide us through this path that we call life........" Faith, Hope, and Charity/love.........with LOVE the greatest of these gifts." -- 1 Cor. 13:13
> 
> We shall stand back and simply allow the CHILDREN TO PLAY....at the expense of their souls and the souls of their loved ones.    We have attempted to feed them the strong meat of TRUTH, but they cannot digest it.......I fear they shall starve to death......IN SPIRIT as long as refuse to accept the TRUTH that was ONCE DELIVERED to the Saints of the 1st century.
> 
> 
> YOURS......as ALWAYS.....in LOVE and HOPE,   Ralph



So you are simply going to regurgitate everything you've already said before pretending as though it hasnt been addressed and declare yourself victor?

Thing is I'm not trying to win anything. I am just telling you the truth. I gave you the reasons why your interpretation of Revelation 22 is not valid. And you still havent answered any of the questions Ive asked.

What your saying is that revelation and prophecy have ceased correct? That there will never be any left?

Forget the scriptures. I know what the scriptures say. What do _you_ say.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Mimi Hendrix said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion has magic underwear???
> 
> Please do explain.
Click to expand...


Ah Fresh new greenies! I see you started by reading the first of these 110 pages. Continue reading and you will get the answer to that strange question as you catch up.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Mimi Hendrix said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mimi Hendrix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion has magic underwear???
> 
> Please do explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Fresh new greenies! I see you started by reading the first of these 110 pages. Continue reading and you will get the answer to that strange question as you catch up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a moron would read all 110 pages, c'mon gimme the short and skinny on the magic underwear. I might want a pair...
> 
> btw, how many times have YOU read all 110 pages?
Click to expand...


A Moron or a mormon Plus I only needed to read them once. I guess someone who really wants to know the answers to all the mormon questions. I already responded to that one in the 2nd or 3rd page, so you really don't have to read that much. If you knew much about this thread, I'm sorta done repeating myself. It gets tiring after a while. Plus it seems like you are more interested in making fun of us than learning about us.
Cheers


----------



## Eightball

Mimi Hendrix said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mimi Hendrix said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your religion has magic underwear???
> 
> Please do explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Fresh new greenies! I see you started by reading the first of these 110 pages. Continue reading and you will get the answer to that strange question as you catch up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a moron would read all 110 pages, c'mon gimme the short and skinny on the magic underwear. I might want a pair...
> 
> btw, how many times have YOU read all 110 pages?
Click to expand...


Mimi:  Here is a non-Mormon webpage on their underware/garments.
Temple garment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





_Temple garment circa 1879 _




_Post-1979 two-piece temple garments end just above the knee for both sexes. Women's garment have a rounded or sweetheart neckline with cap sleeves. Male tops are available in tee-shirt styles_
*******
For our youngest sons wedding, my wife made all the bride's maid's dresses, one of the bride's maids was Mormon.  My wife had to fashion the upper part of her dress differently from the other girls so that her Mormon underware sleeves and neckline wouldn't show.  It was most apparent during the wedding.  There wasn't much that could be done.  The underware had to be worn no matter what, and her bride's maid dress ended up standing out as much different.

All the other bride's maids were dressed modestly, but not according to Mormon standards.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Mimi Hendrix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Fresh new greenies! I see you started by reading the first of these 110 pages. Continue reading and you will get the answer to that strange question as you catch up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a moron would read all 110 pages, c'mon gimme the short and skinny on the magic underwear. I might want a pair...
> 
> btw, how many times have YOU read all 110 pages?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mimi:  Here is a non-Mormon webpage on their underware/garments.
> Temple garment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Temple garment circa 1879 _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Post-1979 two-piece temple garments end just above the knee for both sexes. Women's garment have a rounded or sweetheart neckline with cap sleeves. Male tops are available in tee-shirt styles_
> *******
> For our youngest sons wedding, my wife made all the bride's maid's dresses, one of the bride's maids was Mormon.  My wife had to fashion the upper part of her dress differently from the other girls so that her Mormon underware sleeves and neckline wouldn't show.  It was most apparent during the wedding.  There wasn't much that could be done.  The underware had to be worn no matter what, and her bride's maid dress ended up standing out as much different.
> 
> All the other bride's maids were dressed modestly, but not according to Mormon standards.
Click to expand...


Who cares what the bridesmaids think? It's all about the Bride on the big day anyway.


----------



## Truthspeaker

By the way, 8-Ball, it is more disrespectful to post such pictures than it is to cuss me out. If you truly respected anyone's religion(which you don't) then you would honor their requests to not discuss or show sacred objects.

Now that you've posted these pictures, you see they are nothing amazing to look at. The sacred meaning these garments hold is special to us and out of reverence for God, we do not display them. There is a reason why we don't show them. We don't want to draw attention to ourselves about why we wear them. 

Please respect our wishes and delete the pictures. It is extremely offensive.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> By the way, 8-Ball, it is more disrespectful to post such pictures than it is to cuss me out. If you truly respected anyone's religion(which you don't) then you would honor their requests to not discuss or show sacred objects.
> 
> Now that you've posted these pictures, you see they are nothing amazing to look at. The sacred meaning these garments hold is special to us and out of reverence for God, we do not display them. There is a reason why we don't show them. We don't want to draw attention to ourselves about why we wear them.
> 
> Please respect our wishes and delete the pictures. It is extremely offensive.



Take up your libel suit with Wikipedia.  It is available to public domain.

You own Mormon sponsored websites on Mormon Undergarments takes up the majority of Web Engine hits, with pictures of and definitions galor.

Take it up with your own members and their little LDS sub-organizations that have posted by the thousands, articles on their undergarments.

If you understood the "grace" and covering power of God, you'd know that underware doesn't do anything for protection except in one's mind.

Again, don't try to corner me on some emotional affront about the privacy of your underware, and again thousands upon thousands of Mormon sights are on the web engines going even further into your church's doctrinal stance concerning the undergarments.

If anyone should be apologized-too it should be me, as you lied your eye-balls out saying that the undergarment issue is a private one.

Tell that to your fellow members who have advertised it all over the web, including online Mormon owned stores that sell these undergarments!!

Truthspeaker, your really doing a feeble attempt at being a "victim".


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, 8-Ball, it is more disrespectful to post such pictures than it is to cuss me out. If you truly respected anyone's religion(which you don't) then you would honor their requests to not discuss or show sacred objects.
> 
> Now that you've posted these pictures, you see they are nothing amazing to look at. The sacred meaning these garments hold is special to us and out of reverence for God, we do not display them. There is a reason why we don't show them. We don't want to draw attention to ourselves about why we wear them.
> 
> Please respect our wishes and delete the pictures. It is extremely offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take up your libel suit with Wikipedia.  It is available to public domain.
> 
> You own Mormon sponsored websites on Mormon Undergarments takes up the majority of Web Engine hits, with pictures of and definitions galor.
> 
> Take it up with your own members and their little LDS sub-organizations that have posted by the thousands, articles on their undergarments.
> 
> If you understood the "grace" and covering power of God, you'd know that underware doesn't do anything for protection except in one's mind.
> 
> Again, don't try to corner me on some emotional affront about the privacy of your underware, and again thousands upon thousands of Mormon sights are on the web engines going even further into your church's doctrinal stance concerning the undergarments.
> 
> If anyone should be apologized-too it should be me, as you lied your eye-balls out saying that the undergarment issue is a private one.
> 
> Tell that to your fellow members who have advertised it all over the web, including online Mormon owned stores that sell these undergarments!!
> 
> Truthspeaker, your really doing a feeble attempt at being a "victim".
Click to expand...


spoken like an ignorant, arrogant, jerk. I was going to say a few meaner words, but that just wouldn't be proper

You know that no self respecting member of our church would post such pictures for gain. Such sellouts do so on their own conscience and are in serious trouble come judgment day. Those who make a covenant with God not to disclose sacred information and break that covenant for monetary gain and internet hits will be held accountable for such action.

You know that our church would never back such a sin. There are plenty of bad individuals in every church. Judas was a member of Jesus' Church. He sold out too.

But don't pretend our church leaders and faithful members support this. It makes us cringe. You are a disrespectful person and your mother should be ashamed of you.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Take up your libel suit with Wikipedia.  It is available to public domain.
> 
> You own Mormon sponsored websites on Mormon Undergarments takes up the majority of Web Engine hits, with pictures of and definitions galor.
> 
> Take it up with your own members and their little LDS sub-organizations that have posted by the thousands, articles on their undergarments.
> 
> If you understood the "grace" and covering power of God, you'd know that underware doesn't do anything for protection except in one's mind.
> 
> Again, don't try to corner me on some emotional affront about the privacy of your underware, and again thousands upon thousands of Mormon sights are on the web engines going even further into your church's doctrinal stance concerning the undergarments.
> 
> If anyone should be apologized-too it should be me, as you lied your eye-balls out saying that the undergarment issue is a private one.
> 
> Tell that to your fellow members who have advertised it all over the web, including online Mormon owned stores that sell these undergarments!!
> 
> Truthspeaker, your really doing a feeble attempt at being a "victim".



I have to say Im actually disappointed with you here. Didnt you say a day or so ago:



Eightball said:


> Hey, I'm not Mormon, and don't agree one bit with their anti-biblical doctrine, but your post adds nothing to this thread.
> 
> It reeks of disrespect towards the LDS/Mormons, and that's not what this discussion is about.



And then you turn around and say the post im responding to.

No one has asked you to agree with mormonism. No one has accusd you of libel. All we've ever asked is that you treat us with respect as we discuss our differences. In your post the other day, you seemed to be on board with that. Now suddenly changed your tune. And honestly, I dont see why.

You posts on such topics are done in a way to sensationalize the discussion. They arent done with respect. They add absolutely nothing to the thread. And the fact that you are trying to justify being disrespectful by saying other people do it is ridiculous. 

You are a Christian. You profess to follow Christ. Disciples of Christ dont sin and justify their sins by saying others do it too. They are supposed to be better than that.

I know we have our differences. We may never see eye to eye. But I think your advice the other day was sound and I encourage you to practice what you preach. I am not offended when others profess the sacred, I expect some people to do that, because its human nature to do so. I think letting people offend you when no offense is meant is foolish and being offended when people mean offense is even more foolish because it gives them power over you. I am just rather disappointed to see you turn back on your own words so quickly.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> spoken like an ignorant, arrogant, jerk. I was going to say a few meaner words, but that just wouldn't be proper
> 
> You know that no self respecting member of our church would post such pictures for gain. Such sellouts do so on their own conscience and are in serious trouble come judgment day. Those who make a covenant with God not to disclose sacred information and break that covenant for monetary gain and internet hits will be held accountable for such action.
> 
> You know that our church would never back such a sin. There are plenty of bad individuals in every church. Judas was a member of Jesus' Church. He sold out too.
> 
> But don't pretend our church leaders and faithful members support this. It makes us cringe. You are a disrespectful person and your mother should be ashamed of you.



Dont let him goad you. He is trying to get this reaction from you. Thats all people ever do when they act this way and giving him what they want does nothing for you by remove the Spirit of God and replace it with the Spirit of contention. Contention is not of God. We are taught to forgive all men. And replace contention with the Spirit of peace.

Name calling isnt going to do anything. Even if you think he deserves it. You are called to be a Saint of God. Many are called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? I think you can answer that. I suggest you reread that section quite a bit and ponder it. Your intentions are good, and in a way his intentions are good too. But you have to remember your calling. You are alittle rough around the edges, and you need to be polished smooth. Much like anyone who is called of God.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> By the way, 8-Ball, it is more disrespectful to post such pictures than it is to cuss me out. If you truly respected anyone's religion(which you don't) then you would honor their requests to not discuss or show sacred objects.
> 
> Now that you've posted these pictures, you see they are nothing amazing to look at. The sacred meaning these garments hold is special to us and out of reverence for God, we do not display them. There is a reason why we don't show them. We don't want to draw attention to ourselves about why we wear them.
> 
> Please respect our wishes and delete the pictures. It is extremely offensive.



Take up your libel suit with Wikipedia.  It is available to public domain.

You own Mormon sponsored websites on Mormon Undergarments takes up the majority of Web Engine hits, with pictures of and definitions galor.

Take it up with your own members and their little LDS sub-organizations that have posted by the thousands, articles on their undergarments.

If you understood the "grace" and covering power of God, you'd know that underware doesn't do anything for protection except in one's mind.

Again, don't try to corner me on some emotional affront about the privacy of your underware, and again thousands upon thousands of Mormon sights are on the web engines going even further into your church's doctrinal stance concerning the undergarments.

If anyone should be apologized-too it should be me, as you lied your eye-balls out saying that the undergarment issue is a private one.

Tell that to your fellow members who have advertised it all over the web, including online Mormon owned stores that sell these undergarments!!

Truthspeaker, your really doing a feeble attempt at being a "victim".


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Take up your libel suit with Wikipedia.  It is available to public domain.
> 
> You own Mormon sponsored websites on Mormon Undergarments takes up the majority of Web Engine hits, with pictures of and definitions galor.
> 
> Take it up with your own members and their little LDS sub-organizations that have posted by the thousands, articles on their undergarments.
> 
> If you understood the "grace" and covering power of God, you'd know that underware doesn't do anything for protection except in one's mind.
> 
> Again, don't try to corner me on some emotional affront about the privacy of your underware, and again thousands upon thousands of Mormon sights are on the web engines going even further into your church's doctrinal stance concerning the undergarments.
> 
> If anyone should be apologized-too it should be me, as you lied your eye-balls out saying that the undergarment issue is a private one.
> 
> Tell that to your fellow members who have advertised it all over the web, including online Mormon owned stores that sell these undergarments!!
> 
> Truthspeaker, your really doing a feeble attempt at being a "victim".



Whats the point of reposting that?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> spoken like an ignorant, arrogant, jerk. I was going to say a few meaner words, but that just wouldn't be proper
> 
> You know that no self respecting member of our church would post such pictures for gain. Such sellouts do so on their own conscience and are in serious trouble come judgment day. Those who make a covenant with God not to disclose sacred information and break that covenant for monetary gain and internet hits will be held accountable for such action.
> 
> You know that our church would never back such a sin. There are plenty of bad individuals in every church. Judas was a member of Jesus' Church. He sold out too.
> 
> But don't pretend our church leaders and faithful members support this. It makes us cringe. You are a disrespectful person and your mother should be ashamed of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont let him goad you. He is trying to get this reaction from you. Thats all people ever do when they act this way and giving him what they want does nothing for you by remove the Spirit of God and replace it with the Spirit of contention. Contention is not of God. We are taught to forgive all men. And replace contention with the Spirit of peace.
> 
> Name calling isnt going to do anything. Even if you think he deserves it. You are called to be a Saint of God. Many are called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? I think you can answer that. I suggest you reread that section quite a bit and ponder it. Your intentions are good, and in a way his intentions are good too. But you have to remember your calling. You are alittle rough around the edges, and you need to be polished smooth. Much like anyone who is called of God.
Click to expand...


I suppose if I didn't use the work jerk and subsituted it with spiteful individual, it would have been more appropriate. 

Hey even we members of the church are not perfect. Well you should have seen the original post I made. I reread it and had to change a lot of words because even I said "Whoa! that's just too much. However much he may deserve it."

As for contention, I'm done contending. I state our position on a doctrine and others try to tell me how we are wrong for our beliefs, but I don't care. I'm not here to debate my view over anothers. I'm just stating our view.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> spoken like an ignorant, arrogant, jerk. I was going to say a few meaner words, but that just wouldn't be proper
> 
> You know that no self respecting member of our church would post such pictures for gain. Such sellouts do so on their own conscience and are in serious trouble come judgment day. Those who make a covenant with God not to disclose sacred information and break that covenant for monetary gain and internet hits will be held accountable for such action.
> 
> You know that our church would never back such a sin. There are plenty of bad individuals in every church. Judas was a member of Jesus' Church. He sold out too.
> 
> But don't pretend our church leaders and faithful members support this. It makes us cringe. You are a disrespectful person and your mother should be ashamed of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont let him goad you. He is trying to get this reaction from you. Thats all people ever do when they act this way and giving him what they want does nothing for you by remove the Spirit of God and replace it with the Spirit of contention. Contention is not of God. We are taught to forgive all men. And replace contention with the Spirit of peace.
> 
> Name calling isnt going to do anything. Even if you think he deserves it. You are called to be a Saint of God. Many are called but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? I think you can answer that. I suggest you reread that section quite a bit and ponder it. Your intentions are good, and in a way his intentions are good too. But you have to remember your calling. You are alittle rough around the edges, and you need to be polished smooth. Much like anyone who is called of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose if I didn't use the work jerk and subsituted it with spiteful individual, it would have been more appropriate.
> 
> Hey even we members of the church are not perfect. Well you should have seen the original post I made. I reread it and had to change a lot of words because even I said "Whoa! that's just too much. However much he may deserve it."
> 
> As for contention, I'm done contending. I state our position on a doctrine and others try to tell me how we are wrong for our beliefs, but I don't care. I'm not here to debate my view over anothers. I'm just stating our view.
Click to expand...


It's heartening and nice to know that our resident Mormon Tag Team is still healthy and kicking. 

Note:  Wikipedia presented an unbiased explanation of the Mormon sacred undergarment both of the early style and the present day accepted configuration.

It is on public domain.

Also take note that when typing in "Mormon Undergarment's" into Yahoo's search engine, that roughly 3,990 websites discussing the undergarments or mentioning them in some context exists.

Of that 3,990, the greatest majority are Mormon-run websites or stores that sell Mormon religion wares of various sorts.

Mimi wanted to know about the undergarments, and I picked an unbiased site, as I figured I'd  not get flak from the "tag team" for taking that consideration.

Didn't help one bit.
***********
You OP'd this thread, as an alleged Mormon religion informational site.  I don't agree with your stated premise of it strictly being a means to inform others of your religion.  Never the less........  As for your thread coming under the protection of the 1st Amendment, it does, and I'll fight for your right to present it here or anywhere, against any foe.  Even though it would be a "Jerk" who's fighting to defend your right.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It's heartening and nice to know that our resident Mormon Tag Team is still healthy and kicking. 

Note: Wikipedia presented an unbiased explanation of the Mormon sacred undergarment both of the early style and the present day accepted configuration.

It is on public domain.

Also take note that when tying in "Mormon Undergarment's" into Yahoo's search engine, that roughly 3,990 websites discussing the undergarments or mentioning them in some context exists.

Of that 3,990, the greatest majority are Mormon-run websites or stores that sell Mormon religion wares of various sorts.

Mimi wanted to know about the undergarments, and I picked an unbiased site, as I figured I'd get flak from the "tag team".

Didn't help one bit.

Evidence demands a verdict.

You OP'd this thread, as an alleged Mormon religion informational site. That is hogwash, and you know what your true intentions/agenda was. As for your thread coming under the protection of the 1st Amendment, it does, and I'll fight for your right to present it here or anywhere, against any foe. Even though it would be a "Jerk" who's fighting to defend your right.  
__________________

Of course this is an informational thread. Thanks to you, I've had an opportunity to address many of the common lies that are spread about us. Thanks to you I have had a chance to learn patience. God sent you to me to strengthen my faith and ability to endure criticism. I am glad I have stood the test and weathered the storm.

What you don't realize is that the information Wikipedia posted was gained from ex-members or anti-Mormons who remember a lot about the temple ceremonies and instructions, but there is still more sacred information they left out. Much is still misunderstood about the reason we wear sacred undergarments. I am glad to see that not all of the information has been leaked. 

People who truly want to know all the meanings of what goes on in our temples must qualify to get a temple recommend and go through the ceremonies themselves, fasting and praying along the way to gain maximum enlightenment. 

It cannot be gained on US MessageBoard.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Also your statement of "Mormon Run" websites putting out this information is debatable. I haven't seen a source from you yet except Wikipedia. sources are only "Mormon Run" if they are from lds.org, or mormon.org. Because those are the authorized Church mouthpieces.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Also your statement of "Mormon Run" websites putting out this information is debatable. I haven't seen a source from you yet except Wikipedia. sources are only "Mormon Run" if they are from lds.org, or mormon.org. Because those are the authorized Church mouthpieces.



Since your such a prolific typer/poster on this thread, what has stopped you from typing in "Mormon Undergarments" into Yahoo, Google, etc.. and see for yourself.

Why question my statement when you didn't even check it out for yourself?

Again, 3990 hits for that two word nown.

Would you like a myriad of Mormon websites covering the topic?

=http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormon_u...rmon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki
=http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/mormon-garments.htm]Mormon Underwear Garments
=http://www.mormon-underwear.com]Mormon Underwear
=http://www.aboutmormonism.com/mormon_underwear.html]Mormon Underwear
=http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/mormon_underwear.html]Mormon Underwear
=http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/mormo...nt]The Mormon Temple Garment | Mormon Beliefs

Just a brief sampling from 1 1/2 pages of yahoo search engine pages using "Mormon Undergarments" as the submitted phrase with quotes on each side.  All are pro-Mormon sites.  I'd say that 75%+ of the sites listed on the search engine are pro-Mormon.  So your hardly misrepresentedj/unbalanced by those that disagree or have critical questions about the topic; when they comprise a few protestant church sites, and some independent biblica Christian apolgetics sites, and our probably much less that 25% of the web sites.

As you can see, though sacred to the Mormon/church, it is far from secretive in nature.  Actually my hit count is over 4,000 for this topic on Yahoo.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also your statement of "Mormon Run" websites putting out this information is debatable. I haven't seen a source from you yet except Wikipedia. sources are only "Mormon Run" if they are from lds.org, or mormon.org. Because those are the authorized Church mouthpieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since your such a prolific typer/poster on this thread, what has stopped you from typing in "Mormon Undergarments" into Yahoo, Google, etc.. and see for yourself.
> 
> Why question my statement when you didn't even check it out for yourself?
> 
> Again, 3990 hits for that two word nown.
> 
> Would you like a myriad of Mormon websites covering the topic?
> 
> =http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormon_u...rmon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki
> =http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/mormon-garments.htm]Mormon Underwear Garments
> =http://www.mormon-underwear.com]Mormon Underwear
> =http://www.aboutmormonism.com/mormon_underwear.html]Mormon Underwear
> =http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/mormon_underwear.html]Mormon Underwear
> =http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/mormo...nt]The Mormon Temple Garment | Mormon Beliefs
> 
> Just a brief sampling from 1 1/2 pages of yahoo search engine pages using "Mormon Undergarments" as the submitted phrase with quotes on each side.  All are pro-Mormon sites.  I'd say that 75%+ of the sites listed on the search engine are pro-Mormon.  So your hardly misrepresentedj/unbalanced by those that disagree or have critical questions about the topic; when they comprise a few protestant church sites, and some independent biblica Christian apolgetics sites, and our probably much less that 25% of the web sites.
> 
> As you can see, though sacred to the Mormon/church, it is far from secretive in nature.  Actually my hit count is over 4,000 for this topic on Yahoo.
Click to expand...


Everything you just posted is irrelevant.


I don't google these topics because I already know everything about them. All the sites you posted are far from official. I also tried to open each of them and they didn't open. Even if they claim to be pro-mormon, it doesn't make any sense because every self respecting mormon knows they shouldn't reveal the temple ceremonies or garment meanings. 

They of necessity would have to be ex-mormons or sellouts. That is why they are irrelevant. None of the sites you posted are authorized to speak for the church in regards to doctrine or sacred rites.

Yahoo definitely is not an authoritative source either.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also your statement of "Mormon Run" websites putting out this information is debatable. I haven't seen a source from you yet except Wikipedia. sources are only "Mormon Run" if they are from lds.org, or mormon.org. Because those are the authorized Church mouthpieces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since your such a prolific typer/poster on this thread, what has stopped you from typing in "Mormon Undergarments" into Yahoo, Google, etc.. and see for yourself.
> 
> Why question my statement when you didn't even check it out for yourself?
> 
> Again, 3990 hits for that two word nown.
> 
> Would you like a myriad of Mormon websites covering the topic?
> 
> Bad Links removed..................
> 
> Just a brief sampling from 1 1/2 pages of yahoo search engine pages using "Mormon Undergarments" as the submitted phrase with quotes on each side.  All are pro-Mormon sites.  I'd say that 75%+ of the sites listed on the search engine are pro-Mormon.  So your hardly misrepresentedj/unbalanced by those that disagree or have critical questions about the topic; when they comprise a few protestant church sites, and some independent biblica Christian apolgetics sites, and our probably much less that 25% of the web sites.
> 
> As you can see, though sacred to the Mormon/church, it is far from secretive in nature.  Actually my hit count is over 4,000 for this topic on Yahoo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> I don't google these topics because I already know everything about them. All the sites you posted are far from official. I also tried to open each of them and they didn't open. Even if they claim to be pro-mormon, it doesn't make any sense because every self respecting mormon knows they shouldn't reveal the temple ceremonies or garment meanings.
> 
> They of necessity would have to be ex-mormons or sellouts. That is why they are irrelevant. None of the sites you posted are authorized to speak for the church in regards to doctrine or sacred rites.
> 
> Yahoo definitely is not an authoritative source either.
Click to expand...


Reason they didn't open is because I copy/pasted off the apparently abbreviated web addresses at the bottom of each web location on the yahoo list.

Sadly, you won't bother to just type in "Mormon Undergarments" and see for yourself that there are official sites as well as private Mormon member sites posting on the topic.

It's funny how those of us that aren't Mormon will go out of our way to research and read both critical and non-critical web sites concerning the Christian faith, but you don't.

If it ain't offical Mormon church ok'd sites, it is irrellevant?

Crimoney!  Us bible Christians check out all kinds of apologetics sites, often learning new insights that fellow Christians have to share about the bible, and living the Christian life.  We also discover some real looney tunes sights too, where people have gone off the deep end, and have lost their moorings.

Bottom line, the bible is our foundation and anchor.  It suffices for all aspects of our faith.

These links should work, as my previous ones were incorrectly pasted.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Mormon_undergarments
http://www.i4m.com/think/temples/mormon-garments.htm
http://www.mormon-underwear.com/
http://www.helium.com/items/1439554-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-sacred-clothing
http://www.aboutmormonism.com/mormon_underwear.html
http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormonunderwear.htm
http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/latterday_saint_temple_garments


----------



## Avatar4321

Tag team? I am simply pointing out that you were calling on others to be respectful in dialogue the other day and now you are being disrespectful. I will again ask you to be please be respectful and lets actually discuss matters.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since your such a prolific typer/poster on this thread, what has stopped you from typing in "Mormon Undergarments" into Yahoo, Google, etc.. and see for yourself.
> 
> Why question my statement when you didn't even check it out for yourself?
> 
> Again, 3990 hits for that two word nown.
> 
> Would you like a myriad of Mormon websites covering the topic?
> 
> Bad Links removed..................
> 
> Just a brief sampling from 1 1/2 pages of yahoo search engine pages using "Mormon Undergarments" as the submitted phrase with quotes on each side.  All are pro-Mormon sites.  I'd say that 75%+ of the sites listed on the search engine are pro-Mormon.  So your hardly misrepresentedj/unbalanced by those that disagree or have critical questions about the topic; when they comprise a few protestant church sites, and some independent biblica Christian apolgetics sites, and our probably much less that 25% of the web sites.
> 
> As you can see, though sacred to the Mormon/church, it is far from secretive in nature.  Actually my hit count is over 4,000 for this topic on Yahoo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> I don't google these topics because I already know everything about them. All the sites you posted are far from official. I also tried to open each of them and they didn't open. Even if they claim to be pro-mormon, it doesn't make any sense because every self respecting mormon knows they shouldn't reveal the temple ceremonies or garment meanings.
> 
> They of necessity would have to be ex-mormons or sellouts. That is why they are irrelevant. None of the sites you posted are authorized to speak for the church in regards to doctrine or sacred rites.
> 
> Yahoo definitely is not an authoritative source either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reason they didn't open is because I copy/pasted off the apparently abbreviated web addresses at the bottom of each web location on the yahoo list.
> 
> Sadly, you won't bother to just type in "Mormon Undergarments" and see for yourself that there are official sites as well as private Mormon member sites posting on the topic.
> 
> It's funny how those of us that aren't Mormon will go out of our way to research and read both critical and non-critical web sites concerning the Christian faith, but you don't.
> 
> If it ain't offical Mormon church ok'd sites, it is irrellevant?
> 
> Crimoney!  Us bible Christians check out all kinds of apologetics sites, often learning new insights that fellow Christians have to share about the bible, and living the Christian life.  We also discover some real looney tunes sights too, where people have gone off the deep end, and have lost their moorings.
> 
> Bottom line, the bible is our foundation and anchor.  It suffices for all aspects of our faith.
> 
> These links should work, as my previous ones were incorrectly pasted.
> 
> Mormon garments - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki
> Mormon Underwear Garments
> Mormon Underwear
> Special Mormon undergarments - by Charie Winburn - Helium
> Mormon Underwear
> Mormon Underwear
> Latter-day Saint Temple Garments: Why Mormons Wear "Special Underwear" | Suite101.com
Click to expand...




> The Bible is our foundation and our anchor




 You just summed up a major difference between the two of us. The Bible is your anchor. Our anchor is Jesus Christ. Therefore we look for every word which proceeds from his mouth. Not just one source. 

I'm sure you are happy deifying one book, but I trust in the Lord and his Holy Spirit to reveal ALL things. He revealed the Bible to me, He also revealed a lot more, and will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> I don't google these topics because I already know everything about them. All the sites you posted are far from official. I also tried to open each of them and they didn't open. Even if they claim to be pro-mormon, it doesn't make any sense because every self respecting mormon knows they shouldn't reveal the temple ceremonies or garment meanings.
> 
> They of necessity would have to be ex-mormons or sellouts. That is why they are irrelevant. None of the sites you posted are authorized to speak for the church in regards to doctrine or sacred rites.
> 
> Yahoo definitely is not an authoritative source either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reason they didn't open is because I copy/pasted off the apparently abbreviated web addresses at the bottom of each web location on the yahoo list.
> 
> Sadly, you won't bother to just type in "Mormon Undergarments" and see for yourself that there are official sites as well as private Mormon member sites posting on the topic.
> 
> It's funny how those of us that aren't Mormon will go out of our way to research and read both critical and non-critical web sites concerning the Christian faith, but you don't.
> 
> If it ain't offical Mormon church ok'd sites, it is irrellevant?
> 
> Crimoney!  Us bible Christians check out all kinds of apologetics sites, often learning new insights that fellow Christians have to share about the bible, and living the Christian life.  We also discover some real looney tunes sights too, where people have gone off the deep end, and have lost their moorings.
> 
> Bottom line, the bible is our foundation and anchor.  It suffices for all aspects of our faith.
> 
> These links should work, as my previous ones were incorrectly pasted.
> 
> Mormon garments - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki
> Mormon Underwear Garments
> Mormon Underwear
> Special Mormon undergarments - by Charie Winburn - Helium
> Mormon Underwear
> Mormon Underwear
> Latter-day Saint Temple Garments: Why Mormons Wear "Special Underwear" | Suite101.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is our foundation and our anchor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just summed up a major difference between the two of us. The Bible is your anchor. Our anchor is Jesus Christ. Therefore we look for every word which proceeds from his mouth. Not just one source.
> 
> I'm sure you are happy deifying one book, but I trust in the Lord and his Holy Spirit to reveal ALL things. He revealed the Bible to me, He also revealed a lot more, and will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...


One question, Whom do you think inspired the authors of these 66 books in the bible.  I.E.  Who inspired these authors.  The bible says that God through His Holy Spirit.  So when man reads the bible he is receiving God's Holy Spirit inspired knowledge and wisdom for life.
******
So why do we need additional info, when the bible ends with, there is no need to add to nor detract from this without a great curse upon those that do.?
*******
As Ralph mentioned in previous posts, that N.T. says that the bible is the book for reproof, teaching, and all guidance in one's Christian walk/life.
******
By the way, this comment that God allowed polygamy so that He could get those Mormons multiplying faster, is actually God going against Himself.  Jesus said that it's one man, one woman.  That's marriage.

To jump to polygamy is not unlike Abraham not patiently waiting for that miracle baby named Isaac that happened in Sarah's advanced age.  Abraham instead did it the old humanistic fleshy way, took things into his own hands and went into his slave girl and begot Ishmiel.  And we all know how the decendents of Ishmiel impacted the nation of Israel, and even the rest of the world to this day. 

When man doesn't wait by faith on God's provisions he takes the fleshly/worldly root; thus, polygamy was used as an excuse to procreate at an accellerated speed.  Unfortunately, polygamy also increases birth defects and recessive genes to come out into a population with very severe effects.

You know that the Mormon gene pool was very limited, and polygamy only adds to the problem.

Now you have a fistfull of progeny, inter-marrying, and multiplying the chances that adverse recessive genes come to the forefront in the offspring.  God doesn't encourage this, nor green light it.
********


----------



## Truthspeaker

> The Bible is our foundation and our anchor




 You just summed up a major difference between the two of us. The Bible is your anchor. Our anchor is Jesus Christ. Therefore we look for every word which proceeds from his mouth. Not just one source. 

I'm sure you are happy deifying one book, but I trust in the Lord and his Holy Spirit to reveal ALL things. He revealed the Bible to me, He also revealed a lot more, and will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. [/QUOTE]



> One question, Whom do you think inspired the authors of these 66 books in the bible.  I.E.  Who inspired these authors.  The bible says that God through His Holy Spirit.  So when man reads the bible he is receiving God's Holy Spirit inspired knowledge and wisdom for life.


******

You are ignoring the millions of my statements claiming the Bible is inspired of God. However, the Bible does NOT anywhere state, that God will not speak again. In fact it has references to many holy writings not found in the Bible. That is why I refuse to ignore other sacred writings inspired of God besides the Bible.


> So why do we need additional info, when the bible ends with, there is no need to add to nor detract from this without a great curse upon those that do.?


*******

The Bible does not end with that. Since it is quite clear that John is the last book of the Bible and not revelation. The last words of the Bible are stated as such; John chapter 21 verse 25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. 

That is how the Bible ends. That is a fact. 

What is also an indisputable fact is that the people responsible for compiling the order of the Bible were appointed by the Pagan Roman emperor Constantine during the council of Nicea, out of which came the great compromise known as The Nicean Creed. Such was not appointed by God, but by a Roman Emperor. This council is responsible for putting the Gospels, Epistles and revelations in the New Testament out of chronological order. That is a fact. I will not bow to the authority of the Nicean Creed. If you want to that's fine, but I refuse.
 Your interpretation of the words in revelation is a stretch at best. But you are welcome to it. 



> As Ralph mentioned in previous posts, that N.T. says that the bible is the book for reproof, teaching, and all guidance in one's Christian walk/life.


******

It sure is; and you might try reading it with an open mind. Let it's words teach you. Not the convoluted opinions of the preachers you have adopted.



> By the way, this comment that God allowed polygamy so that He could get those Mormons multiplying faster, is actually God going against Himself.  Jesus said that it's one man, one woman.  That's marriage.


Jesus never said that in the Bible. Anywhere. Curiously, the only place he ever mentioned it is in the Book of Mormon in Jacob chapter 2 verse 27 :Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. Since you are such an anti-polygamist, you should be more a fan of the Book of Mormon than the Bible because it's the only one that denounces polygamy in writing.



> To jump to polygamy is not unlike Abraham not patiently waiting for that miracle baby named Isaac that happened in Sarah's advanced age.  Abraham instead did it the old humanistic fleshy way, took things into his own hands and went into his slave girl and begot Ishmiel.  And we all know how the decendents of Ishmiel impacted the nation of Israel, and even the rest of the world to this day.



I think that's pretty self righteous to claim that all descendants of Ishmael have been nothing but a blight on society. There has been much good that has come from those children of God. Many of them will be heirs of God's Kingdom. You are just blind to it.



> When man doesn't wait by faith on God's provisions he takes the fleshly/worldly root; thus, polygamy was used as an excuse to procreate at an accellerated speed.  Unfortunately, polygamy also increases birth defects and recessive genes to come out into a population with very severe effects.



Pure speculation on your part. The Bible doesn't denounce Abraham one bit. If he was so far off in the wrong, God would have mentioned it and wouldn't have chosen his seed to be the house in which all children of the world would be blessed. I'm pretty sure old Abraham is in good standing with God to this day.



> You know that the Mormon gene pool was very limited, and polygamy only adds to the problem.



Pure nonsense.



> Now you have a fistfull of progeny, inter-marrying, and multiplying the chances that adverse recessive genes come to the forefront in the offspring.  God doesn't encourage this, nor green light it.



Where are your studies on birth defects among Mormons compared with anyone else?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> One question, Whom do you think inspired the authors of these 66 books in the bible.  I.E.  Who inspired these authors.  The bible says that God through His Holy Spirit.  So when man reads the bible he is receiving God's Holy Spirit inspired knowledge and wisdom for life.



But how do you know that? The only way to know that is through personal experience with the Holy Spirit. Someone can read the Bible and never recieve inspired knowledge of the Holy Spirit if He does not have personal experience with the Holy Spirit.

Christ gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us in all things we should do. Not the Bible. The Spirit. The scriptures we do have are for our edification and a tool for the Spirit to teach us, but it is the Spirit that is vital.



> So why do we need additional info, when the bible ends with, there is no need to add to nor detract from this without a great curse upon those that do.?



You know the Bible doesnt say that. The Bible never claims God will speak no more. The Bible never claims the Spirit will not longer talk to man. Quite the opposite. The Book of Revelation promises that God will send angels to preach to man and deliver judgments. The Bible doesnt ever speak of itself. The Bible didnt exist until centuries later when the Church compiled those that are written. And I think it's rather foolish to say the Apostle John condemned himself to hell because He wrote His Gospel and Epistles after His warning in revelation. There is just no need to read what isnt said into the text.

The real question is why the heck wouldnt you want more? If there is knowledge of Jesus Christ. I want to know it. I want to know about my Savior more. I want the Spirit to teach me all He is willing to. And I just cant imagine why you would say God send me no more, I have enough. 




> *******
> As Ralph mentioned in previous posts, that N.T. says that the bible is the book for reproof, teaching, and all guidance in one's Christian walk/life.



Again the Bible says absolutely nothing about the Bible. Because the Bible is a collections of books that never carried the name Bible until centuries after those books were compiled. If we were to accept Ralph and your interpretations of the passages, we have to completely ignore historical context.



> ******
> By the way, this comment that God allowed polygamy so that He could get those Mormons multiplying faster, is actually God going against Himself.  Jesus said that it's one man, one woman.  That's marriage.



God commands and revokes as He decrees. He commanded Abraham to take another wife. He gave David his wives and then took them away when He violated His covenant with murder. (2 Samuel 12:8-12). He commanded men to marry the wives of their brothers who died without children to raise up seed for them irregadless of whether they were married.

To pretend as though there is anywhere in the Bible where God commands that no man ever have more than one wife is ridiculous. The Bible is full of righteous polygamists. Even Martin Luther, the Great Reformer, pointed this out to King Henry VIII when he was seeking His divorce. The scriptures speak against divorce, they dont speak against plural marriage.



> To jump to polygamy is not unlike Abraham not patiently waiting for that miracle baby named Isaac that happened in Sarah's advanced age.  Abraham instead did it the old humanistic fleshy way, took things into his own hands and went into his slave girl and begot Ishmiel.  And we all know how the decendents of Ishmiel impacted the nation of Israel, and even the rest of the world to this day.



He was commanded to and the world has been blessed through Ishmael's seed. Even if some are obnoxious. Without them, we wouldnt have ever gotten a Bible printed since they are the ones who brought paper to the West. They are the ones who preserved the writings of the Greek and Roman empires which were lost for a time in Europe.



> When man doesn't wait by faith on God's provisions he takes the fleshly/worldly root; thus, polygamy was used as an excuse to procreate at an accellerated speed.  Unfortunately, polygamy also increases birth defects and recessive genes to come out into a population with very severe effects.



I see absolutely no reason to accept that. You offer no proof. Why should I?



> You know that the Mormon gene pool was very limited, and polygamy only adds to the problem.



Youre joking right? The early saints gathered together from throught the United States, Canada, and from much of north and western Europe. And there are still people from all around the world joining the cause of the Restoration. Limited gene pool? Please.



> Now you have a fistfull of progeny, inter-marrying, and multiplying the chances that adverse recessive genes come to the forefront in the offspring.  God doesn't encourage this, nor green light it.



So now you are claiming that them there mormons are marrying their cousins and inbreeding... Please. Your assertion is baseless.


----------



## Christopher

Truthspeaker, Avatar, as another Mormon on this forum I think you are both doing a great job representing Mormons and helping to clear up the many misconceptions about the Mormon religion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Christopher said:


> Truthspeaker, Avatar, as another Mormon on this forum I think you are both doing a great job representing Mormons and helping to clear up the many misconceptions about the Mormon religion.



Well, friend, it's nice to know there are more of us out there. Sorry if I flame a little bit on this thread.


----------



## Arawyn

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you just posted is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> I don't google these topics because I already know everything about them. All the sites you posted are far from official. I also tried to open each of them and they didn't open. Even if they claim to be pro-mormon, it doesn't make any sense because every self respecting mormon knows they shouldn't reveal the temple ceremonies or garment meanings.
> 
> They of necessity would have to be ex-mormons or sellouts. That is why they are irrelevant. None of the sites you posted are authorized to speak for the church in regards to doctrine or sacred rites.
> 
> Yahoo definitely is not an authoritative source either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reason they didn't open is because I copy/pasted off the apparently abbreviated web addresses at the bottom of each web location on the yahoo list.
> 
> Sadly, you won't bother to just type in "Mormon Undergarments" and see for yourself that there are official sites as well as private Mormon member sites posting on the topic.
> 
> It's funny how those of us that aren't Mormon will go out of our way to research and read both critical and non-critical web sites concerning the Christian faith, but you don't.
> 
> If it ain't offical Mormon church ok'd sites, it is irrellevant?
> 
> Crimoney!  Us bible Christians check out all kinds of apologetics sites, often learning new insights that fellow Christians have to share about the bible, and living the Christian life.  We also discover some real looney tunes sights too, where people have gone off the deep end, and have lost their moorings.
> 
> Bottom line, the bible is our foundation and anchor.  It suffices for all aspects of our faith.
> 
> These links should work, as my previous ones were incorrectly pasted.
> 
> Mormon garments - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki
> Mormon Underwear Garments
> Mormon Underwear
> Special Mormon undergarments - by Charie Winburn - Helium
> Mormon Underwear
> Mormon Underwear
> Latter-day Saint Temple Garments: Why Mormons Wear "Special Underwear" | Suite101.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is our foundation and our anchor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just summed up a major difference between the two of us. The Bible is your anchor. Our anchor is Jesus Christ. Therefore we look for every word which proceeds from his mouth. Not just one source.
> 
> I'm sure you are happy deifying one book, but I trust in the Lord and his Holy Spirit to reveal ALL things. He revealed the Bible to me, He also revealed a lot more, and will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but I feel I must point this out.....your post reeks of what you are condemning......is that a road which you wish to travel?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Arawyn said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reason they didn't open is because I copy/pasted off the apparently abbreviated web addresses at the bottom of each web location on the yahoo list.
> 
> Sadly, you won't bother to just type in "Mormon Undergarments" and see for yourself that there are official sites as well as private Mormon member sites posting on the topic.
> 
> It's funny how those of us that aren't Mormon will go out of our way to research and read both critical and non-critical web sites concerning the Christian faith, but you don't.
> 
> If it ain't offical Mormon church ok'd sites, it is irrellevant?
> 
> Crimoney!  Us bible Christians check out all kinds of apologetics sites, often learning new insights that fellow Christians have to share about the bible, and living the Christian life.  We also discover some real looney tunes sights too, where people have gone off the deep end, and have lost their moorings.
> 
> Bottom line, the bible is our foundation and anchor.  It suffices for all aspects of our faith.
> 
> These links should work, as my previous ones were incorrectly pasted.
> 
> Mormon garments - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki
> Mormon Underwear Garments
> Mormon Underwear
> Special Mormon undergarments - by Charie Winburn - Helium
> Mormon Underwear
> Mormon Underwear
> Latter-day Saint Temple Garments: Why Mormons Wear "Special Underwear" | Suite101.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is our foundation and our anchor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You just summed up a major difference between the two of us. The Bible is your anchor. Our anchor is Jesus Christ. Therefore we look for every word which proceeds from his mouth. Not just one source.
> 
> I'm sure you are happy deifying one book, but I trust in the Lord and his Holy Spirit to reveal ALL things. He revealed the Bible to me, He also revealed a lot more, and will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I feel I must point this out.....your post reeks of what you are condemning......is that a road which you wish to travel?
Click to expand...


please clarify?


----------



## Christopher

Truthspeaker said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, Avatar, as another Mormon on this forum I think you are both doing a great job representing Mormons and helping to clear up the many misconceptions about the Mormon religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, friend, it's nice to know there are more of us out there. Sorry if I flame a little bit on this thread.
Click to expand...


No worries.  It is easy to let emotions into any debate, particularly when your religious beliefs are attacked.


----------



## Avatar4321

Arawyn said:


> I'm sorry but I feel I must point this out.....your post reeks of what you are condemning......is that a road which you wish to travel?



I think he recognizes his rough edges my elven princess. And I hope he is working on it.

Its a flaw we all have through human nature. But luckily God can change human nature.

Stop fighting with people and learn to simply answer and invite. that's the key


----------



## Mr Mustard

The truth about mormons is that no matter how much they try to explain their religion, it still sounds like a load of crap that only a completely deluded moron would believe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Mr Mustard said:


> The truth about mormons is that no matter how much they try to explain their religion, it still sounds like a load of crap that only a completely deluded moron would believe.



Thanks for the insult. Any other adult questions you would like to add?


----------



## Truthspeaker

CuriousColin said:


> T-man, do your magic underwear need to be washed?



C-Dawg:
Do you wash your underwear?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godly said:


> Where can I buy some magic underwear?



I have no idea. There is no such thing.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Truthspeaker said:


> Godly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I buy some magic underwear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea. There is no such thing.
Click to expand...


Then you must not be a real mormon.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I buy some magic underwear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea. There is no such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you must not be a real mormon.
Click to expand...


I'm actually not a Mormon. I would have to be named Mormon. But he lived about 1600 years ago. I am however a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 

The genuine article


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Truthspeaker said:


> Rubber Hoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea. There is no such thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must not be a real mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually not a Mormon. I would have to be named Mormon. But he lived about 1600 years ago. I am however a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
> 
> The genuine article
Click to expand...


So then what's the deal with the magic underwear? You start explaining it on page 3 or so but then you say something like: but I can't tell you the really good parts about the magic underwear. So what gives? What's the real deal?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rubber Hoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must not be a real mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually not a Mormon. I would have to be named Mormon. But he lived about 1600 years ago. I am however a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
> 
> The genuine article
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So then what's the deal with the magic underwear? You start explaining it on page 3 or so but then you say something like: but I can't tell you the really good parts about the magic underwear. So what gives? What's the real deal?
Click to expand...


I never said the magic underwear........ I said "the magic underwear". Because that's what other people disrespectfully call the sacred garment we wear under our clothes. In our temple, we make sacred covenants with God. Part of the covenants are a promise to wear these garments as a daily reminder to keep the commandments of God. The covenants we make with God are so sacred in nature that we promise not to discuss them. If I went into all the details of every word of the ceremony, you wouldn't be so amazed. It's just that people get obsessed with them because they don't know them.

The main explanation I can give you is that they are a physical daily reminder for us to be faithful and keep God in our minds all day.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Ya, I've seen pictures of those underwear, pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Like, you need to wear some special sexually restrictive clothing to keep you from being promiscuous and because your religion's grasp on you is so tenuous that you need to be reminded every second who you should be obeying. Sounds right out of the 19th century.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Ya, I've seen pictures of those underwear, pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Like, you need to wear some special sexually restrictive clothing to keep you from being promiscuous and because your religion's grasp on you is so tenuous that you need to be reminded every second who you should be obeying. Sounds right out of the 19th century.



That's fine if you think it's ridiculous. It's not your religion. No one is asking you to join us. By the way, it's not anything we wear that keeps us from "being promiscuous". I'm not sure what you mean by that but it's the decisions we make and not the clothing that has the power. I assume you mean running around and chasing after lots of sexual partners. It certainly isn't sexually restrictive to me and my wife. Without giving TMI our sex life is great. I just don't see it the way you do.

It certainly is right out of the 19th century. Joseph lived in the 19th century.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Are you allowed to do anything other than the missionary position during sex? 
And you're allowed to have sex for other purposes than procreation? You allowed condoms?
Does everyone in your church have to be a virgin until marriage?
Important questions for someone like me who is looking for a religion to join.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Are you allowed to do anything other than the missionary position during sex?


Sexual preference is up to the husband and wife. The Church does not interfere.



> And you're allowed to have sex for other purposes than procreation?


Absolutely



> You allowed condoms?



Church never dictates what husband and wife do in their sex life.



> Does everyone in your church have to be a virgin until marriage?



No. There is no sex police. It is considered a sin in our church to have extra-marital sex, but everyone is always encouraged to come to church. People are never asked to confess. If someone knows they have a problem or an addiction to sin, they may choose to discuss it with the Bishop in private. No one goes out of their way to ask if you have been sinning in private. Everyone else comes to church to focus on their own weaknesses. They go to learn in church how to better their lives. It's very personal, not a confession session.


> Important questions for someone like me who is looking for a religion to join


.
Thank you for the honest questions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen this sentiment a number of times before, and it always makes me wonder.  Does that mean that when people voluntarily go to their death for a faith other than your own, it validates that faith?
> 
> I'm not going to argue that such people believe in whatever it is they believe.  I accept that people usually will not voluntarily go to their death for something they don't believe.  However, the fact that someone is willing to do so only speaks to the strength of their belief, not it's validity.
> 
> Sorry to break into this discussion with such a small point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed they are valid because they voluntarily went to their deaths. Im saying people dont voluntarily go to their deaths for something they know is a scam. They actually believe it.
> 
> Now, just because someone believes it doesnt mean they are correct. But when they try to argue Joseph was a scam artist, it doesnt fit. He believed what he was preaching.
Click to expand...


Sure he could, he began to believe his own scam to relieve his own cognitive dissonance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Ceasaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't Joseph a pedophile and a polygamist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no and yes in that order.
Click to expand...


Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker, are you affiliated or associated or in any way in contact for these answers with any official or unofficial LDS apologetics institutions, forums, or branches?

Think very carefully before you answer, and answer truthfully in fact as well as intent.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?



no.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no.
Click to expand...


proves otherwise.  Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, _In Sacred Lonliness_ and Richard Bushman, _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling_.

Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> proves otherwise.  Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, _In Sacred Lonliness_ and Richard Bushman, _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling_.
> 
> Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.



Im not lying. Youre the one making the accusation. It's up to you to prove it. There is absolutely no evidence he had sexual relations with anyone besides his wife Emma. 

It's beside the point anyway. His testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses is not somehow made invalid by violating a social norm. He could have spent the latter half of his life engaging in actions that damned him to hell. It wouldn't invalidate anything he or the others saw and testified to.

You can't attack the message, so you have to attack the messenger. But the messenger never claimed to be anything but an imperfect man. So how does pointing out imperfections alleged or proven disprove the message? You think God doesnt work through imperfect people? If he waited for people to be perfect before they could be shown anything, He wouldnt reveal anything to anyone.

Quite frankly, discussing these accusations are quite useless because you cant prove it and even if you did it wouldnt change anything.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker, are you affiliated or associated or in any way in contact for these answers with any official or unofficial LDS apologetics institutions, forums, or branches?
> 
> Think very carefully before you answer, and answer truthfully in fact as well as intent.



Well I wouldn't be Truthspeaker unless I was honest would I? So your attempt to corner me into feeling guilty about associating with any of the above mentioned groups is fruitless. 

I have read lots of information from people you would call apologists. So yes I am in some way in contact with official and unofficial sources of doctrine because I read up. I also read up on anti-mormon sites. I have posted links to both such sites in my myriad of answers.

 I'm never quite sure how someone wants me to answer certain questions when they say I should think very carefully before I answer. I guess they are waiting to spring some great trap on me. Oh well. 

If you are asking if I am paid or sponsored by either official or unofficial church institutions. No I am absolutely not.

I am an official Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So I am definitely affilliated with them since I am a card carrying member.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did he have sexual relations with 14-year olds in his thirties and did he offer love to a 12-year old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> proves otherwise.  Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, _In Sacred Lonliness_ and Richard Bushman, _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling_.
> 
> Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.
Click to expand...


The fact is, Joseph did have multiple legal wives. I don't know any husband who doesn't have sex with his wife. It's really no big deal because you can't always judge people of the 19th century by the societal standards of the 21st century. Their age is irrelevant because they were of legal age at the time. You can't judge two consenting adults of their time period who desire to get married. 14 is as random a number as 18 is today. A line has to be drawn by the lawmakers of each society at some point. There was no 18 year old line at the time. Women in those days were grown up long before they hit puberty. Decisions to marry were entirely made by the husband, wife and parents of each. Not by the state.

Learn history and it will serve you well to understand context of times.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, are you affiliated or associated or in any way in contact for these answers with any official or unofficial LDS apologetics institutions, forums, or branches?
> 
> Think very carefully before you answer, and answer truthfully in fact as well as intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I wouldn't be Truthspeaker unless I was honest would I? So your attempt to corner me into feeling guilty about associating with any of the above mentioned groups is fruitless.
> 
> I have read lots of information from people you would call apologists. So yes I am in some way in contact with official and unofficial sources of doctrine because I read up. I also read up on anti-mormon sites. I have posted links to both such sites in my myriad of answers.
> 
> I'm never quite sure how someone wants me to answer certain questions when they say I should think very carefully before I answer. I guess they are waiting to spring some great trap on me. Oh well.
> 
> If you are asking if I am paid or sponsored by either official or unofficial church institutions. No I am absolutely not.
> 
> I am an official Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So I am definitely affilliated with them since I am a card carrying member.
Click to expand...


Thank you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> proves otherwise.  Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, _In Sacred Lonliness_ and Richard Bushman, _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling_.
> 
> Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not lying. Youre the one making the accusation. It's up to you to prove it. There is absolutely no evidence he had sexual relations with anyone besides his wife Emma.
> 
> It's beside the point anyway. His testimony and the testimony of the other witnesses is not somehow made invalid by violating a social norm. He could have spent the latter half of his life engaging in actions that damned him to hell. It wouldn't invalidate anything he or the others saw and testified to.
> 
> You can't attack the message, so you have to attack the messenger. But the messenger never claimed to be anything but an imperfect man. So how does pointing out imperfections alleged or proven disprove the message? You think God doesnt work through imperfect people? If he waited for people to be perfect before they could be shown anything, He wouldnt reveal anything to anyone.
> 
> Quite frankly, discussing these accusations are quite useless because you cant prove it and even if you did it wouldnt change anything.
Click to expand...


Your statement is useless.  Smith was sexually active with women not his  wife, and, yes, that behavior does change matters.

Either you are lying or you are ignorant about Smith's sexual relations.  I have given you adequate sources in Compton and Bushman, accepted by almost all historians pro and con who write on Mormonism.  You have offered nothing.

Testimonies are personal not universal, thus the messenger's behavior must be examined.

Present-ism is not a defense of Smith's sexual escapades in the 19th century.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proves otherwise.  Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, _In Sacred Lonliness_ and Richard Bushman, _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling_.
> 
> Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact is, Joseph did have multiple legal wives. I don't know any husband who doesn't have sex with his wife. It's really no big deal because you can't always judge people of the 19th century by the societal standards of the 21st century. Their age is irrelevant because they were of legal age at the time. You can't judge two consenting adults of their time period who desire to get married. 14 is as random a number as 18 is today. A line has to be drawn by the lawmakers of each society at some point. There was no 18 year old line at the time. Women in those days were grown up long before they hit puberty. Decisions to marry were entirely made by the husband, wife and parents of each. Not by the state.
> 
> Learn history and it will serve you well to understand context of times.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your statement concerning Joseph Smith's sexual activity.

_*Present-ism *_is not a defense against JS's behavior back then.  Yes, he can and is judged by his behavior, with the same validity of judgment for the murderers at Mountain Meadows in southwest Utah Territory (Mormon militia mass murdered more than 120 men, women, children, and infants in 1857).

The 14-year olds were in the care of Smith and his wife, and they could not consent.  And, yes, the state was the defining law in the matter, not family or church.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

So when you go swimming can you take the magic underwear off?
If you have more than one wife like JSmith, can you have them naked in a big bed all at the same time? Cuz I'd be into that.
So you're saying also that JSmith was chosen by god but then lived the rest of his life in sin?


----------



## JakeStarkey

For the record -- I think the modern LDS church is no better and no worse than any other Christian denomination.  If they claim "Christ is Lord and Savior", they are no better or worse, in my opinion, than the Catholic or the Protestant or the Evangelical who claims the same.  Where I differ is that no credible proof exists that the LDS Church is the "one true church having sole authority to act in God's name here on earth."  In other words, the LDS Church is not the Kingdom of God on earth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> proves otherwise.  Read your own LDS-temple going authors Todd Compton, _In Sacred Lonliness_ and Richard Bushman, _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling_.
> 
> Shame on you for lying, and shame for stupidly lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, Joseph did have multiple legal wives. I don't know any husband who doesn't have sex with his wife. It's really no big deal because you can't always judge people of the 19th century by the societal standards of the 21st century. Their age is irrelevant because they were of legal age at the time. You can't judge two consenting adults of their time period who desire to get married. 14 is as random a number as 18 is today. A line has to be drawn by the lawmakers of each society at some point. There was no 18 year old line at the time. Women in those days were grown up long before they hit puberty. Decisions to marry were entirely made by the husband, wife and parents of each. Not by the state.
> 
> Learn history and it will serve you well to understand context of times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your statement concerning Joseph Smith's sexual activity.
> 
> _*Present-ism *_is not a defense against JS's behavior back then.  Yes, he can and is judged by his behavior, with the same validity of judgment for the murderers at Mountain Meadows in southwest Utah Territory (Mormon militia mass murdered more than 120 men, women, children, and infants in 1857).
> 
> The 14-year olds were in the care of Smith and his wife, and they could not consent.  And, yes, the state was the defining law in the matter, not family or church.
Click to expand...


Oh please. Your ignorance is amazing. Not only do you not know about acceptable social norms of the time but you don't even know that Joseph wasn't alive during the mountain meadows massacre. You could at least have accused Brigham Young of that. At least that would have figured in to the correct lifespan. Anywhoo, you have exposed yourself as lacking in knowledge and have been fed a line by some disgruntled anti-mormons. I have already fully explained the mountain meadows massacre dozens of times. I refer you to the facts located in the pre-20th page section of this thread. It's already been dealt with. you ought to read up and stop being so presumptuous as to think you are the only one who dared ask such a bold question. Realize the rest of us are way ahead of you. Not behind.

Joseph Smith has nothing to be ashamed of in his marriages. you are way out of context.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So when you go swimming can you take the magic underwear off?





> If you have more than one wife like JSmith, can you have them naked in a big bed all at the same time? Cuz I'd be into that.



You are not allowed to have more than one wife in the present day church. 



> So you're saying also that JSmith was chosen by god but then lived the rest of his life in sin?




No he did not live the rest of his life in sin.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, Joseph did have multiple legal wives. I don't know any husband who doesn't have sex with his wife. It's really no big deal because you can't always judge people of the 19th century by the societal standards of the 21st century. Their age is irrelevant because they were of legal age at the time. You can't judge two consenting adults of their time period who desire to get married. 14 is as random a number as 18 is today. A line has to be drawn by the lawmakers of each society at some point. There was no 18 year old line at the time. Women in those days were grown up long before they hit puberty. Decisions to marry were entirely made by the husband, wife and parents of each. Not by the state.
> 
> Learn history and it will serve you well to understand context of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your statement concerning Joseph Smith's sexual activity.
> 
> _*Present-ism *_is not a defense against JS's behavior back then.  Yes, he can and is judged by his behavior, with the same validity of judgment for the murderers at Mountain Meadows in southwest Utah Territory (Mormon militia mass murdered more than 120 men, women, children, and infants in 1857).
> 
> The 14-year olds were in the care of Smith and his wife, and they could not consent.  And, yes, the state was the defining law in the matter, not family or church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Your ignorance is amazing. Not only do you not know about acceptable social norms of the time but you don't even know that Joseph wasn't alive during the mountain meadows massacre. You could at least have accused Brigham Young of that. At least that would have figured in to the correct lifespan. Anywhoo, you have exposed yourself as lacking in knowledge and have been fed a line by some disgruntled anti-mormons. I have already fully explained the mountain meadows massacre dozens of times. I refer you to the facts located in the pre-20th page section of this thread. It's already been dealt with. you ought to read up and stop being so presumptuous as to think you are the only one who dared ask such a bold question. Realize the rest of us are way ahead of you. Not behind.
> 
> Joseph Smith has nothing to be ashamed of in his marriages. you are way out of context.
Click to expand...


Personal attack and snot-blowing is not helpful, elder.  We will have to agree to not agree, and, hopefully, we can do it agreeably.  My knowledge is much more in depth and balanced than yours.  Go consult with Treavor Holyoak, Blair Hodges, and Louis Midgley.  You are way in over your head.

I am glad that you believe.  I believe that you believe.  But Bushman and Compton and Hardy would chuckle at you.  I can't imagine what Bagley and Bringhurst would say.

So let's be nice to each other, and we can discuss peacefully where we agree and where we disagree about the LDS church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Your statement is useless.  Smith was sexually active with women not his  wife, and, yes, that behavior does change matters.
> 
> Either you are lying or you are ignorant about Smith's sexual relations.  I have given you adequate sources in Compton and Bushman, accepted by almost all historians pro and con who write on Mormonism.  You have offered nothing.
> 
> Testimonies are personal not universal, thus the messenger's behavior must be examined.
> 
> Present-ism is not a defense of Smith's sexual escapades in the 19th century.



It has been documented and admitted by Joseph that he had multiple wives. What is heresay and not fact is these sexual escapades you speak of. 
I simply do not believe them. I have studied his life and character in great detail and he simply is not the kind of person to have such escapades. For every person you have accusing Joseph of extra-marital affairs(and there are not many) you will have 10,000 others who will vouch for his character. 

It's nothing more than a he said she said type of a deal with a lot more positives than negative testimonies of Joseph Smith. Draw your own conclusions about the man. I've drawn mine.

Adultery was a felony in his day and was tried and acquitted on all accounts ever brought before him. He was never convicted of any crime...Ever.Some of those were adultery.

There is therefore no proof of his affairs. It seems highly unlikely that he would even have time for them if you knew how busy he was.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> So when you go swimming can you take the magic underwear off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have more than one wife like JSmith, can you have them naked in a big bed all at the same time? Cuz I'd be into that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not allowed to have more than one wife in the present day church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying also that JSmith was chosen by god but then lived the rest of his life in sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No he did not live the rest of his life in sin.
Click to expand...


Some of the Restorationist Branches of the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ) believe exactly that he lived the last few years of his life in sin.

Some Restorationists believe that Joseph Smith had only relationships with Emma Smith, his only legal wife.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> For the record -- I think the modern LDS church is no better and no worse than any other Christian denomination.  If they claim "Christ is Lord and Savior", they are no better or worse, in my opinion, than the Catholic or the Protestant or the Evangelical who claims the same.  Where I differ is that no credible proof exists that the LDS Church is the "one true church having sole authority to act in God's name here on earth."  In other words, the LDS Church is not the Kingdom of God on earth.



That's fine. you have drawn your conclusion on our church. If you ever become inquisitive enough to know why we claim what we claim, my door is always open.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Your statement is useless.  Smith was sexually active with women not his  wife, and, yes, that behavior does change matters.
> 
> Either you are lying or you are ignorant about Smith's sexual relations.  I have given you adequate sources in Compton and Bushman, accepted by almost all historians pro and con who write on Mormonism.  You have offered nothing.
> 
> Testimonies are personal not universal, thus the messenger's behavior must be examined.
> 
> Present-ism is not a defense of Smith's sexual escapades in the 19th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been documented and admitted by Joseph that he had multiple wives. What is heresay and not fact is these sexual escapades you speak of.
> I simply do not believe them. I have studied his life and character in great detail and he simply is not the kind of person to have such escapades. For every person you have accusing Joseph of extra-marital affairs(and there are not many) you will have 10,000 others who will vouch for his character.
> 
> It's nothing more than a he said she said type of a deal with a lot more positives than negative testimonies of Joseph Smith. Draw your own conclusions about the man. I've drawn mine.
> 
> Adultery was a felony in his day and was tried and acquitted on all accounts ever brought before him. He was never convicted of any crime...Ever.Some of those were adultery.
> 
> There is therefore no proof of his affairs. It seems highly unlikely that he would even have time for them if you knew how busy he was.
Click to expand...


All sexual activity with a woman not Emma was adultery now and then.  That he was not convicted means nothing more than he was not convicted.  He can still be tried in the court of public opinion on the evidence.  And very competent historians, temple goers like yourself, and professionals in Mormon studies, such as Bushman and Compton, do believe JS had such relationships.  Whether you believe them is immaterial.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record -- I think the modern LDS church is no better and no worse than any other Christian denomination.  If they claim "Christ is Lord and Savior", they are no better or worse, in my opinion, than the Catholic or the Protestant or the Evangelical who claims the same.  Where I differ is that no credible proof exists that the LDS Church is the "one true church having sole authority to act in God's name here on earth."  In other words, the LDS Church is not the Kingdom of God on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. you have drawn your conclusion on our church. If you ever become inquisitive enough to know why we claim what we claim, my door is always open.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your invitation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your statement concerning Joseph Smith's sexual activity.
> 
> _*Present-ism *_is not a defense against JS's behavior back then.  Yes, he can and is judged by his behavior, with the same validity of judgment for the murderers at Mountain Meadows in southwest Utah Territory (Mormon militia mass murdered more than 120 men, women, children, and infants in 1857).
> 
> The 14-year olds were in the care of Smith and his wife, and they could not consent.  And, yes, the state was the defining law in the matter, not family or church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. Your ignorance is amazing. Not only do you not know about acceptable social norms of the time but you don't even know that Joseph wasn't alive during the mountain meadows massacre. You could at least have accused Brigham Young of that. At least that would have figured in to the correct lifespan. Anywhoo, you have exposed yourself as lacking in knowledge and have been fed a line by some disgruntled anti-mormons. I have already fully explained the mountain meadows massacre dozens of times. I refer you to the facts located in the pre-20th page section of this thread. It's already been dealt with. you ought to read up and stop being so presumptuous as to think you are the only one who dared ask such a bold question. Realize the rest of us are way ahead of you. Not behind.
> 
> Joseph Smith has nothing to be ashamed of in his marriages. you are way out of context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personal attack and snot-blowing is not helpful, elder.  We will have to agree to not agree, and, hopefully, we can do it agreeably.  My knowledge is much more in depth and balanced than yours.  Go consult with Treavor Holyoak, Blair Hodges, and Louis Midgley.  You are way in over your head.
> 
> I am glad that you believe.  I believe that you believe.  But Bushman and Compton and Hardy would chuckle at you.  I can't imagine what Bagley and Bringhurst would say.
> 
> So let's be nice to each other, and we can discuss peacefully where we agree and where we disagree about the LDS church.
Click to expand...


Au Contraire, my friend. Every wave that has come against the church has not destroyed it. It's the beach that will always be there while the waves constanty try to destroy it. 

I certainly didn't attack you or blow any snot. I simply stated that you are ignorant. You are lacking knowledge. You may know the writings of those authors better than I do but there's nothing you can say, I am sure, that will discredit the Prophet Joseph. So please, bring up your deep dark secrets and let all of Joseph's "dirty laundry" come to the forefront. I'd be pleased to hear something I haven't heard yet.


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record -- I think the modern LDS church is no better and no worse than any other Christian denomination.  If they claim "Christ is Lord and Savior", they are no better or worse, in my opinion, than the Catholic or the Protestant or the Evangelical who claims the same.  Where I differ is that no credible proof exists that the LDS Church is the "one true church having sole authority to act in God's name here on earth."  In other words, the LDS Church is not the Kingdom of God on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. you have drawn your conclusion on our church. If you ever become inquisitive enough to know why we claim what we claim, my door is always open.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for your invitation.
Click to expand...


*If you ever become inquisitive enough to know why we claim what we claim, my door is always open. *

Mine also...


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statement is useless.  Smith was sexually active with women not his  wife, and, yes, that behavior does change matters.
> 
> Either you are lying or you are ignorant about Smith's sexual relations.  I have given you adequate sources in Compton and Bushman, accepted by almost all historians pro and con who write on Mormonism.  You have offered nothing.
> 
> Testimonies are personal not universal, thus the messenger's behavior must be examined.
> 
> Present-ism is not a defense of Smith's sexual escapades in the 19th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been documented and admitted by Joseph that he had multiple wives. What is heresay and not fact is these sexual escapades you speak of.
> I simply do not believe them. I have studied his life and character in great detail and he simply is not the kind of person to have such escapades. For every person you have accusing Joseph of extra-marital affairs(and there are not many) you will have 10,000 others who will vouch for his character.
> 
> It's nothing more than a he said she said type of a deal with a lot more positives than negative testimonies of Joseph Smith. Draw your own conclusions about the man. I've drawn mine.
> 
> Adultery was a felony in his day and was tried and acquitted on all accounts ever brought before him. He was never convicted of any crime...Ever.Some of those were adultery.
> 
> There is therefore no proof of his affairs. It seems highly unlikely that he would even have time for them if you knew how busy he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All sexual activity with a woman not Emma was adultery now and then.  That he was not convicted means nothing more than he was not convicted.  He can still be tried in the court of public opinion on the evidence.  And very competent historians, temple goers like yourself, and professionals in Mormon studies, such as Bushman and Compton, do believe JS had such relationships.  Whether you believe them is immaterial.
Click to expand...


I have never denied he had sexual relationships with his wives. I'm sure he did. but when you are married, it is not adultery see the definition of Adultery:

adultery - Definition  [&#601;-d&#365;l&#769;t&#601;-r&#275;, -tr&#275;]
(n.) Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse. 

Dictionary.com · The American Heritage® Dictionary 

Therefore the adultery argument doesn't fly by definition. 

The court of public opinion proves nothing. It's just a consensus of opinions. It only proves the prophecy given to Joseph by the Angel Moroni is fulfilled. When 14 years old, a nobody, in backwoods New York, completely un-famous, was told that good and evil should be spoken of him throughout all the world. This has already happened and continues to happen.

The real issue is that you don't like polygamy. You think that those who are polygamous are scum of society. But do you really know these people you condemn. Are you in the judgment seat of God to deal out damnation?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. Your ignorance is amazing. Not only do you not know about acceptable social norms of the time but you don't even know that Joseph wasn't alive during the mountain meadows massacre. You could at least have accused Brigham Young of that. At least that would have figured in to the correct lifespan. Anywhoo, you have exposed yourself as lacking in knowledge and have been fed a line by some disgruntled anti-mormons. I have already fully explained the mountain meadows massacre dozens of times. I refer you to the facts located in the pre-20th page section of this thread. It's already been dealt with. you ought to read up and stop being so presumptuous as to think you are the only one who dared ask such a bold question. Realize the rest of us are way ahead of you. Not behind.
> 
> Joseph Smith has nothing to be ashamed of in his marriages. you are way out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personal attack and snot-blowing is not helpful, elder.  We will have to agree to not agree, and, hopefully, we can do it agreeably.  My knowledge is much more in depth and balanced than yours.  Go consult with Treavor Holyoak, Blair Hodges, and Louis Midgley.  You are way in over your head.
> 
> I am glad that you believe.  I believe that you believe.  But Bushman and Compton and Hardy would chuckle at you.  I can't imagine what Bagley and Bringhurst would say.
> 
> So let's be nice to each other, and we can discuss peacefully where we agree and where we disagree about the LDS church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Au Contraire, my friend. Every wave that has come against the church has not destroyed it. It's the beach that will always be there while the waves constanty try to destroy it.
> 
> I certainly didn't attack you or blow any snot. I simply stated that you are ignorant. You are lacking knowledge. You may know the writings of those authors better than I do but there's nothing you can say, I am sure, that will discredit the Prophet Joseph. So please, bring up your deep dark secrets and let all of Joseph's "dirty laundry" come to the forefront. I'd be pleased to hear something I haven't heard yet.
Click to expand...


You are wrong, but you are a True Believer, so that is to be expected.

We can be nice to each other, I think.  And I have enjoyed much of your material.

I am curious with what you disagree about what I posted on Mountain Meadows: not argumentive, just curious.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. you have drawn your conclusion on our church. If you ever become inquisitive enough to know why we claim what we claim, my door is always open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your invitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you ever become inquisitive enough to know why we claim what we claim, my door is always open. *
> 
> Mine also...
Click to expand...


What are your claims Huggy?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> You are wrong, but you are a True Believer, so that is to be expected.
> 
> We can be nice to each other, I think. And I have enjoyed much of your material.
> 
> I am curious with what you disagree about what I posted on Mountain Meadows: not argumentive, just curious.



You said that Joseph was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But he was slain long before the event happened. How could he have ordered such a thing?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> You are wrong, but you are a True Believer, so that is to be expected.
> 
> We can be nice to each other, I think. And I have enjoyed much of your material.
> 
> I am curious with what you disagree about what I posted on Mountain Meadows: not argumentive, just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that Joseph was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But he was slain long before the event happened. How could he have ordered such a thing?
Click to expand...


Either you read me wrong or I wrote wrong.  Yes, he died thirteen years and some months before the dastardly deed on the meadows.  No, I was talking about the principle of _present-ism_.  Yes, we can judge the perps at MMM.  Yes, we can judge JS and his activities.  Our standards today do not preclude judgment of other eras.  But we have to be aware of the big differences.

For instance, no one in 1860 in America could possibly envision our 21st century culture of diversity and striving for tolerance.  But just because they can't see "us" today, does not mean that African American chattel slavery was right.  It wasn't.  But let me add, that if you and I were born in South Carolina in 1830, a pretty good chance would have it that we would have been fighting against Old Glory.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Your statement is useless.  Smith was sexually active with women not his  wife, and, yes, that behavior does change matters.
> 
> Either you are lying or you are ignorant about Smith's sexual relations.  I have given you adequate sources in Compton and Bushman, accepted by almost all historians pro and con who write on Mormonism.  You have offered nothing.
> 
> Testimonies are personal not universal, thus the messenger's behavior must be examined.
> 
> Present-ism is not a defense of Smith's sexual escapades in the 19th century.



So basically you have nothing. 

There is zero evidence that Joseph had any sexual relations with anyone other than Emma. You're refusal provide anything suggests you dont understand what you are even claiming. 

You cant deal with the message so you attack the messenger.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong, but you are a True Believer, so that is to be expected.
> 
> We can be nice to each other, I think. And I have enjoyed much of your material.
> 
> I am curious with what you disagree about what I posted on Mountain Meadows: not argumentive, just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that Joseph was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But he was slain long before the event happened. How could he have ordered such a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I was talking about the principle of present-ism.  Yes, we can judge the perps at MMM.  Yes, we can judge JS and his activities.  Our standards today do not preclude judgment of other eras.  But we have to be aware of the big differences.
> 
> For instance, no one in 1860 in America could possibly envision our 21st century culture of diversity and striving for tolerance.  But just because they can't see "us" today, does not mean that African American chattel slavery was right.  It wasn't.  But let me add, that if you and I were born in South Carolina in 1830, a pretty good chance would have it that we would have been fighting against Old Glory.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on moral constants that last throughout the ages. Slavery is wrong no matter what. Adultery is wrong no matter what. But what you are debating is that polygamy in and of itself is wrong. I would disagree with that. I don't think polygamists are bad people simply because they are polygamists. Today such people get a bad rap because of what you see extremists on TV doing. But if the husband is committed to his wives, loves them and cares for them and they reciprocate, who of us is qualified to say their marriage is sinful? Polygamy has all too often been abused by domineering husbands who abuse the women and sometimes illegal girls involved and give the practice a bad name. There are many people today in polygamous communities who are good honorable people throughout the world. Culture differences between them and western society in general have caused ignorance and hatred for polygamous communities.

Murder is always wrong. the perpetrators of the MMM were punished according to the law and the church separately.

Age of marriage is definitely a cultural decision.  It is irresponsible to assume 18 as the perrenial legal age for all time. Women in the early years of the US were commonly married by the age of 14 and sometimes younger. The maturity of the woman in the eyes of the parents giving the daughter away was the deciding factor for being "of age." Certainly you would find 14 year olds far more motherly than most 21 year olds today. They were culturally trained for motherhood and housekeeping from birth and were taught that this was their primary responsibility in life and most women DESIRED this at the time. What a novel idea! Women actually wanted to get married. And they were considered undesirable or "old maids" if unmarried by 20! A foreign concept to today's hard charging girl power movement.

Cultures are different in different times. Joseph did nothing illegal by marrying women who by today's standards would be considered underage. But the laws of the land of the day allowed individuals to make their own choices.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong, but you are a True Believer, so that is to be expected.
> 
> We can be nice to each other, I think. And I have enjoyed much of your material.
> 
> I am curious with what you disagree about what I posted on Mountain Meadows: not argumentive, just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said that Joseph was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But he was slain long before the event happened. How could he have ordered such a thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you read me wrong or I wrote wrong.  Yes, he died thirteen years and some months before the dastardly deed on the meadows.  No, I was talking about the principle of _present-ism_.  Yes, we can judge the perps at MMM.  Yes, we can judge JS and his activities.  Our standards today do not preclude judgment of other eras.  But we have to be aware of the big differences.
> 
> For instance, no one in 1860 in America could possibly envision our 21st century culture of diversity and striving for tolerance.  But just because they can't see "us" today, does not mean that African American chattel slavery was right.  It wasn't.  But let me add, that if you and I were born in South Carolina in 1830, a pretty good chance would have it that we would have been fighting against Old Glory.
Click to expand...


Well Joseph Smith certainly saw a vision of what it would be like today. He was the first to prophesy that Blacks would "rise up against their masters. And be marshalled and disciplined for war." He was the one who said that in God's kingdom "All are alike, both Jew and Gentile, bond and free, black and white. And (God) remembereth the heathen. And none are denied but all are made partakers of salvation.

He also predicted there would be great equality in God's eternal realm and that there would be no poor among them or class differences.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker, I don't care about polygamy.  That's between God and the people, not you and me or your General Authorities.  What we think about it is irrelevant.  What I am talking about is very young girls who were in the charge of Emma and Joseph.  The behavior then and now is indefensible.  And regardless what Avatar thinks (who has offered no proof at all in defense that JS was sexless except with Emma), JS's behavior with the girls was morally wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar, can't you read: Either you are lying or you are ignorant about Smith's sexual relations. I have given you adequate sources in Compton and Bushman, accepted by almost all historians pro and con who write on Mormonism. You have offered nothing in rebuttal.

Are you one of the recent LDS converts (last twenty years) or a Restorationist?  If you are LDS, go find a bornLDS High Councilman in this sixities.  He will tell you what was taught in his church fifty years ago about Joseph Smith and his wives.

You must remember that your opinion and testimony is worthless as evidence.  And the evidence is in: Joseph boinked with women other than Emma.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker, I don't care about polygamy.  That's between God and the people, not you and me or your General Authorities.  What we think about it is irrelevant.  What I am talking about is very young girls who were in the charge of Emma and Joseph.  The behavior then and now is indefensible.  And regardless what Avatar thinks (who has offered no proof at all in defense that JS was sexless except with Emma), JS's behavior with the girls was morally wrong.



I don't know what heinous behavior you are talking about. Sex between husband and wife? Be careful when you say girls. They considered themselves women who were legally and lawfully wedded. It may even be the case that the consummation of these marriages did not happen right away, but that is also irrelevant. They were married by consent. 

What information do you have to the contrary?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said that Joseph was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. But he was slain long before the event happened. How could he have ordered such a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you read me wrong or I wrote wrong.  Yes, he died thirteen years and some months before the dastardly deed on the meadows.  No, I was talking about the principle of _present-ism_.  Yes, we can judge the perps at MMM.  Yes, we can judge JS and his activities.  Our standards today do not preclude judgment of other eras.  But we have to be aware of the big differences.
> 
> For instance, no one in 1860 in America could possibly envision our 21st century culture of diversity and striving for tolerance.  But just because they can't see "us" today, does not mean that African American chattel slavery was right.  It wasn't.  But let me add, that if you and I were born in South Carolina in 1830, a pretty good chance would have it that we would have been fighting against Old Glory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Joseph Smith certainly saw a vision of what it would be like today. He was the first to prophesy that Blacks would "rise up against their masters. And be marshalled and disciplined for war." He was the one who said that in God's kingdom "All are alike, both Jew and Gentile, bond and free, black and white. And (God) remembereth the heathen. And none are denied but all are made partakers of salvation.
> 
> He also predicted there would be great equality in God's eternal realm and that there would be no poor among them or class differences.
Click to expand...


Joseph was following good company, that of the original apostles.  Was it not Philip who baptized the black eunuch from Ethiopia, who by heritage (a child of Ham) and by being unsexed (castrated) was not allowed to be a Jew, thus opening the gospel to all?

How amazing that the Jews who excluded eunuchs and the children of Ham would generally exclude themselves from Christianity and thus become victims of Christian hatred and pogroms for almost 2,000 years.

By the by, check race laws in the Nauvoo city statutes.  Mayor Smith, while liberal among whites in his day and age, did pronounce some unjust decisions based on race.  But, all in all, he was far better on this issue than most whites of the age, and he was light years in front of Brigham Young and John Taylor, stone cold racists completely reflective of the larger American society.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, I don't care about polygamy.  That's between God and the people, not you and me or your General Authorities.  What we think about it is irrelevant.  What I am talking about is very young girls who were in the charge of Emma and Joseph.  The behavior then and now is indefensible.  And regardless what Avatar thinks (who has offered no proof at all in defense that JS was sexless except with Emma), JS's behavior with the girls was morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what heinous behavior you are talking about. Sex between husband and wife? Be careful when you say girls. They considered themselves women who were legally and lawfully wedded. It may even be the case that the consummation of these marriages did not happen right away, but that is also irrelevant. They were married by consent.
> 
> What information do you have to the contrary?
Click to expand...

.

Better read your Compton, a temple-going historian of renown and repute in the Mormon world.  The girls were 14, they were servants of Joseph and Emma, and they believed they had to marry him to ensure their salvation.  The weak and defenseless can never consent.  Once again, what you believe is immaterial.  Only the facts count.  Please do not use the arguments the FLDS use.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Joseph was following good company, that of the original apostles.  Was it not Philip who baptized the black eunuch from Ethiopia, who by heritage (a child of Ham) and by being unsexed (castrated) was not allowed to be a Jew, thus opening the gospel to all?


I believe you are right. Thus goes the prophecy stating that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. The first(Jews) should be the last ones to accept the gospel. The last(seed of Ham) would be the last to hear about it, but the first to accept it.(see the droves of africans joining our church at a faster rate than any other group.)

How amazing that the Jews who excluded eunuchs and the children of Ham would generally exclude themselves from Christianity and thus become victims of Christian hatred and pogroms for almost 2,000 years.(prophecy fulfilled)



> By the by, check race laws in the Nauvoo city statutes.  Mayor Smith, while liberal among whites in his day and age, did pronounce some unjust decisions based on race.


I haven't done extensive research on Nauvoo city race laws but I'd be interested to hear which laws were unjust. Do you know of any?



> But, all in all, he was far better on this issue than most whites of the age, and he was light years in front of Brigham Young and John Taylor, stone cold racists completely reflective of the larger American society.



That's quite debatable when I have done my research on both Young and Taylor. I am afraid you, as many others, have taken their statements out of context. Both continued to assert that the seed of Ham would have a glorious restoration to the priesthood and would be counted as great saints and leaders in the future church of God. I don't have my book "Discourses of Brigham Young" handy but if you insist I'll find the page and tell you where it's found.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, I don't care about polygamy.  That's between God and the people, not you and me or your General Authorities.  What we think about it is irrelevant.  What I am talking about is very young girls who were in the charge of Emma and Joseph.  The behavior then and now is indefensible.  And regardless what Avatar thinks (who has offered no proof at all in defense that JS was sexless except with Emma), JS's behavior with the girls was morally wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what heinous behavior you are talking about. Sex between husband and wife? Be careful when you say girls. They considered themselves women who were legally and lawfully wedded. It may even be the case that the consummation of these marriages did not happen right away, but that is also irrelevant. They were married by consent.
> 
> What information do you have to the contrary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Better read your Compton, a temple-going historian of renown and repute in the Mormon world.  The girls were 14, they were servants of Joseph and Emma, and they believed they had to marry him to ensure their salvation.  The weak and defenseless can never consent.  Once again, what you believe is immaterial.  Only the facts count.  Please do not use the arguments the FLDS use.
Click to expand...


I don't feel like reading the book. I don't even know who the author is or what the title of the book is. Plus I don't have it, so why don't you present the passages to all of us. Please include direct quotes and page numbers if you don't mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read.  You can go to [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Loneliness-Plural-Wives-Joseph/dp/156085085X]Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books[/ame] and read some of the thirty-five reviews.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read.  You can go to Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books and read some of the thirty-five reviews.



To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice. 

But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Where can I get some of those "magic underwear" so I can try them on to see if I like the feel. Do they come in satin? That would be hot.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read.  You can go to Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books and read some of the thirty-five reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.
> 
> But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?
Click to expand...


Maybe such an astute, intelligent person as yourself should start caring, you might have a real unbiased epiphany about Mormonism's true history.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read.  You can go to Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books and read some of the thirty-five reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.
> 
> But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe such an astute, intelligent person as yourself should start caring, you might have a real unbiased epiphany about Mormonism's true history.
Click to expand...


Anyone here read the book? Anyone got any direct quotes from it? I'd be curious. But the testimonials of the book are shockingly the same as the testimonials for and against Joseph Smith in general. Not enough hard evidence to make up a definite iron clad case against him for all the bad things he's been accused of. some good reviews and some bad. Another fulfillment of prophecy. 

Once again contextual knowledge is the enemy of the anti-Mormon. There's been nothing but he-said-she-saids against the Prophet. People draw their own conclusions. but until you have walked in the man's shoes or eyewitnessed his life for yourself, you are in no position to judge.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Where can I get some of those "magic underwear" so I can try them on to see if I like the feel. Do they come in satin? That would be hot.



My sarcasm detector is reading off the charts


----------



## Eightball

> Truthspeaker:  I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on



"And God Said, "Let There Be Librarys."."


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Truthspeaker said:


> Rubber Hoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I get some of those "magic underwear" so I can try them on to see if I like the feel. Do they come in satin? That would be hot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My sarcasm detector is reading off the charts
Click to expand...


No, seriously! I can't join a religion if the threads aren't cool. They look like they'd put my gonads in a headlock! Or do you get some really baggy 'wears?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker:  I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And God Said, "Let There Be Librarys."."
Click to expand...


This wouldn't be the first misquote of yours.

As for the book. I'd read it if it was free. I'm just not going to waste 30 bucks on a book I don't need. I'm sure it would be nice trivia, but thats all. i'll stick to the scriptures.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Maybe such an astute, intelligent person as yourself should start caring, you might have a real unbiased epiphany about Mormonism's true history.



Maybe an astute intelligent person like yourself will realize that there is no such thing as real unbiased history.

As for Mormonism's true history, you dont have an accurate view of it. You also don't have a reasonable expectation of what it should be. If you expect any man other than Jesus Christ to be perfect and live God's standards perfectly, then you dont understand reality.

Moses killed a man
Peter cut off a mans ear and denied Christ three times.
David committed adultry and murdered.
Jonah cursed God.

Yet these are all prophets of God. They were all godly men. If you somehow expect men of God to be perfect in the last days then you have unreasonable expectations. If you expect the history of God's covenant people to not be wierd, peculiar, and odd to the world, then you arent paying attention to the scriptures.

If these men who were all called of God and well respected throughout the scriptures made mistakes, why do you expect modern prophets not to? Attacking Joseph because he isnt perfect doesnt prove the Restoration didnt happen. Demonstrating that mormons arent perfect doesnt disprove mormonism. Especially when one of the main premises is that all men have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. That's why Christ is our Savior. That is why we need Him.

You know, for someone so concerned about us not focusing on works, you would think that youd be less focused on it and more focused on the message.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker:  I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And God Said, "Let There Be Librarys."."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This wouldn't be the first misquote of yours.
> 
> As for the book. I'd read it if it was free. I'm just not going to waste 30 bucks on a book I don't need. I'm sure it would be nice trivia, but thats all. i'll stick to the scriptures.
Click to expand...


Hello there?  "Librarys don't charge $30.00 to check out a book.".


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe such an astute, intelligent person as yourself should start caring, you might have a real unbiased epiphany about Mormonism's true history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe an astute intelligent person like yourself will realize that there is no such thing as real unbiased history.
> 
> As for Mormonism's true history, you dont have an accurate view of it. You also don't have a reasonable expectation of what it should be. If you expect any man other than Jesus Christ to be perfect and live God's standards perfectly, then you dont understand reality.
> 
> Moses killed a man
> Peter cut off a mans ear and denied Christ three times.
> David committed adultry and murdered.
> Jonah cursed God.
> 
> Yet these are all prophets of God. They were all godly men. If you somehow expect men of God to be perfect in the last days then you have unreasonable expectations. If you expect the history of God's covenant people to not be wierd, peculiar, and odd to the world, then you arent paying attention to the scriptures.
> 
> If these men who were all called of God and well respected throughout the scriptures made mistakes, why do you expect modern prophets not to? Attacking Joseph because he isnt perfect doesnt prove the Restoration didnt happen. Demonstrating that mormons arent perfect doesnt disprove mormonism. Especially when one of the main premises is that all men have sinned and come short of the Glory of God. That's why Christ is our Savior. That is why we need Him.
> 
> You know, for someone so concerned about us not focusing on works, you would think that youd be less focused on it and more focused on the message.
Click to expand...


Your right, all those bible saints did those things........but they didn't "continue" in sin, as J.S. Jr. did to the very end of his life.

Make no mistake about this, J.S. jr.'s life when compared to those above named men of the bible can't hold a "twig" to them.

His life was rife with conning, polygamy, outrageous lies, plagarism, from beginning to it's sad demise.  Not so of Peter, Paul, David, Solomon, etc...  There is no evidence of any repentance from J.S. Jr.'s wayward unbiblical ways right to the end of his life shooting it out with an angry mob in Illinois.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

C'mon, don't pick on avatar. So what if his hero jsmith was a dirtbag before and even after he was chosen by god? A lot of people still idolize Hitler too. You gonna pick on them as well?

Thruthspeaker, if I become mormon, does someone just give my their young daughter like an arranged marriage? Or do I get to pick?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> C'mon, don't pick on avatar. So what if his hero jsmith was a dirtbag before and even after he was chosen by god? A lot of people still idolize Hitler too. You gonna pick on them as well?
> 
> Thruthspeaker, if I become mormon, does someone just give my their young daughter like an arranged marriage? Or do I get to pick?



Hoser,

Nobody would pick you for a husband. So you wouldn't be a good candidate for Mormonism.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Truthspeaker said:


> Hoser,
> 
> Nobody would pick you for a husband. So you wouldn't be a good candidate for Mormonism.



WHAT!! I thought you took anyone? Plus, I'm actually a good looking guy, I'm sure I could attract a few partners. I'm even willing to believe in the alien stuff... if I can get some young you-know-what. Do you have a website that I can check out the chicks on? 
One thing though, I'll need to join a sect that allows polygamy. You can set me up, right?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hoser,
> 
> Nobody would pick you for a husband. So you wouldn't be a good candidate for Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT!! I thought you took anyone? Plus, I'm actually a good looking guy, I'm sure I could attract a few partners. I'm even willing to believe in the alien stuff... if I can get some young you-know-what. Do you have a website that I can check out the chicks on?
> One thing though, I'll need to join a sect that allows polygamy. You can set me up, right?
Click to expand...


Sorry Hoser,
You'll have to contact the extremists in back country Utah or texas. Can't help ya there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have questions:
> 
> is it true that woman must be married to enter heaven?
> 
> is it true that mormons become "god like" upon there deaths in their heaven?
> 
> how accurate is "big love" on hbo about mormons?
> 
> o and i have noticed you really havent answered anyones questions..
> 
> why not explain the "blessed" undergarments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I went to sleep last night asking for questions, You all have surely not disappointed, which I appreciate. So please be patient if I can't be on here 24-7. It doesn't mean I am not going to answer questions just because I don't live on here.
> 
> 1.Alright lets go with the first one here. It is not true in the official doctrine that a woman needs to be married to anyone in order to go to heaven. That is false doctrine.
> 
> 2. I am not quite sure what you mean by "god-like" but I can tell you that we will be ressurected with an immortal physical and perfect body, like God has. But will not become Gods at the ressurection.
> 
> 3. I have not seen the show, but apparently from the weird title and the fact that HBO airs it, I am skeptical as to it's accuracy.
> 
> 4.If you haven't noticed me answer anyones questions then that is quite a blanket statement since I immediately answered a very complex question from the first poster about the jaredite barges and orgin of native americans rather quickly. I have answered questions several times before yours if you care to observe. As per my aforementioned life outside of the computer I only just now got the chance to respond to the "magic underwear" comment which term we find quite offensive and inacurate that they would be called such a disrespectful name.
Click to expand...


Truth, the doctrine has been 'to become as gods with your own kingdoms and goddesses' since 1844 until President Hinckley weasled in the media about that some years ago.

Any objective research will document the as God once was, man is, and is God is, man may become.

How amazing that in fifty years "man to God" and "Joseph had sex with his women" have gone out the window, and now many deny what history has recorded.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here.  The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism.  Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.

The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.'  All the sects claim it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read.  You can go to Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books and read some of the thirty-five reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.
> 
> But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?
Click to expand...


Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.

Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Truth, the doctrine has been 'to become as gods with your own kingdoms and goddesses' since 1844 until President Hinckley weasled in the media about that some years ago.



Of course, I've never denied that. You read my statement wrong.


> Any objective research will document the as God once was, man is, and is God is, man may become.



Just because I said we don't become gods at resurrection doesn't mean we can't become gods later. You are just not understanding the timeline of events and when they are said to happen.


> How amazing that in fifty years "man to God" and "Joseph had sex with his women" have gone out the window, and now many deny what history has recorded.


Nothing went out the window. None of that is denied. It is still doctrine. It is less focused on than in years passed but nothing has changed in those regards.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here.  The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism.  Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.
> 
> The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.'  All the sects claim it.



The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 

The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority. 

Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read.  You can go to Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books and read some of the thirty-five reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.
> 
> But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.
> 
> Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.
Click to expand...


I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews. 

show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then I did read you wrong, and I apologize.  You are going to use the eternal progression route for becoming gods.  Better go back and read B. McConkie; his views depart radically from yours.  And, if you have the time, once upon a time a guy by the name of Hartman Rector, a convert who became a Seventy when only one general quorum of them existed at general authority level, preached exactly what I think you believe.  McConkie, who I think was in the Seventy with him at the time, diagreed with him big time.  So did McConkie's boss, Joseph Fielding Smith.

You think I know a bit about Mormonism?  You need to meet Jeff Needle of San Diego, the Jewish book editor of the Association of Mormon Letters online.  I have never met a better read individual on Mormonism than him, and that goes for Leonard Arrington or Mike Quinn or Louis Midgley.  Needle is a funy, funny guy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.
> 
> But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.
> 
> Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews.
> 
> show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.
Click to expand...


Not only did I read the book, I reviewed it.  But a true scholar and student of history knows the literature, and clearly you don't.  We can leave it at that for what it is worth.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here.  The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism.  Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.
> 
> The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.'  All the sects claim it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
> 
> The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority.
> 
> Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."
Click to expand...


Yes, I understand, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And off the main page of Lds.org we find "Mormon Channel (-) Listen to Mormon Channel, the Churchs new 24-hour-a-day audio station featuring gospel-oriented programs, music, interviews, and much more. You can access the station through live Internet streaming, podcasts, and iPhone applications, as well as on HD radio."


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Then I did read you wrong, and I apologize.  You are going to use the eternal progression route for becoming gods.  Better go back and read B. McConkie; his views depart radically from yours.  And, if you have the time, once upon a time a guy by the name of Hartman Rector, a convert who became a Seventy when only one general quorum of them existed at general authority level, preached exactly what I think you believe.  McConkie, who I think was in the Seventy with him at the time, diagreed with him big time.  So did McConkie's boss, Joseph Fielding Smith.
> 
> You think I know a bit about Mormonism?  You need to meet Jeff Needle of San Diego, the Jewish book editor of the Association of Mormon Letters online.  I have never met a better read individual on Mormonism than him, and that goes for Leonard Arrington or Mike Quinn or Louis Midgley.  Needle is a funy, funny guy.



No I don't think you do know much about Mormonism at all. You think you do but you are only getting the spoonfed anti-mormon version of it.

What Bruce R. McKonkie was speaking about in "Mormon Doctrine" is the same thing we believe in today. You also aren't taking the proper context of my statements in answering  3rd party inquiring minds on this thread. As to becoming a god. xsited was asking me if we just instantly become gods at the ressurection. There is so much more to it than that though. 
So assuming you can handle stronger meat, I will explain. The resurrection date of each individual is not the same. yes there is 1 great big resurrection day prior to the millenial reign following Jesus' second coming. But there will be and have been many people resurrected at earlier times. Since we believe in eternal progression it has also been revealed in the doctrine and covenants that some of our progenitors have already become gods since they have been working at it for many millenia i.e. Adam. 

Our turns will come if we meet the criteria. And let there be no mistake. XSITED was asking if we(mormons) become gods when we die and are resurrected. That is why I said no, we don't become gods at the snap of a finger and no because it's not decided who will receive exaltation based on what church you belong to. The criteria for becoming a god involves being pure in heart and willing to obey Gods commandments long after this life is over. It's not just Mormons.

do you comprehend the complex nature of my answer? I assume you do. This is not pontificating. This is logical reasoning. There IS no dogma in our church because dogma by nature is not to be questioned and we invite more scrutiny and questioning of our doctrine than any other religion. Therefore by definition we have no dogmas.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.
> 
> Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews.
> 
> show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only did I read the book, I reviewed it.  But a true scholar and student of history knows the literature, and clearly you don't.  We can leave it at that for what it is worth.
Click to expand...


A true scholar of the history of the church has read all volumes of "The History of the Church", all the Standard works, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." "The joseph smith papers" "discourses of the prophet Brigham Young", "Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites" by Hugh Nibley, "An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon", by John L. Sorenson, "Joseph Smith & The Restoration" , "The Maya" by Michael D. Coe and countless articles of science and history. 

This one book you speak of which gives at least fairly accurate details of the lives of Josephs wives would mean little more to me than journal reading. There is nothing in the claims of the reviews that I haven't heard before. What were the mistakes and sins Joseph was guilty of? It is irrelevant because all humans sin. Well maybe not entirely irrelevant. Some sins he is accused of he is not guilty of other than by court of public opinion, which court is not the foundation of my faith. My foundation comes from Christ and private meditation to commune with God for my answers. 

Scientific evidences, historical confirmations and miracle witnesses are just bonuses. the addition or subraction of which, has no effect on my faith. 

That is why I won't pay 30 bucks to buy an overpriced book. I'd rather take my kids fishing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here.  The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism.  Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.
> 
> The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.'  All the sects claim it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
> 
> The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority.
> 
> Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And off the main page of Lds.org we find "Mormon Channel (-) Listen to Mormon Channel, the Churchs new 24-hour-a-day audio station featuring gospel-oriented programs, music, interviews, and much more. You can access the station through live Internet streaming, podcasts, and iPhone applications, as well as on HD radio."
Click to expand...



Cmon now Jake,
You're smart enough to know that "Mormon" can still be used to familiarize ourselves with outside parties. We might as well keep the nickname and try to make it look good as long as others are trying to make it look bad.

By the way I noticed 8-ball said thank you for your post. He reminds of that little guy who stands behind the gang of bullies and talks tough. He's got his hat on sideways and looks at you like he's tough and says "Yeah!" after the bully says something.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews.
> 
> show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only did I read the book, I reviewed it.  But a true scholar and student of history knows the literature, and clearly you don't.  We can leave it at that for what it is worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A true scholar of the history of the church has read all volumes of "The History of the Church", all the Standard works, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." "The joseph smith papers" "discourses of the prophet Brigham Young", "Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites" by Hugh Nibley, "An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon", by John L. Sorenson, "Joseph Smith & The Restoration" , "The Maya" by Michael D. Coe and countless articles of science and history.
> 
> This one book you speak of which gives at least fairly accurate details of the lives of Josephs wives would mean little more to me than journal reading. There is nothing in the claims of the reviews that I haven't heard before. What were the mistakes and sins Joseph was guilty of? It is irrelevant because all humans sin. Well maybe not entirely irrelevant. Some sins he is accused of he is not guilty of other than by court of public opinion, which court is not the foundation of my faith. My foundation comes from Christ and private meditation to commune with God for my answers.
> 
> Scientific evidences, historical confirmations and miracle witnesses are just bonuses. the addition or subraction of which, has no effect on my faith.
> 
> That is why I won't pay 30 bucks to buy an overpriced book. I'd rather take my kids fishing.
Click to expand...


Todd's book is in your stake library, probably, and if not, certainly in the local library.  The reading list you have is milk for the beginner, absolutely necessary, but only the milk.  Challenge yourself to grow, for the glory of God is to bring forth the development of man.  Go for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I did read you wrong, and I apologize.  You are going to use the eternal progression route for becoming gods.  Better go back and read B. McConkie; his views depart radically from yours.  And, if you have the time, once upon a time a guy by the name of Hartman Rector, a convert who became a Seventy when only one general quorum of them existed at general authority level, preached exactly what I think you believe.  McConkie, who I think was in the Seventy with him at the time, diagreed with him big time.  So did McConkie's boss, Joseph Fielding Smith.
> 
> You think I know a bit about Mormonism?  You need to meet Jeff Needle of San Diego, the Jewish book editor of the Association of Mormon Letters online.  I have never met a better read individual on Mormonism than him, and that goes for Leonard Arrington or Mike Quinn or Louis Midgley.  Needle is a funy, funny guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think you do know much about Mormonism at all. You think you do but you are only getting the spoonfed anti-mormon version of it.
> 
> What Bruce R. McKonkie was speaking about in "Mormon Doctrine" is the same thing we believe in today. You also aren't taking the proper context of my statements in answering  3rd party inquiring minds on this thread. As to becoming a god. xsited was asking me if we just instantly become gods at the ressurection. There is so much more to it than that though.
> So assuming you can handle stronger meat, I will explain. The resurrection date of each individual is not the same. yes there is 1 great big resurrection day prior to the millenial reign following Jesus' second coming. But there will be and have been many people resurrected at earlier times. Since we believe in eternal progression it has also been revealed in the doctrine and covenants that some of our progenitors have already become gods since they have been working at it for many millenia i.e. Adam.
> 
> Our turns will come if we meet the criteria. And let there be no mistake. XSITED was asking if we(mormons) become gods when we die and are resurrected. That is why I said no, we don't become gods at the snap of a finger and no because it's not decided who will receive exaltation based on what church you belong to. The criteria for becoming a god involves being pure in heart and willing to obey Gods commandments long after this life is over. It's not just Mormons.
> 
> do you comprehend the complex nature of my answer? I assume you do. This is not pontificating. This is logical reasoning. There IS no dogma in our church because dogma by nature is not to be questioned and we invite more scrutiny and questioning of our doctrine than any other religion. Therefore by definition we have no dogmas.
Click to expand...

Ah, neophyte, you have stumbled several times already, but that's OK because you are trying to move forward with a willing heart if an unsteady stride.  I will show you how to lengthen your stride.  I notice your unorthodox understanding of grace and election informs your theory of god development.

You are wise to stay away from dogma because Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young, and Joseph F. Smith abounded in it.  It's hard to explain doctrines of the time such as "Adam-God", "Blood Atonement", "Adoption," "Royal Abrahamic Priesthood", and the denial of Priestood Blessings to the Nego.  What find funny is that General Authorities today pretend as they as dave authority to say that what Brigham Young gave doctrine really wasn't doctrine.  If Elder Packer had made such a statement back then, Brigham Young would sent him to supervise the water in the Green River.  You will learn.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
> 
> The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority.
> 
> Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And off the main page of Lds.org we find "Mormon Channel (-) Listen to Mormon Channel, the Church&#8217;s new 24-hour-a-day audio station featuring gospel-oriented programs, music, interviews, and much more. You can access the station through live Internet streaming, podcasts, and iPhone applications, as well as on HD radio."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cmon now Jake,
> You're smart enough to know that "Mormon" can still be used to familiarize ourselves with outside parties. We might as well keep the nickname and try to make it look good as long as others are trying to make it look bad.
> 
> By the way I noticed 8-ball said thank you for your post. He reminds of that little guy who stands behind the gang of bullies and talks tough. He's got his hat on sideways and looks at you like he's tough and says "Yeah!" after the bully says something.
Click to expand...


Truthspeaker:  Your so full of it!  Jake or anyone can see that my posts have challenged you to the core of your anti-biblical doctrine, and a "thanks" to Jake is the same as saying, "Job well done.".

Your shooting out barbs like a drowning man without a life jacket.

You compliment Avatar, and Avatar compliments you, but when I do it, it's hiding behind the big old bully's.

Your just plain full of it, and making yourself look pretty lame, as a Mormon spokesman.

Jake has presented you with a fist-full of facts, yes facts for you to chew on, digest, and reply back with some rational, objective summations.

I've brought up a fistfull of facts that reveal some real problems with your belief system, and you've blown me off, with, "I answered that 8-ball!".  Bull, to that.  What you have done is used poor hermenutics of the bible as Avatar does, pick and pulling references out of context to support your anti-Christ/biblical religion.  You both have been called on the "'carpet" for using "induction" methodology when citing the bible.  

You ignore all historical data that isn't sanctioned by your church.......Basically, your fullfilling all the criteria of a cultist or cult member.  You "must" stay in lock-step with the faith, based on a less than shakey foundation.

Saying I'm hiding behind anyone, just exposed you for what you are.  A very uninformed, Mormon, who isn't willing to look beyond his church's official statements, and will brush aside his church's statements of the past when they become inconvenient to your present comfort zone or paradigm.

Your founder was a con man...........fully revealed in New York, and he created more friction with biblical Christian communitys as he led his followers West to Utah.  He was willing to make up visions and all kinds of weird phenomena to keep absolute control over his minions/followers.  Sadly, these folks were gullible, and that's just how cults prosper; with folks that want God to be their way, and not the way God has truly revealed Himself to man.

The "flesh" wars against the "Spirit".  The flesh desires polygamous relationships, it wars against that which reveals sinful nature of fallen man..........


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball, all of that is true.  However, the LDS church today is not the LDS church of 1850.  Give grace here, I suggest.  Remember that Paul had to struggle mightily with the sexual religious expressions of the Gentiles (Ashtaroth, etc) in bringing them into Christianity.  And, my of my, Christianity today is not that of Paul and his buddies, for sure.

So, yeah, Truthspeaker is fairly ignorant of his religion, and Avatar is a whacko political Bircher who hides behind Mormonism.  Yet I am not willing to judge the state of their souls, and I am sure you are not either.  At least I hope not.  I do wish they would play fair with the history and facts of their denomination.  Remember it is only one of several hundred Mormon denominations.


----------



## Avatar4321

TS, if you get a chance to check out Elder Ballards commencement speech for the BYU graduates this summer. Good talk.

As for the accusers, I am who I am. Nothing less. Nothing more. I dont really care whether you believe me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mel Ballard is a good dude.  And you should apply his teachings in your life.  Give up whackos like Glenn Beck.  Turn away from JBS leanings.  Go lean on the Lord.  Best of luck, Avatar.  I am glad you are 'coming out' in public.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

As a casual observer, I must say that starkey and 8 ball have buried truthboy and avatar. But your all just arguing over something that was written by men. So you all look a little foolish.
And arguing over a word "mormon" is a dumb as those who argue over another word "marriage" (for gays).


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball, all of that is true.  However, the LDS church today is not the LDS church of 1850.  Give grace here, I suggest.  Remember that Paul had to struggle mightily with the sexual religious expressions of the Gentiles (Ashtaroth, etc) in bringing them into Christianity.  And, my of my, Christianity today is not that of Paul and his buddies, for sure.
> 
> So, yeah, Truthspeaker is fairly ignorant of his religion, and Avatar is a whacko political Bircher who hides behind Mormonism.  Yet I am not willing to judge the state of their souls, and I am sure you are not either.  At least I hope not.  I do wish they would play fair with the history and facts of their denomination.  Remember it is only one of several hundred Mormon denominations.



Joe:  There are "true" Christians involved in belief systems that are way off base.  When I say, "True" I mean those that Jesus defines as "born from above" as He told the pharisee Nicodemus.

As for Truthspeaker's and Avatar's spiritual condition, that is not for me to determine.  I do know, personally that many "born again" Christians with very nominal biblical background have joined the LDS church, thinking that it was "Christian", or biblical.

Romans Chapter 12 comes to mind as Paul's great "equalizer" or means of filtering out what is right and what is wrong.  

Also, Romans 10:17 couldn't be clearer, as I've posted that verse in reply to our two resident Mormon apologists here on this thread so many times I can't count.  Faith is not a "feeling", it is not a "vision" nor a "dream", that confirms a system of belief.  Faith is placing trust in an objective reality.  The bible has revealed the objective reality of Christ's birth, existence, ministry, which culminated in His crucifixion, burial, ressurrection, and ascension into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father.

I realize to harangue folks of a different belief system with evidences of the shakiness of their founding fathers, and their deeds, will only go so far.  It takes a brave, bold, yet scarey "step" for a Mormon or folks involved in unbiblical religions to take a "stab" at considering that they may be following the wrong piper.

Again, I must stress, that Christians indeed can be involved in Mormonism/LDS, "if" they are "ignorant" of the main tenents of the bible; namely N.T. teachings.

I admire the Bereans for challenging even Paul the Apostle and going straight to their scriptures to "test" what He taught them.  Paul was not insulted, but actually commended the Bereans for checking out his teaching to make sure he/Paul wasn't bringing a false message.
*******
Going to church doesn't mean a person is trully a Christian, nor does attending a very solid bible teaching church.  

God works in mysterious ways, yet He is indeed consistent, for who He is, as He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
*******


----------



## HUGGY

*The Truth about Mormons 
* are the lies from mormans


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Mel Ballard is a good dude.  And you should apply his teachings in your life.  Give up whackos like Glenn Beck.  Turn away from JBS leanings.  Go lean on the Lord.  Best of luck, Avatar.  I am glad you are 'coming out' in public.



If you are considering Glenn Beck a wacko, is it his religious doctrine or his Constitutional/Libertarian/Conservative background, or both?

I find Glenn Beck very refreshing, and right on top of all that's going wacko with our present administration.

As for Beck's Mormon beliefs, I'm able to separate people from their religious persuasion, and appreciate or not their political/ethical doctrine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Ballard is a good dude.  And you should apply his teachings in your life.  Give up whackos like Glenn Beck.  Turn away from JBS leanings.  Go lean on the Lord.  Best of luck, Avatar.  I am glad you are 'coming out' in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are considering Glenn Beck a wacko, is it his religious doctrine or his Constitutional/Libertarian/Conservative background, or both?
> 
> I find Glenn Beck very refreshing, and right on top of all that's going wacko with our present administration.
> 
> As for Beck's Mormon beliefs, I'm able to separate people from their religious persuasion, and appreciate or not their political/ethical doctrine.
Click to expand...


I like LDS folks fairly well having been around them all my life, here in (deleted) as well as out west.  What I don't like is Glenn's hidden "elders of Zion saving the Constitution" LDS belief tied to the nuttery of the John Birch Society, the Freeman Institute, and the ravings of Cleon Skousen.  You can Avatar about all that.

Glenn's approach is held by a very, very small minority of LDS and considered to be a major step on the road to apostasy by the LDS church's leadership.*

*To small minority of LDS whackos on this principle -- go contact your Stake President and find out what happens to your standing in your church.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> I like LDS folks fairly well having been around them all my life, here in (deleted) as well as out west.  What I don't like is Glenn's hidden "elders of Zion saving the Constitution" LDS belief tied to the nuttery of the John Birch Society, the Freeman Institute, and the ravings of Cleon Skousen.  You can Avatar about all that.
> 
> Glenn's approach is held by a very, very small minority of LDS and considered to be a major step on the road to apostasy by the LDS church's leadership.*
> 
> *To small minority of LDS whackos on this principle -- go contact your Stake President and find out what happens to your standing in your church.



Your conspiracy theories are getting a bit psycho. might want to tone them down a bit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like LDS folks fairly well having been around them all my life, here in (deleted) as well as out west.  What I don't like is Glenn's hidden "elders of Zion saving the Constitution" LDS belief tied to the nuttery of the John Birch Society, the Freeman Institute, and the ravings of Cleon Skousen.  You can Avatar about all that.
> 
> Glenn's approach is held by a very, very small minority of LDS and considered to be a major step on the road to apostasy by the LDS church's leadership.*
> 
> *To small minority of LDS whackos on this principle -- go contact your Stake President and find out what happens to your standing in your church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are getting a bit psycho. might want to tone them down a bit.
Click to expand...


Truth is the truth, Avatar.  You are in a very small, very nutty political minority in the LDS church.  Your leadership states those beliefs are the first step to apostasy.  You better tone down your nonsense before they catch on to you.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Do Mormons believe that Jesus "IS," "has been" and always will be GOD and that belief in him is the ONLY way to eternal life?


----------



## JakeStarkey

THE LIGHT said:


> Do Mormons believe that Jesus "IS," "has been" and always will be GOD and that belief in him is the ONLY way to eternal life?



Go to lds.org for the LDS statements about Jesus Christ.

I understand that they do not accept the traditional, historical, or evangelical doctrinal teachings of Jesus from the times of the early fathers and doctors of the church through the Protestant reformation through the 2d Great Awakening in the U.S of the early 19th century.

That is why, in my opinion, LDS conversions in the US are slowing down and Catholic America continue to accelerate.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Folks just don't get it do they av and tru. Mormons are the only ones who are right and the rest of you are wrong and possibly all going to hell. 2,000,000 mormons are right and the other 6,500,000,000 of humanity is wrong. So folks, get with the plan if you want to be saved: magic underwear, golden plates, illiterate cowboys, polygamy and all the rest. It's all good! 
I want to be a god, so should you.


----------



## Avatar4321

THE LIGHT said:


> Do Mormons believe that Jesus "IS," "has been" and always will be GOD and that belief in him is the ONLY way to eternal life?



yes. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon and find out for yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Mormons believe that Jesus "IS," "has been" and always will be GOD and that belief in him is the ONLY way to eternal life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon and find out for yourself.
Click to expand...


I am glad that you have come  out of the closet, Avatar.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Todd's book is in your stake library, probably, and if not, certainly in the local library.  The reading list you have is milk for the beginner, absolutely necessary, but only the milk.  Challenge yourself to grow, for the glory of God is to bring forth the development of man.  Go for it.


Trust me, the list I have just named is anything but milk. I would be extremely surprised if you have read a single page of any of those books. I challenge you to read them and you will find these other journal entry-type books to be anything but expository


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I did read you wrong, and I apologize.  You are going to use the eternal progression route for becoming gods.  Better go back and read B. McConkie; his views depart radically from yours.  And, if you have the time, once upon a time a guy by the name of Hartman Rector, a convert who became a Seventy when only one general quorum of them existed at general authority level, preached exactly what I think you believe.  McConkie, who I think was in the Seventy with him at the time, diagreed with him big time.  So did McConkie's boss, Joseph Fielding Smith.
> 
> You think I know a bit about Mormonism?  You need to meet Jeff Needle of San Diego, the Jewish book editor of the Association of Mormon Letters online.  I have never met a better read individual on Mormonism than him, and that goes for Leonard Arrington or Mike Quinn or Louis Midgley.  Needle is a funy, funny guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think you do know much about Mormonism at all. You think you do but you are only getting the spoonfed anti-mormon version of it.
> 
> What Bruce R. McKonkie was speaking about in "Mormon Doctrine" is the same thing we believe in today. You also aren't taking the proper context of my statements in answering  3rd party inquiring minds on this thread. As to becoming a god. xsited was asking me if we just instantly become gods at the ressurection. There is so much more to it than that though.
> So assuming you can handle stronger meat, I will explain. The resurrection date of each individual is not the same. yes there is 1 great big resurrection day prior to the millenial reign following Jesus' second coming. But there will be and have been many people resurrected at earlier times. Since we believe in eternal progression it has also been revealed in the doctrine and covenants that some of our progenitors have already become gods since they have been working at it for many millenia i.e. Adam.
> 
> Our turns will come if we meet the criteria. And let there be no mistake. XSITED was asking if we(mormons) become gods when we die and are resurrected. That is why I said no, we don't become gods at the snap of a finger and no because it's not decided who will receive exaltation based on what church you belong to. The criteria for becoming a god involves being pure in heart and willing to obey Gods commandments long after this life is over. It's not just Mormons.
> 
> do you comprehend the complex nature of my answer? I assume you do. This is not pontificating. This is logical reasoning. There IS no dogma in our church because dogma by nature is not to be questioned and we invite more scrutiny and questioning of our doctrine than any other religion. Therefore by definition we have no dogmas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, neophyte, you have stumbled several times already, but that's OK because you are trying to move forward with a willing heart if an unsteady stride.  I will show you how to lengthen your stride.  I notice your unorthodox understanding of grace and election informs your theory of god development.
> 
> You are wise to stay away from dogma because Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young, and Joseph F. Smith abounded in it.  It's hard to explain doctrines of the time such as "Adam-God", "Blood Atonement", "Adoption," "Royal Abrahamic Priesthood", and the denial of Priestood Blessings to the Nego.  What find funny is that General Authorities today pretend as they as dave authority to say that what Brigham Young gave doctrine really wasn't doctrine.  If Elder Packer had made such a statement back then, Brigham Young would sent him to supervise the water in the Green River.  You will learn.
Click to expand...


Thanks for calling me wise. Anywhoo

You say I stumble but without any explanation of how I have stumbled. I have already dealt with all those questions multiple times. I suggest you go back and read my responses say....ohh...about 30 pages ago and prior. How can you say our first leaders were abounding in dogma when they constantly told all of their congregations to pray and ASK God if the doctrines were true. 

I've been through the definition of dogma already. It requires that people not question it to be dogma. Therefore we have never had dogmas. You have no idea how much early leaders and current leaders are on the same page.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Truthspeaker: Your so full of it! Jake or anyone can see that my posts have challenged you to the core of your anti-biblical doctrine, and a "thanks" to Jake is the same as saying, "Job well done.".
> 
> Your shooting out barbs like a drowning man without a life jacket.
> 
> You compliment Avatar, and Avatar compliments you, but when I do it, it's hiding behind the big old bully's.
> 
> Your just plain full of it, and making yourself look pretty lame, as a Mormon spokesman.
> 
> Jake has presented you with a fist-full of facts, yes facts for you to chew on, digest, and reply back with some rational, objective summations.
> 
> I've brought up a fistfull of facts that reveal some real problems with your belief system, and you've blown me off, with, "I answered that 8-ball!". Bull, to that. What you have done is used poor hermenutics of the bible as Avatar does, pick and pulling references out of context to support your anti-Christ/biblical religion. You both have been called on the "'carpet" for using "induction" methodology when citing the bible.
> 
> You ignore all historical data that isn't sanctioned by your church.......Basically, your fullfilling all the criteria of a cultist or cult member. You "must" stay in lock-step with the faith, based on a less than shakey foundation.
> 
> Saying I'm hiding behind anyone, just exposed you for what you are. A very uninformed, Mormon, who isn't willing to look beyond his church's official statements, and will brush aside his church's statements of the past when they become inconvenient to your present comfort zone or paradigm.
> 
> Your founder was a con man...........fully revealed in New York, and he created more friction with biblical Christian communitys as he led his followers West to Utah. He was willing to make up visions and all kinds of weird phenomena to keep absolute control over his minions/followers. Sadly, these folks were gullible, and that's just how cults prosper; with folks that want God to be their way, and not the way God has truly revealed Himself to man.
> 
> The "flesh" wars against the "Spirit". The flesh desires polygamous relationships, it wars against that which reveals sinful nature of fallen man..........
> __________________



Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on all of the points you just made. Again. There isn't one single original statement in that entire post. Yes I have heard it before. Yes I have heard it. And yes I have answered all those points. 

This is the point where I usually retort with "Which question(one at a time please) did I not address already?"

Whereupon you will never bring up the question. Amazing


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Tru, why don't you just give up? Nobody wants to join your cult. I admit it must be frustrating to explain yourself over and over and get ridiculed non stop. Maybe you should've joined a less nutty cult.
i bet you ask yourself from time to time: why do I believe in such bogusness?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Eightball, all of that is true.



Actually most of it isn't as I have shown that through this thread which you haven't read. Which said thread you claim to know so much about




> However, the LDS church today is not the LDS church of 1850.



Oh it is my poor dear starkey. If you only would learn knowledge instead of heresay.




> Give grace here, I suggest.  Remember that Paul had to struggle mightily with the sexual religious expressions of the Gentiles (Ashtaroth, etc) in bringing them into Christianity.



Yes patience with us poor lost Mormons. God knows I've been patient enough with the likes of you. Patience is one of the fruits of the Spirit you know(Galatians 5:21)



> And, my of my, Christianity today is not that of Paul and his buddies, for sure.



You finally spoke something that is right on the money. How do you feel about following a version of Christianity that Jesus and the Apostles never sanctioned? By your own admission you follow a religion different from Jesus. 

This is the very reason Joseph Smith and everyone else decides to join our church. At least we CLAIM to have the original church. No one else even does. So what leg do YOU stand on if you don't even claim to have ORIGINAL authority from God?



> So, yeah, Truthspeaker is fairly ignorant of his religion



Oh because I haven't read a book about the wives of Joseph Smith.  That's rich!
You still can't prove you have read even that book, let alone the list of verifiable historical documents I listed earlier. Good thinkin!



> and Avatar is a whacko political Bircher who hides behind Mormonism.  Yet I am not willing to judge the state of their souls, and I am sure you are not either.  At least I hope not.  I do wish they would play fair with the history and facts of their denomination.  Remember it is only one of several hundred Mormon denominations.



Why thank you for your benevolence in not judging us 

Your boy 8-ball has repeatedly condemned us to hell so don't be so sure about him. I wish you would play fair by actually reading books and proving it instead of getting ALL the information you think you know from anti-mormon sources. 

This is now the 1000th official repeat of the question"Which historical facts/questions have I missed on this thread?"

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!! YOU ARE NOW THE WINNER OF A FREE BOOK OF MORMON!

Just let me know your address and I'll ship one to you right away

Or call toll free 1800 NO BIAS!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> TS, if you get a chance to check out Elder Ballards commencement speech for the BYU graduates this summer. Good talk.
> 
> As for the accusers, I am who I am. Nothing less. Nothing more. I dont really care whether you believe me.



I think you are talking about the speech he gave in 07 to the byu hawaii grads. Is that the same one? If not where can I find it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> As a casual observer, I must say that starkey and 8 ball have buried truthboy and avatar. But your all just arguing over something that was written by men. So you all look a little foolish.
> And arguing over a word "mormon" is a dumb as those who argue over another word "marriage" (for gays).



Ok Hoser
Thanks for your very casual observations. Talk about looking foolish! All you did is try to be sarcastic and insulting about our religion from the get-go. 
Whatever dude, happy trails!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't think you do know much about Mormonism at all. You think you do but you are only getting the spoonfed anti-mormon version of it.
> 
> What Bruce R. McKonkie was speaking about in "Mormon Doctrine" is the same thing we believe in today. You also aren't taking the proper context of my statements in answering  3rd party inquiring minds on this thread. As to becoming a god. xsited was asking me if we just instantly become gods at the ressurection. There is so much more to it than that though.
> So assuming you can handle stronger meat, I will explain. The resurrection date of each individual is not the same. yes there is 1 great big resurrection day prior to the millenial reign following Jesus' second coming. But there will be and have been many people resurrected at earlier times. Since we believe in eternal progression it has also been revealed in the doctrine and covenants that some of our progenitors have already become gods since they have been working at it for many millenia i.e. Adam.
> 
> Our turns will come if we meet the criteria. And let there be no mistake. XSITED was asking if we(mormons) become gods when we die and are resurrected. That is why I said no, we don't become gods at the snap of a finger and no because it's not decided who will receive exaltation based on what church you belong to. The criteria for becoming a god involves being pure in heart and willing to obey Gods commandments long after this life is over. It's not just Mormons.
> 
> do you comprehend the complex nature of my answer? I assume you do. This is not pontificating. This is logical reasoning. There IS no dogma in our church because dogma by nature is not to be questioned and we invite more scrutiny and questioning of our doctrine than any other religion. Therefore by definition we have no dogmas.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, neophyte, you have stumbled several times already, but that's OK because you are trying to move forward with a willing heart if an unsteady stride.  I will show you how to lengthen your stride.  I notice your unorthodox understanding of grace and election informs your theory of god development.
> 
> You are wise to stay away from dogma because Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young, and Joseph F. Smith abounded in it.  It's hard to explain doctrines of the time such as "Adam-God", "Blood Atonement", "Adoption," "Royal Abrahamic Priesthood", and the denial of Priestood Blessings to the Nego.  What find funny is that General Authorities today pretend as they as dave authority to say that what Brigham Young gave doctrine really wasn't doctrine.  If Elder Packer had made such a statement back then, Brigham Young would sent him to supervise the water in the Green River.  You will learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for calling me wise. Anywhoo
> 
> You say I stumble but without any explanation of how I have stumbled. I have already dealt with all those questions multiple times. I suggest you go back and read my responses say....ohh...about 30 pages ago and prior. How can you say our first leaders were abounding in dogma when they constantly told all of their congregations to pray and ASK God if the doctrines were true.
> 
> I've been through the definition of dogma already. It requires that people not question it to be dogma. Therefore we have never had dogmas. You have no idea how much early leaders and current leaders are on the same page.
Click to expand...


You have a good spirit, and I like that.  Yes, Mormonism is filled with dogmas (you misdefine the term but that's OK), and your denial is simply our opinion, and who cares.  But you are going to learn quite a bit.  Do your leaders ask you to pray for conviction on what is taught now?  I suspect so.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Joe:  There are "true" Christians involved in belief systems that are way off base.  When I say, "True" I mean those that Jesus defines as "born from above" as He told the pharisee Nicodemus.



Please define your vague use of the term "born from above". 

In fact what you are trying to quote is from John chapter 3 verse 5 where Jesus is telling Nicodemus "Except a man be born of WATER and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." This is a clear commandment of baptism by water, which is a symbol of being born again. Please. No more misquotes. 
You may understand a scripture differently than I but please don't insert words like "from above" which don't exist.





> Romans Chapter 12 comes to mind as Paul's great "equalizer" or means of filtering out what is right and what is wrong.



I just read Romans 12 again while reading through I could not find which verse in that whole chapter refers to what you are talking about. Please confirm.



> Also, Romans 10:17 couldn't be clearer, as I've posted that verse in reply to our two resident Mormon apologists here on this thread so many times I can't count.



I've also as many times explained that our view is the same about romans 10:17. We do believe that if you confess with your lips you will be saved to a certain degree of glory. But since the VERY SAME BIBLE you quote says that "faith without works is dead", and "they which DO such things(murders, lying, etc,) shall not inherit the kingdom of god." Galatians chapter 5. There are plenty of people who have confessed the Christ, only to turn and murder or lie etc. 

So either the bible CONTRADICTS itself or God wants us to know there is a balance between faith and works. 

But I'm still not condemning your view. You are entitled to your view of the Bible and me to mine. That's not the point of my thread. Again.



> Faith is placing trust in an objective reality.



Malarkey! Faith is believing in something you HAVEN'T SEEN or cannot prove by scientific factual means.  Read the dictionary Mirriam-Webster:
 firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Stop trying to REDIFINE everything.



> The bible has revealed the objective reality of Christ's birth, existence, ministry, which culminated in His crucifixion, burial, ressurrection, and ascension into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father.



Oh Jeez, If only an Atheist could hear you talk! Where are the FACTS? We only know that he existed through word of mouth. There is none of his dna left. No one has located the birthplace except that it was by word of mouth somewhere in Bethlehem. word of mouth states he was crucified. Legend has it that the Garden tomb in Israel is his original burial place, but no scientific evidence. Resurrection? Please. Ascension to heaven? all word of mouth.

There is nothing objective about the story of Christ in the Bible. It's all word of mouth. written down in lots of sources, some of which are in the bible. all of which I believe but there is no objective scientific facts. 
Your claims are ridiculous.



> I realize to harangue folks of a different belief system with evidences of the shakiness of their founding fathers, and their deeds, will only go so far.



Your use of the word harangue is weird. The definition is to publicly address or rant. so is that all you are trying to do is rant? I told you you would be wasting your time.



> It takes a brave, bold, yet scarey "step" for a Mormon or folks involved in unbiblical religions to take a "stab" at considering that they may be following the wrong piper.



Oh I've considered it. A long time ago. I realized it made sense for me and since then I've been solid in my faith. How about You?



> Again, I must stress, that Christians indeed can be involved in Mormonism/LDS, "if" they are "ignorant" of the main tenents of the bible; namely N.T. teachings.



I don't care if you think I'm not christian by your re-definition of christian. I know I am so whatever.



> I admire the Bereans for challenging even Paul the Apostle and going straight to their scriptures to "test" what He taught them.  Paul was not insulted, but actually commended the Bereans for checking out his teaching to make sure he/Paul wasn't bringing a false message.


*******

Truly I am like the Bereans. And Paul at the same time!




> Going to church doesn't mean a person is trully a Christian, nor does attending a very solid bible teaching church.



True



> God works in mysterious ways, yet He is indeed consistent, for who He is, as He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.



True dat. All the way


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> *The Truth about Mormons
> * are the lies from mormans



 which lie? substance please?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Ballard is a good dude.  And you should apply his teachings in your life.  Give up whackos like Glenn Beck.  Turn away from JBS leanings.  Go lean on the Lord.  Best of luck, Avatar.  I am glad you are 'coming out' in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are considering Glenn Beck a wacko, is it his religious doctrine or his Constitutional/Libertarian/Conservative background, or both?
> 
> I find Glenn Beck very refreshing, and right on top of all that's going wacko with our present administration.
> 
> As for Beck's Mormon beliefs, I'm able to separate people from their religious persuasion, and appreciate or not their political/ethical doctrine.
Click to expand...


good for you that you can separate the two. Not many can. Ya know, if we talk about politics, you and I would probably agree more. But religious discussions with you and I don't really mix.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Ballard is a good dude.  And you should apply his teachings in your life.  Give up whackos like Glenn Beck.  Turn away from JBS leanings.  Go lean on the Lord.  Best of luck, Avatar.  I am glad you are 'coming out' in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are considering Glenn Beck a wacko, is it his religious doctrine or his Constitutional/Libertarian/Conservative background, or both?
> 
> I find Glenn Beck very refreshing, and right on top of all that's going wacko with our present administration.
> 
> As for Beck's Mormon beliefs, I'm able to separate people from their religious persuasion, and appreciate or not their political/ethical doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like LDS folks fairly well having been around them all my life, here in (deleted) as well as out west.  What I don't like is Glenn's hidden "elders of Zion saving the Constitution" LDS belief tied to the nuttery of the John Birch Society, the Freeman Institute, and the ravings of Cleon Skousen.  You can Avatar about all that.
> 
> Glenn's approach is held by a very, very small minority of LDS and considered to be a major step on the road to apostasy by the LDS church's leadership.*
> 
> *To small minority of LDS whackos on this principle -- go contact your Stake President and find out what happens to your standing in your church.
Click to expand...



Just what exactly is so wrong with the John Birch Society, the Freeman Institute, or Cleon Skousen? It appears to me they were all solid american institutions or americans who opposed communism and fascism.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like LDS folks fairly well having been around them all my life, here in (deleted) as well as out west.  What I don't like is Glenn's hidden "elders of Zion saving the Constitution" LDS belief tied to the nuttery of the John Birch Society, the Freeman Institute, and the ravings of Cleon Skousen.  You can Avatar about all that.
> 
> Glenn's approach is held by a very, very small minority of LDS and considered to be a major step on the road to apostasy by the LDS church's leadership.*
> 
> *To small minority of LDS whackos on this principle -- go contact your Stake President and find out what happens to your standing in your church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your conspiracy theories are getting a bit psycho. might want to tone them down a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth is the truth, Avatar.  You are in a very small, very nutty political minority in the LDS church.  Your leadership states those beliefs are the first step to apostasy.  You better tone down your nonsense before they catch on to you.
Click to expand...


fail


----------



## Truthspeaker

the light said:


> do mormons believe that jesus "is," "has been" and always will be god and that belief in him is the only way to eternal life?



yesss!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Folks just don't get it do they av and tru. Mormons are the only ones who are right and the rest of you are wrong and possibly all going to hell. 2,000,000 mormons are right and the other 6,500,000,000 of humanity is wrong. So folks, get with the plan if you want to be saved: magic underwear, golden plates, illiterate cowboys, polygamy and all the rest. It's all good!
> I want to be a god, so should you.



hoser, 
What are you smoking?or drinking?

You can't read or won't read. Which is it?

I have said from post number 1 that church membership is largely irrelevant to salvation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Mormons believe that Jesus "IS," "has been" and always will be GOD and that belief in him is the ONLY way to eternal life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon and find out for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am glad that you have come  out of the closet, Avatar.
Click to expand...



Still waiting on you


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Tru, why don't you just give up? Nobody wants to join your cult. I admit it must be frustrating to explain yourself over and over and get ridiculed non stop. Maybe you should've joined a less nutty cult.
> i bet you ask yourself from time to time: why do I believe in such bogusness?



You see theres a sort of freedom in being ridiculed for what you stand for. I love it. Especially since I can handle it. 

You obviously don't understand why I do this. because you never read my posts stating my mission here. 

To clarify misconceptions about our faith. People like you help me to do that. thanks


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, neophyte, you have stumbled several times already, but that's OK because you are trying to move forward with a willing heart if an unsteady stride.  I will show you how to lengthen your stride.  I notice your unorthodox understanding of grace and election informs your theory of god development.
> 
> You are wise to stay away from dogma because Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young, and Joseph F. Smith abounded in it.  It's hard to explain doctrines of the time such as "Adam-God", "Blood Atonement", "Adoption," "Royal Abrahamic Priesthood", and the denial of Priestood Blessings to the Nego.  What find funny is that General Authorities today pretend as they as dave authority to say that what Brigham Young gave doctrine really wasn't doctrine.  If Elder Packer had made such a statement back then, Brigham Young would sent him to supervise the water in the Green River.  You will learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for calling me wise. Anywhoo
> 
> You say I stumble but without any explanation of how I have stumbled. I have already dealt with all those questions multiple times. I suggest you go back and read my responses say....ohh...about 30 pages ago and prior. How can you say our first leaders were abounding in dogma when they constantly told all of their congregations to pray and ASK God if the doctrines were true.
> 
> I've been through the definition of dogma already. It requires that people not question it to be dogma. Therefore we have never had dogmas. You have no idea how much early leaders and current leaders are on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a good spirit, and I like that.  Yes, Mormonism is filled with dogmas (you misdefine the term but that's OK), and your denial is simply our opinion, and who cares.  But you are going to learn quite a bit.  Do your leaders ask you to pray for conviction on what is taught now?  I suspect so.
Click to expand...


Dictionary.com:
dogma-
Stance pronounced by an 'authority' as the definitive word on a subject to be accepted unquestioned, usually unsupported by corroborating facts or in defiance of evidence to the contrary, imposed by a fiat or institutionalized into a set of inflexible rules. See also doctrine.

I do know the english language a little bit. I'm not misusing the word dogma.

and yes we are asked to pray about any questions we have so that we can make our own decisions. And I hope I NEVER STOP learning. That would be contrary to the whole plan.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> One last question: are mormon chix hot in bed? Like, do they really put out and try hard to please you? Or they just sorta lie there?
> I bet it's the latter (day saints position).



to quote the comic book guy from The Simpsons: "you are both a jerk and a fool."


----------



## THE LIGHT

Truthspeaker said:


> the light said:
> 
> 
> 
> do mormons believe that jesus "is," "has been" and always will be god and that belief in him is the only way to eternal life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yesss!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

 
Would that be "yes" if you didn't change my quote too?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for calling me wise. Anywhoo
> 
> You say I stumble but without any explanation of how I have stumbled. I have already dealt with all those questions multiple times. I suggest you go back and read my responses say....ohh...about 30 pages ago and prior. How can you say our first leaders were abounding in dogma when they constantly told all of their congregations to pray and ASK God if the doctrines were true.
> 
> I've been through the definition of dogma already. It requires that people not question it to be dogma. Therefore we have never had dogmas. You have no idea how much early leaders and current leaders are on the same page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good spirit, and I like that.  Yes, Mormonism is filled with dogmas (you misdefine the term but that's OK), and your denial is simply our opinion, and who cares.  But you are going to learn quite a bit.  Do your leaders ask you to pray for conviction on what is taught now?  I suspect so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dictionary.com:
> dogma-
> Stance pronounced by an 'authority' as the definitive word on a subject to be accepted unquestioned, usually unsupported by corroborating facts or in defiance of evidence to the contrary, imposed by a fiat or institutionalized into a set of inflexible rules. See also doctrine.
> 
> I do know the english language a little bit. I'm not misusing the word dogma.
> 
> and yes we are asked to pray about any questions we have so that we can make our own decisions. And I hope I NEVER STOP learning. That would be contrary to the whole plan.
Click to expand...


Good, always learning is good.  But, yes, we all know you are using 'mormonspeak' on your definition of dogma.  Yep, Brigham Young taught different doctrine 150 years than the general authorities teach today, and your denials mean nothing at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Rubber Hoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last question: are mormon chix hot in bed? Like, do they really put out and try hard to please you? Or they just sorta lie there?
> I bet it's the latter (day saints position).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to quote the comic book guy from The Simpsons: "you are both a jerk and a fool."
Click to expand...


Oh, cool it, truth.  You are so easy to rile.  Anyway, since you did not want to answer it . . . my LDS friends always said, when we were growing up, to date the leadership's daughters.  One of the guys was dating an apostle's granddaugher (shut up, Truth, he's dead quite a few years, and she died in a car accident about ten or twelve years ago, so nothing's hurt here except your feelings), and he said, "absolutely awesome."

He would know.  He got himself excommunicated in half a dozen stakes in Southern Utah before he was 25.


----------



## Truthspeaker

THE LIGHT said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the light said:
> 
> 
> 
> do mormons believe that jesus "is," "has been" and always will be god and that belief in him is the only way to eternal life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yesss!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would that be "yes" if you didn't change my quote too?
Click to expand...


Affirmative. Especially since you have changed it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good spirit, and I like that.  Yes, Mormonism is filled with dogmas (you misdefine the term but that's OK), and your denial is simply our opinion, and who cares.  But you are going to learn quite a bit.  Do your leaders ask you to pray for conviction on what is taught now?  I suspect so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary.com:
> dogma-
> Stance pronounced by an 'authority' as the definitive word on a subject to be accepted unquestioned, usually unsupported by corroborating facts or in defiance of evidence to the contrary, imposed by a fiat or institutionalized into a set of inflexible rules. See also doctrine.
> 
> I do know the english language a little bit. I'm not misusing the word dogma.
> 
> and yes we are asked to pray about any questions we have so that we can make our own decisions. And I hope I NEVER STOP learning. That would be contrary to the whole plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, always learning is good.  But, yes, we all know you are using 'mormonspeak' on your definition of dogma.  Yep, Brigham Young taught different doctrine 150 years than the general authorities teach today, and your denials mean nothing at all.
Click to expand...


au contraire mon ami. 

Like what?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rubber Hoser said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last question: are mormon chix hot in bed? Like, do they really put out and try hard to please you? Or they just sorta lie there?
> I bet it's the latter (day saints position).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to quote the comic book guy from The Simpsons: "you are both a jerk and a fool."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, cool it, truth.  You are so easy to rile.  Anyway, since you did not want to answer it . . . my LDS friends always said, when we were growing up, to date the leadership's daughters.  One of the guys was dating an apostle's granddaugher (shut up, Truth, he's dead quite a few years, and she died in a car accident about ten or twelve years ago, so nothing's hurt here except your feelings), and he said, "absolutely awesome."
> 
> He would know.  He got himself excommunicated in half a dozen stakes in Southern Utah before he was 25.
Click to expand...


Anywhoo.

I don't get riled. I get amused and I like to breathe a little fire. It makes it more fun

Like I said. more proof that neither you or hoser pay attention to my posts. I already said a LONG time ago that church doesn't interfere with sexual activity in marriage.

It's a ridiculously retarded question to ask if mormon women are great in bed. It's asking for a stereotype and it's juvenile to boot. It deserves a slap. 

As if they're better or worse than protestant women, catholic women or irreligious women.

Grow up.


----------



## Rubber Hoser

Are mormons allowed to drink? Do drugs like weed? gamble? Cuz all cowboys do those things. Or aren't/weren't you guys real cowboys?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a good spirit, and I like that.  Yes, Mormonism is filled with dogmas (you misdefine the term but that's OK), and your denial is simply our opinion, and who cares.  But you are going to learn quite a bit.  Do your leaders ask you to pray for conviction on what is taught now?  I suspect so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dictionary.com:
> dogma-
> Stance pronounced by an 'authority' as the definitive word on a subject to be accepted unquestioned, usually unsupported by corroborating facts or in defiance of evidence to the contrary, imposed by a fiat or institutionalized into a set of inflexible rules. See also doctrine.
> 
> I do know the english language a little bit. I'm not misusing the word dogma.
> 
> and yes we are asked to pray about any questions we have so that we can make our own decisions. And I hope I NEVER STOP learning. That would be contrary to the whole plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good, always learning is good.  But, yes, we all know you are using 'mormonspeak' on your definition of dogma.  Yep, Brigham Young taught different doctrine 150 years than the general authorities teach today, and your denials mean nothing at all.
Click to expand...


How can you say "Mormonspeak" when it's from dictionary.com?


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Truth: It's a ridiculously retarded question to ask if mormon women are great in bed. *

Go ask you Dad and come back and tell us (I learned how to flame like this from Terry!).


----------



## Truthspeaker

Rubber Hoser said:


> Are mormons allowed to drink? Do drugs like weed? gamble? Cuz all cowboys do those things. Or aren't/weren't you guys real cowboys?



ix-nayo-nayever-nayorget-it-fay

egative-nay on the cowboy stigma.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> *Truth: It's a ridiculously retarded question to ask if mormon women are great in bed. *
> 
> Go ask you Dad and come back and tell us (I learned how to flame like this from Terry!).



Ok then, yo momma. Is that where we are now?


----------



## Christopher

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And off the main page of Lds.org we find "Mormon Channel (-) Listen to Mormon Channel, the Churchs new 24-hour-a-day audio station featuring gospel-oriented programs, music, interviews, and much more. You can access the station through live Internet streaming, podcasts, and iPhone applications, as well as on HD radio."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cmon now Jake,
> You're smart enough to know that "Mormon" can still be used to familiarize ourselves with outside parties. We might as well keep the nickname and try to make it look good as long as others are trying to make it look bad.
> 
> By the way I noticed 8-ball said thank you for your post. He reminds of that little guy who stands behind the gang of bullies and talks tough. He's got his hat on sideways and looks at you like he's tough and says "Yeah!" after the bully says something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...Your founder was a con man...........fully revealed in New York, and he created more friction with biblical Christian communitys as he led his followers West to Utah.  He was willing to make up visions and all kinds of weird phenomena to keep absolute control over his minions/followers.  Sadly, these folks were gullible, and that's just how cults prosper; with folks that want God to be their way, and not the way God has truly revealed Himself to man...
Click to expand...


Do you have any proof to back up these claims?  It seems to me that at least some of the facts you presented are incorrect.  It is fact that Joseph Smith did not lead the church West to Utah, contrary to your statement.  Because of this I would highly question other facts you have presented in this thread.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball, all of that is true...



So, you agree with Eightball&#8217;s statement about Joseph Smith leading the church West to Utah?


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> I think you are talking about the speech he gave in 07 to the byu hawaii grads. Is that the same one? If not where can I find it?



No i mean the one he gave this past week. i was watching it earlier. it was pretty good.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are talking about the speech he gave in 07 to the byu hawaii grads. Is that the same one? If not where can I find it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No i mean the one he gave this past week. i was watching it earlier. it was pretty good.
Click to expand...


where is it? and how come you haven't accepted my friend request yet?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Good, always learning is good.  But, yes, we all know you are using 'mormonspeak' on your definition of dogma.  Yep, Brigham Young taught different doctrine 150 years than the general authorities teach today, and your denials mean nothing at all.



Having studied indepth what Brigham Young taught and what we are taught now, i can assure you this is entirely incorrect. the Doctrine is consistant. Of course, you actually have to look at everything in context. Something many fail to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Havin' some funnin'.  To be serious again, you are misusing the definition.  And as far as using presentism in apologetics, LDS historians have becoming amazingly creative.  But that's OK: you seem to be a good kid.  We will enjoy ourselves here.

I use to think the LDS were pretty hard on African Americans, particularly before 1978.  But have you ever heard of the FLDS thinking on pre-Adamites?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, cool it, truth.  You are so easy to rile.  Anyway, since you did not want to answer it . . . my LDS friends always said, when we were growing up, to date the leadership's daughters.  One of the guys was dating an apostle's granddaugher (shut up, Truth, he's dead quite a few years, and she died in a car accident about ten or twelve years ago, so nothing's hurt here except your feelings), and he said, "absolutely awesome."
> 
> He would know.  He got himself excommunicated in half a dozen stakes in Southern Utah before he was 25.



So you are seriously contending that you know someone who was excommunicated 6 times before he was 25? And you expect us to just accept this as the truth despite the fact that he would have to be rebaptized 6 times to do this and he would have to wait at least a year after his excommunication until he was eligible again? Assuming your story is correct and that he wasnt immediate excommunicated right after he was rebaptized, he was getting excommunicated and rebaptized from the age of 12 on.

needless to say, it seems that either your source is incredibly unreliable or you are completely misunderstanding him. my guess is the latter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball, all of that is true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree with Eightballs statement about Joseph Smith leading the church West to Utah?
Click to expand...


Nope, he's right your wrong.  He thinks that Brigham Young is the founder of the LDS church in Utah.  Reread his post carefully.  He is setting you up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, always learning is good.  But, yes, we all know you are using 'mormonspeak' on your definition of dogma.  Yep, Brigham Young taught different doctrine 150 years than the general authorities teach today, and your denials mean nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having studied indepth what Brigham Young taught and what we are taught now, i can assure you this is entirely incorrect. the Doctrine is consistant. Of course, you actually have to look at everything in context. Something many fail to do.
Click to expand...


False assurance will help you fall on your prat.  Tell us about Brigham Young and his racist doctrine on African Americans.  We will be using his own recorded words by his own secretaries, recorders, etc.  So you are up, because I remember that you inferred BY was actually a great bud for blacks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, cool it, truth.  You are so easy to rile.  Anyway, since you did not want to answer it . . . my LDS friends always said, when we were growing up, to date the leadership's daughters.  One of the guys was dating an apostle's granddaugher (shut up, Truth, he's dead quite a few years, and she died in a car accident about ten or twelve years ago, so nothing's hurt here except your feelings), and he said, "absolutely awesome."
> 
> He would know.  He got himself excommunicated in half a dozen stakes in Southern Utah before he was 25.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are seriously contending that you know someone who was excommunicated 6 times before he was 25? And you expect us to just accept this as the truth despite the fact that he would have to be rebaptized 6 times to do this and he would have to wait at least a year after his excommunication until he was eligible again? Assuming your story is correct and that he wasnt immediate excommunicated right after he was rebaptized, he was getting excommunicated and rebaptized from the age of 12 on.
> 
> needless to say, it seems that either your source is incredibly unreliable or you are completely misunderstanding him. my guess is the latter.
Click to expand...


Avi, do you know the difference between "concrete" and "abstract" thinking and expression?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Havin' some funnin'.  To be serious again, you are misusing the definition.  And as far as using presentism in apologetics, LDS historians have becoming amazingly creative.  But that's OK: you seem to be a good kid.  We will enjoy ourselves here.
> 
> I use to think the LDS were pretty hard on African Americans, particularly before 1978.  But have you ever heard of the FLDS thinking on pre-Adamites?



no I haven't. I spend more time studying my own doctrine than offshoots.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball, all of that is true...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you agree with Eightballs statement about Joseph Smith leading the church West to Utah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, he's right your wrong.  He thinks that Brigham Young is the founder of the LDS church in Utah.  Reread his post carefully.  He is setting you up.
Click to expand...


either way, he is misinformed. Brigham Young never built the church. He took over it's leadership after Joseph Smith died while still in Nauvoo. The church never broke up. So it never needed to be rebuilt. capeesh?

The church was simply carried accross the plains and stopped in Utah.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good, always learning is good.  But, yes, we all know you are using 'mormonspeak' on your definition of dogma.  Yep, Brigham Young taught different doctrine 150 years than the general authorities teach today, and your denials mean nothing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having studied indepth what Brigham Young taught and what we are taught now, i can assure you this is entirely incorrect. the Doctrine is consistant. Of course, you actually have to look at everything in context. Something many fail to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False assurance will help you fall on your prat.  Tell us about Brigham Young and his racist doctrine on African Americans.  We will be using his own recorded words by his own secretaries, recorders, etc.  So you are up, because I remember that you inferred BY was actually a great bud for blacks.
Click to expand...


been there. Done that. Anything new please?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having studied indepth what Brigham Young taught and what we are taught now, i can assure you this is entirely incorrect. the Doctrine is consistant. Of course, you actually have to look at everything in context. Something many fail to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False assurance will help you fall on your prat.  Tell us about Brigham Young and his racist doctrine on African Americans.  We will be using his own recorded words by his own secretaries, recorders, etc.  So you are up, because I remember that you inferred BY was actually a great bud for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> been there. Done that. Anything new please?
Click to expand...


OK, Truthspeaker, you concede the point that BY was a terrible racist.  Those who wish to study his words can do so at journalofdiscourses.org.  The diligent seeker can enter "Negro", "******", "Indian", "Jew", etc., and see the state of mind the LDS servants of God possessed during those years.  Also search Brigham Young for comments on his belief of his teachings and "doctrine."

Some of the approving comments on the leadership follow about the Journals are found immediately below.  Read them carefully, and you will quickly realize how dissimulating and prevaricating truthspeaker has become on the subject.

&#8220;The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will *certainly welcome with joy every number *(issue) as it comes forth.&#8220;  (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)

&#8220;Each successive Volume of these Discourses is a* rich mine of wealth, containing gems of great value, and the diligent seeker will find ample reward for his labor*. After the fathers and mothers of this generation have made them the study of their lives their children&#8217;s children will find that they are still unexhausted, and rejoice that this Record has been handed down from their fathers to also aid them in following the way of life.&#8221;  (Apostle Orson Pratt, Preface. Volume 3.)

&#8220;It is impossible to give monetary value to the past volumes of this publication, &#8230; Those who read *the utterances of the servants of God, contained in this book, under the same influence by which the speakers were inspired,* cannot fail to receive profit from the perusal.&#8221;  (President Joseph F. Smith, Preface, Volume 18.)


----------



## Truthspeaker

> OK, Truthspeaker, you concede the point that BY was a terrible racist.  Those who wish to study his words can do so at journalofdiscourses.org.  The diligent seeker can enter "Negro", "******", "Indian", "Jew", etc., and see the state of mind the LDS servants of God possessed during those years.  Also search Brigham Young for comments on his belief of his teachings and "doctrine."



You're such a presumptuous windbag to think that I would equivocate such doctrines. Why, oh why won't you read the lengthy posts I have had on all the subject matter regarding our stance on blacks in the church? why do you ignore? Why do you assume you are the first to ask these questions? Do you not know that this is now the official longest standing thread in the history of USMB? and you think I haven't fully addressed the black issue?

What's wrong with you? Why won't you learn knowledge instead of hearsay? Let me copy and paste AGAIN the statement in the book "Discourses of Brigham Young." (not to be confused with Journal of Discourses.)
_Page 54..."at some future time known only to God, The Lord will restore his children of the Negro race to the priesthood authority. When that time comes, I do not know but there will be many white people who will suffer punishment _and the wrath of God for their mistreatment of that race."

there is much more but you forget the statement of the book of mormon claiming all races were equal. Brigham Young preached that book from the pulpit. People continue to take his statements out of context over and over again because his language is too harsh for most people's sensitive 21st century ears.


> Some of the approving comments on the leadership follow about the Journals are found immediately below.  Read them carefully, and you will quickly realize how dissimulating and prevaricating truthspeaker has become on the subject.



I have never equivocated once. You;ve proven nothing. I've been here since freakin November of Last Year answering these questions. How could I be hiding the truth? I've said all along... This is the Truth about Mormons. My name is Truthspeaker. What reason do I have to lie? 



> The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will *certainly welcome with joy every number *(issue) as it comes forth.  (President George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Preface, Volume 8.)
> 
> Each successive Volume of these Discourses is a* rich mine of wealth, containing gems of great value, and the diligent seeker will find ample reward for his labor*. After the fathers and mothers of this generation have made them the study of their lives their childrens children will find that they are still unexhausted, and rejoice that this Record has been handed down from their fathers to also aid them in following the way of life.  (Apostle Orson Pratt, Preface. Volume 3.)
> 
> It is impossible to give monetary value to the past volumes of this publication,  Those who read *the utterances of the servants of God, contained in this book, under the same influence by which the speakers were inspired,* cannot fail to receive profit from the perusal.  (President Joseph F. Smith, Preface, Volume 18.)


[/QUOTE]

Indeed there are some gems to be found in the Journal of Discourses. There are statements just like in the Bible that need to be understood in context or you may get riled up. Like the "sexist" statement in the Bible where Paul tells women to be silent at all times in the church. And that it is a shame for women to speak in the church. And if they will learn anything at all, let them learn from their husbands at home. 

There needs to be contextual understanding before we go crucifying Paul as a sexist. The same caution needs to be taken when understanding brigham's comments.

Why don't you read some of the great and wonderful things Brigham preached instead of learning nothing else about him other than that he was a "polygamist and racist."

Who do you think you are? It must be pretty easy to sit back and judge people you will never know who lived hundreds of years before you based on heresay of reports only you want to believe. Why not investigate the good reports of Brigham Young so you can get a fairer view of the man?

I know because you don't really want to study and learn. You just want to pretend to be educated by using big words you think we can't figure out while only doing shoddy studying at best. Big and seldom used words don't cover up your lack of education on this matter.


----------



## THE LIGHT

THE LIGHT said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the light said:
> 
> 
> 
> do mormons believe that jesus "is," "has been" and always will be god and that belief in him is the only way to eternal life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yesss!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would that be "yes" if you didn't change my quote too?
Click to expand...


I'll take that as a no.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> the light said:
> 
> 
> 
> do mormons believe that jesus "is," "has been" and always will be god and that belief in him is the only way to eternal life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yesss!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


 

truth


----------



## Truthspeaker

THE LIGHT said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> yesss!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be "yes" if you didn't change my quote too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a no.
Click to expand...


I replied and say yes. Did you you miss it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the light said:
> 
> 
> 
> do mormons believe that jesus "is," "has been" and always will be god and that belief in him is the only way to eternal life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yesss!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truth
Click to expand...


You need a Hug


----------



## Eightball

Yes, yes, yes, J.S. jr. didn't make it past Illinois, as he died in that famous shoot-out with that mob at the jail house.

Not quite all the way West to Utah..........Yes B.Y. had to lead the cult to the promised land of Salt Lake............

I suppose if J.S. jr hadn't gotten so much friction from the Christian communities on the way West, he'd have settled his cult somewhere East of Salt Lake, Utah.

Problem is that he and B.Y. afterwards were always at "logger heads" with the U.S. Government.

Still remember reading how President Teddy Roosevelt demanded that the American flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.

You'd never know that there history was so anti-American as they portray this "apple pie/American flag" image to the public nowadays.

Neophyte Mormons don't know all the deeper teachings/doctrines initially, but are gradually massaged into their introduction not unlike the old frog in the slowing warming water, that will inevitably end-up boiling them.

So many neophytes would flee from LDS membership if they were exposed to the plagarized freemasonry, oaths, hand grips/rituals that involve temple rites/initiations right at the beginning.

This is how cults operate.  You project a tame, unstrange, atmosphere/doctrine at first, and gradually introduce the weird stuff as your new member become more immersed in the church activities of service/work.

This is why so many Born Again Christians can get sucked into Mormonism.  Outwardly it seems so safe, and seems to exude in certain ways, the fruits of the Spirt, in it's outward friendliness, and service to it's members.  

The word, "Worthy" is a real "corker", as Mormons use "worthiness" before God as their mainstay.  This is why they react like deer in headlights when you try to explain the bible doctrine of "grace" to them.  They deep down are striving to stay or become "worthy" before their god, yet God tells the "true" Christian that they are "worthy" based on Christ's work on the cross.  Any "works" that the true Christian does is not out of a need to gain or keep their worthiness before God, but is a type of works that is a result of "gratitude", "love", and thanksgiving towards the One who saved them and gave them eternal life.

Mormons seem to often be blinded to understanding this concept.

This is why Truthspeaker can't understand Romans 10:17, as he has suppressed the "Truth" of God's word in his life, and is spiraling downward throught the Romans Chapter 1, degradation of his soul.

Of course there is still "hope" for Truthspeaker, and other Mormons who suppress the Truth.  God still loves them, and will allow them to degrade soulically in their lives until they hit "bottom", and hopefully realize that they haven't been living a life of "transparency" and a "contrite" heart condition towards God.

Paul is perfect example of a man who just knew he had the "truth", yet he assailed biblical Christians, had them arrested, stood by and gave praise to those that stoned biblical Christians to death, because he was just so certain that he had the truth.

Yet it took being knocked off his mount on his way to Damascus, and having the ressurrected Christ intervene directly in his life and show him/Paul how he was fight against the true Christ.

Frome thence onward, Paul was a trully changed man.  All that passion to assail God's people, was channeled into passion to proclaim the very Gospel, that Mormons say is corrupted by a non-omnipotent, weak mormon god, who couldn't protect his word to mankind, and needed a second try, via Moroni the angel, with the Golden plates written in "reformed Heiroglyphics".

I've asked and asked, why God would communicate to Moses in Moses' tongue/language via the tablets, yet to J.S. jr. it was "reformed heiroglyphics", to an "english" speaking nation/people?

One ponders, and in some ways J.S. Jr's having it in an unknown tongue kept an exclusivity of the translation to himself and his alleged cohorts.

Also, to this day, experts in ancient Egyptology have yet to find any evidence of a "reformed heiroglyphics" written language.

Truthspeaker disagrees with me about "faith".  He doesn't understand that faith is built upon, a "confidence" that the individual has with whatever that particular understanding is.

For instance, when I sit down in a chair, I trust or have "faith" in the one who built the chair, or I will not want to sit in that chair.  I am sitting in that chair trusting that it won't collapse, based on my confidence in the chair-builder.  That is faith.  It is not based on visions, feelings, dreams, etc..., but solid evidence presented before-hand.

People who believe biblically in Christ for Salvation, are trusting in the evidences presented in the bible by Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Apollos, Steven, and of course Jesus Himself.  

Are these biblical evidence based solely on miracles, or evidenciary things.

Paul said that over 500 were still alive and kicking when he wrote one of his epistles, who saw Christ crucified, and also witnessed His ascension into the heavenlies to sit at the right hand of God the Father.  It only takes 2 or more eye-witnesses to convict a person in court, yet withing the bible we have myriads of eye-witnesses of Christ's existence.

That is faith based on evidences, not dreams that say, "Mormonism is the truth.", nor "warm fuzzies in the soul" that make us feel good about being Mormon.

Mormons such as Truthspeaker and others fight and fight against the realities of biblical based "faith".  They doggedly hold onto their "experiential" type phenomena's to validate their belief system.

This is most dangerous, as Satan goes about like a roaring lion, deceiving if possible even the "elect" or true Christians.

Truth things the "born from above" or "Born again" statement by Jesus is "fuzzy" at most, and doesn't prove any point, yet over and over, Jesus said that what He gives is like thirst quenching water, that one will never need to thirst again.  He told the Samaritan woman at the well that He had a water that would satisfy the human thirst forever.  Even the Samaritan woman couldn't understand that this "water" was the Spirit of God that would come from God, and make residence in the True Christian's soul.  That person would never again need to strive, to prove worthiness before God, but would be "reckoned" by God once and for-all, justified or righteous before His eyes.  How?  Cause His Son had taken their place on the cross, had taken sins past, present, and future, and sent them away as far as the East is to the West.

The Mormon, must keep on working at being worthy.  Truth knows that.  He knows that their belief system, involves constant work at being good before God, in order to be worthy of ressurrection, and their blasphemous godhood.

"There will be no other gods before Me!!!!!!!!"  Not so with Mormons.  They follow the same Isaiah delusional poem of Lucifer in claiming that they can rise to be equal to God.

Lucifer was a beautiful angel, most likely the most striking of all that God made.  He may have even been a Seraphin, that stood before God's throne, with his three pairs of wings flying in the air and throwing out praise upon praise to his Creator.  Yet, there was free-will for the angelic host as well to continue to give God all credit and praise and glory for eternity.  Lucifer led 1/3 of the angelic host in delusional rebellion against God.  He now roams about the earth, creating and stirring up anti-biblical belief systems that will inevitably catch many human souls in this intricate web of deceit.

Satan hates the human race, as it is intended to give glory to God and God alone.  Mormonism, Scientology, Bahai, Universalism, Watch Tower, Moonies, etc... all carry the finger prints of Lucifer, as they all diminish, or totally remove the deity of Christ.  Not only that, some of these cults go so far as to raise created man to the level of godhood, which mimicks what Satan attempted in Isaiah.

"There will be no other Gods before me."  How plain and direct must God be.  I would assume that this is one verse where the Mormons would claim corruption, as it flies in the face of their belief that they can all become gods one day.

Also in finishing, is it not correct that in the Mormon husband-wife relationship, that it is the husband that "raises" his wife from the dead?  If this is true, does this not go against Jesus' very statement that there is no marriage or giving of marriage between souls in heaven?  Also, does this not raise man's importance above woman.

The Mormons have made what is a very simple gospel from God to man and have created a mishmas of contradictions, changes, plagarized from the bible writings, and the dangerous mind of it's latter day president/prophets.

God doesn't need to send a new-improved Gospel to man.  The bible has sufficed for thousands of years, and when man let's the bible/God speak to him it suffices 100%.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball, chill, man!  Early Mormonism is whacked out, sure, but their church today is not the church of Joseph Smith then -- that goes to the FLDS, and they are as whacked out as Joseph and Brigham ever were.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball, chill, man!  Early Mormonism is whacked out, sure, but their church today is not the church of Joseph Smith then -- that goes to the FLDS, and they are as whacked out as Joseph and Brigham ever were.



Jake:  The wacked-out part in the present LDS church had been incrementally placed under the radar in the 20th/21st century; that's basically the difference between old and new LDS.

I've worked with ex-Mormons for Jesus, many years ago, and also have extensive Mormon lineage on my father's side of the family.

My Episcapalean Grandfather who owned two saloons in Salt Lake City, helped build the great temple there as a carpenter.

Grandma was the Mormon side of the marriage.
*******
My father was as 32 degree Free Mason of Scottish Rite background going through all the chairs and become a Worshipful Master.

My father walked away from Freemasonry in his last years of life, after he started attending a bible teaching Christian church.
******
When it comes to the bondage of cults, and humanistic thinking in lieu of God's truth, I've seen a lot of it, and it ain't pretty.
********
Mormons are good people.  They mean well, just like my benevolent Worshipful freemason Master Mason Dad.

Yet there are internal, spiritual scales that must fall off of the metaphorical eyes of their souls to see beyond their organizations.
******
Chill out.........I couldn't be more at rest.  Psalms 46:10 "Cease Striving And Know That I Am God.".....Or another translation says, "Be Still And Know That I Am God.".


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Jake:  The wacked-out part in the present LDS church had been incrementally placed under the radar in the 20th/21st century; that's basically the difference between old and new LDS.



Still have yet to see anything whacked out. But then I dont assume that because culture is different its insane.



> I've worked with ex-Mormons for Jesus, many years ago, and also have extensive Mormon lineage on my father's side of the family.



Well that certainly explains alot of your misinformation.  



> My Episcapalean Grandfather who owned two saloons in Salt Lake City, helped build the great temple there as a carpenter.
> 
> Grandma was the Mormon side of the marriage.



Well, I am glad your grandparents helped with something so important.

Your grandfather wasnt a mormon, yet he was willing to help them worship as they saw fit. He sounds like a decent man.



> *******
> My father was as 32 degree Free Mason of Scottish Rite background going through all the chairs and become a Worshipful Master.
> 
> My father walked away from Freemasonry in his last years of life, after he started attending a bible teaching Christian church.
> ******



Interesting, but rather irrelevant to the thread. 



> When it comes to the bondage of cults, and humanistic thinking in lieu of God's truth, I've seen a lot of it, and it ain't pretty.
> ********



I hope this doesnt come out the wrong way, but how could you possibly have seen anything when your forebears are the ones who did these things? i mean you can read about their experiences, or hear them tell them. But these arent actually your experiences. I dont see how they provide you with any sort of authority to go on.




> Mormons are good people.  They mean well, just like my benevolent Worshipful freemason Master Mason Dad.



So your father was evil because he was a mason?



> Yet there are internal, spiritual scales that must fall off of the metaphorical eyes of their souls to see beyond their organizations.
> ******



Funny, I was thinking the same exact thing about you guys.




> Chill out.........I couldn't be more at rest.  Psalms 46:10 "Cease Striving And Know That I Am God.".....Or another translation says, "Be Still And Know That I Am God.".



Excellent scripture. Shame more people dont take it to heart.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am very glad for you, Avi, that you have outed on this thread.  Good for you!


----------



## Arawyn

Avatar4321 said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I feel I must point this out.....your post reeks of what you are condemning......is that a road which you wish to travel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he recognizes his rough edges my elven princess. And I hope he is working on it.
> 
> Its a flaw we all have through human nature. But luckily God can change human nature.
> 
> Stop fighting with people and learn to simply answer and invite. that's the key
Click to expand...


 Thanks, always wise Avatar...from what I've seen. 

I'm not perfect by any means.....LOL. Never will be. And I'm sorry TruthSpeaker if I sounded judgmental. I do have an issue with that still, and work on it daily. Just give me a smack upside the head when I am. 

I thought I had posted when I was on vacation to your clarify comment, apparently, LOL, it didn't post. And honestly it was so long ago, the blonde in my brain leached it out. 

It was probably along the lines of don't play into using the tactics of those that "harangue" the church by using their methods because it usually ends up in a muddy tumble down the hill kinda thing. And if that made sense to anyone but me, be sure to let me know LOL.


----------



## Arawyn

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mel Ballard is a good dude.  And you should apply his teachings in your life.  Give up whackos like Glenn Beck.  Turn away from JBS leanings.  Go lean on the Lord.  Best of luck, Avatar.  I am glad you are 'coming out' in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are considering Glenn Beck a wacko, is it his religious doctrine or his Constitutional/Libertarian/Conservative background, or both?
> 
> I find Glenn Beck very refreshing, and right on top of all that's going wacko with our present administration.
> 
> As for Beck's Mormon beliefs, I'm able to separate people from their religious persuasion, and appreciate or not their political/ethical doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like LDS folks fairly well having been around them all my life, here in (deleted) as well as out west.  What I don't like is Glenn's hidden "elders of Zion saving the Constitution" LDS belief tied to the nuttery of the John Birch Society, the Freeman Institute, and the ravings of Cleon Skousen.  You can Avatar about all that.
> 
> Glenn's approach is held by a very, very small minority of LDS and considered to be a major step on the road to apostasy by the LDS church's leadership.*
> 
> *To small minority of LDS whackos on this principle -- go contact your Stake President and find out what happens to your standing in your church.
Click to expand...


LOL, I didn't know Beck was LDS....wow, I learn something every day. )


----------



## Arawyn

JakeStarkey said:


> *Truth: It's a ridiculously retarded question to ask if mormon women are great in bed. *
> 
> Go ask you Dad and come back and tell us (I learned how to flame like this from Terry!).



I'm telling Terry (if she is the one from this board) that you used it in such a fashion......


----------



## Arawyn

Eightball said:


> Yes, yes, yes, J.S. jr. didn't make it past Illinois, as he died in that famous shoot-out with that mob at the jail house.



Carthage, IL. I'm from about an hour south of both Nauvoo and Carthage and the story is quite well known, as is the expulsion from MO. My hometown, I'm proud to say, gave the early members sanctuary after the expulsion and led to the ability of founding Nauvoo. 



> Not quite all the way West to Utah..........Yes B.Y. had to lead the cult to the promised land of Salt Lake............



Heavens, it is hard to believe cult is still used to a religion (anyone else know of a cult lasting this long) that has (at the barest accounting) of over 160 years.



> I suppose if J.S. jr hadn't gotten so much friction from the Christian communities on the way West, he'd have settled his cult somewhere East of Salt Lake, Utah.



I will grant you that there is substantial evidence that Joseph did wish to move the church further west. And that he foresaw that need. But there is also evidence that he knew he would not be leading the church.



> Problem is that he and B.Y. afterwards were always at "logger heads" with the U.S. Government.



Citations please. One of the reasons the Church was expelled from MO is because of their potential vote against slavery. The problem arose in IL as a result from the huge block vote of the members of the Church. If you think politics is bad now, look at the newspapers, including my hometown, Quincy, IL, regarding the Church around election times. The newpaper's name is the Quincy Herald Whig. Most of the disagreement had really nothing to do with the Church, yes some did of course, granted, most of it actually came down to politics though. 

Uncle Dale's Old Mormon Articles: Quincy Whig, Herald, etc. (1842)



> JOSEPH SMITH, Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion, has a proclamation in the last "Times and Seasons," directing the Mormons in this State to vote for the locofoco candidates for Governor and Lieut. Governor next August. This is, indeed, a high-handed attempt to ursurp power, and to tyranise over the minds of men.






> Still remember reading how President Teddy Roosevelt demanded that the American flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd never know that there history was so anti-American as they portray this "apple pie/American flag" image to the public nowadays.



Citation please......all I get from bing is how Teddy was a friend to LDS church and anti-masonic websites.



> Neophyte Mormons don't know all the deeper teachings/doctrines initially, but are gradually massaged into their introduction not unlike the old frog in the slowing warming water, that will inevitably end-up boiling them.



Nice spin of milk before toast thought.......gee, I've never seen that employed.../sarcasm



> So many neophytes would flee from LDS membership if they were exposed to the plagarized freemasonry, oaths, hand grips/rituals that involve temple rites/initiations right at the beginning.



Actually, I'm classified neophyte Mormon, joined only 25 years ago, only active member starting 10 years ago.....while I'm not what I consider a good Mormon, but rather a "jack mormon"......I'm not running from our church....far from it. I'm actually walking, intentionally back to it. 

So far as I've been able to deduce, you also take issue with Masonics, would I be correct?



> This is how cults operate.  You project a tame, unstrange, atmosphere/doctrine at first, and gradually introduce the weird stuff as your new member become more immersed in the church activities of service/work.



I'm sorry, but I must (and I just got done watching National Geographic channel on cults)........fall down on floor laughing so hard that I think I lost 10 pounds. 

First thing you should know......toast is not w/held from the "milk" portion.....they too attend sacrament meetings and if they have toast questions, those questions are answered, when asked. 



> This is why so many Born Again Christians can get sucked into Mormonism.  Outwardly it seems so safe, and seems to exude in certain ways, the fruits of the Spirt, in it's outward friendliness, and service to it's members.



Really, from my personal experience, converts come from those tending to be of the Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist persuasion. But then I only have my hometown experiences to go by. And we were (they are) a small community. *The town*



> The word, "Worthy" is a real "corker", as Mormons use "worthiness" before God as their mainstay.  This is why they react like deer in headlights when you try to explain the bible doctrine of "grace" to them.  They deep down are striving to stay or become "worthy" before their god, yet God tells the "true" Christian that they are "worthy" based on Christ's work on the cross.  Any "works" that the true Christian does is not out of a need to gain or keep their worthiness before God, but is a type of works that is a result of "gratitude", "love", and thanksgiving towards the One who saved them and gave them eternal life.



I disagree entirely. I have no problems with explaining worthiness.......We understand Biblical Grace in fact, we operate from it. Let me paraphrase it, Faith without works is not faith. Let me quote it, "Faith without works is dead". James 2:14-26

If we have faith, we strive to live by that faith and to show our faith, we strive to always be better and to do God's work.  We cannot get to God with works without faith.....I believe them to be interchangeable. 



> Mormons seem to often be blinded to understanding this concept.



What is YOUR interpretation that we are so blinded towards?




> *If words are missing it is because I accidentally hit insert button, not trying to misquote* why Truthspeaker can't understand Romans 10:17, as he has suppressed the "Truth" of God's word in his life, and is spiraling downward throught the Romans Chapter 1, degradation of his soul.



What is he not understanding about that verse? Faith brings people to God, but as James says, if one professes to have faith......one must show that faith. 



> Of course there is still "hope" for Truthspeaker, and other Mormons who suppress the Truth.  God still loves them, and will allow them to degrade soulically in their lives until they hit "bottom", and hopefully realize that they haven't been living a life of "transparency" and a "contrite" heart condition towards God.



Whose truth are we surpressing? And who set you up as judge of our soul? 

I can't judge your soul, nor can any other but the Savior, that is His dominion. 



> Paul is perfect example of a man who just knew he had the "truth", yet he assailed biblical Christians, had them arrested, stood by and gave praise to those that stoned biblical Christians to death, because he was just so certain that he had the truth.
> 
> Frome thence onward, Paul was a trully changed man.



Can I ask you what denomination you might be? My father-in-law, a great man with many foibles, raised in a Baptist family who became a Pentecostal preacher viewed Paul as the best of all the Apostles....and that's what I also get from my friends of both denominations as well. 



> Yet it took being knocked off his mount on his way to Damascus, and having the ressurrected Christ intervene directly in his life and show him/Paul how he was fight against the true Christ.





> All that passion to assail God's people, was channeled into passion to proclaim the very Gospel, that Mormons say is corrupted by a non-omnipotent, weak mormon god, who couldn't protect his word to mankind, and needed a second try, via Moroni the angel, with the Golden plates written in "reformed Heiroglyphics".



Wow, and your "God" was so strong that He had to take His power back from Catholics, I am assuming, so as to give you His true word? I honestly don't understand your point in this paragraph. 



> I've asked and asked, why God would communicate to Moses in Moses' tongue/language via the tablets, yet to J.S. jr. it was "reformed heiroglyphics", to an "english" speaking nation/people?



Have you talked to the people of Jewish faith? And the different forms of written word used? Moses' tongue? Hebraic......in New Testament, Aramaic.....?

Are you attempting to assert that the writing (language), that conveyed the word of the Lord, never changed?



> One ponders, and in some ways J.S. Jr's having it in an unknown tongue kept an exclusivity of the translation to himself and his alleged cohorts.



And yet there are protestant denominations that believe there is a tongue of God/Angels, that is only manifest through the power of tongues. Are they too, as you termed it earlier, cults? 



> Also, to this day, experts in ancient Egyptology have yet to find any evidence of a "reformed heiroglyphics" written language.



And it took years to be able to find the Rosetta Stone, to understand a language millenia's old. Your point?



> Truthspeaker disagrees with me about "faith".  He doesn't understand that faith is built upon, a "confidence" that the individual has with whatever that particular understanding is.



Thus because his understanding of faith, as outlined in NT, differs from yours, his is deficient?



> For instance, when I sit down in a chair, I trust or have "faith" in the one who built the chair, or I will not want to sit in that chair.  I am sitting in that chair trusting that it won't collapse, based on my confidence in the chair-builder.  That is faith.  It is not based on visions, feelings, dreams, etc..., but solid evidence presented before-hand.



Ah, but wouldn't you assert that Christ's life on earth and His "works" provided that basis, but yet He wasn't trusted by the Jewish community, as a whole. Was Isiah's word's trusted by what he showed beforehand? What about Noah?



> People who believe biblically in Christ for Salvation, are trusting in the evidences presented in the bible by Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Apollos, Steven, and of course Jesus Himself.



See above



> Are these biblical evidence based solely on miracles, or evidenciary things.



Ummm, Our Lord and Savior. 



> Paul said that over 500 were still alive and kicking when he wrote one of his epistles, who saw Christ crucified, and also witnessed His ascension into the heavenlies to sit at the right hand of God the Father.  It only takes 2 or more eye-witnesses to convict a person in court, yet withing the bible we have myriads of eye-witnesses of Christ's existence.



I know "our" evidences have already been provided in this thread.....including those who fell away but never denounced the happenings. 



> That is faith based on evidences, not dreams that say, "Mormonism is the truth.", nor "warm fuzzies in the soul" that make us feel good about being Mormon.
> 
> 
> Mormons such as Truthspeaker and others fight and fight against the realities of biblical based "faith".  They doggedly hold onto their "experiential" type phenomena's to validate their belief system.



No, actually, I've seen the opposite. And, yet I can also detect that if they provided/and have seen it in this thread, biblical evidence, it is called distortion, when providing logical, the "and the elect shall deceive thee"......in other words, it has been treated as a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. 



> his is most dangerous, as Satan goes about like a roaring lion, deceiving if possible even the "elect" or true Christians.



And I didn't even have to scroll back in this thread to provide the "damned" portion.



> Truth things the "born from above" or "Born again" statement by Jesus is "fuzzy" at most, and doesn't prove any point, yet over and over, Jesus said that what He gives is like thirst quenching water, that one will never need to thirst again.  He told the Samaritan woman at the well that He had a water that would satisfy the human thirst forever.  Even the Samaritan woman couldn't understand that this "water" was the Spirit of God that would come from God, and make residence in the True Christian's soul.  That person would never again need to strive, to prove worthiness before God, but would be "reckoned" by God once and for-all, justified or righteous before His eyes.  How?  Cause His Son had taken their place on the cross, had taken sins past, present, and future, and sent them away as far as the East is to the West.



Do you not understand that these people showed the qualities that were lacking in the "faithful of His Kingdom"? That His sacrifice would make up the requirement of perfection from man?



> The Mormon, must keep on working at being worthy.  Truth knows that.  He knows that their belief system, involves constant work at being good before God, in order to be worthy of ressurrection, and their blasphemous godhood.



No, all are worthy of resurrection.......ALL.....except the fallen from Heaven, those that have bodies on this earth at one time or another WILL be risen for the resurrection. 



> "There will be no other gods before Me!!!!!!!!"  Not so with Mormons.  They follow the same Isaiah delusional poem of Lucifer in claiming that they can rise to be equal to God.



We believe God's truth.......that we will share in His mansions...etc. 



> Lucifer was a beautiful angel, most likely the most striking of all that God made.  He may have even been a Seraphin, that stood before God's throne, with his three pairs of wings flying in the air and throwing out praise upon praise to his Creator.  Yet, there was free-will for the angelic host as well to continue to give God all credit and praise and glory for eternity.  Lucifer led 1/3 of the angelic host in delusional rebellion against God.  He now roams about the earth, creating and stirring up anti-biblical belief systems that will inevitably catch many human souls in this intricate web of deceit.



True, Lucifer was beautiful who led 1/3 to damnation, directly from Heaven. And creates deciet like no other. 



> Satan hates the human race, as it is intended to give glory to God and God alone.



True



> Mormonism, Scientology, Bahai, Universalism, Watch Tower, Moonies, etc... all carry the finger prints of Lucifer, as they all diminish, or totally remove the deity of Christ.  Not only that, some of these cults go so far as to raise created man to the level of godhood, which mimicks what Satan attempted in Isaiah.



Mormonism has diminished? Wow, I didn't know that. We have decreased the Savior in our practices? Wow......you really need to attend a sacrament meeting sometime to see how untrue that would be.  



> "There will be no other Gods before me."  How plain and direct must God be.  I would assume that this is one verse where the Mormons would claim corruption, as it flies in the face of their belief that they can all become gods one day.



No other Gods also include those that put mortal life in more importance, like money, TV and many other wordly encumberments. 

We just take God at His word about being inheritors. 



> Also in finishing, is it not correct that in the Mormon husband-wife relationship, that it is the husband that "raises" his wife from the dead?  If this is true, does this not go against Jesus' very statement that there is no marriage or giving of marriage between souls in heaven?  Also, does this not raise man's importance above woman.



Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven....*rest* and whatsoever though shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 

I believe your statement about husband raises the wife from the dead refers to the Priesthood.......and as to it placing a man's importance above the woman, I would say you know NOTHING of our faith. Men and women are co-equals, just with different jobs assigned to them. 


> The Mormons have made what is a very simple gospel from God to man and have created a mishmas of contradictions, changes, plagarized from the bible writings, and the dangerous mind of it's latter day president/prophets.



In YOUR opinion. 



> God doesn't need to send a new-improved Gospel to man.  The bible has sufficed for thousands of years, and when man let's the bible/God speak to him it suffices 100%.



If that is the case, why Protestantism?


----------



## Christopher

Just a few responses to add to Arawyn's.



Eightball said:


> Yes, yes, yes, J.S. jr. didn't make it past Illinois, as he died in that famous shoot-out with that mob at the jail house.



I am glad that you corrected your false statement, thank you.  Although, you seemed to have replaced it with another one.  I think a shootout would imply that both sides had guns (a gunfight).  Joseph Smith and those with him were unarmed.



Eightball said:


> I've asked and asked, why God would communicate to Moses in Moses' tongue/language via the tablets, yet to J.S. jr. it was "reformed heiroglyphics", to an "english" speaking nation/people?



God communicated to the people in the Book of Mormon in their language.  They wrote their experiences down in their language, which was different than English.  Their writings had to be interpreted from their language to English for English-speaking people to understand them, just like the Bible had to be interpreted into English.

You say you have "asked and asked", but did you really listen to the answer(s)?  Have you even read the Book of Mormon?  Your question seems to show a lack of basic understanding about the Book of Mormon .


----------



## Avatar4321

Christopher said:


> I am glad that you corrected your false statement, thank you.  Although, you seemed to have replaced it with another one.  I think a shootout would imply that both sides had guns (a gunfight).  Joseph Smith and those with him were unarmed.



Not true. He did have a six shooter revolver. He discharged it blindly into the hall way after his brother was murdered by the mob to delay them long enough to jump out the window and save the others. But Id still hardly call it a shoot out. But its just his way to justify the massacre. 6 bullets, 3 of which werent fired, against dozens in the mob... sounds like a shoot out to me... not...



> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked and asked, why God would communicate to Moses in Moses' tongue/language via the tablets, yet to J.S. jr. it was "reformed heiroglyphics", to an "english" speaking nation/people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God communicated to the people in the Book of Mormon in their language.  They wrote their experiences down in their language, which was different than English.  Their writings had to be interpreted from their language to English for English-speaking people to understand them, just like the Bible had to be interpreted into English.
> 
> You say you have "asked and asked", but did you really listen to the answer(s)?  Have you even read the Book of Mormon?  Your question seems to show a lack of basic understanding about the Book of Mormon .
Click to expand...


He has shown basic misunderstanding on a number of aspects. the Faith/works issue for example. But even this is seriously one of his weaker arguments... which is saying alot.  The truth is God clearly communicated to Joseph in English. Just like He communicates to us in English. But the Bible was written in Hebrew, why? Because He spoke to the Israelites in Hebrew. And we need to translate it into English. According to his logic God should have spoken in English rather than translating the Bible into our language... Its ridiculous.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> yes, yes, yes, J.S. jr. didn't make it past Illinois, as he died in that famous shoot-out with that mob at the jail house.



Yeah SOME SHOOTOUT! You act like Joseph Smith and Hyrum suddenly became Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid! A friend slipped a revolver to Joseph because he knew he would be assaulted by the mob. After two shots during the raid. The gun misfired and that was it.  Two bullets (that found worthy bodies) versus 200 men painted black with murderous intent? Yeah some SOME SHOOTOUT!

You are a master at blowing things out of proportion.



> Not quite all the way West to Utah..........Yes B.Y. had to lead the cult to the promised land of Salt Lake............



He prophesied it would happen and it did. Long before they made the trek west.



> I suppose if J.S. jr hadn't gotten so much friction from the Christian communities on the way West, he'd have settled his cult somewhere East of Salt Lake, Utah.



Darn skippy, except you should have said "Christian" instead of Christian. Those great "bible loving Christians" were responsible for thousands of murdered men women and children. 



> Problem is that he and B.Y. afterwards were always at "logger heads" with the U.S. Government.



They absolutely were at logger heads because they consistently petitioned for legal redress of their grievances and the government continued to refuse help to the battered people.
That's why Joseph ran for president because he wanted to give power to the presidency to protect any oppressed group of citizens instead of deflecting the issue like Martin Van Buren who said to Joseph, "Your cause is just but I can do nothing for you. This is a state issue. And if I take up for you, I shall lose the vote of Missouri."(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)
That left things wide open for the viscious governor of Missouri Governer Lilburn W. Boggs to lick his chops and order the "extermination of Mormons from the state."



> Still remember reading how President Teddy Roosevelt demanded that the American flag be taken down from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.



I believe this to be a lie. I have never heard of the beloved President Roosevelt ordering us to take our American Flag down. He was one of the main proprietors of improving our image and help senator Reed Smoot retain his seat as they were good friends. Teddy Roosevelt was always kind to us and I demand you show me your source!



> You'd never know that there history was so anti-American as they portray this "apple pie/American flag" image to the public nowadays.



You'd never know you were so off your rocker.



> Neophyte Mormons don't know all the deeper teachings/doctrines initially, but are gradually massaged into their introduction not unlike the old frog in the slowing warming water, that will inevitably end-up boiling them.



Yeah whatever, there is not such thing as a neophyte mormon nowadays. All the dirty laundry has been aired. Newcomers to the religion are already aware of the well publicized smear campaigns against our church. People aren't as stupid as you think.



> So many neophytes would flee from LDS membership if they were exposed to the plagarized freemasonry, oaths, hand grips/rituals that involve temple rites/initiations right at the beginning.



You have no proof of plagiarism again. You've already been proven wrong since the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah saying his words are from Isaiah himself. Not plagiarism retard.

There is no plagiarism of freemasonry since actually the oaths are only slightly similar and quite different for the most part.
They keep on joining



> This is how cults operate.  You project a tame, unstrange, atmosphere/doctrine at first, and gradually introduce the weird stuff as your new member become more immersed in the church activities of service/work.


You claim to know so much about cults. But you consistently ignore the definition of a cult.

A system of specific religious beliefs or practices. Yes we're a cult. We're already past that. But we are a good cult.



> This is why so many Born Again Christians can get sucked into Mormonism.  Outwardly it seems so safe, and seems to exude in certain ways, the fruits of the Spirt, in it's outward friendliness, and service to it's members.



I don't know what else they are supposed to look for? Doing good is a shame according to you.



> The word, "Worthy" is a real "corker", as Mormons use "worthiness" before God as their mainstay.  This is why they react like deer in headlights when you try to explain the bible doctrine of "grace" to them.  They deep down are striving to stay or become "worthy" before their god, yet God tells the "true" Christian that they are "worthy" based on Christ's work on the cross.  Any "works" that the true Christian does is not out of a need to gain or keep their worthiness before God, but is a type of works that is a result of "gratitude", "love", and thanksgiving towards the One who saved them and gave them eternal life.



For the 1000th time. We get it that you don't like to do good. We get it that you believe in faith and cofession in Christ with your lips only. More power to you. Hold onto what you believe. We aren't trying to take that from you. 
Just let us have our religion which teaches us to believe and to back it up with works.




> Mormons seem to often be blinded to understanding this concept.



More like confused by it since it makes no sense to simply profess a belief in Christ and not do the things he commands. At least to us. So go ahead and believe your thing and we'll do ours.



> This is why Truthspeaker can't understand Romans 10:17, as he has suppressed the "Truth" of God's word in his life, and is spiraling downward throught the Romans Chapter 1, degradation of his soul.



Ok, you think I'm spiraling down towards hell. I get that. But I totally understand Romans 10:17 and not too long ago printed the entire chapter so all could read and understand the context. We do understand it thoroughly. Just differently than you do.



> Of course there is still "hope" for Truthspeaker, and other Mormons who suppress the Truth.  God still loves them, and will allow them to degrade soulically in their lives until they hit "bottom", and hopefully realize that they haven't been living a life of "transparency" and a "contrite" heart condition towards God.



I hit bottom a long time ago. I've been on the rise ever since I accepted Christ in my life. I don't HOPE any more. I KNOW where I stand with God.



> Paul is perfect example of a man who just knew he had the "truth", yet he assailed biblical Christians, had them arrested, stood by and gave praise to those that stoned biblical Christians to death, because he was just so certain that he had the truth.



This is hysterical!!!!!!!!!!! Paul never addressed a single "BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN" in his entire life. Neither did Jesus for that matter. Do you really think they were reading the Bible back then? The Bible wouldn't be printed for hundreds years. You must think the Bible is God itself! They never read the Bible. The read bits and pieces of scrolls from the old testament and other prophets of their time which were valued but not included in the later Bible. You simply don't GET that.
there is more to the world than your limited view of the Bible. there is MORE. The Bible is not the end, neither was it even the Beginning. There is so much more and you are missing out.
How could they be "Biblical" if they didn't read the Bible and in FACT read and cannonized other books OUTSIDE the Bible. If you want to keep clinging to the Bible Only Dogma, Go ahead. That's your belief. Not ours. 





> Frome thence onward, Paul was a trully changed man.  All that passion to assail God's people, was channeled into passion to proclaim the very Gospel, that Mormons say is corrupted by a non-omnipotent, weak mormon god, who couldn't protect his word to mankind, and needed a second try, via Moroni the angel, with the Golden plates written in "reformed Heiroglyphics".



We never said God couldn't protect his word. He decided to let people have their freedom of choice to manipulate the Bible if they chose to. since God continues to clear up misconceptions by CONSTANTLY SPEAKING. God is quite strong as he wants to be.



> I've asked and asked, why God would communicate to Moses in Moses' tongue/language via the tablets, yet to J.S. jr. it was "reformed heiroglyphics", to an "english" speaking nation/people?



You've asked and asked and then you have ignored and ignored my answer. 

God spoke to the Nephites, Lamanites and Israelites in their language(Bible and Book of Mormon). Their prophets wrote in their language. In order for modern day people to read those languages of the past, they need to be translated  Whoop a dee freakin do. What is the problem with that. Today, God speaks to his Modern Day Prophets in our modern language and they relay it to us in our language. There is no inconsistency in the way God works see Amos chapter 3 verse 7.(God always speaks to prophets.)
Since you are the one always saying God is the same yesterday today and forever why would he break his pattern?



> One ponders, and in some ways J.S. Jr's having it in an unknown tongue kept an exclusivity of the translation to himself and his alleged cohorts.



I don't understand the english in this poorly constructed sentence.



> Also, to this day, experts in ancient Egyptology have yet to find any evidence of a "reformed heiroglyphics" written language.



Professor Charles Anthon and the aforementioned Dr. Mitchell authorized the sample of the characters found on the plates.



> Truthspeaker disagrees with me about "faith".  He doesn't understand that faith is built upon, a "confidence" that the individual has with whatever that particular understanding is.



You have your opinion, I have mine.



> For instance, when I sit down in a chair, I trust or have "faith" in the one who built the chair, or I will not want to sit in that chair.  I am sitting in that chair trusting that it won't collapse, based on my confidence in the chair-builder.  That is faith.  It is not based on visions, feelings, dreams, etc..., but solid evidence presented before-hand


.

That is as "baloneyous" an analogy as I have ever heard. You could still see the freakin chair and how solid it looks. You still had to ACT by sitting. Faith would be like sitting in an invisible chair. You decide to sit in a chair that a trustworthy person has told you is there. 



> People who believe biblically in Christ for Salvation, are trusting in the evidences presented in the bible by Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Apollos, Steven, and of course Jesus Himself.



Again you are emphasising the Book more than God. The Book is not infallible. If you think so then fine. I don't agree. I believe in Christ for my salvation. Not "biblically in Christ" for my salvation.



> Are these biblical evidence based solely on miracles, or evidenciary things.



You are so confusing to the reader. What evidences are you talking about? Archaelogical or testimonial?



> Paul said that over 500 were still alive and kicking when he wrote one of his epistles, who saw Christ crucified, and also witnessed His ascension into the heavenlies to sit at the right hand of God the Father.  It only takes 2 or more eye-witnesses to convict a person in court, yet withing the bible we have myriads of eye-witnesses of Christ's existence.



Since you believe in eyewitnesses of the Risen Christ from people about 2000 years ago why not believe in eyewitnessed accounts of the Risen Christ from 200 years ago. The only difference is another 0.

I thought you were basing all your arguments on Archaeological evidences only not too long ago. Changing your tune are we?



> That is faith based on evidences, not dreams that say, "Mormonism is the truth.", nor "warm fuzzies in the soul" that make us feel good about being Mormon.



How about eyewitness accounts from us? And since your "evidence" is really just a testimonial from ancient people, what makes you so sure they saw what they saw? Probably because your mom or dad or minister said so and you got a "warm fuzzy" yourself. that is how the Holy Ghost works. He always verifies what's true to everyone. 



> Mormons such as Truthspeaker and others fight and fight against the realities of biblical based "faith".  They doggedly hold onto their "experiential" type phenomena's to validate their belief system.



No I don't. I don't fight agianst other people's opinions. I defend false attacks on my religion. I allow others their views. I don't fight against the bible either. I do reject your interpretations but I embrace mine.



> This is most dangerous, as Satan goes about like a roaring lion, deceiving if possible even the "elect" or true Christians.



Quite right. You might watch your own back.



> Truth things the "born from above" or "Born again" statement by Jesus is "fuzzy" at most,



Further proof you don't know how to read. I copied and pasted what the Bible actually says about John 3:5. It says "born of water" and not "born from above". You added that. I read the verse as it reads.


> and doesn't prove any point, yet over and over, Jesus said that what He gives is like thirst quenching water, that one will never need to thirst again.  He told the Samaritan woman at the well that He had a water that would satisfy the human thirst forever.  Even the Samaritan woman couldn't understand that this "water" was the Spirit of God that would come from God, and make residence in the True Christian's soul.



If you interpret the "water" John tells Nicodemus about to mean something other than baptism, then go ahead. We understand it to mean Jesus was telling everyone they need to be baptized in water. 
You to your opinion and me to mine.




> The Mormon, must keep on working at being worthy.  Truth knows that.  He knows that their belief system, involves constant work at being good before God, in order to be worthy of ressurrection, and their blasphemous godhood.



Darn skippy except that we don't think it's blasphemous at all. since all fathers want their children to be as good or better than them. Why would God be any different if he truly loves us.



> "There will be no other gods before Me!!!!!!!!"  Not so with Mormons.  They follow the same Isaiah delusional poem of Lucifer in claiming that they can rise to be equal to God.



Again, calm down there eighty-ball. We are not putting any gods before God. We are just trying to get behind him.



> Lucifer was a beautiful angel, most likely the most striking of all that God made.  He may have even been a Seraphin, that stood before God's throne, with his three pairs of wings flying in the air and throwing out praise upon praise to his Creator.



Real angels do not have wings in our teachings. Children of God are created in his image and therefore have human parts and not animal ones. Just saying.



> Yet, there was free-will for the angelic host as well to continue to give God all credit and praise and glory for eternity.  Lucifer led 1/3 of the angelic host in delusional rebellion against God.  He now roams about the earth, creating and stirring up anti-biblical belief systems that will inevitably catch many human souls in this intricate web of deceit.



We believe as you do but they are demonic and not angelic even if they try to appear as an angel.



> Satan hates the human race, as it is intended to give glory to God and God alone.  Mormonism, Scientology, Bahai, Universalism, Watch Tower, Moonies, etc... all carry the finger prints of Lucifer, as they all diminish, or totally remove the deity of Christ.  Not only that, some of these cults go so far as to raise created man to the level of godhood, which mimicks what Satan attempted in Isaiah.



Thanks for your opinion.




> Also in finishing, is it not correct that in the Mormon husband-wife relationship, that it is the husband that "raises" his wife from the dead?



You have already asked this and been answered. It's not true. Jesus raises the dead. How many times have I said that. If he gives husbands the priviledge of calling for their wives from the dead in Christs name, it's not the husband with the power, it's Christ. Capeesh?



> If this is true, does this not go against Jesus' very statement that there is no marriage or giving of marriage between souls in heaven?



No. Marriage is done here on the earth. Not in heaven. But He doesn't say marriages are not in force in heaven does he?



> Also, does this not raise man's importance above woman.


Nope



> The Mormons have made what is a very simple gospel from God to man and have created a mishmas of contradictions, changes, plagarized from the bible writings, and the dangerous mind of it's latter day president/prophets.



Yeah so simple that the Bible has been the cause of thousands of different churches because it's so simple and clear to everyone which church to join right?




> God doesn't need to send a new-improved Gospel to man.



Your opinion. Not ours.



> The bible has sufficed for thousands of years, and when man let's the bible/God speak to him it suffices 100%.



Last but certainly not most ignorant is this last pearl of yours. First the Bible hasn't even been around for 2000 years. It's been around in LATIN ONLY since the Nicean creed in 330 AD and only in the hands of Priests It was another 1000 years before the bible was first printed in english and a few copies made available to the public. it wasn't until the King James version was printed in 1611 that widescale reading began to happen.

It costed many lives and lots of christian blood to get this book to the point where it is today. That's because designing and corrupt priests didn't want people to think for themselves and made changes to it or eliminated portions of the book so that we would never find them. 
Since we have been able to read the book there have been literally thousand of conflicting views on interpretation. How can you possibly say the book "sufficed"

Learn history and you will learn wisdom. It is clear God took no part in the confusion caused by the people's variations. that is because he decided to wait until he would call a prophet again. To show the people what happens when they are left to themselves. 
Enter Joseph Smith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Christopher said:


> Just a few responses to add to Arawyn's.
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes, J.S. jr. didn't make it past Illinois, as he died in that famous shoot-out with that mob at the jail house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that you corrected your false statement, thank you.  Although, you seemed to have replaced it with another one.  I think a shootout would imply that both sides had guns (a gunfight).  Joseph Smith and those with him were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked and asked, why God would communicate to Moses in Moses' tongue/language via the tablets, yet to J.S. jr. it was "reformed heiroglyphics", to an "english" speaking nation/people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God communicated to the people in the Book of Mormon in their language.  They wrote their experiences down in their language, which was different than English.  Their writings had to be interpreted from their language to English for English-speaking people to understand them, just like the Bible had to be interpreted into English.
> 
> You say you have "asked and asked", but did you really listen to the answer(s)?  Have you even read the Book of Mormon?  Your question seems to show a lack of basic understanding about the Book of Mormon .
Click to expand...


slight correction Chris, he did get a revolver given to him. He fired two shots after Hyrum was killed. the gun malfunctioned after that. Fortunately the two bullets found good homes in the mobbers.


----------



## Christopher

Truthspeaker said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a few responses to add to Arawyn's.
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes, J.S. jr. didn't make it past Illinois, as he died in that famous shoot-out with that mob at the jail house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that you corrected your false statement, thank you.  Although, you seemed to have replaced it with another one.  I think a shootout would imply that both sides had guns (a gunfight).  Joseph Smith and those with him were unarmed.
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked and asked, why God would communicate to Moses in Moses' tongue/language via the tablets, yet to J.S. jr. it was "reformed heiroglyphics", to an "english" speaking nation/people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God communicated to the people in the Book of Mormon in their language.  They wrote their experiences down in their language, which was different than English.  Their writings had to be interpreted from their language to English for English-speaking people to understand them, just like the Bible had to be interpreted into English.
> 
> You say you have "asked and asked", but did you really listen to the answer(s)?  Have you even read the Book of Mormon?  Your question seems to show a lack of basic understanding about the Book of Mormon .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> slight correction Chris, he did get a revolver given to him. He fired two shots after Hyrum was killed. the gun malfunctioned after that. Fortunately the two bullets found good homes in the mobbers.
Click to expand...


Thanks Truth, you are right.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are right about the firearm, truth, and wrong about him hitting anyone.  He was firing blindly from behind the door and missed.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> You are right about the firearm, truth, and wrong about him hitting anyone.  He was firing blindly from behind the door and missed.



No, I am right about him hitting and killing two people. I was wrong when I said two shots. He actually did fire three before the 6-shooter malfunctioned. Joseph was a general and knew how to use a gun. He would never fire blindly. Here is the eyewitness account from John Taylor:
"I shall never forget the deep feeling of regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and leaning over him exclaimed, 'oh my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, with a firm quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, pulling the six-shooter brother wheelock had left him from his pocket, opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol 6 times in succesion.Only three of the barrells however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, 2 of which I am informed, died."


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about the firearm, truth, and wrong about him hitting anyone.  He was firing blindly from behind the door and missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am right about him hitting and killing two people. I was wrong when I said two shots. He actually did fire three before the 6-shooter malfunctioned. Joseph was a general and knew how to use a gun. He would never fire blindly. Here is the eyewitness account from John Taylor:
> "I shall never forget the deep feeling of regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and leaning over him exclaimed, 'oh my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, with a firm quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, pulling the six-shooter brother wheelock had left him from his pocket, opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol 6 times in succesion.Only three of the barrells however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, 2 of which I am informed, died."
Click to expand...


And President Taylor was informed incorrectly. No one died because of Joseph.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about the firearm, truth, and wrong about him hitting anyone.  He was firing blindly from behind the door and missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am right about him hitting and killing two people. I was wrong when I said two shots. He actually did fire three before the 6-shooter malfunctioned. Joseph was a general and knew how to use a gun. He would never fire blindly. Here is the eyewitness account from John Taylor:
> "I shall never forget the deep feeling of regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and leaning over him exclaimed, 'oh my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, with a firm quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, pulling the six-shooter brother wheelock had left him from his pocket, opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol 6 times in succesion.Only three of the barrells however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, 2 of which I am informed, died."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And President Taylor was informed incorrectly. No one died because of Joseph.
Click to expand...


How do we really know then if anyone died? I'm disappointed if he didn't take out a few mobsters. Oh well, it's not that important to his martyrdom anyways. 

We DO know that the mobster who tried to decapitate the head of Joseph Smith was miraculously struck dead when he raised his sword to cut Joseph.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truth is about mormons that they are totally devoid of intelligent thoughts and live in a fantasy world populated by mental midgets and pedophiles.
Discuss.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am right about him hitting and killing two people. I was wrong when I said two shots. He actually did fire three before the 6-shooter malfunctioned. Joseph was a general and knew how to use a gun. He would never fire blindly. Here is the eyewitness account from John Taylor:
> "I shall never forget the deep feeling of regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and leaning over him exclaimed, 'oh my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, with a firm quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, pulling the six-shooter brother wheelock had left him from his pocket, opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol 6 times in succesion.Only three of the barrells however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, 2 of which I am informed, died."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And President Taylor was informed incorrectly. No one died because of Joseph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we really know then if anyone died? I'm disappointed if he didn't take out a few mobsters. Oh well, it's not that important to his martyrdom anyways.
> 
> We DO know that the mobster who tried to decapitate the head of Joseph Smith was miraculously struck dead when he raised his sword to cut Joseph.
Click to expand...


*We DO know that the mobster who tried to decapitate the head of Joseph Smith was miraculously struck dead when he raised his sword to cut Joseph. 
*

You mormans are so full of shit.  You have miricles for every occasion don't you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you can talk to different Mormons from different Wards and they will give you there version of the interpretation of the book of mormon and it will be different then what the last brother or sister said.  Additionally a lot of Mormons who come to Utah become disenchanted by the snootiness and cliques the Church has out here. It really depends on who you know who you talk to and how they interpret what the church says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually it doesn't depend on what interpretations people have. There are going to be a lot of mormons who will be in a lot more trouble at the judgment day than non-mormons because they fail to listen to the prophet and the official translations of all doctrines. there is no room for interpretation of official doctrines. Every thing I will say will be based on official church doctrine, otherwise I will say it is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

*
Dogmas?  Doctrines?  Oh, Truth, you are so consisent in your inconsistency.  Doctrines and dogmas change all the time in the LDS and other Mormon denominations.  Just study the history.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about the firearm, truth, and wrong about him hitting anyone.  He was firing blindly from behind the door and missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am right about him hitting and killing two people. I was wrong when I said two shots. He actually did fire three before the 6-shooter malfunctioned. Joseph was a general and knew how to use a gun. He would never fire blindly. Here is the eyewitness account from John Taylor:
> "I shall never forget the deep feeling of regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and leaning over him exclaimed, 'oh my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, with a firm quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, pulling the six-shooter brother wheelock had left him from his pocket, opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol 6 times in succesion.Only three of the barrells however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, 2 of which I am informed, died."
Click to expand...


*Brother Taylor had false memory syndrome.  He had been shot to doll rags in the first flurry of shots that struck him and Hyrum down.  Willard Richards was attending to the LDS casaulties.  No medical records or other primary source materials exist to prove your wild-eyed assertion, Truth.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am right about him hitting and killing two people. I was wrong when I said two shots. He actually did fire three before the 6-shooter malfunctioned. Joseph was a general and knew how to use a gun. He would never fire blindly. Here is the eyewitness account from John Taylor:
> "I shall never forget the deep feeling of regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and leaning over him exclaimed, 'oh my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, with a firm quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, pulling the six-shooter brother wheelock had left him from his pocket, opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol 6 times in succesion.Only three of the barrells however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, 2 of which I am informed, died."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And President Taylor was informed incorrectly. No one died because of Joseph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do we really know then if anyone died? I'm disappointed if he didn't take out a few mobsters. Oh well, it's not that important to his martyrdom anyways.
> 
> We DO know that the mobster who tried to decapitate the head of Joseph Smith was miraculously struck dead when he raised his sword to cut Joseph.
Click to expand...


*We know no such thing.  We do know that JS was not separated from his head is what we do know.  Truth, start checking primary sources, please.*


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truth is about mormons that they are totally devoid of intelligent thoughts and live in a fantasy world populated by mental midgets and pedophiles.
> Discuss.



You mean discuss again? You are awfully new to this thread to just jump in and spout off rhetoric you think I haven't heard before. If you want to show that you are not the mental midget you accuse us of being then perhaps you should start with some substance. No?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And President Taylor was informed incorrectly. No one died because of Joseph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we really know then if anyone died? I'm disappointed if he didn't take out a few mobsters. Oh well, it's not that important to his martyrdom anyways.
> 
> We DO know that the mobster who tried to decapitate the head of Joseph Smith was miraculously struck dead when he raised his sword to cut Joseph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We DO know that the mobster who tried to decapitate the head of Joseph Smith was miraculously struck dead when he raised his sword to cut Joseph.
> *
> 
> You mormans are so full of shit.  You have miricles for every occasion don't you?
Click to expand...



Guilty as charged! 

"These signs shall follow them that believe."


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you can talk to different Mormons from different Wards and they will give you there version of the interpretation of the book of mormon and it will be different then what the last brother or sister said.  Additionally a lot of Mormons who come to Utah become disenchanted by the snootiness and cliques the Church has out here. It really depends on who you know who you talk to and how they interpret what the church says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually it doesn't depend on what interpretations people have. There are going to be a lot of mormons who will be in a lot more trouble at the judgment day than non-mormons because they fail to listen to the prophet and the official translations of all doctrines. there is no room for interpretation of official doctrines. Every thing I will say will be based on official church doctrine, otherwise I will say it is just my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Dogmas?  Doctrines?  Oh, Truth, you are so consisent in your inconsistency.  Doctrines and dogmas change all the time in the LDS and other Mormon denominations.  Just study the history.*
Click to expand...



Oh starskey! Care to follow up your claim of inconsistency with any examples. My hand is already in my back pocket


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are right about the firearm, truth, and wrong about him hitting anyone.  He was firing blindly from behind the door and missed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am right about him hitting and killing two people. I was wrong when I said two shots. He actually did fire three before the 6-shooter malfunctioned. Joseph was a general and knew how to use a gun. He would never fire blindly. Here is the eyewitness account from John Taylor:
> "I shall never forget the deep feeling of regard manifested in the countenance of brother Joseph as he drew nigh to Hyrum, and leaning over him exclaimed, 'oh my poor, dear brother Hyrum!' He, however, instantly arose, with a firm quick step, and a determined expression of countenance, pulling the six-shooter brother wheelock had left him from his pocket, opened the door slightly and snapped the pistol 6 times in succesion.Only three of the barrells however, were discharged. I afterwards understood that two or three were wounded by these discharges, 2 of which I am informed, died."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Brother Taylor had false memory syndrome.  He had been shot to doll rags in the first flurry of shots that struck him and Hyrum down.  Willard Richards was attending to the LDS casaulties.  No medical records or other primary source materials exist to prove your wild-eyed assertion, Truth.*
Click to expand...



I'd like to read where you got the diagnosis Dr. Starkey..... President Taylor to historical recollection was a pretty sharp cookie whether you like Mormons or not. He went on to become the leader of a very large religious people as president of the church. Of course it was just an eyewitness account. So you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And President Taylor was informed incorrectly. No one died because of Joseph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do we really know then if anyone died? I'm disappointed if he didn't take out a few mobsters. Oh well, it's not that important to his martyrdom anyways.
> 
> We DO know that the mobster who tried to decapitate the head of Joseph Smith was miraculously struck dead when he raised his sword to cut Joseph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *We know no such thing.  We do know that JS was not separated from his head is what we do know.  Truth, start checking primary sources, please.*
Click to expand...


We do know that this was the eyewitness testimony of people who were there. Do I have video? Sorry video wasn't invented. That is the best primary source available. 

What is logical is that a hateful mob would scarcely leave the body alone if they could get their hands on it as they sworn to do and have a proven track record for mutilating the dead bodies of other Mormons they have murdered. Even digging  up their bodies after they were buried to desecrate them. 


Since this was the express desire of the mob to retain and mutilate Joseph's body, please explain to me how his body was laying lifeless and available at the feet of the angry mob yet they never got possession of his body and are eyewitnessed turning and fleeing the scene with no opposing force to scare them off.

the chips keep adding up. What reason do you have to disbelieve the eyewitness accounts?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Just in case you were wondering who made the report. Wikipedia has this nugget:

 One eyewitness, William Daniels, wrote in his 1845 account that Smith was alive when mob members propped his body against a nearby well, assembled a makeshift firing squad, and shot him before fleeing. Daniels' account also states that one man tried to decapitate Smith for a bounty, but was prevented by divine intervention. There were additional reports that thunder and lightning frightened the mob off. Mob members fled, shouting, "The Mormons are coming," although there was no such force nearby.

Here is the actual document presented in court by William Daniels in testimony. 
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/NCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=2812


----------



## Truthspeaker

Another nugget I hadn't heard about.

  Dr. Richards' escape was miraculous; he being a very large man, and in the midst of a shower of balls, yet he stood unscathed, with the exception of a ball which grazed the tip end of the lower part of his left ear. His escape fulfilled literally a prophecy which Joseph made over a year previously, that the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Another nugget I hadn't heard about.
> 
> Dr. Richards' escape was miraculous; he being a very large man, and in the midst of a shower of balls, yet he stood unscathed, with the exception of a ball which grazed the tip end of the lower part of his left ear. His escape fulfilled literally a prophecy which Joseph made over a year previously, that the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.



John Dillinger, and Jesse James no doubt prophesied similarly before their deaths.

It doesn't take a miracle to intuitively know that your days are numbered when you are seriously rubbing people the wrong way.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another nugget I hadn't heard about.
> 
> Dr. Richards' escape was miraculous; he being a very large man, and in the midst of a shower of balls, yet he stood unscathed, with the exception of a ball which grazed the tip end of the lower part of his left ear. His escape fulfilled literally a prophecy which Joseph made over a year previously, that the time would come that the balls would fly around him like hail, and he should see his friends fall on the right and on the left, but that there should not be a hole in his garment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Dillinger, and Jesse James no doubt prophesied similarly before their deaths.
> 
> It doesn't take a miracle to intuitively know that your days are numbered when you are seriously rubbing people the wrong way.
Click to expand...


I don't care what you think. that is an impressive prophecy to say that you would have bullets fly all around you but not be hit while you watch your friends die. A year in advance?!
That's pretty impressive. You don't have to be impressed but I am. It's just another in a long line of accurate prophecies by Joseph Smith.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is about mormons that they are totally devoid of intelligent thoughts and live in a fantasy world populated by mental midgets and pedophiles.
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean discuss again? You are awfully new to this thread to just jump in and spout off rhetoric you think I haven't heard before. If you want to show that you are not the mental midget you accuse us of being then perhaps you should start with some substance. No?
Click to expand...


Substance? How about the retards that come to my house every once and a while? Or about golden plates that never existed? Polygamy? Pedophilia? ...


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is about mormons that they are totally devoid of intelligent thoughts and live in a fantasy world populated by mental midgets and pedophiles.
> Discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean discuss again? You are awfully new to this thread to just jump in and spout off rhetoric you think I haven't heard before. If you want to show that you are not the mental midget you accuse us of being then perhaps you should start with some substance. No?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Substance? How about the retards that come to my house every once and a while? Or about golden plates that never existed? Polygamy? Pedophilia? ...
Click to expand...


You sure live up to your last name. At least the quality of your arguments. Try reading back from the beginning. all of those questions have been answered. Except the retard comment.

since you claim to be so much smarter than these retards coming to your door, how about an intelligent piece of input with maybe just a little research to it?

cheers!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth, I say this gently -- anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That's why Obama's parentage keeps the "birther" toids so entertained.  They change it all the time.  You clearly do not know Widtsoe, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, Compton, Quinn, Bennett, Johnson, Speek, Jorgenson, Hamer, Bringhurst, Sheperd, Arrington, even the whackos like Holyoak, Midley, and Hodge.  And I left another fifteen to twenty out that you should have already read.

You remind of the brand-new Christian in his eagerness to defend the faith and save the unrighteous, he does more damage than twenty devils.

Boy, slow down!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth, I say this gently -- anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That's why Obama's parentage keeps the "birther" toids so entertained.  They change it all the time.  You clearly do not know Widtsoe, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, Compton, Quinn, Bennett, Johnson, Speek, Jorgenson, Hamer, Bringhurst, Sheperd, Arrington, even the whackos like Holyoak, Midley, and Hodge.  And I left another fifteen to twenty out that you should have already read.
> 
> You remind of the brand-new Christian in his eagerness to defend the faith and save the unrighteous, he does more damage than twenty devils.
> 
> Boy, slow down!



What exactly is your complaint about the Mormon Church?


----------



## Arawyn

RetiredGySgt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, I say this gently -- anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That's why Obama's parentage keeps the "birther" toids so entertained.  They change it all the time.  You clearly do not know Widtsoe, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, Compton, Quinn, Bennett, Johnson, Speek, Jorgenson, Hamer, Bringhurst, Sheperd, Arrington, even the whackos like Holyoak, Midley, and Hodge.  And I left another fifteen to twenty out that you should have already read.
> 
> You remind of the brand-new Christian in his eagerness to defend the faith and save the unrighteous, he does more damage than twenty devils.
> 
> Boy, slow down!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is your complaint about the Mormon Church?
Click to expand...


I've seen several disagreements he's brought up, but I haven't seen Starkey be Snarky about it 

But then I haven't read the entire thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I simply expect a 'defender of the faith' to know his sources.  Truth doesn't, pure and simple.  I mean, _Wikipedia_, for Nephi's sake?

No complaint, Retired.  I generally like LDS, particularly as neighbors.  They are more guilty about life and less likely to swipe things than Southern Baptists.  The LDS church today is not anything like what it was under Young and Taylor.  Thank heavens.  The one thing I don't care for is the idea that it (or any church) is a "one true church".

When anybody makes that claim other than as personal faith testimony, which is not binding at all on anyone else, I will ask for the evidence and look at it very, very carefully.  Don't get mad.  That's what critical thinking skills are for.  Now if you are going to bear your testimony, Retired, do it in the mirror, because that is who the testimony is for.


----------



## Arawyn

JakeStarkey said:


> I simply expect a 'defender of the faith' to know his sources.  Truth doesn't, pure and simple.  I mean, _Wikipedia_, for Nephi's sake?
> 
> No complaint, Retired.  I generally like LDS, particularly as neighbors.  They are more guilty about life and less likely to swipe things than Southern Baptists.  The LDS church today is not anything like what it was under Young and Taylor.  Thank heavens.  The one thing I don't care for is the idea that it (or any church) is a "one true church".
> 
> When anybody makes that claim other than as personal faith testimony, which is not binding at all on anyone else, I will ask for the evidence and look at it very, very carefully.  Don't get mad.  That's what critical thinking skills are for.  Now if you are going to bear your testimony, Retired, do it in the mirror, because that is who the testimony is for.



Which to be honest, is as it should be. Personal testimonies aside (because they are so heartfelt), assertions, claims, etc., should stand up to the light of scrutiny.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> I simply expect a 'defender of the faith' to know his sources.  Truth doesn't, pure and simple.  I mean, _Wikipedia_, for Nephi's sake?
> 
> No complaint, Retired.  I generally like LDS, particularly as neighbors.  They are more guilty about life and less likely to swipe things than Southern Baptists.  The LDS church today is not anything like what it was under Young and Taylor.  Thank heavens.  The one thing I don't care for is the idea that it (or any church) is a "one true church".
> 
> When anybody makes that claim other than as personal faith testimony, which is not binding at all on anyone else, I will ask for the evidence and look at it very, very carefully.  Don't get mad.  That's what critical thinking skills are for.  Now if you are going to bear your testimony, Retired, do it in the mirror, because that is who the testimony is for.



I happen to be a Mormon, but I accept that since Man creates Churches not God that man will end up corrupting them in some manner unless God intervenes constantly, which he does not do now.

So when Joseph Smith was given what he was by God it was correct, but since God di not, to my knowledge continue to give Joseph Smith Guidance and as far as I know did not anoint any of the following Presidents of the Church, then it is highly likely some corruption has occurred.

I however believe that among those churches and religions I am familiar with, the Mormon Church is the most correct. 

You will find that I also have trouble believing a forgiving God will simply condemn otherwise good people to eternal death just because they belonged to the wrong church.

Mormons are taught to reflect and pray on all matters presented to them even by the Church and to come to an understanding between themselves, God and the information or directions provided.


----------



## Avatar4321

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mormons are taught to reflect and pray on all matters presented to them even by the Church and to come to an understanding between themselves, God and the information or directions provided.



Sadly this is a foreign concept to so many people. To actually work things out with God. To learn from Him. To accept what He tells you. People cant believe it so they pretend as though you are crazy. They act like God can somehow lie to you. Or that its somehow wrong to go to the source.


----------



## Arawyn

Avatar4321 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are taught to reflect and pray on all matters presented to them even by the Church and to come to an understanding between themselves, God and the information or directions provided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly this is a foreign concept to so many people. To actually work things out with God. To learn from Him. To accept what He tells you. People cant believe it so they pretend as though you are crazy. They act like God can somehow lie to you. Or that its somehow wrong to go to the source.
Click to expand...


And then sometimes, or many times, they'll find themselves in a figurative fox hole.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth, I say this gently -- anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That's why Obama's parentage keeps the "birther" toids so entertained.  They change it all the time.  You clearly do not know Widtsoe, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, Compton, Quinn, Bennett, Johnson, Speek, Jorgenson, Hamer, Bringhurst, Sheperd, Arrington, even the whackos like Holyoak, Midley, and Hodge.  And I left another fifteen to twenty out that you should have already read.
> 
> You remind of the brand-new Christian in his eagerness to defend the faith and save the unrighteous, he does more damage than twenty devils.
> 
> Boy, slow down!



Oh I know just about everything there is to know about all the lesser known facts about our church. I certainly know Talmage through and through. He is truly one of the great minds in all of history. Widtsoe as well. Nibley I already explained to you earlier that he is atop the list of books I have read on historical and archaeological facts. 

Is there a single thing you can bring up that hasn't already been addressed on this little known thread on the meager usmessageboard.com?
Come on, all you anti's think you are so original. That you have somehow "exposed" all the stuff that is already out in the open. We've been there done that. I really would like to know of some more specifics I haven't heard of yet.
Any SPECIFIC contributions?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I simply expect a 'defender of the faith' to know his sources.  Truth doesn't, pure and simple.  I mean, _Wikipedia_, for Nephi's sake?



Au Contraire. I posted a link that shows the picture of the actual affidavit included in the court transcripts describing the eyewitness account of the miracle slaying of the mobster who tried to decapitate Smith. That was not a Wikipedia source. But by the way, anti mormons are real fond of wikipedia and like their wiki sources to be found credible. Interesting.

Just because I haven't read some of the books from all of the authors you mentioned doesn't mean I haven't heard all the points brought up in their books. I'm sure each of them repeat many things they have heard from others. What exactly am I missing?
Specifics please? Oh and you may want to keep reading this thread from the beginning to see how much source backed material I have actually given. It'll take you a few days. happy reading!



> No complaint, Retired.  I generally like LDS, particularly as neighbors.  They are more guilty about life and less likely to swipe things than Southern Baptists.  The LDS church today is not anything like what it was under Young and Taylor.  Thank heavens.  The one thing I don't care for is the idea that it (or any church) is a "one true church"


.

Thank heavens that the church is exactly the same plus a few new revelations predicted by the early church. Yeah we are not really different at all except that we are a lot larger and we have different modern people as it's members with different modern customs.
Care to show us how we are so different from the previous church. I have a few ideas about what you are going to say and I'm afraid I will have to repeat my answers again.
Keep it comin'

Also, just because we believe we are the only true current church on the earth, it doesn't mean others are condemned of God. Everyone has an equal shot at eternal life in God's kingdom. 
How you say? Because this life is a very short phase in the overall plan. There is a lot of learning and doing to be done on the other side before final judgments are passed out.



> When anybody makes that claim other than as personal faith testimony, which is not binding at all on anyone else, I will ask for the evidence and look at it very, very carefully.  Don't get mad.  That's what critical thinking skills are for.  Now if you are going to bear your testimony, Retired, do it in the mirror, because that is who the testimony is for.


Nobody gets mad at the questions. Just the ignoring of answers. that is what critical thinking is all about. God invites everyone to critically think about their choices in life.


----------



## Arawyn

Can a non-anti bring up tar and feathering?

Seriously........as much as I've seen anti's post about JS.....the one thing that gets my goat is that they never mention that, nor the loss of two children because of that night.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I happen to be a Mormon, but I accept that since Man creates Churches not God that man will end up corrupting them in some manner unless God intervenes constantly, which he does not do now.



You are not really a mormon if you don't believe God continues to talk to prophets today. You may identify with us best but one of the great premises of our faith is that God talks to Thomas S. Monson the same way he talked to Joseph Smith.



> So when Joseph Smith was given what he was by God it was correct, but since God di not, to my knowledge continue to give Joseph Smith Guidance and as far as I know did not anoint any of the following Presidents of the Church, then it is highly likely some corruption has occurred.



True members of our church do not believe as you do. Joseph was not required to anoint the next prophet. The keys given to him by Moses, Elias, Elijah, Peter, James, John and John the Baptist as well as Jesus Christ were all bestowed by Joseph on the 12 apostles. they were given the power to receive revelation from Jesus who would be the next President of the Church.
true members do not believe the church has ever become corrupted. There may have been individuals who became corrupted, but were expelled once they were exposed.



> I however believe that among those churches and religions I am familiar with, the Mormon Church is the most correct.



That's fine. but you can't really consider yourself a true latter-day saint, even if you may consider yourself a cultural "mormon."



> You will find that I also have trouble believing a forgiving God will simply condemn otherwise good people to eternal death just because they belonged to the wrong church.



So would I. That's why we don't teach such a thing.



> Mormons are taught to reflect and pray on all matters presented to them even by the Church and to come to an understanding between themselves, God and the information or directions provided.



Truer words could never be spoken.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> since you claim to be so much smarter than these retards coming to your door, how about an intelligent piece of input with maybe just a little research to it?
> 
> cheers!



It's simple, god wouldn't need anyone to go door to door for him, what are you guys, the amway of religion? Man, the peeps who come to my door are soooo pathetic, I feel sorry for them. They're like zombies.
 Like, gimme a break, I've read out of curiosity some of the posts in this thread, and you're so detached from reality, it's amazing that anyone could be so delusional. God still talks to the president of your church but no one else? I feel sorry for you that you can't see that as a con job. 
I'm happy for you that you've found something to delude yourself with and be happy, but you talk in such a condescending way like you're some sort of religious einstein, while spouting such total nonsense as the whole story of the gunfight, the plates or anything else, that you should be assessed by a mental health specialist.


----------



## Avatar4321

John Lemmon said:


> It's simple, god wouldn't need anyone to go door to door for him, what are you guys, the amway of religion? Man, the peeps who come to my door are soooo pathetic, I feel sorry for them. They're like zombies.
> Like, gimme a break, I've read out of curiosity some of the posts in this thread, and you're so detached from reality, it's amazing that anyone could be so delusional. God still talks to the president of your church but no one else? I feel sorry for you that you can't see that as a con job.
> I'm happy for you that you've found something to delude yourself with and be happy, but you talk in such a condescending way like you're some sort of religious einstein, while spouting such total nonsense as the whole story of the gunfight, the plates or anything else, that you should be assessed by a mental health specialist.



What a surprise. Anothr person who doesnt listen. Then condescends about what he doesnt know.

What is so difficult about the concept of revelation? God is not silent. You can recieve revelation in your own life. You can actually speak with the Lord. 

Yet somehow you think we teach the opposite. That only one man can speak with God. and you also claim you read the thread. Well you clearly need to read more carefully.

The miracle of mormonism isnt that one man talked to God. It's that all the other witnesses did as well. Joseph wasnt the only one to see the Angel. Or the plates. He wasnt the only one there when the Priesthood restored. He wasnt the only one who saw the Lord in the School of the Prophets. He wasnt the only one who healed on the day of power in Nauvoo. He wasnt the only one who saw the glory of God and the angels at the Kirtland Temple Dedication.

And all these people are delusional because you said so? Or because you misunderstand simple doctrine?

Maybe you should listen to those boys that come by your house. Then you might actually learn something.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, I say this gently -- anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That's why Obama's parentage keeps the "birther" toids so entertained.  They change it all the time.  You clearly do not know Widtsoe, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, Compton, Quinn, Bennett, Johnson, Speek, Jorgenson, Hamer, Bringhurst, Sheperd, Arrington, even the whackos like Holyoak, Midley, and Hodge.  And I left another fifteen to twenty out that you should have already read.
> 
> You remind of the brand-new Christian in his eagerness to defend the faith and save the unrighteous, he does more damage than twenty devils.
> 
> Boy, slow down!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I know just about everything there is to know about all the lesser known facts about our church. I certainly know Talmage through and through. He is truly one of the great minds in all of history. Widtsoe as well. Nibley I already explained to you earlier that he is atop the list of books I have read on historical and archaeological facts.
> 
> Is there a single thing you can bring up that hasn't already been addressed on this little known thread on the meager usmessageboard.com?
> Come on, all you anti's think you are so original. That you have somehow "exposed" all the stuff that is already out in the open. We've been there done that. I really would like to know of some more specifics I haven't heard of yet.
> Any SPECIFIC contributions?
Click to expand...


The term "anti" is laughable and belongs to you if you continue to avoid critical thinking skills and objectivity, the old 'fair and balanced'.  Anyone with the slightest bit of professionalism in scholarship and discussion shudder at wikipedia.  Show some more class, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> I happen to be a Mormon, but I accept that since Man creates Churches not God that man will end up corrupting them in some manner unless God intervenes constantly, which he does not do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not really a mormon if you don't believe God continues to talk to prophets today. You may identify with us best but one of the great premises of our faith is that God talks to Thomas S. Monson the same way he talked to Joseph Smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when Joseph Smith was given what he was by God it was correct, but since God di not, to my knowledge continue to give Joseph Smith Guidance and as far as I know did not anoint any of the following Presidents of the Church, then it is highly likely some corruption has occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True members of our church do not believe as you do. Joseph was not required to anoint the next prophet. The keys given to him by Moses, Elias, Elijah, Peter, James, John and John the Baptist as well as Jesus Christ were all bestowed by Joseph on the 12 apostles. they were given the power to receive revelation from Jesus who would be the next President of the Church.
> true members do not believe the church has ever become corrupted. There may have been individuals who became corrupted, but were expelled once they were exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. but you can't really consider yourself a true latter-day saint, even if you may consider yourself a cultural "mormon."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that I also have trouble believing a forgiving God will simply condemn otherwise good people to eternal death just because they belonged to the wrong church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So would I. That's why we don't teach such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are taught to reflect and pray on all matters presented to them even by the Church and to come to an understanding between themselves, God and the information or directions provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truer words could never be spoken.
Click to expand...


Truth, I doubt you have authority to speak for the LDS church on matter of faith and doctrine.  So please say "I believe you can't be a Mormon", instead of "You aren't a Mormon if. . .".  If you do the latter, the very words of Joseph Smith condemn you for unrighteous dominion.


----------



## John Lemmon

*What is so difficult about the concept of revelation? God is not silent. You can recieve revelation in your own life. You can actually speak with the Lord. * 

And you say you're not delusional? So god is silent until you fill you head with mormon mumbo jumbo?

*The miracle of mormonism isnt that one man talked to God. It's that all the other witnesses did as well. Joseph wasnt the only one to see the Angel. Or the plates. He wasnt the only one there when the Priesthood restored. He wasnt the only one who saw the Lord in the School of the Prophets. He wasnt the only one who healed on the day of power in Nauvoo. He wasnt the only one who saw the glory of God and the angels at the Kirtland Temple Dedication.* 

You have some proof of plates and all the rest? Or I just take your word for it.

*Lord in the School of the Prophets* You're suffering another delusional coniption.

*Maybe you should listen to those boys that come by your house.* You a zombie too?


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple, god wouldn't need anyone to go door to door for him, what are you guys, the amway of religion? Man, the peeps who come to my door are soooo pathetic, I feel sorry for them. They're like zombies.
> Like, gimme a break, I've read out of curiosity some of the posts in this thread, and you're so detached from reality, it's amazing that anyone could be so delusional. God still talks to the president of your church but no one else? I feel sorry for you that you can't see that as a con job.
> I'm happy for you that you've found something to delude yourself with and be happy, but you talk in such a condescending way like you're some sort of religious einstein, while spouting such total nonsense as the whole story of the gunfight, the plates or anything else, that you should be assessed by a mental health specialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise. Anothr person who doesnt listen. Then condescends about what he doesnt know.
> 
> What is so difficult about the concept of revelation? God is not silent. You can recieve revelation in your own life. You can actually speak with the Lord.
> 
> Yet somehow you think we teach the opposite. That only one man can speak with God. and you also claim you read the thread. Well you clearly need to read more carefully.
> 
> The miracle of mormonism isnt that one man talked to God. It's that all the other witnesses did as well. Joseph wasnt the only one to see the Angel. Or the plates. He wasnt the only one there when the Priesthood restored. He wasnt the only one who saw the Lord in the School of the Prophets. He wasnt the only one who healed on the day of power in Nauvoo. He wasnt the only one who saw the glory of God and the angels at the Kirtland Temple Dedication.
> 
> And all these people are delusional because you said so? Or because you misunderstand simple doctrine?
> 
> Maybe you should listen to those boys that come by your house. Then you might actually learn something.
Click to expand...


*You can actually speak with the Lord.*

Proof you are bat shit crazy.

PS.... Do the magic plates wash themselves?  If so we could really use a set of em here at the restaurant.  How do you order them?


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> since you claim to be so much smarter than these retards coming to your door, how about an intelligent piece of input with maybe just a little research to it?
> 
> cheers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple, god wouldn't need anyone to go door to door for him, what are you guys, the amway of religion? Man, the peeps who come to my door are soooo pathetic, I feel sorry for them. They're like zombies.
> Like, gimme a break, I've read out of curiosity some of the posts in this thread, and you're so detached from reality, it's amazing that anyone could be so delusional. God still talks to the president of your church but no one else? I feel sorry for you that you can't see that as a con job.
> I'm happy for you that you've found something to delude yourself with and be happy, but you talk in such a condescending way like you're some sort of religious einstein, while spouting such total nonsense as the whole story of the gunfight, the plates or anything else, that you should be assessed by a mental health specialist.
Click to expand...


I never said believing this stuff would be easy. And if you think I'm a crackpot that's fine. One day you may not think we're so crazy. I also never said that god doesn't talk to others in lots of different ways. Not usually appearing in person but by spiritual means. I have been assessed by a Dr. Shultz, a client of mine who has pronounced me of a sound mind.
 In the meantime happy trails


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> I never said believing this stuff would be easy. And if you think I'm a crackpot that's fine. One day you may not think we're so crazy. I also never said that god doesn't talk to others in lots of different ways. Not usually appearing in person but by spiritual means. I have been assessed by a Dr. Shultz, a client of mine who has pronounced me of a sound mind.
> In the meantime happy trails



So in order to hear god you have to study mormonism and force yourself to believe a bunch of cockamamy bs? "by spiritual means" means you convince yourself that you're hearing voices.
Dr Shultz? The Peanuts guy? He's dead. Anyways, he's either a mormon too or a nut. What is he a client of yours for? You a proctologist?
C'mon, give me ONE good reason to be a mormon rather than a normal person, because getting laughed at all the time has to make it be something worthwhile.


----------



## Avatar4321

John Lemmon said:


> So in order to hear god you have to study mormonism and force yourself to believe a bunch of cockamamy bs? "by spiritual means" means you convince yourself that you're hearing voices.
> Dr Shultz? The Peanuts guy? He's dead. Anyways, he's either a mormon too or a nut. What is he a client of yours for? You a proctologist?
> C'mon, give me ONE good reason to be a mormon rather than a normal person, because getting laughed at all the time has to make it be something worthwhile.



No, to hear God you actually have to have a conversation with Him. I still marvel that this is such a foreign concept to people. You want to hear God, you have to talk with Him. I appreciate God's patience with people and I hope someday to have that kind of patience.

You need to study mormonism so you actually have an idea what you are talking about. Because so far you've demonstrated that you don't have a clue what we teach or are about. If you dont want to learn that's fine. but please save yourself the embarassment and stop making yourself look silly.

And one good reason to be mormon. A 10 year longer life expectancy is a good reason. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is a good reason. The peace of God. The power of God. Light. Truth. 

I can tell you without hesitation that if people actually lived the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we would live in a completely different world. We would be much happier. Our Children would be much better prepared for this life and the next.

There are plenty of good fruits that come from the Restoration both secular and spiritual. Again another reason to study.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> *You can actually speak with the Lord.*
> 
> Proof you are bat shit crazy.
> 
> PS.... Do the magic plates wash themselves?  If so we could really use a set of em here at the restaurant.  How do you order them?



Why do you presume that an all powerful being has no ability to speak His mind and make Himself known to His children?

And there are no magic plates involved in anything. Nothing magic period.


----------



## John Lemmon

Avatar, you're a fucking loon. Please don't respond to my posts. I'm glad that you're in a deluded state of imbecility, but you need a strong cup of reality. I realize that this is the only way to validate your life, but c'mon, you talk like you actually think that you're sane.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Other than no true church mantra, I do believe that deity makes its will known to humans.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You can actually speak with the Lord.*
> 
> Proof you are bat shit crazy.
> 
> PS.... Do the magic plates wash themselves?  If so we could really use a set of em here at the restaurant.  How do you order them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume that an all powerful being has no ability to speak His mind and make Himself known to His children?
> 
> And there are no magic plates involved in anything. Nothing magic period.
Click to expand...


*you presume * That is rich

*an all powerful being *  ooooooo...how impressive!

*ability to speak *  ya that's what an all powerful being would do...single out fruit cakes like you to have an intelligent conversation

*His children?*   Daddy is all powerfull and you didn't get the "all powerfull genes"?  What a drag!

You didn't even get the basic set.  Do you think pops ..being all powerfull and everything is dissapointed in his brats?  Ya would think he would have made you smarter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Here is an outstanding review of Dr. B. Carmon Hardy's most recent book, on polygamy, _Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier, volume 9, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise at http://byustudies.byu.edu/reviews/pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=814. The reviewer is Dr. Daines of Brigham Young University, and I believe she reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills.

I have met Dr. Hardy once and was very impressed with his speaking ability and his knowledge on Mormonism and the West._


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Here is an outstanding review of Dr. B. Carmon Hardy's most recent book, on polygamy, _Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier, volume 9, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise at Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the... - BYU Studies Review. The reviewer is Dr. Daines of Brigham Young University, and I believe she reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills.
> 
> I have met Dr. Hardy once and was very impressed with his speaking ability and his knowledge on Mormonism and the West._


_

Jake:  Not good enough............Feelings and visions trump anything that highly respected/educated person has to say. _


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an outstanding review of Dr. B. Carmon Hardy's most recent book, on polygamy, _Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier, volume 9, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise at Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the... - BYU Studies Review. The reviewer is Dr. Daines of Brigham Young University, and I believe she reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills.
> 
> I have met Dr. Hardy once and was very impressed with his speaking ability and his knowledge on Mormonism and the West._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Jake:  Not good enough............Feelings and visions trump anything that highly respected/educated person has to say. _
Click to expand...

_

Hey, eightball.  The book is more a wonderfully-explained sympathetia than a apologia for the Mormon plural marriage.  I believe the LDS Ph.D. who did the linked review above was more objective and fair than could be expected._


----------



## Truthspeaker

> The term "anti" is laughable and belongs to you if you continue to avoid critical thinking skills and objectivity, the old 'fair and balanced'.



At what point in this entire thread have I been "anti" anything? You fail to mention where I have avoided critical thinking skills. Thanks for the insult 
Oh wait, I get it... You think I just avoid critical thinking BECAUSE I am religious at all. Fine with me. That's not the point of this thread anyway. I don't care.



> Anyone with the slightest bit of professionalism in scholarship and discussion shudder at wikipedia.  Show some more class, please.



Oh really? What is so unprofessional about facts, no matter what the source? Statments made on Wikipedia are not false because YOU SAY SO. Where are your concrete facts? Think critically yourself straw guy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I happen to be a Mormon, but I accept that since Man creates Churches not God that man will end up corrupting them in some manner unless God intervenes constantly, which he does not do now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not really a mormon if you don't believe God continues to talk to prophets today. You may identify with us best but one of the great premises of our faith is that God talks to Thomas S. Monson the same way he talked to Joseph Smith.
> 
> 
> 
> True members of our church do not believe as you do. Joseph was not required to anoint the next prophet. The keys given to him by Moses, Elias, Elijah, Peter, James, John and John the Baptist as well as Jesus Christ were all bestowed by Joseph on the 12 apostles. they were given the power to receive revelation from Jesus who would be the next President of the Church.
> true members do not believe the church has ever become corrupted. There may have been individuals who became corrupted, but were expelled once they were exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. but you can't really consider yourself a true latter-day saint, even if you may consider yourself a cultural "mormon."
> 
> 
> 
> So would I. That's why we don't teach such a thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are taught to reflect and pray on all matters presented to them even by the Church and to come to an understanding between themselves, God and the information or directions provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truer words could never be spoken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth, I doubt you have authority to speak for the LDS church on matter of faith and doctrine.  So please say "I believe you can't be a Mormon", instead of "You aren't a Mormon if. . .".  If you do the latter, the very words of Joseph Smith condemn you for unrighteous dominion.
Click to expand...


Once again, Au Contraire, mon ami.

I do have authority to speak for the church. Especially since I am repeating what has been spoken of by all our prophets. It's not like I came up with some brave new idea here. You can count on me to put forth what the church ACTUALLY  teaches. Since I am an active elder who teaches every sunday and was authorized to teach my religion on a full time mission. You can check up on all my sources if you care to think I am teaching anything contrary to our official church doctrine.  Happy searching

by the way the words you refer to regarding Joseph Smith and unrighteous dominion are extremely misunderstood. Everyone please read exactly what it says. Note verse 37-39:

Doctrine and Covenants 121

There is a lot of context to be understood in this scripture. Joseph was saying that men lose their authority when they try to cover up their sins, or force their will upon others, saying their will is the will of God. Such is the thing I have not done. I have never forced my will on anyone. As for trying to cover up any of my sins on this thread, I have made no such attempt.
Please learn knowledge.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> *What is so difficult about the concept of revelation? God is not silent. You can recieve revelation in your own life. You can actually speak with the Lord. *
> 
> And you say you're not delusional? So god is silent until you fill you head with mormon mumbo jumbo?
> 
> *The miracle of mormonism isnt that one man talked to God. It's that all the other witnesses did as well. Joseph wasnt the only one to see the Angel. Or the plates. He wasnt the only one there when the Priesthood restored. He wasnt the only one who saw the Lord in the School of the Prophets. He wasnt the only one who healed on the day of power in Nauvoo. He wasnt the only one who saw the glory of God and the angels at the Kirtland Temple Dedication.*
> 
> You have some proof of plates and all the rest? Or I just take your word for it.
> 
> *Lord in the School of the Prophets* You're suffering another delusional coniption.
> 
> *Maybe you should listen to those boys that come by your house.* You a zombie too?




Ok Lemmon,
I get it that you think we are delusional. Thank you for the insults. Are you finished? Remember now I'm not trying to convince anyone what we believe. If you think you know what we believe and still think we're crazy, then fine, great, fantastic.

If you don't have any questions, please... Why are you wasting time trying to argue with religious zombies?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's simple, god wouldn't need anyone to go door to door for him, what are you guys, the amway of religion? Man, the peeps who come to my door are soooo pathetic, I feel sorry for them. They're like zombies.
> Like, gimme a break, I've read out of curiosity some of the posts in this thread, and you're so detached from reality, it's amazing that anyone could be so delusional. God still talks to the president of your church but no one else? I feel sorry for you that you can't see that as a con job.
> I'm happy for you that you've found something to delude yourself with and be happy, but you talk in such a condescending way like you're some sort of religious einstein, while spouting such total nonsense as the whole story of the gunfight, the plates or anything else, that you should be assessed by a mental health specialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise. Anothr person who doesnt listen. Then condescends about what he doesnt know.
> 
> What is so difficult about the concept of revelation? God is not silent. You can recieve revelation in your own life. You can actually speak with the Lord.
> 
> Yet somehow you think we teach the opposite. That only one man can speak with God. and you also claim you read the thread. Well you clearly need to read more carefully.
> 
> The miracle of mormonism isnt that one man talked to God. It's that all the other witnesses did as well. Joseph wasnt the only one to see the Angel. Or the plates. He wasnt the only one there when the Priesthood restored. He wasnt the only one who saw the Lord in the School of the Prophets. He wasnt the only one who healed on the day of power in Nauvoo. He wasnt the only one who saw the glory of God and the angels at the Kirtland Temple Dedication.
> 
> And all these people are delusional because you said so? Or because you misunderstand simple doctrine?
> 
> Maybe you should listen to those boys that come by your house. Then you might actually learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You can actually speak with the Lord.*
> 
> Proof you are bat shit crazy.
> 
> PS.... Do the magic plates wash themselves?  If so we could really use a set of em here at the restaurant.  How do you order them?
Click to expand...


Ok we're crazy again.....

That's great. Thank you for your wonderful opinion. Since we're so crazy, why are you compelled to come back and waste time with us wackos?


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Avatar, you're a fucking loon. Please don't respond to my posts. I'm glad that you're in a deluded state of imbecility, but you need a strong cup of reality. I realize that this is the only way to validate your life, but c'mon, you talk like you actually think that you're sane.



Well since we're so insane, why do you want to talk to us? Perhaps you haven't looked yourself in the mirror yet. Just an idea


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Other than no true church mantra, I do believe that deity makes its will known to humans.



I believe God makes his will known only to those who truly want to know his will.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You can actually speak with the Lord.*
> 
> Proof you are bat shit crazy.
> 
> PS.... Do the magic plates wash themselves?  If so we could really use a set of em here at the restaurant.  How do you order them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume that an all powerful being has no ability to speak His mind and make Himself known to His children?
> 
> And there are no magic plates involved in anything. Nothing magic period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *you presume * That is rich
> 
> *an all powerful being *  ooooooo...how impressive!
> 
> *ability to speak *  ya that's what an all powerful being would do...single out fruit cakes like you to have an intelligent conversation
> 
> *His children?*   Daddy is all powerfull and you didn't get the "all powerfull genes"?  What a drag!
> 
> You didn't even get the basic set.  Do you think pops ..being all powerfull and everything is dissapointed in his brats?  Ya would think he would have made you smarter.
Click to expand...


Ok you think we're crazy again.  Anything new?

Yes "Daddy" is all powerful and he did give us his genes. Our teaching is that we all have the divine potential he has.....I know I know, we're crazy again. But at least I want you to know just HOW crazy.
and "Pops" is disappointed in some of his "brats". Which ones, we'll have to wait and see. Perhaps if you are the one so much smarter you can explain why we shouldn't believe in our religion?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Here is an outstanding review of Dr. B. Carmon Hardy's most recent book, on polygamy, _Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier, volume 9, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise at Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the... - BYU Studies Review. The reviewer is Dr. Daines of Brigham Young University, and I believe she reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills.
> 
> I have met Dr. Hardy once and was very impressed with his speaking ability and his knowledge on Mormonism and the West._


_

I read the review. I am not quite sure what you mean by saying Dr. Daines "reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills."

And somehow I don't? Because.......?_


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an outstanding review of Dr. B. Carmon Hardy's most recent book, on polygamy, _Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier, volume 9, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise at Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the... - BYU Studies Review. The reviewer is Dr. Daines of Brigham Young University, and I believe she reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills.
> 
> I have met Dr. Hardy once and was very impressed with his speaking ability and his knowledge on Mormonism and the West._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Jake:  Not good enough............Feelings and visions trump anything that highly respected/educated person has to say. _
Click to expand...

_

Way to go 8-ball! Way to jump on the bandwagon of somebody who doesn't believe in a God at all. Why aren't you as upset with non-believers as you are with Mormons?_


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an outstanding review of Dr. B. Carmon Hardy's most recent book, on polygamy, _Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier, volume 9, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise at Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the... - BYU Studies Review. The reviewer is Dr. Daines of Brigham Young University, and I believe she reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills.
> 
> I have met Dr. Hardy once and was very impressed with his speaking ability and his knowledge on Mormonism and the West._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Jake:  Not good enough............Feelings and visions trump anything that highly respected/educated person has to say. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Hey, eightball.  The book is more a wonderfully-explained sympathetia than a apologia for the Mormon plural marriage.  I believe the LDS Ph.D. who did the linked review above was more objective and fair than could be expected._
Click to expand...

_

so now because it comes from a Ph.D and not from me, now you accept the statment as critical thinking-approved? What have I said differently than your precious Ph.D person?_


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, you're a fucking loon. Please don't respond to my posts. I'm glad that you're in a deluded state of imbecility, but you need a strong cup of reality. I realize that this is the only way to validate your life, but c'mon, you talk like you actually think that you're sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well since we're so insane, why do you want to talk to us? Perhaps you haven't looked yourself in the mirror yet. Just an idea
Click to expand...


It's fun, why do you think? 

C'mon tru, golden plates that nobody has, an alien from another planet (that's not even visible) ruling earth, magic underwear that you even still wear, pedophillic polygamy, dumb hillbilly cowboys and all the other stuff is so hilarious that I need to probe you for more stories, they're too funny.  
it's like you're seriously retarded but hilarious. And god knows religion needs a few laughs.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, you're a fucking loon. Please don't respond to my posts. I'm glad that you're in a deluded state of imbecility, but you need a strong cup of reality. I realize that this is the only way to validate your life, but c'mon, you talk like you actually think that you're sane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well since we're so insane, why do you want to talk to us? Perhaps you haven't looked yourself in the mirror yet. Just an idea
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's fun, why do you think?
> 
> C'mon tru, golden plates that nobody has, an alien from another planet (that's not even visible) ruling earth, magic underwear that you even still wear, pedophillic polygamy, dumb hillbilly cowboys and all the other stuff is so hilarious that I need to probe you for more stories, they're too funny.
> it's like you're seriously retarded but hilarious. And god knows religion needs a few laughs.
Click to expand...


Well if you want to laugh at us and think we're crazy at least you should laugh at the right things. None of the stuff you are laughing about is correct.
1- The "golden plates" are had. They were first had by Smith and other eyewitnesses. Now they are had by the Angel Moroni. (I know, totally crazy right?)
2- God is not a short green alien from a sci-fi movie. And you can see him. (laugh it up)
3- There is no magic underwear.lol
4- There is no pedophillic polygamylol
5- Where did the dumb hillbilly cowboys come from?lol
6- And all the other stuff?lol

It's funny you say "God knows" that religion needs a few laughs. So you know what God knows even though you don't believe in a GodWe'll see whose laughing in a few years. In the meantime.... Have a jolly good guffaw on us


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since we're so insane, why do you want to talk to us? Perhaps you haven't looked yourself in the mirror yet. Just an idea
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun, why do you think?
> 
> C'mon tru, golden plates that nobody has, an alien from another planet (that's not even visible) ruling earth, magic underwear that you even still wear, pedophillic polygamy, dumb hillbilly cowboys and all the other stuff is so hilarious that I need to probe you for more stories, they're too funny.
> it's like you're seriously retarded but hilarious. And god knows religion needs a few laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you want to laugh at us and think we're crazy at least you should laugh at the right things. None of the stuff you are laughing about is correct.
> 1- The "golden plates" are had. They were first had by Smith and other eyewitnesses. Now they are had by the Angel Moroni. (I know, totally crazy right?)
> 2- God is not a short green alien from a sci-fi movie. And you can see him. (laugh it up)
> 3- There is no magic underwear.lol
> 4- There is no pedophillic polygamylol
> 5- Where did the dumb hillbilly cowboys come from?lol
> 6- And all the other stuff?lol
> 
> It's funny you say "God knows" that religion needs a few laughs. So you know what God knows even though you don't believe in a GodWe'll see whose laughing in a few years. In the meantime.... Have a jolly good guffaw on us
Click to expand...


*Now they are had by the Angel Moroni. *

I think it is pretty crystal sparkling clear who is being *had*.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's fun, why do you think?
> 
> C'mon tru, golden plates that nobody has, an alien from another planet (that's not even visible) ruling earth, magic underwear that you even still wear, pedophillic polygamy, dumb hillbilly cowboys and all the other stuff is so hilarious that I need to probe you for more stories, they're too funny.
> it's like you're seriously retarded but hilarious. And god knows religion needs a few laughs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you want to laugh at us and think we're crazy at least you should laugh at the right things. None of the stuff you are laughing about is correct.
> 1- The "golden plates" are had. They were first had by Smith and other eyewitnesses. Now they are had by the Angel Moroni. (I know, totally crazy right?)
> 2- God is not a short green alien from a sci-fi movie. And you can see him. (laugh it up)
> 3- There is no magic underwear.lol
> 4- There is no pedophillic polygamylol
> 5- Where did the dumb hillbilly cowboys come from?lol
> 6- And all the other stuff?lol
> 
> It's funny you say "God knows" that religion needs a few laughs. So you know what God knows even though you don't believe in a GodWe'll see whose laughing in a few years. In the meantime.... Have a jolly good guffaw on us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Now they are had by the Angel Moroni. *
> 
> I think it is pretty crystal sparkling clear who is being *had*.
Click to expand...


Ok Huggy. You really got me with that one. I think I'm ready to renounce my religion now

Next


----------



## John Lemmon

I think Moroni is Italian for moron! Angel Moron!!! 

You can see god? So you've smoked crack!!! 

C'mon, you're wearing your magic undies right now. They remind you how uncomfortable your religion is 

Be serious, pedophilia and polygamy are 2 central tenet to mormonism!

Those stories about the cowboys getting tar and feathered, shooting at each other... Sound pretty dumb to me... but normal to you


----------



## Truthspeaker

Arawyn said:


> Can a non-anti bring up tar and feathering?
> 
> Seriously........as much as I've seen anti's post about JS.....the one thing that gets my goat is that they never mention that, nor the loss of two children because of that night.



I guess you missed our lengthy discussion on the issue. What's-his-face was trying to argue with me that tarring and feathering doesn't count as torture. I said it did. I also mentioned the death of Joseph's child due to the effects of the raid on his home.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> I think Moroni is Italian for moron! Angel Moron!!!
> 
> You can see god? So you've smoked crack!!!
> 
> C'mon, you're wearing your magic undies right now. They remind you how uncomfortable your religion is
> 
> Be serious, pedophilia and polygamy are 2 central tenet to mormonism!
> 
> Those stories about the cowboys getting tar and feathered, shooting at each other... Sound pretty dumb to me... but normal to you



What a 4-year old response?!

What is wrong with you? How can you expect to have a reasonable discussion when all you do is insult people who don't share your limited view on life?


----------



## John Lemmon

ok, so your angel stole the plates back, that's called an indian giver.
So you wearing your magic trunks right now? I bet you are.
JS sounds like an imbecile, so why would god choose him, was god drunk too?
btw, you guys still not allowed to drink?


----------



## Avatar4321

John Lemmon said:


> ok, so your angel stole the plates back, that's called an indian giver.
> So you wearing your magic trunks right now? I bet you are.
> JS sounds like an imbecile, so why would god choose him, was god drunk too?
> btw, you guys still not allowed to drink?



I suppose God stole our Savior back too... At least according to your logic. Witnesses be damned.

There has never been, nor is there, nor will there ever be magic underwear.

How many imbeciles do you know that can dictate a 512 page book thats internally consistant and consistant with the Bible in 2 months with no notes etc? How many imbeciles can accurate describe routes, name names, describe plants and animals etc, that would remain unknown for over 100 years after his death? How many imbeciles can pick apart modern Christian doctrine, get all of the late innovations and revive those authentic doctrines and practices that again were unknown of when he did it? how many imbeciles can get 11 witnesses to see the same things he does? How many imbeciles can have other visions with other witnesses and have them say the same thing? How many imbecilies can heal the sick? Raise the dead? Accurately prophecy? how many imbeciles can build a city?

So far I've seen much more impressive achievements from "the imbecile" you mock than I have from you. What exactly have you done? What have you accomplished? Where are your academic credentials? Why exactly should I care what you think?

And for the record, we are free to choose whatever we want. We can drink. We make a choice not to because there are things far more important than a beer in this world.


----------



## John Lemmon

I can almost agree that jesus even existed, not that there's much solid proof, in which case a lot of people would have seen him on the cross (again, scant evidence of that too). But sorry, your plates never existed, no proof. A few so called witnesses, but again they could be in on the gag.

He described names and routes and animals and stuff and was such a frikkin genius that everyone thinks he's nuts, except of course other nutjobs/mormons. I say nutjob because to believe the stuff you and tru have posted here is sooo far fetched, only a complete idiot could fall for it.
Heal the sick, raise the dead... all those preachers have been debunked as charlatans. they still do that shit today, fake everyone out to get donations and members.
I bet you have your, we'll call it "special" underwear on right now. it's hilarious that you folks have to wear special underwear, it's comically perverted! 

Ok tell me, what was JS's best "achievement"?

So do you drink? Does tru? Do any mormons you know drink?

*there are things far more important than a beer in this world.*

Now I know you're nuts. I bet you think football is of no consequence as well.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an outstanding review of Dr. B. Carmon Hardy's most recent book, on polygamy, _Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier, volume 9, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice, and Demise at Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the... - BYU Studies Review. The reviewer is Dr. Daines of Brigham Young University, and I believe she reveals a true commitment to objectivity and critical thinking skills.
> 
> I have met Dr. Hardy once and was very impressed with his speaking ability and his knowledge on Mormonism and the West._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> Jake:  Not good enough............Feelings and visions trump anything that highly respected/educated person has to say. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Way to go 8-ball! Way to jump on the bandwagon of somebody who doesn't believe in a God at all. Why aren't you as upset with non-believers as you are with Mormons?_
Click to expand...

_

Even "true" Christians have wisdom and knowlege-enough to realize that atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions can and have contributed postive ideas to human culture and society.

You can't shut the door on folk's ideas and contributions to mankind or society through plausible, investigative writings just because they don't believe in a Creator?

I don't have to agree with their philosophical outlook on life to still appreciate their contributions, and thoughtful reasoning.

When one boxes themselves into a corner by ruling out any or all literature or insights contributed by folks that don't adhere to their "religion" they are exhibiting the signs or symptoms of living-out a cultist mentality.

There are wack-jobs that are atheists and agnostics too, but to rule them out as good sources of information is close-minded, and very dangerous.  That is the typical "bunker" mentality of a cultist.

If one's doctrinal faith is solid and can be defended, then there is no need to hunker into a defensive mode.  Truth and Avatar and their sub-tag-team helpers that chime in occassionally all take the martyr's identity, when their belief system is questioned from historical perspective, and also the "character issues" of it's founders.

By hunkering into "victim" or "martyr" mode, it is a sure sign of weakness, and "white flag" time when defending one's belief system.

Sure there will be "mockers" of their faith, as is here on this board, but unfortunately Truth and Avatar answer nearly all who question the historicity, and LDS prophet's character, as "mockers".

I.E.  We must agree or ask questions like," Hello, I'm a bible Christian, but I'm really interested in Mormonism.  Why do LDS not accept the bible in it's totality?".  We are not allowed to ask penetrative questions such as; "Why is that God said there will be no other gods before Me!".  Why can't we present secular accounts of J.S. Jr.'s alleged martyrdom?  Why can't we ask about "Mountain Meadows"; without being mockers or being typed as attackers of the "true faith" found only in the LDS church?

True bible Christians are ready to defend and inform others of their faith.  They do not consider ah*le questioners as threats, but realize that some will mock.  The bible Christian does not go into bunker mode unless they are very ungrounded in their biblical faith.

As Truth can't fathom Romans 12's encouragement from the Apostle Paul to the "true" Christians to "renew" their minds, how can Truth possibly fathom anything from the bible.

Truth falls short right there!  He doesn't understand a simple yet strong verse/s by Paul exonerating believers to fill their gray matter with the scriptures so that they will be "rock solid" in their faith, when questioned, challenged, and even persecuted to the point of torture.

As for tar and feather...........No doubt an uncomfortable situation, but in lieu of the N.T. letter to the Hebrew Christians that mentioned of believers being sawed in two while alive, torn apart, etc.., I don't think the LDS of the early 1800's has endured much in the category of suffering.

Actually, many have endured the suffering of the LDS bunker type mentality/exclusivity, that prompted the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Now I call what thost wagon train folks went through true suffering.  They may have not all been bible Christians on that W. train, but they suffered a total lack of the greatest gift of all from the H.S., from the Mormons, namely unconditional love.

This wagon train needed supplies on their way west, and word was sent out to all LDS households to not help these soujourners with one bit of food from Mormon farms and stores.

If Mormonism was authored by God of the bible, where was the Spirit of the Good Samaritan that Jesus told about in a very famous parable?

True Holy Spirit filled, bible Christians would give another their coat, or blanket and go cold.  They would give their last cup of water, because they knew that death was not the end, but a corridor to Paradise.  That is why Christians in Rome baffled the Romans with their unsual ways of dieing in the colliseum, by actually praying for those that captured and tortured them.  Peter took out the sword, but Peter also hadn't faced Pentacost and received the H.S. yet, and humanistically handled Jesus' arrest, and was strongly rebuked for it.

Joseph Smith took the "Non-Holy Spirit" route in Illinois, as Jesus would have rebuked him with "Those who live by the gun will die by the gun!".

If Mormons could just face this obvious truth, that J.S. Jr. can't hold a candle to any of Jesus' Apostles, nor the myriads of Saints in the N.T. or the O.T. that "willingly" gave up their lifes, without a "fight".

That is true martyrdom.
*******
Now proceed with the usual replies...

1. 8-ball your so misinformed!
2. 8-ball your a mocker and hater of Mormons
3. 8-ball, I've answered all these things in past posts

One of the members here hit it right on the head when the said that Truth is "condescending".  I couldn't recall that particular word from my vocab, as I'm an older "fart" with a lot of other things going on in my life outside of this little debate.

When either Jake, Lemmon, or Ralph said, "Truth your condescending", all kinds of bells and whistles went off in my mind.............."That's it, that's what I've been trying to put my finger on, when dialogueing with Truthlll"........"Condescending"........

Shall we look it up in Merriam Webster?




			Main Entry: con·de·scend 
Pronunciation: \&#716;kän-di-&#712;send\
Function: intransitive verb 
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
Date: 14th century
1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level : unbend b : to waive the privileges of rank2 : to assume an air of superiority

Click to expand...


That's it!!! Truth must unbend and stoop down to our imbecilic level from his high perch; yet still carries an aura of superiority.

Truth just exudes double "P" Pride...........the very antithesis of humility, contrite of heart, humbleness, that the trully "surrendered to Jesus" Holy Spirit filled, biblical Christian would have as a most apparent personality trait.

It's the old "chop off the arresting persons ear in the Garden" type of character here, folks.  

To the Christian, he/she can allow God's Word bible/scripture to defend the faith, to the Mormon, he/she must defend it subjectively through experiential phenomena, as the historical stuff ain't where they want to go to defend their faith.  The LDS church history is so full of incongrueities, and or holes, that it's best to just ask possible new members to search out a "burning bosom" conformation via prayer.  At least they think they are safe ground by asking someont to pray to find out if LDS is the "truth".

Little do they realize that they violated the main tenents of God's Word.  You are to "test" the spirits, not ask them what is truth and what is false.  Satan and his demonic host will naturally tell you that Mormonism is the truth.  Joseph S. Jr. is living testament to God's free will to men in living action.  God gives the road map, man takes his own route.  God says test all things against my Word to mankind, man says, I've got a new, reformed, more accurate method, that a N.Y. con artist passed on to me.

Truth, Romans Chapter One/1 clearly reveals what happens when man goes his own way despite God revealing His nature so succinctly through the scriptures.  A slowly, descending spiral of spiritual bondage with ensue.  Your church has perpetuated this for years, and you are living proof that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  You lean on human, fleshly reasoning, despite all the evidences.  You believe that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, yet can't comprehend that Lucifer is the "king" of counterfeit phenomena.  You can't or won't test the belief system at all.

Pharoah drove his chariots into the Red Sea.  He was hit so many times with vivid proofs that he was on the wrong route in life, but it took a terrible loss of his first born son, and the loss of a great deal of his army to possibly bring him to his senses.

Paul had to be knocked off his horse on the way to Damascus while persecuting Christians to finally pay attention, and give up his "Pride".  He was knowledgeable, yet the knowledge of the true Christ, trumped everything Paul had ever been proud of before.

Think "condescending" then think............"Jesus washing the feet of His disciples".?

What is the message here?_


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> I can almost agree that jesus even existed, not that there's much solid proof, in which case a lot of people would have seen him on the cross (again, scant evidence of that too). But sorry, your plates never existed, no proof. A few so called witnesses, but again they could be in on the gag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He described names and routes and animals and stuff and was such a frikkin genius that everyone thinks he's nuts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is quite a blanket statement. How about General Alexander Doniphan, a decidedly non-mormon, who stood up for Smith's character in the face of the mob when General Lucas ordered him executed without a trial. No son, there are people other than you in this world. Many non-mormons saved Joseph's life because they knew he was an honorable man.
> The jury is still out for most people when his name comes up. Sure there may be some preconcieved notions, but not everyone condemns him like you. Like the angel said, his name should "be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, tongues and people." It's gettin' a might' close to that time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say nutjob because to believe the stuff you and tru have posted here is sooo far fetched, only a complete idiot could fall for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I've mentioned this once or twice before. Ok, so you think we're crazy. Whatever
> Are you trying to change our minds? It's not gonna work so why waste your time with crazy people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heal the sick, raise the dead... all those preachers have been debunked as charlatans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When and where. There none of the proof YOU are looking for either for or against such preachers. Where is your authority to say they are debunked? You're just spouting off your own prejudice and have made yourself an ass.(democratic icon)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they still do that shit today, fake everyone out to get donations and members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> some are fake and some are real. How can YOU tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you have your, we'll call it "special" underwear on right now. it's hilarious that you folks have to wear special underwear, it's comically perverted!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have to wear anything. We choose to for reasons you couldn't possibly understand. So until you do
> Ok tell me, what was JS's best "achievement"?
> 
> Having a simple prayer to God one morning alone in the woods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you drink? Does tru?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we don't. Not we can't. Beer tastes nasty anyways
> 
> Do any mormons you know drink?
> 
> My brother does. But he's not very active in the church.
> 
> *there are things far more important than a beer in this world.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know you're nuts. I bet you think football is of no consequence as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you didn't know before huh? Make up your mind. Goes to show how much you know about mormons and byu football. Their passion is insane especially against the Utes.
> I for one think rugby is a far better sport and more entertaining.
> 
> But neither has any effect on my eternal perspective.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can a non-anti bring up tar and feathering?
> 
> Seriously........as much as I've seen anti's post about JS.....the one thing that gets my goat is that they never mention that, nor the loss of two children because of that night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you missed our lengthy discussion on the issue. What's-his-face was trying to argue with me that tarring and feathering doesn't count as torture. I said it did. I also mentioned the death of Joseph's child due to the effects of the raid on his home.
Click to expand...


Yes, Joseph Smith faced torture in his life.  Being tarred and feathered is torture.  Having his balls nearly cut off because he was fooling around is torture.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, so your angel stole the plates back, that's called an indian giver.
> So you wearing your magic trunks right now? I bet you are.
> JS sounds like an imbecile, so why would god choose him, was god drunk too?
> btw, you guys still not allowed to drink?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose God stole our Savior back too... At least according to your logic. Witnesses be damned.
> 
> There has never been, nor is there, nor will there ever be magic underwear.
> 
> How many imbeciles do you know that can dictate a 512 page book thats internally consistant and consistant with the Bible in 2 months with no notes etc? How many imbeciles can accurate describe routes, name names, describe plants and animals etc, that would remain unknown for over 100 years after his death? How many imbeciles can pick apart modern Christian doctrine, get all of the late innovations and revive those authentic doctrines and practices that again were unknown of when he did it? how many imbeciles can get 11 witnesses to see the same things he does? How many imbeciles can have other visions with other witnesses and have them say the same thing? How many imbecilies can heal the sick? Raise the dead? Accurately prophecy? how many imbeciles can build a city?
> 
> So far I've seen much more impressive achievements from "the imbecile" you mock than I have from you. What exactly have you done? What have you accomplished? Where are your academic credentials? Why exactly should I care what you think?
> 
> And for the record, we are free to choose whatever we want. We can drink. We make a choice not to because there are things far more important than a beer in this world.
Click to expand...


Avi, go back, study, then come back and give us more complete and accurate statement about the writing of the Book of Mormon.  Your emotional blurbling and bubbling have no relevance here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Mormon defenders here are blowing things out their ass.  A history professor at the local university advises the following as the foundation for discussing the "truth" of Mormonism on the forum.  He says anyone at Brigham Young University history department would agree that they are all essential.

Will Bagley, Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows;
Will Bagley and David Bigler, Innocent Blood: Essential Narratives of the Mountain Meadows Massacre;
Fawn McKay Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith;  
Juanita Brooks, The Mountain Meadows Massacre; Juanita Brooks, John D. Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat; 
Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling;
Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith;
 Richard E. Bennett, Mormons at the Missouri: 1846-1852.
B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passasge
B. Carmon Hardy, Doing The Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy : Its Origin, Practice, and Demise 
Melvin C. Johnson, Polygamy On The Pedernales: Lyman Wight's Mormon Villages In Antebellum Texas, 1845-1858;
D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Vol I and The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power; 
Vickie Speek, "God Has Made Us a Kingdom": James Strang and the Midwest Mormons; 
Richard E. Turley, Massacre at Mountain Meadows.


----------



## John Lemmon

So tru, what's your proof that the plates even existed? A few friends saw them with JS? Gee, that's pretty convincing....NOT!
So you do wear the special underwear, that's soooo hilarious. Don't you feel like an ass when you have it on? Like c'mon, a cult with special underwear??? 
Ok, so one guy stood up for JS, gee, that's such an overwhelming amount of people that I just have to 
ALL faith healers are charlatans, there have NEVER been any with actual real proof that it works, and sorry to say, but you're an imbecile to believe he raised people from the dead.

I forgot to mention, I got you to swear! Looks like you need to go to confession.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth, I say this gently -- anyone can write anything on wikipedia. That's why Obama's parentage keeps the "birther" toids so entertained.  They change it all the time.  You clearly do not know Widtsoe, Talmage, Roberts, Nibley, Compton, Quinn, Bennett, Johnson, Speek, Jorgenson, Hamer, Bringhurst, Sheperd, Arrington, even the whackos like Holyoak, Midley, and Hodge.  And I left another fifteen to twenty out that you should have already read.
> 
> You remind of the brand-new Christian in his eagerness to defend the faith and save the unrighteous, he does more damage than twenty devils.
> 
> Boy, slow down!



I understand your point about Wiki, however, it can be a great source of information when credible sources for the information are cited.  I always check the sources provided within a Wiki article before dismissing it.


----------



## Christopher

John Lemmon said:


> So tru, what's your proof that the plates even existed? A few friends saw them with JS? Gee, that's pretty convincing....NOT!
> So you do wear the special underwear, that's soooo hilarious. Don't you feel like an ass when you have it on? Like c'mon, a cult with special underwear???
> Ok, so one guy stood up for JS, gee, that's such an overwhelming amount of people that I just have to
> ALL faith healers are charlatans, there have NEVER been any with actual real proof that it works, and sorry to say, but you're an imbecile to believe he raised people from the dead.
> 
> I forgot to mention, I got you to swear! Looks like you need to go to confession.



You have a very narrow view of Mormonism.  Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?


----------



## John Lemmon

Christopher said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tru, what's your proof that the plates even existed? A few friends saw them with JS? Gee, that's pretty convincing....NOT!
> So you do wear the special underwear, that's soooo hilarious. Don't you feel like an ass when you have it on? Like c'mon, a cult with special underwear???
> Ok, so one guy stood up for JS, gee, that's such an overwhelming amount of people that I just have to
> ALL faith healers are charlatans, there have NEVER been any with actual real proof that it works, and sorry to say, but you're an imbecile to believe he raised people from the dead.
> 
> I forgot to mention, I got you to swear! Looks like you need to go to confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very narrow view of Mormonism.  Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
Click to expand...


Twice.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tru, what's your proof that the plates even existed? A few friends saw them with JS? Gee, that's pretty convincing....NOT!
> So you do wear the special underwear, that's soooo hilarious. Don't you feel like an ass when you have it on? Like c'mon, a cult with special underwear???
> Ok, so one guy stood up for JS, gee, that's such an overwhelming amount of people that I just have to
> ALL faith healers are charlatans, there have NEVER been any with actual real proof that it works, and sorry to say, but you're an imbecile to believe he raised people from the dead.
> 
> I forgot to mention, I got you to swear! Looks like you need to go to confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very narrow view of Mormonism.  Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twice.
Click to expand...




prove it. Who wrote the book?
I bet you can't even tell me the very first event that happened in the book of mormon, or the very first people to come to the americas.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very narrow view of Mormonism.  Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove it. Who wrote the book?
> I bet you can't even tell me the very first event that happened in the book of mormon, or the very first people to come to the americas.
Click to expand...


Without looking, I am sure that it is Nephi boasting on his family and slaying an enemy of the family.  The yoke sounds like the Hatfield/McCoy saga.  Nephi and relations were probably somewhere from the Tennessee/Mississippi border.  Some of those family groups are mini-murder incorporated there.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove it. Who wrote the book?
> I bet you can't even tell me the very first event that happened in the book of mormon, or the very first people to come to the americas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without looking, I am sure that it is Nephi boasting on his family and slaying an enemy of the family.  The yoke sounds like the Hatfield/McCoy saga.  Nephi and relations were probably somewhere from the Tennessee/Mississippi border.  Some of those family groups are mini-murder incorporated there.
Click to expand...


Wasn't asking you, but nope you are wrong on all accounts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove it. Who wrote the book?
> I bet you can't even tell me the very first event that happened in the book of mormon, or the very first people to come to the americas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without looking, I am sure that it is Nephi boasting on his family and slaying an enemy of the family.  The yoke sounds like the Hatfield/McCoy saga.  Nephi and relations were probably somewhere from the Tennessee/Mississippi border.  Some of those family groups are mini-murder incorporated there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't asking you, but nope you are wrong on all accounts.
Click to expand...


Stuff it up your nostril, Truth; I will answer anything here I want.  And, yep, I am pretty accurate.  Bunch cuthroat whackos.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Even "true" Christians have wisdom and knowlege-enough to realize that atheists, agnostics, and people of other religions can and have contributed postive ideas to human culture and society.



And you being such a strong Christian value their contributions more than a man who professed the Christ and did many mighty works in his name. Interesting.



> You can't shut the door on folk's ideas and contributions to mankind or society through plausible, investigative writings just because they don't believe in a Creator?



Nobody is shutting the door on anyones ideas except ours in this thread. I certainly have mentioned it at least a hundred times that everyone is free to their ideas. I certainly haven't thrown out any ideas except the ones that are pure hogwash.



> I don't have to agree with their philosophical outlook on life to still appreciate their contributions, and thoughtful reasoning.



How nice of you. How thoughtful are they? It's debatable but I am not on this thread to waste time on philosophical debates. All I am doing is giving people the straight dope on "Mormonism."



> When one boxes themselves into a corner by ruling out any or all literature or insights contributed by folks that don't adhere to their "religion" they are exhibiting the signs or symptoms of living-out a cultist mentality.



You might be right if you knew what a cult really was. But you don't. Also, I haven't ruled out anyones ideas on this thread without hearing them out first.



> There are wack-jobs that are atheists and agnostics too, but to rule them out as good sources of information is close-minded, and very dangerous.  That is the typical "bunker" mentality of a cultist.



I don't waste time with wackjobs. If it has been clearly determined that one is a wackjob, then there is nothing wrong with being close-minded towards them. I don't consider any of you wackjobs. Maybe some of you are stubborn and impertinent. Maybe a few uneducated, but no wackjobs. I'm the only one accused of being a wackjob on this thread(and all other mormons of course).



> If one's doctrinal faith is solid and can be defended, then there is no need to hunker into a defensive mode.  Truth and Avatar and their sub-tag-team helpers that chime in occassionally all take the martyr's identity, when their belief system is questioned from historical perspective, and also the "character issues" of it's founders.



Au Contraire. When one's doctrinal faith is solid, it makes the person want to make sure people understand it better. If I thought it wasn't rock solid, I wouldn't subscribe to it any more and I certainly wouldn't try to defend it. I haven't tried to take the martyrs identity. I haven't been killed for what I believe yet. 
However it is really easy to see that Joseph and many others were martyrs, per any dictionary definition. Case closed. I don't care if you think he was or wasn't. It's irrelevant to our topic on this thread. I have my view and you yours. Whatever Trevor.
As to the "character issues", some think highly of Joseph, others not so much. Each person needs to draw their own conclusion. It's all a matter of he-said-she-said. Each person has to look at the many testimonies given of him, weigh the facts and decide whether Joseph was a righteous man of God, or the greatest con-man in history. I have made my decision, you have made yours. For the rest of the world who hasn't done their research yet, the jury is still out...................



> By hunkering into "victim" or "martyr" mode, it is a sure sign of weakness, and "white flag" time when defending one's belief system.



If stating that our people have endured oppression(FACT, and educating people about what is a lie and truth about our beliefs is considered playing the victim, then who cares? We are self sufficient. We have our own welfare system and are tax-paying contributing members of our society. We have never sought reparations for the crimes committed against us hundreds of years ago. That doesn't sound like a culture of victims to me. Do you consider Jews as a victim society simply because they tell the truth about the holocaust? They don't need the reparations. They just want the truth to be told. Same with us. Same with the Armenians.





> Sure there will be "mockers" of their faith, as is here on this board, but unfortunately Truth and Avatar answer nearly all who question the historicity, and LDS prophet's character, as "mockers".



I answer every question in detail. I have not shirked a single one. You used to mock a lot more than you do now. Nowadays you just like to voice your disapproval of our religion. It's ok for you to disapprove of our religion but I don't know why you continue to waste time with us if you don't have any real questions. Our minds are made up. You aren't going to sway me your way. I'm not trying to sway you my way. I'm just telling our story as it really is.



> I.E.  We must agree or ask questions like," Hello, I'm a bible Christian, but I'm really interested in Mormonism.



The only prerequisites that I've asked for is just that people ask genuine questions. Nothing else.



> Why do LDS not accept the bible in it's totality?.



Look at the very first post of this thread. Go ahead. look. first page. I invited any and all questions. Even ones I haven't been asked before.



> We are not allowed to ask penetrative questions such as; "Why is that God said there will be no other gods before Me!".



You have asked and I will repeat the answer: God wants us to worship Him and Him only. Those words came from Jesus in his phase as Jehovah of the old testament. Of course when he came to earth we realized he wants us to worship his Father as well. If you worship the Father, you are worshipping the Son as well. 

We don't have any other gods before Jesus and his Father. We don't worship anyone else. Is this finally clear to you?



> Why can't we present secular accounts of J.S. Jr.'s alleged martyrdom?


You have presented accounts. I have also presented accounts which I believe are more accurate. 



> Why can't we ask about "Mountain Meadows"; without being mockers or being typed as attackers of the "true faith" found only in the LDS church?



If you want me to stop labelling you a mocker, then don't mock me with your insinuations, condescensions and name calling. 
By the way, I have lost count of how many times I have given my accounts of the Mountain Meadows massacre. There are conflicting accounts from two angles. You will either believe that Brigham Young was behind it all or that he wasn't. I have seen both eyewitness accounts and I believe the one that portrays the truth of the matter. That the incident happened before Brigham Youngs commandment to "let them alone." was received. I believe the account of Brigham Young weeping like a child when he heard of the murders. Once again. The perpetrators of that terrible act were overreacting to the prescence of Arkansas wagon trainers, who had spoken their dislike of Joseph Smith. The lds perpetrators perceived threats from them and understood wrongly. They let their anger overtake them and did some of the most damning individual deeds ever done. This was not an order from the Church Headquarters. 
Everyone will need to do their own research and decide for themselves.




> True bible Christians are ready to defend and inform others of their faith.  They do not consider ah*le questioners as threats, but realize that some will mock.  The bible Christian does not go into bunker mode unless they are very ungrounded in their biblical faith.



Is that your definition of a true Christian. Fine. You are welcome to it. But I think there is a lot more to it than what you think. Btw, I'm not in "bunker mode." I don't need a bunker. I'm on the battlefield without a weapon or a shield.



> As Truth can't fathom Romans 12's encouragement from the Apostle Paul to the "true" Christians to "renew" their minds, how can Truth possibly fathom anything from the bible.



Can't fathom? What am I retarded? If you think I'm not smart enough to understand the very plain message of Romans 12, then fine? I think it's just a mere difference of interpretation of the scripture. To sum up the entire chapter,  Paul counsels the saints to present their bodies as a living sacrifice; to use their own grace-given gifts; to live as becometh saints.

Gifts are given by grace. God expects us to do something with those gifts. It certainly isn't that I can't fathom it. 



> Truth falls short right there!  He doesn't understand a simple yet strong verse/s by Paul exonerating believers to fill their gray matter with the scriptures so that they will be "rock solid" in their faith, when questioned, challenged, and even persecuted to the point of torture.



You say I fall short. I feel I'm setting the long jump record. We'll see in the end won't we?



> As for tar and feather...........No doubt an uncomfortable situation, but in lieu of the N.T. letter to the Hebrew Christians that mentioned of believers being sawed in two while alive, torn apart, etc.., I don't think the LDS of the early 1800's has endured much in the category of suffering.



What's more painful, being eaten by a lion, or eaten by a shark? Certainly one is more painful than the other but neither is a swedish massage. Who cares who felt more pain? It's debatable anyway. Why do early mormons have to have been thrown in the coliseum to be equal with other Christians? Isn't being killed enough? A bullet deserves at least a little sympathy right? Never endured much suffering? That's complete rubbish. By who's standards are you judging? An extermination order of all mormons from Missouri that stood until 1977 isn't suffering enough? Come on, where is your decency?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

John Lemmon said:


> So tru, what's your proof that the plates even existed? A few friends saw them with JS? Gee, that's pretty convincing....NOT!
> So you do wear the special underwear, that's soooo hilarious. Don't you feel like an ass when you have it on? Like c'mon, a cult with special underwear???
> Ok, so one guy stood up for JS, gee, that's such an overwhelming amount of people that I just have to
> ALL faith healers are charlatans, there have NEVER been any with actual real proof that it works, and sorry to say, but you're an imbecile to believe he raised people from the dead.
> 
> I forgot to mention, I got you to swear! Looks like you need to go to confession.



Actually a lot of the witnesses LEFT the Church and became estranged from Joseph Smith, yet NOT one ever recanted their testimony as to seeing the plates. Go figure.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Actually, many have endured the suffering of the LDS bunker type mentality/exclusivity, that prompted the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Now I call what thost wagon train folks went through true suffering.  They may have not all been bible Christians on that W. train, but they suffered a total lack of the greatest gift of all from the H.S., from the Mormons, namely unconditional love.



How is it that you are so blind? The murders perpetrated against the Arkansas wagon train was veangeance. It was totally wrong and evil in the sight of God. But the key word here is vengeance. Vengeance for what? For the exact same thing that had happened to us. Mormons were murdered in the same cold blooded manner by missourian mobs. exponentially more Mormons were killed in missouri and Illinois than the Arkansas wagon train.



> This wagon train needed supplies on their way west, and word was sent out to all LDS households to not help these soujourners with one bit of food from Mormon farms and stores.



Word was sent by the stake president of the small area surrounding Mountain Meadows. Not ALL LDS HOUSEHOLDS. Remember they were a week's journey aways from Salt Lake. That's just talking if you were a courier on a horse, the fastest mail possible. Brigham Young had no chance to respond to the question in time to stop the massacre. I beg you to please read Turley's article. Because it is obvious you didn't read it the first time. Here it is. I await your response.LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Mountain Meadows Massacre


> If Mormonism was authored by God of the bible, where was the Spirit of the Good Samaritan that Jesus told about in a very famous parable?



I thought you were criticizing us for doing "too much good" earlier. Please understand that the massacre was perpetrated by a few individuals who were members of the church. Not the church itself.


> True Holy Spirit filled, bible Christians would give another their coat, or blanket and go cold.  They would give their last cup of water, because they knew that death was not the end, but a corridor to Paradise.  That is why Christians in Rome baffled the Romans with their unsual ways of dieing in the colliseum, by actually praying for those that captured and tortured them.  Peter took out the sword, but Peter also hadn't faced Pentacost and received the H.S. yet, and humanistically handled Jesus' arrest, and was strongly rebuked for it.



Quite right, except for the fact that Jesus had ordained Peter and apostle and given him the Holy Ghost. Peter being imperfect, gave in to temptation to fight back. said rebuking was for his rash decision. 



> Joseph Smith took the "Non-Holy Spirit" route in Illinois, as Jesus would have rebuked him with "Those who live by the gun will die by the gun!".



So you are saying that anyone who fights back doesn't have the Holy Spirit? This is ridiculous. There is a time and a place for fighting when your cause is just. The perps of the mmm were not fighting back, they were murderers. Joseph Smith fought back against his murderers. That makes him no less a martyr than the gladiators who fought back against Lions and tigers. 
Jesus fought against those who desecrated the temple. You are saying he didn't have the Spirit either? You are making judgments without context of each situation.



> If Mormons could just face this obvious truth, that J.S. Jr. can't hold a candle to any of Jesus' Apostles, nor the myriads of Saints in the N.T. or the O.T. that "willingly" gave up their lifes, without a "fight".



I didn't know it was a competition. They were all great men who fought for the cause of Christ. They were all defenders of the faith in one way or another. It is not known that all of the apostles didn't resist their deaths. Only your traditional belief has it as so. For it is not written that they didn't resist. 
By the way, gladiators fought for their lives. Even the christian ones.


> That is true martyrdom.


*******Only by your definition



> Now proceed with the usual replies...
> 
> 1. 8-ball your so misinformed!
> 2. 8-ball your a mocker and hater of Mormons
> 3. 8-ball, I've answered all these things in past posts



You are right except you didn't mock us in this last novel of yours.



> One of the members here hit it right on the head when the said that Truth is "condescending".  I couldn't recall that particular word from my vocab, as I'm an older "fart" with a lot of other things going on in my life outside of this little debate.



Condescending is as condescending does. I'm sure the pharisees and sadducees thought Jesus was condescending too because he called them hypocrites and fools. He claimed he was the son of God so they sure did think he was condescending. I'm sure you think I'm condescending because I do not agree with your views. Meh!



> When either Jake, Lemmon, or Ralph said, "Truth your condescending", all kinds of bells and whistles went off in my mind.............."That's it, that's what I've been trying to put my finger on, when dialogueing with Truthlll"........"Condescending"........
> 
> Shall we look it up in Merriam Webster?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Main Entry: con·de·scend
> Pronunciation: \&#716;kän-di-&#712;send\
> Function: intransitive verb
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French condescendre, from Late Latin condescendere, from Latin com- + descendere to descend
> Date: 14th century
> 1 a : to descend to a less formal or dignified level : unbend b : to waive the privileges of rank2 : to assume an air of superiority
Click to expand...


Maybe you are right and maybe you are not. We'll see at the last day. It's easy to be offended if I disagree with you. I'm not going to lie and say that I have called several of you out on retarded statements. So yes, maybe I have condescended to you a little.



> That's it!!! Truth must unbend and stoop down to our imbecilic level from his high perch; yet still carries an aura of superiority.



I don't think YOU are an imbecile, but some of the things you have said, I do consider to be imbecilic. By the way, there is no commandment that says "Thou shalt not condescend!"



> Truth just exudes double "P" Pride...........the very antithesis of humility, contrite of heart, humbleness, that the trully "surrendered to Jesus" Holy Spirit filled, biblical Christian would have as a most apparent personality trait.



Oh thou humble one, please show us how to be humble! I can't help it if you think I'm prideful because I know things that you don't. Don't get your feathers twisted into a bundle You have more important things to do than argue with me.




> To the Christian, he/she can allow God's Word bible/scripture to defend the faith, to the Mormon, he/she must defend it subjectively through experiential phenomena, as the historical stuff ain't where they want to go to defend their faith.




Tis untrue, per the millieu of historical data I have provided. Please share specifics with us!




> The LDS church history is so full of incongrueities, and or holes, that it's best to just ask possible new members to search out a "burning bosom" conformation via prayer.


Not because of the holes, but because that is how the Spirit speaks to us. It is the most sure way to know anything.



> At least they think they are safe ground by asking someont to pray to find out if LDS is the "truth".



Darn skippy, At least we aren't asking you to just take our word for it? Ask God, not us!




> Little do they realize that they violated the main tenents of God's Word.



 You mean where Jesus says, "Ask and you shall receive." Guilty as charged



> You are to "test" the spirits, not ask them what is truth and what is false.


Yeah! Test the spirits and ask God if they are true, not the spirits themselves




> Satan and his demonic host will naturally tell you that Mormonism is the truth.


So will God!
Satan is just out of denials. Even HE confesses the Christ now!



> Joseph S. Jr. is living testament to God's free will to men in living action.


He's not alive anymore so he's not a living testament.



> God gives the road map, man takes his own route.


True



> God says test all things against my Word to mankind, man says, I've got a new, reformed, more accurate method, that a N.Y. con artist passed on to me.



You mean you accuse mormons of reforming god's word by way of a new york con artist. 




> Truth, Romans Chapter One/1 clearly reveals what happens when man goes his own way despite God revealing His nature so succinctly through the scriptures.  A slowly, descending spiral of spiritual bondage with ensue.  Your church has perpetuated this for years, and you are living proof that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  You lean on human, fleshly reasoning, despite all the evidences.



No I don't. We'll see who is in bondage at the last day. But you are right that God is the same yesterday today and forever. That's why he continues to speak with modern day prophets like Joseph Smith.



> You believe that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, yet can't comprehend that Lucifer is the "king" of counterfeit phenomena.  You can't or won't test the belief system at all.



Oh I've tested it thoroughly and proved it to myself. I DO know that Satan can perform miracles as well as the servants of God. I know how to test my religion. 



> Pharoah drove his chariots into the Red Sea.  He was hit so many times with vivid proofs that he was on the wrong route in life, but it took a terrible loss of his first born son, and the loss of a great deal of his army to possibly bring him to his senses.



Fortunately, I'm just self-righteous enough to proclaim I am not Pharoah or of his mindset.



> Paul had to be knocked off his horse on the way to Damascus while persecuting Christians to finally pay attention, and give up his "Pride".



I'm just self-righteous enough to proclaim I am in far better standing with God than Saul(not Paul who changed his name because he was ashamed of what he had done under his previous name) while he was persecuting Christians. His pride was one that led him to fight against Christ. I have not such pride.



> He was knowledgeable, yet the knowledge of the true Christ, trumped everything Paul had ever been proud of before.



You mean Saul. Not the reborn Paul.



> Think "condescending" then think............"Jesus washing the feet of His disciples".?


 Nice comparison. I agree.



> What is the message here?



Why don't you tell me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without looking, I am sure that it is Nephi boasting on his family and slaying an enemy of the family.  The yoke sounds like the Hatfield/McCoy saga.  Nephi and relations were probably somewhere from the Tennessee/Mississippi border.  Some of those family groups are mini-murder incorporated there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't asking you, but nope you are wrong on all accounts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stuff it up your nostril, Truth; I will answer anything here I want.  And, yep, I am pretty accurate.  Bunch cuthroat whackos.
Click to expand...


ouch 
that one really hurt. Anywhoo 

you are wrong. because they weren't all wackos and cutthroats. The perps who did these murders are more likely to be just angry and vengeful to those who have persecuted them in the past. They snapped at their breaking point. There are lots of people who aren't truly evil but can lose their composure and commit truly evil acts while possessed of the spirit of anger and vengeance.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a very narrow view of Mormonism.  Have you ever read the Book of Mormon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove it. Who wrote the book?
> I bet you can't even tell me the very first event that happened in the book of mormon, or the very first people to come to the americas.
Click to expand...


The Book of Mormon was written on golden plates by the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, who came over to the Americas from Jerusalem.

The very first chapter opens with the words of Nephi who is the son of Lehi who states that the plates were written in the language of his forefathers, the Egyptian language.

Need to know anything else? 

So now you've sworn at me and called me a liar, you gonna go to confession or what?


----------



## Douger

Well. It's been 3 days.
Is Ted back yet ?


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prove it. Who wrote the book?
> I bet you can't even tell me the very first event that happened in the book of mormon, or the very first people to come to the americas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon was written on golden plates by the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, who came over to the Americas from Jerusalem.
> 
> The very first chapter opens with the words of Nephi who is the son of Lehi who states that the plates were written in the language of his forefathers, the Egyptian language.
> 
> Need to know anything else?
> 
> So now you've sworn at me and called me a liar, you gonna go to confession or what?
Click to expand...


Sorryguys, I had surgery and couldn't type until today. Thank you for proving me right. If you had read the book of mormon you would be able to answer the question I asked. Who were the first people in the americas?

Please answer directly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Douger said:


> Well. It's been 3 days.
> Is Ted back yet ?



Interesting and funny Doug. A brand new guy on the thread. Not quite sure which ted you are referring to if you are calling me ted. please clarify.


----------



## JW Frogen

Truthspeaker said:


> Who were the first people in the americas?
> 
> Please answer directly.




I am betting on a long shot, because I need the money.

Thor Heyerdahl and the Eygptians.

I really need the money.

Ra!!!!


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> Sorryguys, I had surgery and couldn't type until today. Thank you for proving me right. If you had read the book of mormon you would be able to answer the question I asked. Who were the first people in the americas?
> 
> Please answer directly.



The Jaredites according to the book of M (even though it's been proven that ancestors of native indians came over from asia at least 11,000 years ago or more).

You had surgery on your hand? I guess there will be no whacking off for you for a while.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JW Frogen said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who were the first people in the americas?
> 
> Please answer directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am betting on a long shot, because I need the money.
> 
> Thor Heyerdahl and the Eygptians.
> 
> I really need the money.
> 
> Ra!!!!
Click to expand...


Not according to the book of Mormon.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorryguys, I had surgery and couldn't type until today. Thank you for proving me right. If you had read the book of mormon you would be able to answer the question I asked. Who were the first people in the americas?
> 
> Please answer directly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Jaredites according to the book of M (even though it's been proven that ancestors of native indians came over from asia at least 11,000 years ago or more).
> 
> You had surgery on your hand? I guess there will be no whacking off for you for a while.
Click to expand...


 Actually surgery on my shoulder. I was under the influence of morphine. I can see why people like that stuff.


Pretty good makeup. I see you went and did a google research. It's true the Jaredites were the first ones in Meso America. Funny though you don't realize they were from Asia. Yep. Been there and done that.


----------



## John Lemmon

Why didn't you just let god heal you? He doesn't do minor mormons like you?

The jaredites apparently came from jerusalem (which isn't in asia), and which hadn't been founded 11,000 years ago. So your jarheads couldn't have been the first ones here. 

Morphine is good, chasing the dragon is better.


----------



## Avatar4321

John Lemmon said:


> Why didn't you just let god heal you? He doesn't do minor mormons like you?
> 
> The jaredites apparently came from jerusalem (which isn't in asia), and which hadn't been founded 11,000 years ago. So your jarheads couldn't have been the first ones here.
> 
> Morphine is good, chasing the dragon is better.



First, check a map sometime. Jerusalem is in Asia.

Second, They didnt come from Jerusalem. Youd know that if you read the book.

Third, the Book of Mormon doesnt say they are the first ones to be in the Americas. They are just the first people we have record for.

Can you honestly expect us to just blindly follow your conclusions when you clearly demonstrate you dont have a clue what you are talking about?


----------



## John Lemmon

Ok, jerusalem in asia.

But they couldn't have been the first recorded people because archeologists have found evidence like the Clovis arrow head that is dated to 7,000 to 9,000 years old and beyond. 
And since your planet is only 6,000 years old.
Not only that but the last ice age finished about 11,000 years ago, which is the only way anyone could have walked to North America via Asia...
What else you want me to debunk?


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Ok, jerusalem in asia.
> 
> But they couldn't have been the first recorded people because archeologists have found evidence like the Clovis arrow head that is dated to 7,000 to 9,000 years old and beyond.
> And since your planet is only 6,000 years old.
> Not only that but the last ice age finished about 11,000 years ago, which is the only way anyone could have walked to North America via Asia...
> What else you want me to debunk?



Lemmon, my poor dear Lemmon, 
We aren't like your typical bible belters who think the earth was made 6000 years ago. We have never subscribed to that theory. By the way, if you want to go the carbon dating route, how about all the carbon dated ruins in Meso america that date to Nephite and Lamanite times? 

By the way, it is no longer agreed upon in the world of science that the only way people got to the americas is by walking here. It has been shown that ancient people had the ability for transoceanic voyages from continent to continent, long before the columbus or even the vikings.

What else can you try to debunk?


----------



## John Lemmon

tru, too bad that archeology debunks your Nephites and Lamanites connection. They existed around what, 700BC? So the Americas already had tons of people by then anyways.

*By the way, it is no longer agreed upon in the world of science that the only way people got to the americas is by walking here. It has been shown that ancient people had the ability for transoceanic voyages from continent to continent, long before the columbus or even the vikings.
*

Not 11,000 years ago they didn't. No evidence of that. And there doesn't seem to be much if any evidence that anyone sailed here like you say.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> tru, too bad that archeology debunks your Nephites and Lamanites connection. They existed around what, 700BC? So the Americas already had tons of people by then anyways.
> 
> *By the way, it is no longer agreed upon in the world of science that the only way people got to the americas is by walking here. It has been shown that ancient people had the ability for transoceanic voyages from continent to continent, long before the columbus or even the vikings.
> *
> 
> Not 11,000 years ago they didn't. No evidence of that. And there doesn't seem to be much if any evidence that anyone sailed here like you say.



Oh my poor dear Lemmon,

You might read national geographic sometime. It was the march 2008 issue where they announced that there was no explanation for the Mayan(Nephite) origin in Meso america which is shown to have originated around 500 BC, right when the Nephites and lamanites began to be populous. They don't know how they got there. Michael D. Coe, the worlds number 1 mesoamerican archaeologist(non-mormon) has stated that it was proven that people traveled long distances by boat to the Australian continent as much as 11,000 years ago, proving that long distance maritime travel technology has been around. His exact quote states, "It is time to abandon the Bering Strait-only-theory. Transoceanic voyages must be considered for some who have reached the americas. Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia."

That's not a paid statement. All it does is prove that the claims of the book of mormon are at least possible and plausible. You haven't read much of my in detail explanations of ancient origin of americans either. The Book of Mormon does not say that they were the only ones ever to come here. It says they were the first to inhabit the places they landed. Most of the Book of Mormon takes place in a much smaller geographical area than previously thought. It is mostly a Meso american story. The artifacts, the buildings, the horsebones, the heiroglyphics. Everything happens in meso-america and bears remarkably strong relationships to the claims of the book of mormon. This is anything from a cut and dry case. 

Plus with only 2% of archaeological sites having been excavated, there are many more nuggets that will soon come to light. We must not be so hasty in jumping to conclusions because science is always changing and scientists are always eating their words when they speak too soon. They have already done a ton of backpedalling when it comes to the book of mormon. You need to study more.


----------



## John Lemmon

*Transoceanic voyages must be considered for some who have reached the americas. Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia.*

He saying a huge maybe, not that it's been proven. He's speculating that it might have been possible. Hardly a smoking gun. Hardly what I'd call evidence.
Give it up, the book of mormons is total crap, how can a seemingly intelligent person like yourself believe in such nonsense. Avatar I can understand, he's a total fool, and the only way he's gonna get laid is if someone gives him a girl.
Now go loosen your "special" underwear, it's squeezing your brains a little too tightly.


----------



## John Lemmon

*Transoceanic voyages must be considered for some who have reached the americas. Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia.*

He saying a huge maybe, not that it's been proven. He's speculating that it might have been possible. Hardly a smoking gun. Hardly what I'd call evidence.
Give it up, the book of mormons is total crap, how can a seemingly intelligent person like yourself believe in such nonsense. Avatar I can understand, he's a total fool, and the only way he's gonna get laid is if someone gives him a girl.
Now go loosen your "special" underwear, it's squeezing your brains a little too tightly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> *Transoceanic voyages must be considered for some who have reached the americas. Boats must have been available to the people of Eurasia.*
> 
> He saying a huge maybe, not that it's been proven. He's speculating that it might have been possible. Hardly a smoking gun. Hardly what I'd call evidence.
> Give it up, the book of mormons is total crap, how can a seemingly intelligent person like yourself believe in such nonsense. Avatar I can understand, he's a total fool, and the only way he's gonna get laid is if someone gives him a girl.
> Now go loosen your "special" underwear, it's squeezing your brains a little too tightly.



I don't wear underwear on my brain. 

Like I've said all along. I'm only trying to show it's possible. Not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's never going to work if I try to show proof of my belief system. There is enough evidence to form an opinion for or against my religion. Everybody has to study the facts and evidences, then decide for themselves. 

I have made my conclusions. You apparently have made yours. So it's not about me winning or losing. Some of you guys think I am trying to prove my point somehow. I couldn't do it if I tried. The only reason I am on this thread is to clarify misconceptions about our church. You can count on me to give you what "Mormons" really believe. 

And yes, I know you think we're crazy, but wait a second..... You said I seem intelligent..... Now that's interesting...Thank you by the way. 
Then you asked me how I could believe in such nonsense. Well do you REALLY want to know how I( a seemingly intelligent person) could be drawn in by such nonsense? I'll tell you how; I did a lot..... and I mean A LOT of research. I spent years and years researching. Reading from all angles. For and against this religion. After I had studied it out in my mind, there were still unanswered questions, but the overall body of work presented by "the mormons" was an honorable way of life. 

But I still wasn't satisfied until I got all the answers I wanted. I believed the answers were out there if I kept digging. I got a lot of answers from secular sources but the final confirmation came in the quiet solitude of my prayers. I found a connection to God that is hard to describe to someone who hasn't had it. Perhaps it sounds crazy but I don't care. I can't deny the feelings I felt and the knowledge that began to flow into my mind like a river. 
You'll never know until you really want to know. Then you won't get the answers from me. It will be through the same private meditation between you and the God you don't believe in yet.


----------



## John Lemmon

Guys brains are the 2 little footballs hanging between our legs in a nut sack. Like I'm sure that a lot of mormons were attracted by the underage girls and the polygamy and being the ruler of all that, no matter how much you beat them or how young they are. 
You sound like you really had to force yourself to believe all that shit, which intellectually, makes absolutely no sense at all, sorry. kolob, the plates, the underwear, Jo "the doofus cowboy" Smith (they could get Will Farrell to do a bio-pic)... like you say, all that shit is plausible in your mind, you're not even very convinced.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Guys brains are the 2 little footballs hanging between our legs in a nut sack. Like I'm sure that a lot of mormons were attracted by the underage girls and the polygamy and being the ruler of all that, no matter how much you beat them or how young they are.
> You sound like you really had to force yourself to believe all that shit, which intellectually, makes absolutely no sense at all, sorry. kolob, the plates, the underwear, Jo "the doofus cowboy" Smith (they could get Will Farrell to do a bio-pic)... like you say, all that shit is plausible in your mind, you're not even very convinced.



Oh really? I'm not convinced? I'd say I'm only 132 pages since October of last year convinced. 

Your brains may be footballs in your eloquently stated "nutsack" but my brains are in my head. Perhaps that's why it's so hard for you to imagine my point of view

Mormons are as attracted to underage girls as you are. Attraction has nothing to do with religion. I've already been down the underage girls rebuttal road. We don't need to go there again do we?

I don't know why I would force myself to believe in such sensational things? Who would force themselves to believe in something that doesn't make sense? Nobody. Obviously it makes sense enough to me to warrant further investigation. I really wanted to know if it was all true, so I did my research and now I am satisfied. Why do you think that would be me forcing myself to believe?

Kolob, the plates and the temple rites are things that came along after I found out the basics. They don't make sense until you prove the basics. As for the cowboy thing, I still don't get where people call Joseph Smith a cowboy

He was a farm boy. True, but he never resembled anything like an "old west cowboy". Whatever, it's irrelevant anyway. He was a pretty smart guy for being unschooled. That's what was impressive.
and by the way, Will Farrell looks nothing like Joseph Smith.


----------



## John Lemmon

I'd say that you don't seem all that convinced, 132 pages of trying to rationalize absurd myths says it all.
Like, how do you explain to yourself to story about kolob and the alien(s) who rule our world? Intelligent people (avatar doesn't count) couldn't go along with that, it makes no sense.  

*Your brains may be footballs in your eloquently stated "nutsack" but my brains are in my head.*
So you married your wife not because she's beautiful but because she's smart? (And don't say she's both, the chances of a woman being both are infinitessimal!)


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I'd say that you don't seem all that convinced, 132 pages of trying to rationalize absurd myths says it all.



Maybe I don't sound convinced to you, but I can't please everybody. I'm convinced even if you think I'm not.



> Like, how do you explain to yourself to story about kolob and the alien(s) who rule our world?



You have to read the book of Mormon and Doctrine and covenants to fully understand. Then you would have to attend a temple session. Until you do all of those things, it will sound crazy to you. but hey, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.



> Intelligent people (avatar doesn't count) couldn't go along with that, it makes no sense.


  You might find avatar smarter than you think by the time this is all said and done. Are you sure you are the most knowledgeable one on this thread?



> So you married your wife not because she's beautiful but because she's smart? (And don't say she's both, the chances of a woman being both are infinitessimal!)



I'm sad to hear that you have never met a woman with a combination of beauty and brains. Perhaps it's because they have avoided you on purpose

I'm sorry that was mean. But it's even meaner to assume that all beautiful women are stupid. Talk about being judgmental! How can anyone take you seriously when you make a statement like that?


----------



## John Lemmon

Don't worry, I got me one of the extremely few with the combo of brains and beauty.

Avatar is book quoting moron. The guy can't think for himself, he needs to be in a cult, so they can tell him what to think. Kinda like you. If that's what you think is intelligent, then your wife must be as dumb as a tar and feathered retard cowboy. Not wait, isn't that a compliment to you guys?

Ok, so give me an intelligent response to why I should believe the kolob krap? What was the nugget of info that you went: Hey! Now that makes sense!


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Don't worry, I got me one of the extremely few with the combo of brains and beauty.
> 
> Avatar is book quoting moron. The guy can't think for himself, he needs to be in a cult, so they can tell him what to think. Kinda like you. If that's what you think is intelligent, then your wife must be as dumb as a tar and feathered retard cowboy. Not wait, isn't that a compliment to you guys?
> 
> Ok, so give me an intelligent response to why I should believe the kolob krap? What was the nugget of info that you went: Hey! Now that makes sense!



My wife is bright! My wife is beautiful. If you are saying you got one of the mythological nymphs that is the woman with beauty and brains, how could you say just a few posts ago that they didn't exist?

It wasn't one nugget that made me subscribe to my religion. It was a plethora of little puzzle pieces that fit together into one nice whole. 

When you are putting a puzzle together, there are some pieces you look at and say "That piece will never fit into this picture. Why is it here?"

But as you keep putting all the pieces in place, the picture becomes clearer and you say to yourself, "huh, I guess I didn't see how that piece would fit, but now I do."

It's kinda like going back to 1900 and telling people in the general society, "Hey everyone! Man will one day walk on the moon!" You might get yourself lynched as a heretic because the general populous thinks that walking on the moon is a batty idea. You must have been possessed of the devil.

There are lots of things always coming to light that make the past seem obsolete. You shouldn't be so quick to judge.


----------



## John Lemmon

I said "infinitessimal". 
Sorry but your wife can't be THAT bright, she married a mormon, 
C'mon man, how does the kolob stuff even make any sense to you? You don't know? Or you don't believe that part? Gimme a this + this + this... = kolob is for real!


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> I said "infinitessimal".
> Sorry but your wife can't be THAT bright, she married a mormon,
> C'mon man, how does the kolob stuff even make any sense to you? You don't know? Or you don't believe that part? Gimme a this + this + this... = kolob is for real!



You're pretty rude to insult my wife. Hey man, I'm fair game but please, keep your comments about other people's wives to yourself. I haven't insulted your wife.

Here's the long and the short of why I believe. 

The Book of Mormon is true= Joseph Smith is a prophet= Jesus Christ is real= The Bible is true= Jesus says in the Bible to pray and ask God to give you answers= The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is true= said church is led by Jesus today via living prophets who speak his words= the temple ordinances are true= the prophet's teachings are true= I should subscribe to said church.

It all starts with wanting to really know if the book of mormon is really true. If you can prove the book of mormon false, you can prove the church false. 

So far, the book has remained rock solid through the hurricaine of attacks against the church. Many so called proofs of it's fabrication have long since gone by the wayside. You really ought to read it sometime and tell me what problems you have with it. Then we can get beyond your adolescent level of discussion.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "infinitessimal".
> Sorry but your wife can't be THAT bright, she married a mormon,
> C'mon man, how does the kolob stuff even make any sense to you? You don't know? Or you don't believe that part? Gimme a this + this + this... = kolob is for real!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty rude to insult my wife. Hey man, I'm fair game but please, keep your comments about other people's wives to yourself. I haven't insulted your wife.
> 
> Here's the long and the short of why I believe.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is true= Joseph Smith is a prophet= Jesus Christ is real= The Bible is true= Jesus says in the Bible to pray and ask God to give you answers= The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is true= said church is led by Jesus today via living prophets who speak his words= the temple ordinances are true= the prophet's teachings are true= I should subscribe to said church.
> 
> It all starts with wanting to really know if the book of mormon is really true. If you can prove the book of mormon false, you can prove the church false.
> 
> So far, the book has remained rock solid through the hurricaine of attacks against the church. Many so called proofs of it's fabrication have long since gone by the wayside. You really ought to read it sometime and tell me what problems you have with it. Then we can get beyond your adolescent level of discussion.
Click to expand...


I don't have a wife, I don't believe in that, but my gf and I have 2 kids. Marriage is for the religiously impaired.

I wanted to know more the why of why you believe the kolob stuff is true, because believing in something like that is a mystery, except for retards who will believe anything (avatar). But for seemingly intelligent people I don't get it. Maybe mormons are ALL douchebags? I don't know, you tell me.


----------



## HUGGY

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "infinitessimal".
> Sorry but your wife can't be THAT bright, she married a mormon,
> C'mon man, how does the kolob stuff even make any sense to you? You don't know? Or you don't believe that part? Gimme a this + this + this... = kolob is for real!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty rude to insult my wife. Hey man, I'm fair game but please, keep your comments about other people's wives to yourself. I haven't insulted your wife.
> 
> Here's the long and the short of why I believe.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is true= Joseph Smith is a prophet= Jesus Christ is real= The Bible is true= Jesus says in the Bible to pray and ask God to give you answers= The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is true= said church is led by Jesus today via living prophets who speak his words= the temple ordinances are true= the prophet's teachings are true= I should subscribe to said church.
> 
> It all starts with wanting to really know if the book of mormon is really true. If you can prove the book of mormon false, you can prove the church false.
> 
> So far, the book has remained rock solid through the hurricaine of attacks against the church. Many so called proofs of it's fabrication have long since gone by the wayside. You really ought to read it sometime and tell me what problems you have with it. Then we can get beyond your adolescent level of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a wife, I don't believe in that, but my gf and I have 2 kids. Marriage is for the religiously impaired.
> 
> I wanted to know more the why of why you believe the kolob stuff is true, because believing in something like that is a mystery, except for retards who will believe anything (avatar). But for seemingly intelligent people I don't get it. Maybe mormons are ALL douchebags? I don't know, you tell me.
Click to expand...


Mormans are mostly just people born into it.  I maintain the hierarchy is cult like.  I have met and know many that have left the Mormans because they had just had it with the wierdness.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

HUGGY said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty rude to insult my wife. Hey man, I'm fair game but please, keep your comments about other people's wives to yourself. I haven't insulted your wife.
> 
> Here's the long and the short of why I believe.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is true= Joseph Smith is a prophet= Jesus Christ is real= The Bible is true= Jesus says in the Bible to pray and ask God to give you answers= The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is true= said church is led by Jesus today via living prophets who speak his words= the temple ordinances are true= the prophet's teachings are true= I should subscribe to said church.
> 
> It all starts with wanting to really know if the book of mormon is really true. If you can prove the book of mormon false, you can prove the church false.
> 
> So far, the book has remained rock solid through the hurricaine of attacks against the church. Many so called proofs of it's fabrication have long since gone by the wayside. You really ought to read it sometime and tell me what problems you have with it. Then we can get beyond your adolescent level of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a wife, I don't believe in that, but my gf and I have 2 kids. Marriage is for the religiously impaired.
> 
> I wanted to know more the why of why you believe the kolob stuff is true, because believing in something like that is a mystery, except for retards who will believe anything (avatar). But for seemingly intelligent people I don't get it. Maybe mormons are ALL douchebags? I don't know, you tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mormans are mostly just people born into it.  I maintain the hierachy is cult like.  I have met and know many that have left the Mormans because they had just had it with the wierdness.
Click to expand...


You may want to do just a little research The church is growing and in leaps and bounds through missionaries converting people. I know that at one point we were the fastest growing religion according to the US Government.

I joined in 79.


----------



## HUGGY

RetiredGySgt said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a wife, I don't believe in that, but my gf and I have 2 kids. Marriage is for the religiously impaired.
> 
> I wanted to know more the why of why you believe the kolob stuff is true, because believing in something like that is a mystery, except for retards who will believe anything (avatar). But for seemingly intelligent people I don't get it. Maybe mormons are ALL douchebags? I don't know, you tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormans are mostly just people born into it.  I maintain the hierachy is cult like.  I have met and know many that have left the Mormans because they had just had it with the wierdness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may want to do just a little research The church is growing and in leaps and bounds through missionaries converting people. I know that at one point we were the fastest growing religion according to the US Government.
> 
> I joined in 79.
Click to expand...


That explains a lot.

I predict that at some point in your life you will come to a realization that you religion does more harm than good.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said "infinitessimal".
> Sorry but your wife can't be THAT bright, she married a mormon,
> C'mon man, how does the kolob stuff even make any sense to you? You don't know? Or you don't believe that part? Gimme a this + this + this... = kolob is for real!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty rude to insult my wife. Hey man, I'm fair game but please, keep your comments about other people's wives to yourself. I haven't insulted your wife.
> 
> Here's the long and the short of why I believe.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is true= Joseph Smith is a prophet= Jesus Christ is real= The Bible is true= Jesus says in the Bible to pray and ask God to give you answers= The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is true= said church is led by Jesus today via living prophets who speak his words= the temple ordinances are true= the prophet's teachings are true= I should subscribe to said church.
> 
> It all starts with wanting to really know if the book of mormon is really true. If you can prove the book of mormon false, you can prove the church false.
> 
> So far, the book has remained rock solid through the hurricaine of attacks against the church. Many so called proofs of it's fabrication have long since gone by the wayside. You really ought to read it sometime and tell me what problems you have with it. Then we can get beyond your adolescent level of discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have a wife, I don't believe in that, but my gf and I have 2 kids. Marriage is for the religiously impaired.
> 
> I wanted to know more the why of why you believe the kolob stuff is true, because believing in something like that is a mystery, except for retards who will believe anything (avatar). But for seemingly intelligent people I don't get it. Maybe mormons are ALL douchebags? I don't know, you tell me.
Click to expand...


Did you know that all of our leaders in the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are, doctors, lawyers, surgeons, pilots, dentists, scientists and teachers? All of them.

They aren't the dumbest group of guys you've ever heard of either. For them to volunteer their time and not take a single cent for their ministry is another evidence of the church's authenticity. 

No we aren't douchebags. Like I said. You would have to actually read the Book of Mormon to start criticizing us. At least to know what you are talking about right? Let me know when you have done some reading. I'll be waiting for your reply.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty rude to insult my wife. Hey man, I'm fair game but please, keep your comments about other people's wives to yourself. I haven't insulted your wife.
> 
> Here's the long and the short of why I believe.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is true= Joseph Smith is a prophet= Jesus Christ is real= The Bible is true= Jesus says in the Bible to pray and ask God to give you answers= The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is true= said church is led by Jesus today via living prophets who speak his words= the temple ordinances are true= the prophet's teachings are true= I should subscribe to said church.
> 
> It all starts with wanting to really know if the book of mormon is really true. If you can prove the book of mormon false, you can prove the church false.
> 
> So far, the book has remained rock solid through the hurricaine of attacks against the church. Many so called proofs of it's fabrication have long since gone by the wayside. You really ought to read it sometime and tell me what problems you have with it. Then we can get beyond your adolescent level of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a wife, I don't believe in that, but my gf and I have 2 kids. Marriage is for the religiously impaired.
> 
> I wanted to know more the why of why you believe the kolob stuff is true, because believing in something like that is a mystery, except for retards who will believe anything (avatar). But for seemingly intelligent people I don't get it. Maybe mormons are ALL douchebags? I don't know, you tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mormans are mostly just people born into it.  I maintain the hierarchy is cult like.  I have met and know many that have left the Mormans because they had just had it with the wierdness.
Click to expand...


At least 1/3 of all our members are converts during adulthood. people leave for some of the same reasons people stay. It all depends on the individual.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormans are mostly just people born into it.  I maintain the hierachy is cult like.  I have met and know many that have left the Mormans because they had just had it with the wierdness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to do just a little research The church is growing and in leaps and bounds through missionaries converting people. I know that at one point we were the fastest growing religion according to the US Government.
> 
> I joined in 79.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains a lot.
> 
> I predict that at some point in your life you will come to a realization that you religion does more harm than good.
Click to expand...


What is the great harm that we do?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> That explains a lot.
> 
> I predict that at some point in your life you will come to a realization that you religion does more harm than good.



Okay lets look at what the Church teaches people to do:

To be honest.
To get married, stay married, and raise your children
To remain chaste and faithful
To do service for others
To work hard and prepare for the future
To educate yourself.
To stay out of debt unless necessary.
To serve country and community
To actively do good
To be Sober

What is so harmful about that?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Mormans are mostly just people born into it.  I maintain the hierarchy is cult like.  I have met and know many that have left the Mormans because they had just had it with the wierdness.



Wierdness. huh? im going to go out on a limb and say you've never actually attended services. They really arent that weird.


----------



## joeyc

Like I said before, I'm fine with the Mormons. They're good, decent, cheerful people. People who pick fights with Mormons because of their religion are the weird ones. At the end of the day, people who are good neighbors, take care of their families, don't break the law, and pay their taxes are who we need more of. I don't care what their motivation is, and neither should anybody else. What I care about are the results.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Truthspeaker said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would that be "yes" if you didn't change my quote too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I replied and say yes. Did you you miss it?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, but you changed my quote to all lowercase which makes a big difference in how it is answered.

Maybe I can refrase it to better clarify. Do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he has always been God?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

THE LIGHT said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replied and say yes. Did you you miss it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but you changed my quote to all lowercase which makes a big difference in how it is answered.
> 
> Maybe I can refrase it to better clarify. Do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he has always been God?
Click to expand...


I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.


----------



## KittenKoder

HUGGY said:


> *Mormans are mostly just people born into it.*  I maintain the hierarchy is cult like.  I have met and know many that have left the Mormans because they had just had it with the wierdness.



This is wrong. It's not "mostly people born into it". I know a lot of converts both to and from the religion, also all organized religions are really cults, that's pretty much what the definition of the word is, but then so are political parties, schools, etc.. I left simply because I didn't believe in it, and my current religion is far stranger than they ever were, I worship gods that have animal heads for fuck's sake, and my best friend worships gods that are named after elements. Seriously, is any religion not "weird"? Even atheism is weird, thinking that there is no life better than us? Well, that's more depressing than weird, but meh. No, the Mormons aren't bad, just some of their fanatics can take it too far, and many have different interpretations of their own works, but they aren't as different as people paint them to be.


----------



## necritan

Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???


----------



## necritan

RetiredGySgt said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I replied and say yes. Did you you miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you changed my quote to all lowercase which makes a big difference in how it is answered.
> 
> Maybe I can refrase it to better clarify. Do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he has always been God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.
Click to expand...


.....The word was God....and the word was with God.....

It was both.


----------



## Avatar4321

necritan said:


> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???



Dying would be easy. It's living for it that's tough.

There is nothing to be ashamed of in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Simply because some people refuse to learn what it actually teaches doesnt mean the Gospel is flawed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

necritan said:


> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???



Depends. I will never deny my belief in God. I might deny my membership in a specific church if it gives me a chance to fight back against an oppressor. So little chance I would deny my church either.

By the way dumb ass OUR God is everyone's God. He is the same God that Christians believe in, Jews and Muslims. He is the one true God. And no amount of wishing it were not true or denying it changes that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

necritan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you changed my quote to all lowercase which makes a big difference in how it is answered.
> 
> Maybe I can refrase it to better clarify. Do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he has always been God?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
Click to expand...


Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.


----------



## necritan

Avatar4321 said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dying would be easy. It's living for it that's tough.
> 
> There is nothing to be ashamed of in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Simply because some people refuse to learn what it actually teaches doesnt mean the Gospel is flawed.
Click to expand...



I am just trying to gain a bearing on the stance of the LDS believers.

I am quite versed in the Bible.....and I am not ashamed of it either. I would die for my beliefs as well...(after Iv'e slung my own bullets of course)....but I would never deny my God.


----------



## necritan

RetiredGySgt said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. I will never deny my belief in God. I might deny my membership in a specific church if it gives me a chance to fight back against an oppressor. So little chance I would deny my church either.
> 
> By the way dumb ass OUR God is everyone's God. He is the same God that Christians believe in, Jews and Muslims. He is the one true God. And no amount of wishing it were not true or denying it changes that.
Click to expand...


I dont believe in your god.....so he doesnt exist. And why the name calling..?? My God was the word also. In your bible....the word was a god. Those would be different gods huh.


*Edit : I momentarily misstook the Mormon guys for the Jehovah guys in this post.....my apologies...*


----------



## necritan

RetiredGySgt said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
Click to expand...


Lets see some scripture please.....from a real bible.


----------



## necritan

Oops.....I think maybe I got you guys mixed up with the "Jehovah" guys.....sorry.


Thats right....you guys are the "Satan and Jesus are brothers Guy's"......same difference.


Either way...it says that Christ is a created thing....which strips him of diety...and nullifies our salvation.


----------



## necritan

RetiredGySgt said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
Click to expand...


"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him."

*Right here in John 1 verse 10....it sounds like the "word" made the world....but he wasnt God though....right???*


----------



## necritan

RetiredGySgt said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
Click to expand...


John 14:10

"Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."


Nope.....no proof here either.


----------



## JW Frogen

The truth about Mormans is that Moroni was phoney, though I do not know if that angel was boney.


----------



## necritan

JW Frogen said:


> The truth about Mormans is that Moroni was phoney, though I do not know if that angel was boney.



See Mormons......se what yer missin.......alchohol is friggin awesome.


----------



## Truthspeaker

THE LIGHT said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I replied and say yes. Did you you miss it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but you changed my quote to all lowercase which makes a big difference in how it is answered.
> 
> Maybe I can refrase it to better clarify. Do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he has always been God?
Click to expand...


Yes


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I replied and say yes. Did you you miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but you changed my quote to all lowercase which makes a big difference in how it is answered.
> 
> Maybe I can refrase it to better clarify. Do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh and that he has always been God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.
Click to expand...


GY has been out of the loop so to speak for a while. I've never stopped being active. GY may not believe. But our doctrine clearly states that Jesus is Jehovah, The God of Abraham, and Moses etc. 

The tricky part is that we believe Jehovah has a father too. Jehovah under the direction of his Father created the worlds.

I mean no disrespect to GY but that is the official stance.


----------



## Truthspeaker

necritan said:


> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???



We've got a pretty good history that shows a lot of us hung tough during the major oppressions of the 1830's and 40's. There were some who couldn't hang and just like all groups of people, you see who really believes in the end.

I have only been persecuted verbally in my life for my beliefs. But I'd like to think I'd hang tough no matter what.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. I will never deny my belief in God. I might deny my membership in a specific church if it gives me a chance to fight back against an oppressor. So little chance I would deny my church either.
> 
> By the way dumb ass OUR God is everyone's God. He is the same God that Christians believe in, Jews and Muslims. He is the one true God. And no amount of wishing it were not true or denying it changes that.
Click to expand...

You should be nicer. I don't think Necritan was trying to insult us by asking that question.IMO


----------



## JW Frogen

necritan said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth about Mormans is that Moroni was phoney, though I do not know if that angel was boney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See Mormons......se what yer missin.......alchohol is friggin awesome.
Click to expand...


Your avatar an't so bad too, or either, or what ever this diobolical language demands from me!


----------



## Truthspeaker

necritan said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dying would be easy. It's living for it that's tough.
> 
> There is nothing to be ashamed of in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Simply because some people refuse to learn what it actually teaches doesnt mean the Gospel is flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am just trying to gain a bearing on the stance of the LDS believers.
> 
> I am quite versed in the Bible.....and I am not ashamed of it either. I would die for my beliefs as well...(after Iv'e slung my own bullets of course)....but I would never deny my God.
Click to expand...


Good for you! I believe the same.


----------



## Truthspeaker

necritan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. I will never deny my belief in God. I might deny my membership in a specific church if it gives me a chance to fight back against an oppressor. So little chance I would deny my church either.
> 
> By the way dumb ass OUR God is everyone's God. He is the same God that Christians believe in, Jews and Muslims. He is the one true God. And no amount of wishing it were not true or denying it changes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont believe in your god.....so he doesnt exist. And why the name calling..?? My God was the word also. In your bible....the word was a god. Those would be different gods huh.
> 
> 
> *Edit : I momentarily misstook the Mormon guys for the Jehovah guys in this post.....my apologies...*
Click to expand...


It happens all the time. but I'm not sure why. We are soooooo different.


----------



## necritan

Truthspeaker said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Mormons willing to die for your beliefs....??? If actually persecuted....would you run and hide...or cry...or deny your god...and your church???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. I will never deny my belief in God. I might deny my membership in a specific church if it gives me a chance to fight back against an oppressor. So little chance I would deny my church either.
> 
> By the way dumb ass OUR God is everyone's God. He is the same God that Christians believe in, Jews and Muslims. He is the one true God. And no amount of wishing it were not true or denying it changes that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be nicer. I don't think Necritan was trying to insult us by asking that question.IMO
Click to expand...




I wasnt...when I do insult though....it comes through loud and clear.


----------



## Truthspeaker

necritan said:


> Oops.....I think maybe I got you guys mixed up with the "Jehovah" guys.....sorry.
> 
> 
> Thats right....you guys are the "Satan and Jesus are brothers Guy's"......same difference.
> 
> 
> Either way...it says that Christ is a created thing....which strips him of diety...and nullifies our salvation.



Negative... Our doctrine states that Jesus is The Great I Am. ALL SALVATION IS THROUGH CHRIST JESUS ONLY.


----------



## Truthspeaker

necritan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 14:10
> 
> "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.....no proof here either.
Click to expand...


You and I are going to get along well.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JW Frogen said:


> The truth about Mormans is that Moroni was phoney, though I do not know if that angel was boney.



How punny of you. Any substance?


----------



## Truthspeaker

necritan said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth about Mormans is that Moroni was phoney, though I do not know if that angel was boney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See Mormons......se what yer missin.......alchohol is friggin awesome.
Click to expand...


So I've heard.  Maybe we could have a pint sometime. Ale for you and ginger ale for me and talk gospel.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

necritan said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 14:10
> 
> "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."
> 
> 
> Nope.....no proof here either.
Click to expand...


The Father is Living in all of us DUMB ASS.


----------



## John Lemmon

*The Father is Living in all of us DUMB ASS.*

I'd like to see you prove it! I'm always amazed that brainwashed people afflicted with religion are so completely convinced of their delusions about invisible beings. 
Yo sarge, by The Father, do you mean the alien from kolob who magically became our god? Gee, I wonder who the dumb ass really is.


----------



## Eightball

RetiredGySgt said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 14:10
> 
> "Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."
> 
> 
> Nope.....no proof here either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Father is Living in all of us DUMB ASS.
Click to expand...


So those that Jesus referred to as "children of the devil" also had the "LDS Father-God" living in them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sarge, I love you but you're not helping us out here much. 

We believe the Father of Jesus Christ only lives in our minds as we think of him. We subconsciously behave according to our beliefs because of the love we have for him which lives in us. If you really love God, you love his children too, our brothers and sisters. 

Calling people a dumb ass isn't the best way to show that love. You are better than that.


----------



## John Lemmon

tru, i tried reading the book of mormons, but it started out talking about some nephi dude and it made NO sense whatsoever. What chapters should I read that talk about the actual religion and how it's different/better than say, catholicism?


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> Sarge, I love you but you're not helping us out here much.
> 
> We believe the Father of Jesus Christ only lives in our minds as we think of him. We subconsciously behave according to our beliefs because of the love we have for him which lives in us. If you really love God, you love his children too, our brothers and sisters.
> 
> Calling people a dumb ass isn't the best way to show that love. You are better than that.



 *Sarge, I love you *

I thought the mormans hated the homos!


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> tru, i tried reading the book of mormons, but it started out talking about some nephi dude and it made NO sense whatsoever. What chapters should I read that talk about the actual religion and how it's different/better than say, catholicism?



You gotta keep reading through it. I'm impressed you read the first chapter. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense in chapter 1 of the book. It's in plain enough english. I'd be happy to clarify whatever is confusing you.

The book is a record of different christian peoples who left the old world for the new world at different times and locations. The one you are reading about is the beginning of the nephite civilization which fled Jerusalem before the Babylonian takeover in 580 BC. These people had never heard of catholicism before or any modern church so you aren't going to find the book's people picking on today's churches by name. You will discover what the ancient christians believed about Jesus and will find that it is strikingly different from many churches today. You can draw your own conclusions at that point. But it is much like the Bible, except that I will say it is easier to read for most people than the Bible.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarge, I love you but you're not helping us out here much.
> 
> We believe the Father of Jesus Christ only lives in our minds as we think of him. We subconsciously behave according to our beliefs because of the love we have for him which lives in us. If you really love God, you love his children too, our brothers and sisters.
> 
> Calling people a dumb ass isn't the best way to show that love. You are better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sarge, I love you *
> 
> I thought the mormans hated the homos!
Click to expand...


Nice childish response. Sarge is straight and we don't hate gay people.


----------



## John Lemmon

Christians of any kind can't hate homos, they worship jesus don't they?


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Christians of any kind can't hate homos, they worship jesus don't they?



That's right. Jesus said to love everyone.


----------



## pare

This thread is amazing. I am new here. I am a LDS. I want to do my duty, too. 



John Lemmon said:


> tru, i tried reading the book of mormons, but it started out talking about some nephi dude and it made NO sense whatsoever. What chapters should I read that talk about the actual religion and how it's different/better than say, catholicism?



John, all those books (the Bible, the BofM, the D&C, the PofGP) and what other people say are very much just other people's testimonies. The testimonies of other people won't matter much to you at all until you study them with a positive/sincere mindset that aims for a conclusion that will determine the manner and conduct of your own existence in an eternal perspective. 

I recognize that you want a top-down approach (top of the pyramid and then down to the foundations) to the study. You are asking for the synthesized (summarized) doctrine of our religion first. I think some people are given that privilege. But most of us learned "line upon line, precept upon precept." I guess you can build a pyramid from the top and then down to the foundations - but really risky.

Most of the members of the CJCLDS had to start with the bits and pieces - studying and trying them out and then thereby obtain the personal testimonies of the truth, and eventually the testimonies build up towards the synthesis that you seem to want right away. 

Again, the top-down approach is risky. But I am hoping that you intend to sincerely analyze it by studying and testing for yourself the bits and pieces of the doctrine. 

The plan of God is to make man as good as He God is and to make man as happy and joyful as He God is. This is why the Lord Jesus asks us to follow his example and enjoins us: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Other scripture passages also record: "Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 20:7). This summary of the doctrine (the immortality and eternal life of man as the encompassing work of God) is clearly taught in the CJCLDS. 

The study and fulfillment of the bits and pieces of the doctrine is what we tirelessly pursue in the Church. We as a Church work together to perform the priesthood ordinances wherein the worthy are entered into covenants with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Our aim is of course 'to fulfill the covenants entered into in the ordinances until our calling and election is made sure' - the idea of 'enduring to the end'. Simply put, we want to be among those "unto whom the word of God came" - the 'word' being the ultimate confirmation, as noted in the scriptures, "I have said, Ye are gods." [See Psalms 82: 1, 6-7; St. John 10: 34-36.]

The CJCLDS is very 'systematic' in our approach and we work together - no priesthood holder can perform the saving ordinances and covenants by himself for himself. This helps us easily put ourselves in the right perspective of the manner and conduct of our eternal existence. 

For an understanding of the top principles, let somebody from the Church personally (in person, face-to-face) explain to you the six (6) priesthood ordinances necessary for exaltation which is the fullness of salvation. If you deserve the explanations, you will assuredly get it.

The six (6) priesthood ordinances necessary for exaltation are summarized in a lot of Church materials - e.g., the Melchizedek Priesthood Manual,... if I remember right.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians of any kind can't hate homos, they worship jesus don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. Jesus said to love everyone.
Click to expand...


LOL! Not what I meant and you know it!!!!!!!! 
It's cuz he looks like a fag in every portrait ever made of him.
But good answer!


----------



## John Lemmon

*The plan of God is to make man as good as He God is and to make man as happy and joyful as He God is.* So if god made man, why didn't he just make him as good and happy in the first place? Makes NO sense.

How can I study it if the first 2 chapters about some nephi dude didn't make any sense? Nevermind it was written is very awful english.

6 ordinances: baptism, confirmation... wtf does that have to do with anything. Again, you mormons talk  in riddles, wtf don't you just tell me what's different between you guys and catholics? You don't know?


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians of any kind can't hate homos, they worship jesus don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. Jesus said to love everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! Not what I meant and you know it!!!!!!!!
> It's cuz he looks like a fag in every portrait ever made of him.
> But good answer!
Click to expand...


I know exactly what you are saying! There are so many feminine portrayals of Him that it makes me sick!!! Anyone who reads the Bible and more especially the words of Jesus can gather from His personality that He was a man's man. The Son of Man. Not the effiminate one.
Here's what most of Christianity thinks of him:

http://img2.allposters.com/images/OAPAPC/257486.jpg

or this
http://www.historicalstockphotos.co...esus_christ_holding_his_heart_in_his_hand.jpg


Here's how we view Him:
He looks like a real man. No God or Saviour could look like those effeminate sketches. Gross!
http://abish.byui.edu/library/libguides/francisl/JesusChrist.bmp


----------



## Truthspeaker

pare said:


> This thread is amazing. I am new here. I am a LDS. I want to do my duty, too.
> 
> 
> 
> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> tru, i tried reading the book of mormons, but it started out talking about some nephi dude and it made NO sense whatsoever. What chapters should I read that talk about the actual religion and how it's different/better than say, catholicism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John, all those books (the Bible, the BofM, the D&C, the PofGP) and what other people say are very much just other people's testimonies. The testimonies of other people won't matter much to you at all until you study them with a positive/sincere mindset that aims for a conclusion that will determine the manner and conduct of your own existence in an eternal perspective.
> 
> I recognize that you want a top-down approach (top of the pyramid and then down to the foundations) to the study. You are asking for the synthesized (summarized) doctrine of our religion first. I think some people are given that privilege. But most of us learned "line upon line, precept upon precept." I guess you can build a pyramid from the top and then down to the foundations - but really risky.
> 
> Most of the members of the CJCLDS had to start with the bits and pieces - studying and trying them out and then thereby obtain the personal testimonies of the truth, and eventually the testimonies build up towards the synthesis that you seem to want right away.
> 
> Again, the top-down approach is risky. But I am hoping that you intend to sincerely analyze it by studying and testing for yourself the bits and pieces of the doctrine.
> 
> The plan of God is to make man as good as He God is and to make man as happy and joyful as He God is. This is why the Lord Jesus asks us to follow his example and enjoins us: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Other scripture passages also record: "Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus 20:7). This summary of the doctrine (the immortality and eternal life of man as the encompassing work of God) is clearly taught in the CJCLDS.
> 
> The study and fulfillment of the bits and pieces of the doctrine is what we tirelessly pursue in the Church. We as a Church work together to perform the priesthood ordinances wherein the worthy are entered into covenants with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> Our aim is of course 'to fulfill the covenants entered into in the ordinances until our calling and election is made sure' - the idea of 'enduring to the end'. Simply put, we want to be among those "unto whom the word of God came" - the 'word' being the ultimate confirmation, as noted in the scriptures, "I have said, Ye are Gods." [See Psalms 82: 1, 6-7; St. John 10: 34-36.]
> 
> The CJCLDS is very 'systematic' in our approach and we work together - no priesthood holder can perform the saving ordinances and covenants by himself for himself. This helps us easily put ourselves in the right perspective of the manner and conduct of our eternal existence.
> 
> For an understanding of the top principles, let somebody from the Church personally (in person, face-to-face) explain to you the six (6) priesthood ordinances necessary for exaltation which is the fullness of salvation. If you deserve the explanations, you will assuredly get it.
> 
> The six (6) priesthood ordinances necessary for exaltation are summarized in a lot of Church materials - e.g., the Melchizedek Priesthood Manual,... if I remember right.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the thread. I hope you began reading from the beginning. You can chime in on all the topics that have been brought up. Hurry and catch up to the rest of us. Just be careful. I'm only trying to teach the actual doctrine of the church and not heresay. Also be careful not to repeat yourself too often especially if we have already talked about certain issues. I do believe this is now the longest standing thread in the history of the website so you would do well to check out some of the drama that has already been brought up.


----------



## THE LIGHT

RetiredGySgt said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not. Jesus was very clear in John, he is the SON of God and is NOT God. The trinity is a lie. God is God, Jesus is his first begotten Son and the Holy Spirit is a force that does Gods bidding. Each a separate entity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
Click to expand...

 
um no, John said, 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
-John 1:1



How much more clear can you get? You have a spirit, soul, and body. Each one of these parts are separate of eachother yet it would be incorect to say that any of these do not make up YOU nor is YOU. If you remove one of these and YOU would not exist. That is why we have to be born again. Therefore if any man _be_ in Christ, _he __is_ a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.(2 Corinthians 5:17) We are totally new beings when one thing (our spirit) is changed.


And by the way, please show me where John says he is not God.


----------



## pare

John Lemmon said:


> *The plan of God is to make man as good as He God is and to make man as happy and joyful as He God is.* So if god made man, why didn't he just make him as good and happy in the first place? Makes NO sense.
> 
> How can I study it if the first 2 chapters about some nephi dude didn't make any sense? Nevermind it was written is very awful english.
> 
> 6 ordinances: baptism, confirmation... wtf does that have to do with anything. Again, you mormons talk  in riddles, wtf don't you just tell me what's different between you guys and catholics? You don't know?



What we LDS are talking about makes sense to us. You find no sense in what we are talking about; perhaps the problem is elsewhere and not with us. 

We (my family) were Catholics; my older siblings were catechists; we all went through Catholic schools; my father, who was born 1900, spoke and read the Latin, and so if you have some sense you would understand where he came from before he married our mother. My mother attended a protestant church earlier in life. I also attended the Baptist and other protestant churches. We got converted into the CJCLDS in '72-'73. My wife was an Adventist before she got converted into the CJCLDS; we were married in the temple; we have a son born in the covenant. And so, I can assure you that I know enough of the difference between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Mormonism. 

LDS doctrine is sometimes considered esoteric. What I have spoken of may actually be riddles to the uninitiated. So, the usual way is to go "line upon line" and "precept upon precept." You'll have difficulty understanding LDS doctrine unless you go the usual way. 

Read the relevant books. Be sincere and have some people from the LDS Church personally explain things to you. When you get some understanding of who God the Father is and who the Lord Jesus is, you can then exercise some faith and pray about the LDS ideas you've learned. If you are really seeking for the truth, you will surely find it. 

We Mormons can only testify that LDS doctrine is good. The doctrine points towards God and allows people the knowledge of how to obtain the fullness of salvation, something that no other church can offer with the authority from God through living prophets. 

The idea of the fullness of salvation is rather unique to the LDS Church. We understand that one can only have some degree of salvation short of the fullness through the other churches but never the fullness of salvation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Retired and Pare are confused as to the nature of God, as are so many modern believers.  The run hither and thither searching for a truth that has very plain for a very long time.  So let's get them straight.

Jesus Christ is not Jehovah of the Old Testmant. 

Jesus is not God the Father.

He is the Son of God, and He came as God in human flesh to this sinful world.  Word = God, because Word = Godly Power/Godly Ability.

If one relieves of himself of the delusion of the second paragraph above, the traditional and historical doctrine of the Godhead is quite obvious, sensible, and orthodox.  It also fits into a three-in-one Godhead as well as a separate-individuals-as-Godhead.


----------



## John Lemmon

pare, I feel sorry for you. You've been so brainwashed by religion your whole life that you had no choice but to believe, what with being bombarded with all that fiction for so long. It's like the Stockhome Syndrome, you're identifying with your captors. 

*How much more clear can you get? You have a spirit, soul, and body.*
So 2 out of 3 things that make up a human are invisible?


*I know exactly what you are saying! There are so many feminine portrayals of Him that it makes me sick!!! *
tru, you homophobic? If not, then what's the problem?


----------



## pare

JakeStarkey said:


> Retired and Pare are confused as to the nature of God, as are so many modern believers.  The run hither and thither searching for a truth that has very plain for a very long time.  So let's get them straight.
> 
> Jesus Christ is not Jehovah of the Old Testmant.
> 
> Jesus is not God the Father.
> 
> He is the Son of God, and He came as God in human flesh to this sinful world.  Word = God, because Word = Godly Power/Godly Ability.
> 
> If one relieves of himself of the delusion of the second paragraph above, the traditional and historical doctrine of the Godhead is quite obvious, sensible, and orthodox.  It also fits into a three-in-one Godhead as well as a separate-individuals-as-Godhead.



Jake, you should try to study and then compare our posts. Perhaps, if you have what it takes to make the effort, you'll have some realization as to who is confused, deluded, and even muddled. 

I still prefer my own understanding of the nature of God that, as far as I know, is according to LDS doctrine. 



John Lemmon said:


> pare, I feel sorry for you. You've been so brainwashed by religion your whole life that you had no choice but to believe, what with being bombarded with all that fiction for so long. It's like the Stockhome Syndrome, you're identifying with your captors.



John, you need not feel sorry for me. I am quite happy with myself and I feel rather clean with my brain already washed. It is one of those wonderful things that one achieves when he has studied, as much as he could, in the search for the truth. 

Between a washed brain and a muddled brain (that others in this thread seem to have), I for myself would go for the washed brain. 

You seem to dislike my washed brain. So, it must be that you like the other kind of brain for yourself.


----------



## Chimera

All the Mormons I have met are nice, regular people, so my question is this: Do all Mormons believe the Joseph Smith story literally, or is it treated like a parable?  To me, the story seems to have a lot of holes in it, and unlike the Old and New Testaments, or the Koran, which were written thousands of years ago,  this story is less than 200 years old. We have reliable written history about that time period, and there seems to have been a lot of skepticism about Joseph Smith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Retired and Pare are confused as to the nature of God, as are so many modern believers.  The run hither and thither searching for a truth that has very plain for a very long time.  So let's get them straight.
> 
> Jesus Christ is not Jehovah of the Old Testmant.
> 
> Jesus is not God the Father.
> 
> He is the Son of God, and He came as God in human flesh to this sinful world.  Word = God, because Word = Godly Power/Godly Ability.
> 
> If one relieves of himself of the delusion of the second paragraph above, the traditional and historical doctrine of the Godhead is quite obvious, sensible, and orthodox.  It also fits into a three-in-one Godhead as well as a separate-individuals-as-Godhead.



You have your belief. That's fine. We disagree but not by much.


----------



## John Lemmon

pare, I know that you're happy with your delusions, I just think you guys are hilarious the way you're all so serious in your magic underwear, and THAT'S the truth!!! 

But can someone explain what that nephi dude's story has to do with anything, cuz it goes on for quite a while. Is it just a bunch of riddles inside riddles to wash your brain, as pare seems to enjoy?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So 2 out of 3 things that make up a human are invisible?



Yeah, I know you think we're crazy. Wait have I ever said this before?? Is this DeJavu or DecaJavu?



> *I know exactly what you are saying! There are so many feminine portrayals of Him that it makes me sick!!! *
> tru, you homophobic? If not, then what's the problem?



I do not fear anyone.  But my vision of Jesus is a masculine one and not an effeminate one.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Chimera said:


> All the Mormons I have met are nice, regular people, so my question is this: Do all Mormons believe the Joseph Smith story literally, or is it treated like a parable?  To me, the story seems to have a lot of holes in it, and unlike the Old and New Testaments, or the Koran, which were written thousands of years ago,  this story is less than 200 years old. We have reliable written history about that time period, and there seems to have been a lot of skepticism about Joseph Smith.



I'm curious as to which holes you are talking about. When a story is written is irrelevant if the stories are true. For some reason people are a lot more willing to accept an old story before a new one. I never got that. Call me stupid. I just think people should research every claim and decide for themselves. Sure I guess tenure adds some credibility but in the end it doesn't matter how old a testimony is.

And what makes history so reliable when it is always being rewritten? There is always new light being shed on old history. Much of what went on thousands of years ago has been lost to time. We should keep an open mind to new discoveries before we create historical dogmas. Wouldn't you agree?

As for the Joseph Smith story, we believe it literally.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> pare, I know that you're happy with your delusions, I just think you guys are hilarious the way you're all so serious in your magic underwear, and THAT'S the truth!!!
> 
> But can someone explain what that nephi dude's story has to do with anything, cuz it goes on for quite a while. Is it just a bunch of riddles inside riddles to wash your brain, as pare seems to enjoy?



you are going to have a difficult time understanding the adult content in the Book of Mormon if you continue to have a juvenile mindset. Keep reading. Surely if you are in 1st Nephi all you have gathered is that Nephi and his family believe in God and look forward to the coming of Christ. Much like other Bedouin Arab Jews in their day. Yes the story does go on for a long time. It's a 500 page book. Ever read a 500 page book? If you can't hang in long enough to read it then you haven't been able to hang in long enough to read other good educational books that are 500 pages long. It takes patience and comprehension skills to read an adult book without pictures. Can you finish the book or do you need to go play with your blocks?


----------



## John Lemmon

No, I've never read a 500 page book, I'm a musician, for christ's sake! 
If it's such a good book, then they've surely made a movie out of it: Godzilla eats the indians?

So who is the nephi dude. Your first superhero? He sounds serious, he got his special undies on?


----------



## THE LIGHT

THE LIGHT said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> um no, John said,
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> -John 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> How much more clear can you get? You have a spirit, soul, and body. Each one of these parts are separate of eachother yet it would be incorect to say that any of these do not make up YOU nor is YOU. If you remove one of these and YOU would not exist. That is why we have to be born again. Therefore if any man _be_ in Christ, _he __is_ a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.(2 Corinthians 5:17) We are totally new beings when one thing (our spirit) is changed.
> 
> 
> And by the way, please show me where John says he is not God.
Click to expand...

 
bump


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> No, I've never read a 500 page book, I'm a musician, for christ's sake!
> If it's such a good book, then they've surely made a movie out of it: Godzilla eats the indians?
> 
> So who is the nephi dude. Your first superhero? He sounds serious, he got his special undies on?



There have been movies made by small outfits. Hollywood doesn't want to though because it teaches too many things they don't like. Plus they'd have to get permission through the Church to avoid copyright infringement. There may have been attempts to present screenplays to the leaders of our church but I doubt they would trust the industry to accurately portray the events of the book. Who knows maybe Mel Gibson will take a shot at it one day.

Yeah Godzilla...ok

Keep reading and you will understand who Nephi is. You should be able to tell all of us by now with the amount of reading you've been doing right?


----------



## John Lemmon

Come to think of it, I've read technical manuals of over 500 pages, just not onto fiction like... the bible, the book of Ms, the coran... 

So the book opens with nephi, who wasn't wearing his special undies, who started that anyways? Does it mention the undies in the book? On what page?

So if I study the 2 chapters on nephi, what great knowledge will I learn? Aside from a headache, of course.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Come to think of it, I've read technical manuals of over 500 pages, just not onto fiction like... the bible, the book of Ms, the coran...
> 
> So the book opens with nephi, who wasn't wearing his special undies, who started that anyways? Does it mention the undies in the book? On what page?
> 
> So if I study the 2 chapters on nephi, what great knowledge will I learn? Aside from a headache, of course.



I don't think you are going to learn anything from the book because you classify as one of the people it talks about that "cast aside the things of God as a thing of naught. And trample the Holy One underfoot."


----------



## John Lemmon

So now you're god and you've deemed me unworthy? Gee, nice religion you got there.
So why not answer my questions? What do the nephi chapters explain? Where are the undies mentioned? Where is kolob mentioned in the book?
What's the matter, none of you knobs even know?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Book of Mormon is a liberal-protestant religious book of the 1820s.  It fits nicely into the 2nd Great Awakening of that era, when millions of Americans became churched.  And several major denominations were founded, including that of the Latter-day Saints.

You will not find the speculative theology -- temple garments, rites, and rituals; plural marriage; adoption of men by men, etc -- beginning until the Nauvoo days more than a decade later.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The Book of Mormon is a liberal-protestant religious book of the 1820s.  It fits nicely into the 2nd Great Awakening of that era, when millions of Americans became churched.  And several major denominations were founded, including that of the Latter-day Saints.
> 
> You will not find the speculative theology -- temple garments, rites, and rituals; plural marriage; adoption of men by men, etc -- beginning until the Nauvoo days more than a decade later.



I think you mean a few minor denominations which are diminishing in size every day.

Not "including that of the Latter Day Saints". The Latter Day Saints were the original and not the breakoff.

The Book of Mormon is anything but Protestant. It is an entirely different claim from any Protestant. 

We don't protest the Catholic Church or any other church. We are not reformers either. We haven't tried to reform the catholic church or any other church. Our claim is entirely different. We claim to have the restored church of christ which was missing from the world for many years.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So now you're god and you've deemed me unworthy?



No I'm not. I've deemed you what you really are; disinterested in really wanting to know. Only interested in poking juvenile fun at religious people.



> Gee, nice religion you got there.



Thanks, try it sometime.


> So why not answer my questions? What do the nephi chapters explain?



I did. The nephi chapters explain the exodus of Lehi and his family from the old world and their inhabitation of the new world. It explains their belief in God and Jesus Christ. 



> Where are the undies mentioned?



There are no "undies" mentioned


> Where is kolob mentioned in the book?



Not in the Book of Mormon



> What's the matter, none of you knobs even know?



We know. It's in the Doctrine and Covenants. Go to lds.org and search Kolob if you really want to know.


----------



## John Lemmon

Why are you guys so secretive. You know, but you won't say. Then what the fuck are you doing here, if not to try to explain your religion?
So who started the undies thing? And who came up with the concept of kolob?
So basiclly, you're saying that nephi walked from jerusalem to south america? Or rode some donkeys, took a boat and walked?  With how many people? And none of them died? And then they populated the Americas? Or met people there and bred with them?


----------



## Eightball

necritan said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth about Mormans is that Moroni was phoney, though I do not know if that angel was boney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See Mormons......se what yer missin.......alchohol is friggin awesome.
Click to expand...


Necritan:

You have presented some very good comments from the bible that do support the Trinitarian nature of the Judeau/Christian God; that the LDS/Mormon Church does indeed refute.

However, I can think of a lot of other things that are more awesome than alcohol, and as a Christian, I realize that Jesus did have wine.

Your bible background is impressive, yet that very bible does encourage us to put our joy or greatest interest in glorifying God through the actions of our lives.

I think it is admirable that the Mormons stress the non-alcohol theme, but they're motivation in my opinion is "legalistic" and borders on what Jesus dealt with when confronting the Pharisee's of His day.  They/Pharisee's were considered the "owners" of the law, and the one's to look up to as the "righteous" living ones, yet their whole motivation of refraining from work on the Sabbath, and the hundreds of do's and don'ts was just to "please" God constantly.  "Grace" of God was foreign to them totally.  Grace undergirds the "true" Christian faith.  Without it, the Christian faith would be one of pride, and Pharisee=ism at it's core.  What keeps true bible Christians from being prideful, is "grace".  Grace = unmerited favor from God...........Yet being sinners, He extended His mercy to us never the less.

Alcohol is Awesome:  Well, it certainly relieves temporary tension, and can be good for the stomach if taken in small dosages.........That's actually in the bible; the stomach thing.  Paul wrote that.

Yet, we Christians have a testimony, in our very lives before the world, whether that portion of the world is Mormon, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, whatever.  Paul said that when I am weak, He is strong; then he goes on to say that he/Paul rejoices in His weaknesses, as this is the times in his life when God becomes displayed through his life.

It's not unlike the old saying, "God is my co-pilot".  No doubt, many Christians would say that, yet in reality, God should be the pilot, and we shouldn't even be the co-pilot, but in reality we belong in a passenger seat.  It is God who takes us for the "ride" or is the arbiter of our lives; at least He should be.

Being a passenger means that we relinquish control, 100% of the time with our lives, and hand it over in trust to Him who knew us before we were even knitted in our mother's womb.  I realize it's easier said than done, but the "awesomeness" of life is there, not the other things, that are temporary and fleeting.

Jesus said that He had a well of water that never went dry, and would quench one's thirst, once-and-for-all.  The Samaritan woman at the well was dumbfounded, yet bewildered and excited.  She ran to her village to tell everyone that she met a man who has water that would quench the thirst forever.  We do know that Jesus' well of water was metaphorical, and meant the Holy Spirit, that indwells every true believer.  The H.S. is the ultimate Comforter of mankind.  It is trully "awesome".  When Peter and the other disciples were accused of being drunk on Pentacost, it was the awesomeness of the Holy Spirit, that caused them to be so joyful.  They were accused of being drunk.  In essence they were "drunk", or overcome with the joy of God's reality/presence in their lives.  That's why Peter spoke out with such authority to the crowds, and literally thousands repented and received salvation/Holy Spirit.

Anyway, Necritan; keep up the good work, but remember that you are a special vessel, not made with human hands, but are a Royal Ambassador, created to bring glory to God.


----------



## THE LIGHT

THE LIGHT said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....The word was God....and the word was with God.....
> 
> It was both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> um no, John said,
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> -John 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> How much more clear can you get? You have a spirit, soul, and body. Each one of these parts are separate of eachother yet it would be incorect to say that any of these do not make up YOU nor is YOU. If you remove one of these and YOU would not exist. That is why we have to be born again. Therefore if any man _be_ in Christ, _he __is_ a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.(2 Corinthians 5:17) We are totally new beings when one thing (our spirit) is changed.
> 
> 
> And by the way, please show me where John says he is not God.
Click to expand...

 
bump


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Why are you guys so secretive. You know, but you won't say.



I've been pretty clear. I've said from the beginning. Ask any questions you want. I'll answer them all except the questions about temple ordinances. It is disrespectful to talk about them outside the temple. If you really want you can join the church if you want to know the exact procedures that happen in the temple. The summary of which I have given many times already:
The temple ordinances are tokens symbols and speeches designed to help us remember to keep the commandments of God on a daily basis. If I told them all to you in detail you would come to the same conclusion.





> Then what the fuck are you doing here, if not to try to explain your religion?


I am trying to explain my religion. You are the only one who is failing to comprehend the words I'm saying.



> So who started the undies thing?



We don't believe in any "undies thing."



> And who came up with the concept of kolob?



A slight correction to the statement I made earlier. The doctrine of Kolob is found in the Pearl of Great Price, not the Doctrine and covenants. It was revealed by God to Abraham that Kolob is the star closest to the planet God resides.



> So basiclly, you're saying that nephi walked from jerusalem to south america?



Statements like these do not improve your image. Like I said before...mmmmmmmm... about a hundred times before your kind came onto the thread. They got there in boats. Another reason I tell you to keep reading the book of mormon if you are seriously interested Their journey is documented. they walked and rode camels through the arabian desert to the arabian peninsula, built a ship there and sailed to meso america.


> With how many people?


At least 26 people are known to have either departed or been born before the voyage from the desert peninsula. Nephi, Sam, Laman, Lemuel and the 5 sons of Ishmael and each of their wives. The patriarchs Lehi and Ishmael and their wives(Sariah was Lehi's wife). Jacob and Joseph were born to Lehi and Sariah in the desert journey. They mentioned that children were born to many of the couples but we do not know how many..
So it is at least at a bare minimum 30 people that took the voyage across the sea.


> And none of them died?



It is written that some came close to death, but since they were all experts at desert survival being bedouin arabs, plus they were guided by the hand of God, it is written that none of them actually died during the voyage.


> And then they populated the Americas?



It is not stated that they populated the entire Americas. They were not the first ones there. But they did populate much of Meso america. At the time of their arrival there were remnants of the Jaredite nation and very likely other peoples not related to either nation. There is still much to be discovered. One thing is certain. The Americas were a melting pot long before Columbus.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth about Mormans is that Moroni was phoney, though I do not know if that angel was boney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See Mormons......se what yer missin.......alchohol is friggin awesome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Necritan:
> 
> You have presented some very good comments from the bible that do support the Trinitarian nature of the Judeau/Christian God; that the LDS/Mormon Church does indeed refute.
> 
> However, I can think of a lot of other things that are more awesome than alcohol, and as a Christian, I realize that Jesus did have wine.
> 
> Your bible background is impressive, yet that very bible does encourage us to put our joy or greatest interest in glorifying God through the actions of our lives.
> 
> I think it is admirable that the Mormons stress the non-alcohol theme, but they're motivation in my opinion is "legalistic" and borders on what Jesus dealt with when confronting the Pharisee's of His day.  They/Pharisee's were considered the "owners" of the law, and the one's to look up to as the "righteous" living ones, yet their whole motivation of refraining from work on the Sabbath, and the hundreds of do's and don'ts was just to "please" God constantly.  "Grace" of God was foreign to them totally.  Grace undergirds the "true" Christian faith.  Without it, the Christian faith would be one of pride, and Pharisee=ism at it's core.  What keeps true bible Christians from being prideful, is "grace".  Grace = unmerited favor from God...........Yet being sinners, He extended His mercy to us never the less.
> 
> Alcohol is Awesome:  Well, it certainly relieves temporary tension, and can be good for the stomach if taken in small dosages.........That's actually in the bible; the stomach thing.  Paul wrote that.
> 
> Yet, we Christians have a testimony, in our very lives before the world, whether that portion of the world is Mormon, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, whatever.  Paul said that when I am weak, He is strong; then he goes on to say that he/Paul rejoices in His weaknesses, as this is the times in his life when God becomes displayed through his life.
> 
> It's not unlike the old saying, "God is my co-pilot".  No doubt, many Christians would say that, yet in reality, God should be the pilot, and we shouldn't even be the co-pilot, but in reality we belong in a passenger seat.  It is God who takes us for the "ride" or is the arbiter of our lives; at least He should be.
> 
> Being a passenger means that we relinquish control, 100% of the time with our lives, and hand it over in trust to Him who knew us before we were even knitted in our mother's womb.  I realize it's easier said than done, but the "awesomeness" of life is there, not the other things, that are temporary and fleeting.
> 
> Jesus said that He had a well of water that never went dry, and would quench one's thirst, once-and-for-all.  The Samaritan woman at the well was dumbfounded, yet bewildered and excited.  She ran to her village to tell everyone that she met a man who has water that would quench the thirst forever.  We do know that Jesus' well of water was metaphorical, and meant the Holy Spirit, that indwells every true believer.  The H.S. is the ultimate Comforter of mankind.  It is trully "awesome".  When Peter and the other disciples were accused of being drunk on Pentacost, it was the awesomeness of the Holy Spirit, that caused them to be so joyful.  They were accused of being drunk.  In essence they were "drunk", or overcome with the joy of God's reality/presence in their lives.  That's why Peter spoke out with such authority to the crowds, and literally thousands repented and received salvation/Holy Spirit.
> 
> Anyway, Necritan; keep up the good work, but remember that you are a special vessel, not made with human hands, but are a Royal Ambassador, created to bring glory to God.
Click to expand...


Well 8-ball this is one of your posts I truly respect. You have stated your beliefs and i respect them. We do have some disagreements but that's ok. I agree with much of what you say.
One thing I do need to clarify however is that it is unfair to compare us with the Pharisees because we believe in Jesus Christ first and foremost, who was their number one enemy. The Pharisees acted out secularisms to APPEAR to be pious. All the while not doing anything to help the poor, or feed the hungry or do any of the things that really matter, like obeying God's commandments. 

We too repeat the words of Jesus." The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."
As for alcohol, we don't drink it because of the law of health given in the doctrine and covenants section 88 which describes the proper use of alcohol. Firmented wine is much different than say vodka or beer. The wine used back in the day had two meanings, grape juice and firmented wine. The Bible does not often clarify which it is referring to. sometimes it says "strong drink". sometimes just plain wine. But since "drunkenness" is forbidden in Galatians chapter 5, it would only make sense to avoid something that would make you drunk. This is one of the reasons that we believe in modern revelation. To clarify such things to the modern Christian.


Also( Somehow I think I've said this before), grace is not a foreign concept to us. We believe that NO ONE can be saved without the GRACE of Jesus Christ.

Another minor disagreement we have is that God doesn't want to choose for us. He wants us to love Him enough to choose to follow Him. He wants us to take His advice via the Holy Spirit. Freedom is something He has given us by grace and wants us all to use. The one thing we truly have that God does not have is our freedom to choose. God could take it if he wanted to but he would not be God if He did; Because He cannot go back on His word, which gives all men the freedom to choose to follow Him. Therefore the only gift we can give Him that he doesn't have is our dedication to Him.
But again I must say that is a minor difference of opinion between the two of us.


----------



## Truthspeaker

THE LIGHT said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does not mean what you are claiming. Jesus is a God Like figure. He is the first begotten of God. He helps God do many things and he came to earth to die for our sins. He is NOT God. And in John he keeps telling everyone he is NOT God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um no, John said,
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> -John 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> How much more clear can you get? You have a spirit, soul, and body. Each one of these parts are separate of eachother yet it would be incorect to say that any of these do not make up YOU nor is YOU. If you remove one of these and YOU would not exist. That is why we have to be born again. Therefore if any man _be_ in Christ, _he __is_ a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.(2 Corinthians 5:17) We are totally new beings when one thing (our spirit) is changed.
> 
> 
> And by the way, please show me where John says he is not God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bump
Click to expand...


what do you mean when you write "bump" like that?


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> We don't believe in any "undies thing."
> 
> A slight correction to the statement I made earlier. The doctrine of Kolob is found in the Pearl of Great Price, not the Doctrine and covenants. It was revealed by God to Abraham that Kolob is the star closest to the planet God resides.



Ok, who started the undergarment tradition? 

I've never heard that story about Abe, is that in the bible? And anyways, it was revealed by god to abe about kolob? Says who? abe?

About your nephi story, you have any real proof about all that? And if they spoke egyptian, why was nobody speaking it when columbus arrived?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> um no, John said,
> 
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> -John 1:1
> 
> 
> 
> How much more clear can you get? You have a spirit, soul, and body. Each one of these parts are separate of eachother yet it would be incorect to say that any of these do not make up YOU nor is YOU. If you remove one of these and YOU would not exist. That is why we have to be born again. Therefore if any man _be_ in Christ, _he __is_ a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.(2 Corinthians 5:17) We are totally new beings when one thing (our spirit) is changed.
> 
> 
> And by the way, please show me where John says he is not God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what do you mean when you write "bump" like that?
Click to expand...


"Bump" is a forum term for moving the topic up to the top of the list.

So the word, "Bump" is used solely in a post to activate that topic to the top of the forum list.  It's a way of getting more people to notice the topic and join in.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Ok, who started the undergarment tradition?



It was revealed to Joseph Smith by God in the Nauvoo Temple.



> I've never heard that story about Abe, is that in the bible?


No. It is found in The Pearl of Great Price. A collection of scriptures we use. The book of Abraham was found in some catacombs in egypt among some mummies. The explorers who found them delivered them to Joseph Smith who translated them into the book of Abraham. The scrolls were originally written by Abraham telling of his dealings and revelations from God.




> About your nephi story, you have any real proof about all that?



Proof is what you want to believe. For some people proof is one thing and for some another. What kind of proof do you want to see?



> And if they spoke egyptian, why was nobody speaking it when columbus arrived?



Good question. It is stated that their first language was hebrew and that Lehi had instructed his sons in the writing of the egyptians. This was common because Egypt and Israel had established trade connections and alliances between the two nations at that time in 600BC. Lehi no doubt made the camel treks to and fro to trade goods and spices and learned both languages and cultures. 

It is doubtful that Egyptian was spoken much in the new world. It was used more as a writing tool because it contained fewer characters and therefore was better for record keeping. Especially since they were trying to keep their histories on metal plates. Hebrew is a painstakingly long writing venture compared to Egyptian.

Now as to your question about why they weren't speaking it when Columbus came:

It is written by Moroni that both the hebrew and the egyptian had been altered over time. Much like our English has morphed into something unrecognizable by it's originators despite the practice of writing never being lost over a thousand years ago.

The same thing happened to the meso-americans. Times change, cultures change, religions change and so do languages.  But it is remarkable that the heiroglyphs of meso america bear much resemblance to the egyptian originals in many ways. It's also amazing to note that pre columbian hebrew has been found in select caves.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> It was revealed to Joseph Smith by God in the Nauvoo Temple.



Ok, so he made it up. Why? 



> No. It is found in The Pearl of Great Price. A collection of scriptures we use. The book of Abraham was found in some catacombs in egypt among some mummies. The explorers who found them delivered them to Joseph Smith who translated them into the book of Abraham. The scrolls were originally written by Abraham telling of his dealings and revelations from God.



Who wrote the price is right book? 
So they discovered the book of abe in egypt and then travelled to the US to give them to some scraggly peasant to translate? That's whacked!




> Proof is what you want to believe. For some people proof is one thing and for some another. What kind of proof do you want to see?



Actual tangible without a doubt proof, you tell me what you got.



> And if they spoke egyptian, why was nobody speaking it when columbus arrived?



You know, I thought you were going to tell me that the inca hieroglyphics came from their egyptian ones.


----------



## HUGGY

*Proof is what you want to believe. For some people proof is one thing and for some another. What kind of proof do you want to see?
*

That gibberish sounds like the average answer you might get from patients in mental institutions.... from any question....on any subject.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Ok, so he made it up. Why?



The reason God made it up was to give us something to wear to remind us to keep our covenants with God.




> Who wrote the price is right book?



To my knowledge I have never heard of such a book? That was off topic.



> So they discovered the book of abe in egypt and then travelled to the US to give them to some scraggly peasant to translate?



It's called the book of Abraham. And it was delivered to a well groomed prophet named Joseph Smith.





> Actual tangible without a doubt proof, you tell me what you got.



The only without a doubt proof is the one that is foreign to you. The testimony of the Spirit of God in your heart.




> You know, I thought you were going to tell me that the inca hieroglyphics came from their egyptian ones.



Inca had no heiroglyphics. That was the Maya.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> *Proof is what you want to believe. For some people proof is one thing and for some another. What kind of proof do you want to see?
> *
> 
> That gibberish sounds like the average answer you might get from patients in mental institutions.... from any question....on any subject.



Im sure you have much more time as a mental patient than I do, so Ill take your word for it.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> The reason God made it up was to give us something to wear to remind us to keep our covenants with God.



Not what I meant, . Jo made it up, otherwise you worship a god that wants you to wear special undies?  What a 'tard!




> It's called the book of Abraham. And it was delivered to a well groomed prophet named Joseph Smith.



Why did they choose him to give it to? Was he a world reknowned scholar of some sort? Or just luck? 



> The only without a doubt proof is the one that is foreign to you. The testimony of the Spirit of God in your heart.



So you got no real proof whatsoever? So basically, you take Jo's word that god spoke to him? That's a pretty simpleton belief system you've got going there.




> Inca had no heiroglyphics. That was the Maya.



Same dif. So it's not how the maya got them? You almost had tangible proof there.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Not what I meant, . Jo made it up, otherwise you worship a god that wants you to wear special undies?  What a 'tard!



Thank you for that. So what?




> Why did they choose him to give it to?



Because they had heard of Joseph's ability to translate ancient records and wanted to know his thoughts on them.



> Was he a world reknowned scholar of some sort?



Certainly not.



> Or just luck?



No. He was given a gift from God to translate.





> So you got no real proof whatsoever?



There is a difference between proof and evidence. Evidences are signs that point to a likelihood of something. Proof is iron clad..... But then again things that have been "proven" in the past turned out not to be so. So we need to be careful before we jump to conclusions.  We need to examine the evidences and make up our own minds.




> So basically, you take Jo's word that god spoke to him?



Definitely not. First I LISTENED to the actual claims made by the man. Then I decided I wanted to know for myself if his claims were true or false. Then I decided to study his life and all the information about him from all sources I could get my hands on. Then after examining all the evidences for and against the man, I decided to ask God the truth of the matter. Through the formula provided in the Bible, I got the spiritual confirmation as well as secular. 
I made up my mind that Joseph was telling the truth and that I should listen to anything else he said.
Why is this such a foreign concept to you?



> That's a pretty simpleton belief system you've got going there.



Simpleton is as simpleton does.




> Same dif. So it's not how the maya got them?



What a stupid statement. Oviously you don't know that the Inca and Maya were completely different cultures with different geography, religion and language. How can you say "same dif"?

And yes, the Mayan heiroglyphs are descended from the reformed egyptian handed down by the Nephite culture, if not the actual reformed egyptian itself.



> You almost had tangible proof there. :lol



You have no idea.


----------



## John Lemmon

Truthspeaker said:


> Not what I meant, . Jo made it up, otherwise you worship a god that wants you to wear special undies?  What a 'tard!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for that. So what?
Click to expand...


Well, just think about it, your god wants you to wear special undies? How imbecilic is that?



> Why did they choose him to give it to?
> Because they had heard of Joseph's ability to translate ancient records and wanted to know his thoughts on them. He was given a gift from God to translate.



So he had translated other documents beforehand? With absolutely no training whatsoever?



> There is a difference between proof and evidence. Evidences are signs that point to a likelihood of something. Proof is iron clad..... But then again things that have been "proven" in the past turned out not to be so. So we need to be careful before we jump to conclusions.  We need to examine the evidences and make up our own minds.



So no proof, check. Boy, you must really want to believe!




> Definitely not. First I LISTENED to the actual claims made by the man. Then I decided I wanted to know for myself if his claims were true or false. Then I decided to study his life and all the information about him from all sources I could get my hands on. Then after examining all the evidences for and against the man, I decided to ask God the truth of the matter. Through the formula provided in the Bible, I got the spiritual confirmation as well as secular.
> I made up my mind that Joseph was telling the truth and that I should listen to anything else he said.
> Why is this such a foreign concept to you?



What formula in the bible? 
It's not a foreign concept, I'm just amazed at how gullible people can be, on seriously, not very many actual facts to go on, and so far you've put forth ZERO facts. like i said, you must really want to believe. A therapist might be able to get to the bottom of it.




> And yes, the Mayan heiroglyphs are descended from the reformed egyptian handed down by the Nephite culture, if not the actual reformed egyptian itself.



So, is this statement provable by the scientific community?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Well, just think about it, your god wants you to wear special undies? How imbecilic is that?



You word it in a way that makes it sound imbecillic, but you don't understand the reason why we do. How imbecillic is it to poke fun at something you don't understand?



> So he had translated other documents beforehand? With absolutely no training whatsoever?



Boy you need to catch up. He translated the entire Book of Mormon. An ancient document from Meso America



> So no proof, check. Boy, you must really want to believe!



So no proof for your belief system either? Boy you must really not want to believe.





> What formula in the bible?



Ask and ye shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto you.

Also in James chapter 1 verse 5: 

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for he that wavereth is as a wave of the sea, tossed to and fro.




> It's not a foreign concept, I'm just amazed at how gullible people can be, on seriously, not very many actual facts to go on, and so far you've put forth ZERO facts.



It is a very foreign concept to you because you don't believe in organized religion. If you had read this thread from the beginning, all I have done is put forth fact after fact after fact about our church and it's history as well as archaic facts about ancient cultures in meso-america. Try catching up some time.



> And yes, the Mayan heiroglyphs are descended from the reformed egyptian handed down by the Nephite culture, if not the actual reformed egyptian itself.





> So, is this statement provable by the scientific community?



It depends on which community you are talking about. There are different communities in the scientific world. When are people like you EVER going to realize that science is always changing and that scientists are CONSTANTLY arguing with each other. When are people like you going to realize that scientists ARE NOT UNITED. Why are they not united? Because there are evidences in support of both sides. It is up for each person to decide for themselves which facts make the most sense to them. 

don't you get it? Science is as shaky as you think religion is. I don't have to prove that. I can post dozens of links of scientists arguing with each other. It's common knowledge to most people unlike you. 

Michael D. Coe, the worlds foremost meso-american scholar and archaeologist has said that transcontinental oceanic voyages were possible from the old world to the new world pre-columbus.

The Smithsonian still clings to the dogma that all natives of the New World came across the Siberian landbridge. It's been proven that the ancients had the technology but the Smithsonian still won't retract their statement. Dogma junkies? I think so. 

So who do you believe? The people you want to believe or the people who give correct information?


----------



## John Lemmon

Yes I understand why you wear the special undies, it's so you never forget what religion you're in (as though you're a buncha 'tards who can't remember anything for more than 5 seconds).

No you're the slow one, I know he translated the book of m I was asking if he had done anything else and if he had a background in the field. I take it the answer is no, his abilities magically appeared even if you don't have the original document that it was translated from. 

*So no proof for your belief system either? Boy you must really not want to believe.*
Actually, my position is that a god has never been proven with actual tangible facts, so YOU are proof of my beliefs.

*Ask and ye shall receive...* Oh, you mean formula as in pablum. 

You've put forward "fact after fact of your church"? Maybe trivial facts, but not hard facts to prove that anything important (plates, nephi...) is true. 


You say that the ancients had the technology to come over by sea, but do you have any actual proof that they did? Again, you take the mere possibility and take it as fact for no real reason except that you've been told to by your church.
Micheal Coe according to you says that it's a possibility, he doesn't offer any actual proof either, and he's not saying that they did, according to you. So what exactly are you trying to believe?


----------



## Christopher

John Lemmon said:


> Yes I understand why you wear the special undies, it's so you never forget what religion you're in (as though you're a buncha 'tards who can't remember anything for more than 5 seconds).


No, you are showing a lack of understanding.  This is not the answer Truthspeaker gave and it is not the reason we wear temple garments.  Read his response again.



John Lemmon said:


> *So no proof for your belief system either? Boy you must really not want to believe.*
> Actually, my position is that a god has never been proven with actual tangible facts, so YOU are proof of my beliefs.



I understand your position.  So, do you think there is nothing of value that we learn outside of the tangible facts you describe?  Is there any way for husbands to provide tangible proof they love their wife to everyone?  That is similar to what you are asking Truthspeaker to do here.

From my experience, I have found that God communicates through love, through our emotions which I believe are tied to our spirit.  Love is the most universal language, so it makes sense that He would communicate to us that way and for me the greatest knowledge I have has come through my emotions.

I appreciate that you are attempting to read the Book of Mormon, thank you for that.  It shows you at least may have an open mind towards it.  What I think you still lack is an open heart.  Until you have that, you will not have any evidence of God.


----------



## John Lemmon

So Chris, please enlighten me as to why you wear the special undies, and especially why god would make anyone wear special undies.

*God communicates through love* So he communicates with animals as well? And when you're banging your woman, god is communicating to her through you? And when you get a woodie when you see your woman naked and feel love for her, what is god trying to say? And if you say to your dog, "I love you Barney", is god trying to tell your dog something? 
{_I know mods, no family, but I'm talking hypothetically_}

*do you think there is nothing of value that we learn outside of the &#8220;tangible facts&#8221;*

Your whole religion is based on heresay and apparently made up stuff, since you have no physical proof of anything. What value does heresay have to me? None.


----------



## Christopher

John Lemmon said:


> So Chris, please enlighten me as to why you wear the special undies, and especially why god would make anyone wear special undies.



Once again, Truthspeaker already answered this.  Perhaps you were just not listening.



John Lemmon said:


> *God communicates through love* So he communicates with animals as well? And when you're banging your woman, god is communicating to her through you? And when you get a woodie when you see your woman naked and feel love for her, what is god trying to say? And if you say to your dog, "I love you Barney", is god trying to tell your dog something?
> {_I know mods, no family, but I'm talking hypothetically_}



I think you and I are talking about a different definition of "love".  How old are you again?



John Lemmon said:


> *do you think there is nothing of value that we learn outside of the tangible facts*
> 
> Your whole religion is based on heresay and apparently made up stuff, since you have no physical proof of anything. What value does heresay have to me? None.



How did this response answer my question?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Yes I understand why you wear the special undies, it's so you never forget what religion you're in (as though you're a buncha 'tards who can't remember anything for more than 5 seconds).



You don't get it. It's not that we can't remember. It's just a way to make sure we never forget. There are times when temptation comes and you could be caught in a moment of weakness. It helps to have a constant reminder.



> No you're the slow one, I know he translated the book of m I was asking if he had done anything else and if he had a background in the field. I take it the answer is no, his abilities magically appeared even if you don't have the original document that it was translated from.



Of course he didn't have a background in the field through schooling. It was just known in his community that he had a gift from God. He didn't even have the skills to write his own book, let alone translate ancient languages.




> Actually, my position is that a god has never been proven with actual tangible facts, so YOU are proof of my beliefs.



Not very solid proof for you. Especially since I provide lots of evidences in favor of the existence of a God and of Meso American History. 

by the way. I said from the first post in the thread. I am not trying to prove my beliefs to anyone. Only explain them. How many times do I have to repeat this statement. Shall we have a friendly wager on an over/under of 150? I'm taking the over.

[





> B]Ask and ye shall receive...[/B] Oh, you mean formula as in pablum. :


Nope. just as it says. Pray and ask God. Listen through the fruits of the spirit as described in Galatians chapter 5 verse 22. and Alma chapter 32 verse 22-43. the formulas for getting an answer are described.



> You've put forward "fact after fact of your church"? Maybe trivial facts



Facts are facts. They're all cold and hard. There are no trivial facts.



> but not hard facts to prove that anything important (plates, nephi...) is true.



If I showed you the gold plates right now and the Smithsonian Institution did a TV show on them and said they were authentic, it still wouldn't make you believe in God any more than would a copy of the original bible. because that's still not proof!

Everything can be twisted for deception or taught as truth. The craftiness of mankind makes it impossible to know for sure. the only way you will ever be convinced of the existence of a God is if you see him with your own two eyes?

By the way, you spend a lot of time looking at pornography don't you? Who's your favorite star? Why do you spend so much time on it? I'll tell you why. Because you can see it with your eyes. You're a visual person that can only be satisfied with things put in front of your eyes. A classic trait of all porn addicts. Happy Trails!




> You say that the ancients had the technology to come over by sea, but do you have any actual proof that they did?



The History Channel had a very interesting expose on the myth of Columbus being the first to do a trans-continental voyage by ocean. It has now been shown that several mummies in Egypt have been discovered with Cocoa and tobacco preserved with the mummies. These products have always only been produced in the America's. Scientists started scratching their heads because the carbon dating matched up.

It has recently been discovered by Michael Coe that Aboriginals reached Australia first by boat in a voyage the same distance that would span from the coast of Asia to America over 10,000 years ago.

Mummies have been found in Kentucky, entombed and embalmed in the exact methods of the egyptians. The dating on the mummies was to Book of mormon times. Post 600 BC.

How could this exact technology be replicated if there was no one to teach them. There were people to teach them. They got here by boat. 

For 50 years. Science said there were no horses in the Americas before columbus. Many still ignore archaeological facts to the contrary to this day. Horses were here before book of mormon times and they were here during book of mormon times. They died off before columus came but the horses bones, skeletons, teeth and carbon dated digs don't lie.

Some scientists still continue to ignore these facts despite cold hard proof. so stop waving the scientific flag when you don't even know much about science yourself.



> Again, you take the mere possibility and take it as fact for no real reason except that you've been told to by your church.



Anyone who knows me knows I don't take anyones word for it "just because."



> Micheal Coe according to you says that it's a possibility, he doesn't offer any actual proof either, and he's not saying that they did, according to you. So what exactly are you trying to believe?



He explained that the fact of the Aboriginal journey from Asia to Australia proves that ancient societies had the marine technology to travel the necessary distances. Does it prove that Lehi and his company specifically landed in Meso America? No it doesn't. but there are many other such evidences in meso america itself that demand explanations. such as heiroglyphics, the use of metal plates in ancient meso american writings, pyramids, mummies, bedouin arab characteristics and speeches. Hebrew paintings discovered in America pre columbus. Egyptian figurines/toys found on the coast of el Salvador.

All the little things that by themselves don't prove anything, add up to a lot of "coincidences" that are too much for someone like me to ignore.


----------



## THE LIGHT

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THE LIGHT said:
> 
> 
> 
> bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean when you write "bump" like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Bump" is a forum term for moving the topic up to the top of the list.
> 
> So the word, "Bump" is used solely in a post to activate that topic to the top of the forum list. It's a way of getting more people to notice the topic and join in.
Click to expand...

 

In this case I am using it to bump a post within a thread rather than retype the post over and over (which I suppose I could do) I just bump it to see if it will ever get an answer.


----------



## pare

St Matthew 12:38-39 said:
			
		

> Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
> 
> But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:



The term "signs" easily equates to the terms "proof" and "tangible facts". What say you?




			
				St Matthew 13:10-12 said:
			
		

> And the disciples came, and said unto him, why speakest thou unto them in parables?
> 
> He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
> 
> For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.



People who receive testimonies and sincerely seek an understanding of the testimonies will find the sense in the words given - the parables will no longer be riddles to them and their knowledge of God will increase.

But of him who will not receive the testimony and will not sincerely seek an understanding, from him shall be taken away even the little understanding which he hath.

I am sure any answer to this would be confirmatory. What say you?


----------



## Zona

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Did the entire mindset change about blacks in 78?  Did they become equal in their eyes from one day to the next some how?


----------



## Zona

Oh and can I read the rules from those tablets?  If not, why not.  And is it true, is Beck a Mormon?  (perhaps this is where he got his special kind of race relations from?)

What exactly was up with Smith and his legal troubles again?


----------



## hvacjones

Zona said:


> Oh and can I read the rules from those tablets?  If not, why not.  And is it true, is Beck a Mormon?  (perhaps this is where he got his special kind of race relations from?)
> 
> What exactly was up with Smith and his legal troubles again?






Beck is a Mormon and most, but not all, Mormons are racist. However, the religion is not any crazier than most all other religions. Castrate Beck.


----------



## Zona

hvacjones said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and can I read the rules from those tablets?  If not, why not.  And is it true, is Beck a Mormon?  (perhaps this is where he got his special kind of race relations from?)
> 
> What exactly was up with Smith and his legal troubles again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a Mormon and most, but not all, Mormons are racist. However, the religion is not any crazier than most all other religions. Castrate Beck.
Click to expand...


Can you name a credible religion that was founded here in the states?  I know that is sort of a judgment call but seriously, a religion founded here in the states?  LOL  

Scientology maybe?  LOL


----------



## hvacjones

Zona said:


> hvacjones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and can I read the rules from those tablets?  If not, why not.  And is it true, is Beck a Mormon?  (perhaps this is where he got his special kind of race relations from?)
> 
> What exactly was up with Smith and his legal troubles again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a Mormon and most, but not all, Mormons are racist. However, the religion is not any crazier than most all other religions. Castrate Beck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you name a credible religion that was founded here in the states?  I know that is sort of a judgment call but seriously, a religion founded here in the states?  LOL
> 
> Scientology maybe?  LOL
Click to expand...

I


I've always been skeptical of religion, but after watching Religulious, I'm even more skeptical. I just don't think the Mormon religion is any crazier.


----------



## hvacjones

I think you can believe in a higher power, but organized religion is a sham.


----------



## Zona

hvacjones said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hvacjones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a Mormon and most, but not all, Mormons are racist. However, the religion is not any crazier than most all other religions. Castrate Beck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name a credible religion that was founded here in the states?  I know that is sort of a judgment call but seriously, a religion founded here in the states?  LOL
> 
> Scientology maybe?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I
> 
> 
> I've always been skeptical of religion, but after watching Religulious, I'm even more skeptical. I just don't think the Mormon religion is any crazier.
Click to expand...


Holy underwear...?  Their thoughts on blacks pre 78..(then of course EVERYTHING is equal now....lol), the tablets story, Smith himself, the fact that is was started here....yeah, they are a little crazier than most religions.  

Like someone else said, all organized religions are nuts.  I agree.  Beck represents just fine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

pare said:


> St Matthew 12:38-39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
> 
> But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The term "signs" easily equates to the terms "proof" and "tangible facts". What say you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> St Matthew 13:10-12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the disciples came, and said unto him, why speakest thou unto them in parables?
> 
> He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
> 
> For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who receive testimonies and sincerely seek an understanding of the testimonies will find the sense in the words given - the parables will no longer be riddles to them and their knowledge of God will increase.
> 
> But of him who will not receive the testimony and will not sincerely seek an understanding, from him shall be taken away even the little understanding which he hath.
> 
> I am sure any answer to this would be confirmatory. What say you?
Click to expand...


I agree one hundred percent. Everybody wants to see a sign these days! But even when they see it, they still don't believe it. 
Jesus said a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh a sign. Amen to that! Anyone seen the adultery rates today? Or the fact that Internet Porn is 75% of all content on the internet. Truly this is a wicked and adulterous generation we live in.

Thank you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the entire mindset change about blacks in 78?  Did they become equal in their eyes from one day to the next some how?
Click to expand...


Ah. It's been a while since someone brought this up. I began my explanations of this subject on page 15 through 17. Let me know when you read it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Oh and can I read the rules from those tablets?



I'm not sure which tablets you are referring to but I think you mean the Book of Mormon. You can certainly read the book in it's entirety on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under the gospel library tab. Select Scriptures, then book of mormon. Totally free and you don't even have to sign in or anything. it's a quick read.



> And is it true, is Beck a Mormon? (perhaps this is where he got his special kind of race relations from?)



Yes Glenn Beck is a recent convert to the church. I believe he joined back in 2003.


> What exactly was up with Smith and his legal troubles again?



His entire legal troubles consisted of being forced to constantly fight vexatious lawsuits. He was accused over and over of various crimes and miraculously acquitted each time. This is surprising considering that there were never any mormons on the jury or the bench.
He was illegally imprisoned awaiting trial many times and subjected to severely inhumane conditions.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Beck is a Mormon and most, but not all, Mormons are racist.



Ouch. Which racist mormons have you met? it's a pretty tough sell that you are pushing especially since our Book of Mormon has had the statement "All are alike unto God. Male and female, black and white, jew and gentile, bond and free." since the church's origination.



> However, the religion is not any crazier than most all other religions.



I'd say it's a lot crazier. We do have in my opinion the boldest claims of any other religion. 




> Castrate Beck.



Ouch. That's not nice at all. I may not like you, but I'd never cut your balls off.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Can you name a credible religion that was founded here in the states?



Interesting question. What is your definition of a credible religion?




> I know that is sort of a judgment call but seriously, a religion founded here in the states?  LOL



I volunteer The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints!



> Scientology maybe?



Credible to who? Credibility is sort of like asking for a referral. Whose word do you trust?


----------



## Truthspeaker

hvacjones said:


> I think you can believe in a higher power, but organized religion is a sham.



Joseph Smith thought the very same thing. I would think the very same thing if I didn't become exposed to my religion. It's the only one that makes any sense to me. If it didn't REALLY  make sense to me, the first thing I would stop doing, is paying 10% of my income to the church. That's how you know someone is really convicted of their beliefs.


----------



## John Lemmon

*paying 10% of my income to the church. That's how you know someone is really convicted of their beliefs.*
Dude, was Forrest Gump your autobiography? 

"convicted of your beliefs"? LOL, a Freudian slip perhaps?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Holy underwear...?



You don't understand the concept. 



> Their thoughts on blacks pre 78..(then of course EVERYTHING is equal now....lol),



This one is the easiest to misunderstand because of our young 21st century mindsets, often devoid of historical understanding of context and situations. keep reading my earlier explanations. When you catch up, you may change your tune. 

Don't be so presumptuous as to think you can just jump right in on the 136th page for the first time and assume no one has dealt with your questions.



> the tablets story,



The plates story is quite a whopper. I admit that. A lot of our stories are whoppers. But that doesn't make them false.



> Smith himself,



Ahh see. I would use "Smith himself" as one of the strongest arguments in his favor. Please. Heavily scrutinized his life and you will be impressed with what a remarkable man and christian he was.



> the fact that is was started here



First, the country a religion is founded in has no relevance whatsoever as to it's veracity. it's the doctrine that is key.

by the way. The religion wasn't founded here. It was restored here. It was originally founded with Christ.




> ....yeah, they are a little crazier than most religions.



Crazy is as crazy does.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Dude, was Forrest Gump your autobiography?



Let's see, I was not born in Greenbough Alabama, I never met Elvis, my parents were married, my iq is higher than 75, so my mom didn't have to bang the principle to get me into public school, never served in the military, never was an all american football player, never met any president, didn't expose the watergate scandal,didn't inspire the very smiley faces we use on this messageboard, never inspired the phrase S!*# HAPPENS, never went to an all white school, never had braces on my legs, never got a medal of honor, didn't live through the hippy sixties, never gave a speech at the washington monument, didn't marry a white girl, or a drug addict for that matter, actually was there for the birth of my kids, wasn't a shrimp boat captain, an original apple invester, didn't found the Bubba Gump shrimp company, wasn't a go-zillionaire, a world ping pong champion, and didn't run across the country even once, let alone 3 times..................

I love ping pong, rode the bus to school, I sometimes eat a few of the chocolates before I give the box as a gift, I was alive in 1981, and I believe in God. That's about where the similarities end. Oh and I'm white with brown hair.....Oh and he's not real. 



> "convicted of your beliefs"? LOL, a Freudian slip perhaps?



No. I'm convicted of my beliefs. I don't know where I'm slipping?


----------



## John Lemmon

Your church should pay YOU to go there. Or is it like amway, you get a cut of everyone's tithe that you bring in? I bet that's it.


----------



## KittenKoder

John Lemmon said:


> Your church should pay YOU to go there. Or is it like amway, you get a cut of everyone's tithe that you bring in? I bet that's it.



Even I see you are just being a troll now. Why don't you study something before you even try to knock it, because now you look like a foolish troll.


----------



## John Lemmon

KK, why don't you stfu. I'm discussing here with someone. Don't like it? Buzz off.


----------



## KittenKoder

John Lemmon said:


> KK, why don't you stfu. I'm discussing here with someone. Don't like it? Buzz off.



 No, they are discussing, you are just trolling.


----------



## John Lemmon

Says the loser with no point and 19,000+ posts since last september. IMPRESSIVE!


----------



## KittenKoder

John Lemmon said:


> Says the loser with no point and 19,000+ posts since last september. IMPRESSIVE!



You now resort to failed assumptions. How predictable.


----------



## John Lemmon

Fact: sept 2008
Another fact: 19,000+ posts.
Or are you just a bullshitter on that too? Why? You trying hard to make yourself look foolish?
Mission accomplished!!!


----------



## Zona

By the way, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  (This says it all).  No wonder he hates Obama.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Your church should pay YOU to go there. Or is it like amway, you get a cut of everyone's tithe that you bring in? I bet that's it.



You just don't get it. There is nothing in it for me moneywise. Literally nothing for anyone in the church's ministry. No one is paid.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> Fact: sept 2008
> Another fact: 19,000+ posts.
> Or are you just a bullshitter on that too? Why? You trying hard to make yourself look foolish?
> Mission accomplished!!!



Fact: your reputation power is zero. and declining


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> By the way, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  (This says it all).  No wonder he hates Obama.



Precisely!


----------



## KittenKoder

John Lemmon said:


> Fact: sept 2008
> Another fact: 19,000+ posts.
> Or are you just a bullshitter on that too? Why? You trying hard to make yourself look foolish?
> Mission accomplished!!!



Fact: I work on computers when I do work so I'm online no matter what.

Fact: I also have more rep than you so I must be doing something right.

Fact: The fool is the one who doesn't learn ... someone like you.


----------



## John Lemmon

KittenKoder said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: sept 2008
> Another fact: 19,000+ posts.
> Or are you just a bullshitter on that too? Why? You trying hard to make yourself look foolish?
> Mission accomplished!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: I work on computers when I do work so I'm online no matter what.
> 
> Fact: *I also have more rep than you so I must be doing something right.*
> 
> Fact: The fool is the one who doesn't learn ... someone like you.
Click to expand...


Only a total weenie cares about rep

kk, you must be hot for me or something, I wasn't even talking to you and now you're all over my posts. 
PS 19,000+ posts in a year= no life whatsoever. I bet you can't even get laid properly.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  (This says it all).  No wonder he hates Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely!
Click to expand...


hates is a strong word. disagrees with is much more accurate.


----------



## Avatar4321

John Lemmon said:


> Only a total weenie cares about rep
> 
> kk, you must be hot for me or something, I wasn't even talking to you and now you're all over my posts.
> PS 19,000+ posts in a year= no life whatsoever. I bet you can't even get laid properly.



You're the one bringing up the reps. if you dont care about them, why mention them?

Odd that you seem to think that success in life correlates to your ability to "get laid." Any moron can get laid, you think that is some sort of status symbol that shows you arent a loser? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. And I've heard a lot of stupid things on this board.

It's like that stupid claim that earning a piece of paper means you are educated.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JL, you are a troll.  I think the concept of "a one true church" is controverted by God's merit and grace.  But it is all testimony and faith for those who believe or not, and their right to believe deserves respect.  I agree with KK on this one.  You are not arguing, you are trolling.

Who in the LDS or other Mormon sects stepped on your tail?  I would rather have Mormons as neighbors.  Southern Baptists will steal from you.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> JL, you are a troll.  I think the concept of "a one true church" is controverted by God's merit and grace.  But it is all testimony and faith for those who believe or not, and their right to believe deserves respect.  I agree with KK on this one.  You are not arguing, you are trolling.
> 
> Who in the LDS or other Mormon sects stepped on your tail?  I would rather have Mormons as neighbors.  Southern Baptists will steal from you.



wait... you are actually saying something nice... you feeling okay? :


----------



## John Lemmon

You guys are just pissed that I exposed the fact that you have no concrete proof of any of the wild claims your religion makes. 
Avatar, where did I say that getting laid equates success in life or is a status symbol? Gee, you mormons sure like to make stuff up!  No wait, I wrote that on thin magic gold plates that disappeared, or should I say got ripped off by an angel. Makes perfect sense, don't you think?


----------



## Avatar4321

John Lemmon said:


> You guys are just pissed that I exposed the fact that you have no concrete proof of any of the wild claims your religion makes.
> Avatar, where did I say that getting laid equates success in life or is a status symbol? Gee, you mormons sure like to make stuff up!  No wait, I wrote that on thin magic gold plates that disappeared, or should I say got ripped off by an angel. Makes perfect sense, don't you think?



You wrote it in your last post when you are claiming that KK is a loser who cant get laid. As if that matters. Are you even bothering to remember what you are saying?


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are just pissed that I exposed the fact that you have no concrete proof of any of the wild claims your religion makes.
> Avatar, where did I say that getting laid equates success in life or is a status symbol? Gee, you mormons sure like to make stuff up!  No wait, I wrote that on thin magic gold plates that disappeared, or should I say got ripped off by an angel. Makes perfect sense, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote it in your last post when you are claiming that KK is a loser who cant get laid. As if that matters. Are you even bothering to remember what you are saying?
Click to expand...


*KK is a loser who cant get laid.*

Hey Fuck You!

Kitten don't want sex..there is a big difference!




I think......?????.....


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> *KK is a loser who cant get laid.*
> 
> Hey Fuck You!
> 
> Kitten don't want sex..there is a big difference!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think......?????.....



What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## John Lemmon

John Lemmon said:


> You guys are just pissed that I exposed the fact that you have no concrete proof of any of the wild claims your religion makes.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *KK is a loser who cant get laid.*
> 
> Hey Fuck You!
> 
> Kitten don't want sex..there is a big difference!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think......?????.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about?
Click to expand...


"*heck*"

Watch your language.


----------



## Truthspeaker

John Lemmon said:


> John Lemmon said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are just pissed that I exposed the fact that you have no concrete proof of any of the wild claims your religion makes.
Click to expand...


What's concrete to me is not to you so it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I understand that you think we're deluded....Fine by me. Do you have any other questions?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *KK is a loser who cant get laid.*
> 
> Hey Fuck You!
> 
> Kitten don't want sex..there is a big difference!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think......?????.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "*heck*"
> 
> Watch your language.
Click to expand...


Con-Sarnit Huggy! Why don't you get your Dad-Gum foreflushing arse back to heck, where you came from!


----------



## REVxERIK

i went to a mormon church a couple times, they seem to be friendly and christian to me!
although their service is unbeaaarrably long in my opinion, but that's a dedication to admire!


----------



## Truthspeaker

REVxERIK said:


> i went to a mormon church a couple times, they seem to be friendly and christian to me!
> although their service is unbeaaarrably long in my opinion, but that's a dedication to admire!



Well thanks for voting and adding to the Christian part of the poll. As you can see, there are still a lot of people who think we are lots of bad things other than friendly and christian.

As to the 3 hour service. It IS an acquired taste. That's because most churches just want you to show up and contribute to the plate that's being passed around. We stay extra long because there are instructional classes in which to learn your doctrine and ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS. 
This is a unique structure to the common style of showing up, listening for an hour or something like it and going home.


----------



## REVxERIK

Truthspeaker said:


> REVxERIK said:
> 
> 
> 
> i went to a mormon church a couple times, they seem to be friendly and christian to me!
> although their service is unbeaaarrably long in my opinion, but that's a dedication to admire!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for voting and adding to the Christian part of the poll. As you can see, there are still a lot of people who think we are lots of bad things other than friendly and christian.
> 
> As to the 3 hour service. It IS an acquired taste. That's because most churches just want you to show up and contribute to the plate that's being passed around. We stay extra long because there are instructional classes in which to learn your doctrine and ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
> This is a unique structure to the common style of showing up, listening for an hour or something like it and going home.
Click to expand...


the church i last went to, and damn it's been years, provided an hour serivce but i learned from it. It's great that every church has a unique style. haha i liked the mormon church too because there were alot of cute girls lol. mormon girls for some reason seem more attractive to me for some reason.


----------



## Truthspeaker

REVxERIK said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REVxERIK said:
> 
> 
> 
> i went to a mormon church a couple times, they seem to be friendly and christian to me!
> although their service is unbeaaarrably long in my opinion, but that's a dedication to admire!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for voting and adding to the Christian part of the poll. As you can see, there are still a lot of people who think we are lots of bad things other than friendly and christian.
> 
> As to the 3 hour service. It IS an acquired taste. That's because most churches just want you to show up and contribute to the plate that's being passed around. We stay extra long because there are instructional classes in which to learn your doctrine and ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
> This is a unique structure to the common style of showing up, listening for an hour or something like it and going home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the church i last went to, and damn it's been years, provided an hour serivce but i learned from it. It's great that every church has a unique style. haha i liked the mormon church too because there were alot of cute girls lol. mormon girls for some reason seem more attractive to me for some reason.
Click to expand...


I know huh? Me too! It all depends on each location but by and large, I think it's because they aren't conformists to today's current styles, what with the multiple ear piercings, tramp stamps, and belly button, booty crack showing outfits girls wear these days.
They are just well put together and classy.(for the most part)


----------



## REVxERIK

Truthspeaker said:


> REVxERIK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for voting and adding to the Christian part of the poll. As you can see, there are still a lot of people who think we are lots of bad things other than friendly and christian.
> 
> As to the 3 hour service. It IS an acquired taste. That's because most churches just want you to show up and contribute to the plate that's being passed around. We stay extra long because there are instructional classes in which to learn your doctrine and ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS.
> This is a unique structure to the common style of showing up, listening for an hour or something like it and going home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the church i last went to, and damn it's been years, provided an hour serivce but i learned from it. It's great that every church has a unique style. haha i liked the mormon church too because there were alot of cute girls lol. mormon girls for some reason seem more attractive to me for some reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know huh? Me too! It all depends on each location but by and large, I think it's because they aren't conformists to today's current styles, what with the multiple ear piercings, tramp stamps, and belly button, booty crack showing outfits girls wear these days.
> They are just well put together and classy.(for the most part)
Click to expand...

lol i have a lip ring i guess i'm not classy


----------



## Truthspeaker

REVxERIK said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REVxERIK said:
> 
> 
> 
> the church i last went to, and damn it's been years, provided an hour serivce but i learned from it. It's great that every church has a unique style. haha i liked the mormon church too because there were alot of cute girls lol. mormon girls for some reason seem more attractive to me for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know huh? Me too! It all depends on each location but by and large, I think it's because they aren't conformists to today's current styles, what with the multiple ear piercings, tramp stamps, and belly button, booty crack showing outfits girls wear these days.
> They are just well put together and classy.(for the most part)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol i have a lip ring i guess i'm not classy
Click to expand...


Bad boys like good girls....and vice-versa


----------



## BigBarry

You guys have bad girls in the mormon church? That sounds pretty hot! Where can I get me a few (since mormons are into polygamy)?


----------



## JW Frogen

Any religion that allows a lot of wives but bans booze, drugs or caffine is off it's head.

How to deal with those without the other?


----------



## Avatar4321

JW Frogen said:


> Any religion that allows a lot of wives but bans booze, drugs or caffine is off it's head.
> 
> How to deal with those without the other?



With respect and love.


----------



## BigBarry

Avatar4321 said:


> JW Frogen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any religion that allows a lot of wives but bans booze, drugs or caffine is off it's head.
> 
> How to deal with those without the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect and love.
Click to expand...


And a lot of beatings!


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> You guys have bad girls in the mormon church? That sounds pretty hot! Where can I get me a few (since mormons are into polygamy)?



We're human beings. Every group of people has their good and bad.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> You guys have bad girls in the mormon church? That sounds pretty hot! Where can I get me a few (since mormons are into polygamy)?



And I see you're new here. We're not "into polygamy."


----------



## Truthspeaker

JW Frogen said:


> Any religion that allows a lot of wives but bans booze, drugs or caffine is off it's head.
> 
> How to deal with those without the other?



We don't allow lots of wives.

Welcome to the fresh new crop of people who haven't read the answers to questions that have already been asked. Or corrections of statements that have already been made?


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> We don't allow lots of wives.
> 
> Welcome to the fresh new crop of people who haven't read the answers to questions that have already been asked. Or corrections of statements that have already been made?



well, you should always welcome new people. and teach the first principles. Because those are whats most important in life.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't allow lots of wives.
> 
> Welcome to the fresh new crop of people who haven't read the answers to questions that have already been asked. Or corrections of statements that have already been made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, you should always welcome new people. and teach the first principles. Because those are whats most important in life.
Click to expand...


Quite right


----------



## BigBarry

*teach the first principles*

Ok, I'll bite, what are they?


----------



## REVxERIK

Truthspeaker said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have bad girls in the mormon church? That sounds pretty hot! Where can I get me a few (since mormons are into polygamy)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I see you're new here. We're not "into polygamy."
Click to expand...


i see people are still lumping polygamists into the lds faith, i wonder when  that will end


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> *teach the first principles*
> 
> Ok, I'll bite, what are they?



1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ

2. Repentance

3. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins

4. Receipt of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands of those who are in authority to do so.


----------



## Truthspeaker

REVxERIK said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys have bad girls in the mormon church? That sounds pretty hot! Where can I get me a few (since mormons are into polygamy)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I see you're new here. We're not "into polygamy."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i see people are still lumping polygamists into the lds faith, i wonder when  that will end
Click to expand...


Probably never


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> *teach the first principles*
> 
> Ok, I'll bite, what are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
> 
> 2. Repentance
> 
> 3. Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins
> 
> 4. Receipt of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands of those who are in authority to do so.
Click to expand...


First of all, repentance is usually the first thing that happens, as a result of conviction.

Then placing one's faith in Christ atoning work at Calvary and His subsequent ressurrection, and ascension.

Then the receiving of the Holy Spirit, not necessarily and usually not by laying on of hands comes next.

Remember that the 11 received the H.S. when Jesus breathed it upon them.

When Peter spoke to the thousands in Jerusalem that were there from all parts of Asia Minor for Pentacost, people received the Holy Spirit while standing in the crowds.  Thousands believed and were saved that day.

Water baptism was administered upon their belief/salvation as a public statement of their new lives in Christ Jesus.

The water baptism symbolized the believer's co-death, co-burial, co-ressurrection, and spiritual co-ascension with/and in Christ. Galatians 2:20-21


> 20. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law(Trying To Please God In Order To Be Saved Or Be Acceptable), Christ died for nothing



So Christian baptism was a symbolic external expression of an internal transformation done by God Almighty.


----------



## BigBarry

That's sounds interesting, but one question first: can I get laid by a mormon chick without having to marry her first? Or is that frowned upon?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> First of all, repentance is usually the first thing that happens, as a result of conviction.



Well it can't be the first, because by your own admission, the conviction had to happen first. Conviction of Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. How can you repent if you don't know the law of Christ first and gain a conviction of it?



> Then placing one's faith in Christ atoning work at Calvary and His subsequent ressurrection, and ascension.



I believe this happens first.



> Then the receiving of the Holy Spirit, not necessarily and usually not by laying on of hands comes next.



Well we have our reasons to disagree with you but that's not the point of this thread.



> Remember that the 11 received the H.S. when Jesus breathed it upon them.



Again we disagree, but that's off topic.



> When Peter spoke to the thousands in Jerusalem that were there from all parts of Asia Minor for Pentacost, people received the Holy Spirit while standing in the crowds.  Thousands believed and were saved that day.



We have several minor disagreements when it comes to the interpretation of the receipt of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost but that's ok.



> Water baptism was administered upon their belief/salvation as a public statement of their new lives in Christ Jesus.



We agree!!!!!!!



> The water baptism symbolized the believer's co-death, co-burial, co-ressurrection, and spiritual co-ascension with/and in Christ. Galatians 2:20-21
> 
> 
> 
> 20. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law(Trying To Please God In Order To Be Saved Or Be Acceptable), Christ died for nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Christian baptism was a symbolic external expression of an internal transformation done by God Almighty.
Click to expand...


We agree 99%
Couldn't have said it better myself. Except for your remarks in parentheses about trying to please God being bad.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> That's sounds interesting, but one question first: can I get laid by a mormon chick without having to marry her first? Or is that frowned upon?


----------



## BigBarry

Truthspeaker said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's sounds interesting, but one question first: can I get laid by a mormon chick without having to marry her first? Or is that frowned upon?
Click to expand...


Do mormons at least get good weed?


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's sounds interesting, but one question first: can I get laid by a mormon chick without having to marry her first? Or is that frowned upon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do mormons at least get good weed?
Click to expand...


Were you dropped as a child? How long was the fall?


----------



## BigBarry

So tell me, what do you folks do for fun, spin wool?


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> So tell me, what do you folks do for fun, spin wool?





Boy that was a real humdinger! Ooooh. oohh. oh. Oh man. A real thigh slapper!

Come on tell me another one.


----------



## BigBarry

So you're a church full of virgins until you get married, or is sex for fun beforehand allowed?
I CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH!


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> So you're a church full of virgins until you get married, or is sex for fun beforehand allowed?
> I CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH!



People are people. Some follow their religion, some don't have the discipline. 
I don't think your use of the word "allowed" is appropriate. Everything is allowed because we teach the freedom of choice. But if you want to follow God's commandments, then you would choose not to do such things. If it wasn't allowed, we would have bedroom police. But there are no bedroom police so it's up to your own conscience to decide to do what is right.


----------



## BigBarry

So if you do have sex before marriage, you have to repent, or you're stained forever? Or does a hymenorrhaphy restore your purity? What about for men?


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> So if you do have sex before marriage, you have to repent, or you're stained forever? Or does a hymenorrhaphy restore your purity? What about for men?



I don't know why anyone would want to have that done. Gross. But, c'mon, you're only a virgin once. 

The past is not as important as the present. It's about making the change to truly convert yourself to God. Repentance is always available.


----------



## BigBarry

So you've banged only 1 woman in your whole life?


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> So you've banged only 1 woman in your whole life?



Some say I'm a loser! I say I'm a winner!


----------



## BigBarry

Why? What did you win?  The knowledge to not know whether what you got is any good compared to what's out there?


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> Why? What did you win?  The knowledge to not know whether what you got is any good compared to what's out there?



I know what else is out there. That's why I was selective. Now that I'm married with 2 beautiful kids and a beautiful wife, I'm happy. Why would I waste time waiting to test out all 4 billion women on the planet? Life's too short to worry about being too picky with women. Find one that's attractive, loves you and makes you happy. That's everyone's dream woman. I found mine.


----------



## trueblue

Truthspeaker said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What did you win?  The knowledge to not know whether what you got is any good compared to what's out there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what else is out there. That's why I was selective. Now that I'm married with 2 beautiful kids and a beautiful wife, I'm happy. Why would I waste time waiting to test out all 4 billion women on the planet? Life's too short to worry about being too picky with women. Find one that's attractive, loves you and makes you happy. That's everyone's dream woman. I found mine.
Click to expand...


Props on the integrity, truthspeaker.


----------



## BigBarry

trueblue said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? What did you win?  The knowledge to not know whether what you got is any good compared to what's out there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what else is out there. That's why I was selective. Now that I'm married with 2 beautiful kids and a beautiful wife, I'm happy. Why would I waste time waiting to test out all 4 billion women on the planet? Life's too short to worry about being too picky with women. Find one that's attractive, loves you and makes you happy. That's everyone's dream woman. I found mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Props on the integrity, truthspeaker.
Click to expand...


There's probably something majorly wrong with him, like he's super fat, or he's got one tooth, because it sounds to me like he couldn't get laid growing up. I've always said that marriage is mostly for ugly people who need to secure a regular screw.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what else is out there. That's why I was selective. Now that I'm married with 2 beautiful kids and a beautiful wife, I'm happy. Why would I waste time waiting to test out all 4 billion women on the planet? Life's too short to worry about being too picky with women. Find one that's attractive, loves you and makes you happy. That's everyone's dream woman. I found mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Props on the integrity, truthspeaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's probably something majorly wrong with him, like he's super fat, or he's got one tooth, because it sounds to me like he couldn't get laid growing up. I've always said that marriage is mostly for ugly people who need to secure a regular screw.
Click to expand...


I don't think I'm THAT hard to look at. why don't you poll the ladies and see what they think?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I think that BigBarry has a story to tell that undermines his posting.  Being faithful to one's spouse is not difficult at all.  If one understands that moral veniality is nothing more than weakening of one's personal, interior worth as an individual, keeping one's wedding vows or partner vows or whatever vow is not difficult at all.  Good for you, Truthspeaker, and good to those who were good examples in your life when you were growing up.


----------



## Skeptik

BigBarry said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what else is out there. That's why I was selective. Now that I'm married with 2 beautiful kids and a beautiful wife, I'm happy. Why would I waste time waiting to test out all 4 billion women on the planet? Life's too short to worry about being too picky with women. Find one that's attractive, loves you and makes you happy. That's everyone's dream woman. I found mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Props on the integrity, truthspeaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's probably something majorly wrong with him, like he's super fat, or he's got one tooth, because it sounds to me like he couldn't get laid growing up. I've always said that marriage is mostly for ugly people who need to secure a regular screw.
Click to expand...


Or, it could be that he is sure enough of his masculinity that he feels no need to see how many conquests he can make.


----------



## CommonSensor

REVxERIK said:


> haha i liked the mormon church too because there were alot of cute girls lol. mormon girls for some reason seem more attractive to me for some reason.



Uh oh....our secret is out =) ... you should have to live with em here in Utah! But honestly, be careful what ya wish for... They play for keeps, and demand huge assault vehicles to kart around ginormous families! 

-sensored


----------



## JW Frogen

The entire reason Mormons banned booze is because with that many wives one is either going spawn the population of China or go broke.

Or both.


----------



## JW Frogen

China discourages children and supports sober, idiot, assembly line work.

Now they are rich.

Kill your soul or your bank balance, place your bets.


----------



## BigBarry

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't think I'm THAT hard to look at. why don't you poll the ladies and see what they think?



So you do care about other women being attracted to you?  

*Or, it could be that he is sure enough of his masculinity that he feels no need to see how many conquests he can make.*

Or that he wasn't masculine enough to get laid. 

Maybe he's one of those qweers who's trying to change to hetero through god?


----------



## Avatar4321

You really need to learn that there is more to life than getting laid. Especially so crudely.


----------



## BigBarry

Avatar4321 said:


> You really need to learn that there is more to life than getting laid. Especially so crudely.



How would YOU know?


----------



## Avatar4321

BigBarry said:


> How would YOU know?



Because ive experience more of life. Art, poetry, music, all types of knowledge throughout the world. A world to explore and see.  people to meet and get to know. there are so many other things in this world that are good and excellent to experience


----------



## BigBarry

I've experienced all those things as well, and getting laid with a hot chick is right up there! 
You should try it sometimes!!


----------



## Skeptik

BigBarry said:


> I've experienced all those things as well, and getting laid with a hot chick is right up there!
> You should try it sometimes!!



I got laid with a hot chick 42 years ago, and am still married to her.  

Some things are worth keeping, some are not.


----------



## Truthspeaker

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay.

Are there any more misconceptions that need clearing up?


----------



## BigBarry

Do you have to wash magic underwear?
Do mormon women shave their armpits and cameltoe?
When mormons have several wives, can they have group sex with all of them at once?


----------



## Eightball

Don't recall if I've asked this in a past post, but why is it that a "Cross" is not found at the top of a LDS church building where the Mormons worship?

Isn't it the angel, "Moroni" who's likeness is a-top the LDS worship/church buildings? 

Question:  Is Moroni more important to the Mormon church than the crucifixion, ressurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ? 

For Christians around the world, the "cross" represents or symbolizes the means and instrument that stood upon Golgotha's hill and through-which Jesus atoned for mankind's sins once and for all.

So some folks may think that wearing a little cross on a neck chain or having it a-top a churchs' steeple seems sadistic, yet they miss the point that the "cross" is not being worshiped, but is a symbol of the total work of sins atonement by Christ for mankind.

Trully the "cross" was a horrible instrument used during a certain period of Roman capital punishment.  Yet, the symbol reminds Christians of what Christ did on their be-half.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> Do you have to wash magic underwear?
> Do mormon women shave their armpits and cameltoe?
> When mormons have several wives, can they have group sex with all of them at once?



You are a slime.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Don't recall if I've asked this in a past post, but why is it that a "Cross" is not found at the top of a LDS church building where the Mormons worship?



We don't use the cross because it is a Catholic symbol that we feel only focuses on Christ's death. We claim Jesus is alive and well. We focus on his resurrection more than we do on his death, however necessary his death was. To us a cross is just too morbid.



> Isn't it the angel, "Moroni" who's likeness is a-top the LDS worship/church buildings?



Actually the angel Moroni sounding a trump is not atop any of our churches. The statue can only be found on the top's of our temples facing east. This is to symbolize all the angels that will sound their trumps to the second coming of Jesus Christ in the east.



> Question:  Is Moroni more important to the Mormon church than the crucifixion, ressurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ?



Since Moroni is announcing the coming of Christ in the statue, the answer to your question would be a definitive "No."
You might also recognize the Christus statue found in many of our temple locations
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> So some folks may think that wearing a little cross on a neck chain or having it a-top a churchs' steeple seems sadistic, yet they miss the point that the "cross" is not being worshiped, but is a symbol of the total work of sins atonement by Christ for mankind.



I realize the symbol is not being worshipped. We just feel there are better symbols to signify Jesus than the manner of his death.




> Trully the "cross" was a horrible instrument used during a certain period of Roman capital punishment.  Yet, the symbol reminds Christians of what Christ did on their be-half



I don't really have anything AGAINST the cross. It's just not the symbol of my choice. Also, I think symbols we use are far less important than the actions we take in our lives. I don't think God's criteria for judment will be based on if we used a cross or not.


----------



## BigBarry

*We claim Jesus is alive and well.* 
He's having fried banana and PB sandwiches with Elvis! 

*This is to symbolize all the angels that will sound their trumps to the second coming of Jesus Christ in the east.*
Thought you said he was alive?

*I don't really have anything AGAINST the cross. It's just not the symbol of my choice.*
T prefers tight magic undies!


----------



## Truthspeaker

> *This is to symbolize all the angels that will sound their trumps to the second coming of Jesus Christ in the east.*
> Thought you said he was alive?



Yeah, He is... So why are you so confused?


----------



## BigBarry

How can he come back if he's alive. Alive means not a ghost or a spirit, it means physically alive.
Geez, maybe your magic undies are too tight?

PS do you ever try on your wife's magic undies? Are they bigger than yours?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> How can he come back if he's alive. Alive means not a ghost or a spirit, it means physically alive.


Yeah, I don't understand your density level. If someone is alive and they leave this planet and go somewhere else in the universe, it doesn't mean they're dead. For crying out loud Humans have left earth and come back. They weren't dead just because they left.




> Geez, maybe your magic undies are too tight?
> 
> PS do you ever try on your wife's magic undies? Are they bigger than yours?



I don't have any magic undies. Neither does my wife. Do you wear your significant other's  undies?


----------



## BigBarry

Truthspeaker said:


> How can he come back if he's alive. Alive means not a ghost or a spirit, it means physically alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't understand your density level. If someone is alive and they leave this planet and go somewhere else in the universe, it doesn't mean they're dead. For crying out loud Humans have left earth and come back. They weren't dead just because they left.
Click to expand...


I'm dense! 
So where is jesus then if he's "somewhere else in the universe"?
Didn't he die on the cross?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I'm dense!



Should I make that my new sig line?



> So where is jesus then if he's "somewhere else in the universe"?



Wherever he wants to be.



> Didn't he die on the cross?



Yes; and he resurrected 3 days later.


----------



## BigBarry

So admit it, jesus is dead. He's not somewhere else in the universe, that's fucking ridiculous. And kolob doesn't even exist, so get a grip dude, you're living in a fantasy world.
Plus, jesus never resurrected, no proof buddy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

BigBarry is a Bigtoid Barry.  Jeez, I don't hold much for LDS theology, or any Mormon theology, but I don't for most Christian theology (other than my antinomian own), but Barrybutt, why are you so rude about it all?  You can argue it without being an idiot.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Barry is a helpless adolescent who was probably dropped as a child or worse.  I don't understand his motivation. He is clearly a blight on society.


----------



## trueblue

Truthspeaker said:


> Barry is a helpless adolescent who was probably dropped as a child or worse.  I don't understand his motivation. He is clearly a blight on society.



Not a very Christian comment. Probably true. But not very Christian all the same.


----------



## Truthspeaker

trueblue said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barry is a helpless adolescent who was probably dropped as a child or worse.  I don't understand his motivation. He is clearly a blight on society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a very Christian comment. Probably true. But not very Christian all the same.
Click to expand...


Perhaps it is a little presumptuous. The better statement would be that he's just an immature, arrogant and mean spirited person. 

Me personally, I'd rather have been dropped.


----------



## trueblue

Truthspeaker said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barry is a helpless adolescent who was probably dropped as a child or worse.  I don't understand his motivation. He is clearly a blight on society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a very Christian comment. Probably true. But not very Christian all the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps it is a little presumptuous. The better statement would be that he's just an immature, arrogant and mean spirited person.
> 
> Me personally, I'd rather have been dropped.
Click to expand...


Perhaps. I don't know why you still pay attention to him. He's obviously not in it because he is interested in the doctrine or theology. He just wants to upset people and get that reaction. He joys in being obnoxious to others. Maybe he's never learned how to converse or deserve positive attention, so he goes for whatever he can get.

I keep saying 'he', but this is the internet we're talking about. He could be anybody. Maybe   he is only fifteen. Maybe he's a very large woman who has given up on love and has become very bitter over time as a result. Maybe he is a sister that likes to get under your skin.

Whatever he is, where is the fight taking anybody?


----------



## Truthspeaker

trueblue said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a very Christian comment. Probably true. But not very Christian all the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it is a little presumptuous. The better statement would be that he's just an immature, arrogant and mean spirited person.
> 
> Me personally, I'd rather have been dropped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps. I don't know why you still pay attention to him. He's obviously not in it because he is interested in the doctrine or theology. He just wants to upset people and get that reaction. He joys in being obnoxious to others. Maybe he's never learned how to converse or deserve positive attention, so he goes for whatever he can get.
> 
> I keep saying 'he', but this is the internet we're talking about. He could be anybody. Maybe   he is only fifteen. Maybe he's a very large woman who has given up on love and has become very bitter over time as a result. Maybe he is a sister that likes to get under your skin.
> 
> Whatever he is, where is the fight taking anybody?
Click to expand...


I don't think I AM fighting. But in the middle of his attacks he launches falsehoods about our church that must be answered by me because I am the OP on this thread. Eventually he'll get tired of it and move on. 
I may get a little sarcastic back to him but that's just part of who I am for better or for worse.


----------



## Avatar4321

trueblue said:


> Perhaps. I don't know why you still pay attention to him. He's obviously not in it because he is interested in the doctrine or theology. He just wants to upset people and get that reaction. He joys in being obnoxious to others. Maybe he's never learned how to converse or deserve positive attention, so he goes for whatever he can get.
> 
> I keep saying 'he', but this is the internet we're talking about. He could be anybody. Maybe   he is only fifteen. Maybe he's a very large woman who has given up on love and has become very bitter over time as a result. Maybe he is a sister that likes to get under your skin.
> 
> Whatever he is, where is the fight taking anybody?



Exactly why i ceased posting in the thread. there hasnt been anything of substance to respond to in quite a while.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Well thanks for enlightening me on the Church stance on the Trinity. Since I know that is false teachings I do not see how I can stay in or be a part of a Church that openly supports false teachings.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Don't recall if I've asked this in a past post, but why is it that a "Cross" is not found at the top of a LDS church building where the Mormons worship?
> 
> Isn't it the angel, "Moroni" who's likeness is a-top the LDS worship/church buildings?
> 
> Question:  Is Moroni more important to the Mormon church than the crucifixion, ressurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ?
> 
> For Christians around the world, the "cross" represents or symbolizes the means and instrument that stood upon Golgotha's hill and through-which Jesus atoned for mankind's sins once and for all.
> 
> So some folks may think that wearing a little cross on a neck chain or having it a-top a churchs' steeple seems sadistic, yet they miss the point that the "cross" is not being worshiped, but is a symbol of the total work of sins atonement by Christ for mankind.
> 
> Trully the "cross" was a horrible instrument used during a certain period of Roman capital punishment.  Yet, the symbol reminds Christians of what Christ did on their be-half.



You act as though Christianity is some monolithic group. That couldnt be further from the truth. The Truth is not all Christians focus on crosses and crucifixes as symbols. In fact, the cross was a rather late symbol, the earlier symbol for Christians was the fish.

Also, Moroni isnt placed on Church buildings. I dont know of a single chapel with the Angel on top of it. He is placed on the Temples. And if you have read anything of revelation you would understand the symbolism invoked there.

As for our focus on what Christ did, that symbol is the Temple itself. Because our Temples are a testimony to all the world of the literal Atonement and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there was no resurrection or atonement there could be no Temple work. The dead could not be redeemed. Death would be the end of it. But the Temples of the Lord provide the ordinances necessary to Redeem the living and the dead, ordinances which would be unnecessary without the resurrection from the dead. Ordinances to purify, which would be impossible without the Atonement of Christ for our sins.

You see its the Temple where the full context and teachings of the resurrection and Atonement can be taught. Temple worship would be useless without Christ and what He did for us. It's the ultimate testament to Jesus Christ. And there is no place on earth we can come closer to becoming like Christ than in His Holy Temple.

The main difference I see between our symbols is that yours serves as a reminder of the Redemption and Resurrection of Christ. Ours serves to help men and women throughout all generations of time recieve those gives of Eternal lives.


----------



## Avatar4321

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well thanks for enlightening me on the Church stance on the Trinity. Since I know that is false teachings I do not see how I can stay in or be a part of a Church that openly supports false teachings.



I truely think the complete confusion in the world concerning the Godhead has much to do with a complete lack of understanding of the Doctrine of Divine Investiture of Authority. Course few people are even aware of its existance. I know I dont completely understand it myself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Avatar4321 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for enlightening me on the Church stance on the Trinity. Since I know that is false teachings I do not see how I can stay in or be a part of a Church that openly supports false teachings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I truely think the complete confusion in the world concerning the Godhead has much to do with a complete lack of understanding of the Doctrine of Divine Investiture of Authority. Course few people are even aware of its existance. I know I dont completely understand it myself.
Click to expand...


It is real simple. Jesus Christ is NOT God Almighty. Nor is the Holy Spirit God Almighty. They are 3 separate entities. And the Bible is clear on this point.

One is not to interpret the word of God, but rather to read it and accept it. Find any passage that has God claiming he is Jesus Christ. Find any passage that has God claiming he is the Holy Spirit. I can and have provided, in other threads passages where Jesus STATES to the people and his disciples he is NOT GOD. I can provide passages that clearly state that the Holy Spirit is a force that God USES.

Is Jesus a God in his own right? Well the Bible does not say that, but he will be supreme over us all as a KING.

Now explain why God would so befuddle the message that he is the ONLY God we should worship while claiming to be Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Further explain why God would tell us to only worship him but then make Jesus a God also.


----------



## BigBarry

BigBarry said:


> So admit it, jesus is dead. He's not somewhere else in the universe, that's fucking ridiculous. And kolob doesn't even exist, so get a grip dude, you're living in a fantasy world.
> Plus, jesus never resurrected, no proof buddy.



Guys, or is it girls?, what is so not cool with this post? T didn't even answer it cuz he's got nuthin', I understand. 

*Exactly why i ceased posting in the thread. there hasnt been anything of substance to respond to in quite a while.* Avatar, you got nuthin either. I've been asking all kinds of questions about mormons in this thread, you don't answer cuz you don't know, you wait for T to answer for you. I was trying to figure out why you and T believe in mormon stuff out of curiosity, turns out, you folks just enjoy believing in santa claus for no other reason that because it's fun. There's no bigger truth in LDS, it's just wilder stories with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Kinda like being a trekkie just for fun.
Now go buy some new "special garments', I think the ones you have on now have shrunk over the years and are squeezing your brains a little too much.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thanks for enlightening me on the Church stance on the Trinity. Since I know that is false teachings I do not see how I can stay in or be a part of a Church that openly supports false teachings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I haven't given you the impression that we share a Catholic perception. I'll be as clear and plain as possible on the subject. Catholics believe Jesus was praying to himself in the garden of gethsemane. They say God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three different names for the same guy. They say he is incomprehensible so that's why it's confusing. We aren't SUPPOSED  to be able to "get it" or understand it. That is the Catholic viewpoint.
> That is not the LDS view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is real simple. Jesus Christ is NOT God Almighty. Nor is the Holy Spirit God Almighty. They are 3 separate entities. And the Bible is clear on this point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right. It is real simple. God is a term we use somewhat loosely when talking about either Jesus or His father Elohim. Elohim is the father of Jesus. God is a name they both use. Just like senior and junior.
> 
> However since Jesus told us in the Bible that "I shall receive all that my father hath", that means he has received all that his father has. That includes his title. Jesus was a God even before he was born though. His pre-earth name was Jehovah. He was the creator of the earth under the direction of the great supervisor Elohim.
> 
> The Holy Ghost is used to describe an actual person who is the Holy Ghost. His other name has not been given to us. His purpose is to remain a spirit during the existence of this earth in order to touch the hearts of people in regards to true teachings. There is a force-like substance which binds us all together and allows the Holy Ghost to communicate to our hearts but that force is not the personage of spirit which is The Holy Ghost.
> 
> So there is a brief explanation with some detail on the subject. Our teaching is indeed that there are 3 distinct individuals in the Godhead.
> 
> Elohim(The father of all spirits, including Jesus spirit. The architect of all and the person we pray to. Had a body before Jesus and all the rest of us.)
> 
> Jesus (Jehovah before he was born in the flesh and received a body for the first time. The one responsible for our redemption because of His atonement. Also called The eternal Father because he is "the father of heaven and earth". Often a reason for confusion to those who don't understand his pre-earth role. He reported his work to Elohim and prayed to Elohim. He is now equal with Elohim and eligible to be called God.)
> 
> The Holy Ghost (Has not yet received a physical body. Eventually will when his task is done so that he may enjoy eternity to the fullest. When this will be we do not know for sure but it is unimportant for us to know. His task has been described. He is a God as well. This is the reason why we can say God told me the truth of the matter in my heart. Because God, the Holy Ghost spoke to our hearts feelings.)
> 
> I hope I have made this clear. Please do not be hung up on the word God so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is not to interpret the word of God, but rather to read it and accept it. Find any passage that has God claiming he is Jesus Christ. Find any passage that has God claiming he is the Holy Spirit. I can and have provided, in other threads passages where Jesus STATES to the people and his disciples he is NOT GOD. I can provide passages that clearly state that the Holy Spirit is a force that God USES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you. The main problem with the Bible on this is that the meaning of the three different people has been lost in translation. The Jews knew the distinction but the translators and the rest of the world had not been educated on the matter until Joseph Smith saw the two of them standing together. A picture is worth a thousand words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Jesus a God in his own right? Well the Bible does not say that, but he will be supreme over us all as a KING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, when Jesus was speaking to the pharisees about Abraham in detail, they scorned Jesus saying"Thou art not yet 50 years old, yet thou hast seen Abraham?!" They mockingly said.
> 
> Jesus reply:"Before Abraham was*,* I AM
> 
> Then the Jews took up stones to kill him and Jesus left them. The only reason they tried to kill him, is because they FULLY UNDERSTOOD the claim he was making. They did not hesitate to try to kill him for the blasphemy of claiming he was the great I AM. The same name Jehovah called himself to Moses: I AM. Any biblical scholar understands the language used here.
> Also, what makes someone a God? Knowing everything, having all power, and being immortal. Jesus fits all of those descriptions therefore his is a God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now explain why God would so befuddle the message that he is the ONLY God we should worship while claiming to be Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Further explain why God would tell us to only worship him but then make Jesus a God also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a catholic claim, not a Mormon one.
Click to expand...


----------



## Eightball

> *John 1*
> 
> *The Deity of Jesus Christ*
> 
> 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and *the Word was God*.
> 
> 2. He was in the beginning with God.
> 
> 3. All things came into being through Him, *and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being*.
> 
> Paul wrote a very clear substantiation of Christ as God in *Collosians Chapter 1*





> Paul wrote a very clear substantiation of Christ as God in *Collosians Chapter 1
> 
> 15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
> 
> 16 .For by Him(Jesus) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things have been created through Him and for Him.
> 
> 17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
> 
> 18. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
> 
> 19 .For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
> 
> 20. and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. *


*

Now if one goes to Genesis we see that God was the Creator of all things, yet Collosians suncinctly reveals that all of creation came or was created by/through Christ Jesus.

*******
How much more succinct/clear/definitive must John the Apostle be in defining Christ as God.

As for understanding the trinitarian aspect of God, it is very simple yet very mysterious.  God is expressed in three distinct personalities, all three of the masculine tense, all three in agreement with each other.

So the old argument or rebuttal that Jesus prayed to Himself is so off the board or radar.  He indeed prayed to God the Father who is who He is of the trinitarian Godhead.

Secondly, the trinitarian doctrine or definition of the Judeau/Christian God is not Catholic in origin, but dates back to the early church that was hundreds of years before the Catholic churchs' formation/beginning.

All of the books and letters that comprise the N.T. were circulating among the early church between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D., and that includes the above "John" book.

The problem that arises is that natural man, tries with his finite/natural intellect to define infinite God according to his/hers parameters of understanding in the area of the "makeup" of God. 

Since the God of the bible ascends beyond the "creative" or touch/sight/smell then he is then defined by finite man definitively yet incorrectly.

The word "trinity" is not in the bible, but the word was used in Christian circles of theology as a way of summing-up the distinct yet untouchable, and uncreated yet accurate aspects of the Judeau/Christian God as revealed both in the O.T. and N.T..

We humans ask, "How can God be revealed in three distinct forms/personalities, yet be one?".  No valid theologian to date can explain that, yet it is not a "tripping point" for the true Christian.  As God says that My ways are not your way, we cannot fathom the mind of God in totality, but are allowed glimpses-enough to marvel at His being.

Again, manmade religions try to bring God down to human/created definitions of make-up, as they cannot, and will not know that which is infinite, when they are but finite.

God is Spiritually ascertained, yet even though the Holy Spirit indwells all true Christians as the Counselor/Helper/Comforter, who guides and opens up God's scripture to believers we are still finite.  Our minds are of this world, yet we have been given God's never-ending and never-beginning life through the H.S.'s indwelling when we believed or received Christ Jesus His Son as our the propitiation of our sinful, Adamic natures/lives.  In return we received the life of Christ/H.S. to seal us, to speak to our most inner soul and guide us in this world until we die and then see Him face to face.

Paul said that God is Spirit, yet He/God expressed Himself in the flesh, fully 100% human in everyway, yet 100% God in everyway.
Why?:  Only God has the full capability to remove judgement upon the human race, yet, the sacrifice in our "stead" had to be of our "likeness", and Christ was fully Man to carry this out.  Fully Man, and fully God, was the only suitable/capable offering before God Almighty.

There are so many, many clear verses in the bible defining Jesus as God Almighty.....Jesus Himself had the crowd pick up rocks to stone Him to death.  He asked them why.  They said to Him that He was claiming to be God or equal to God.  His antagonists with there own mouths propheside Jesus' true identity.

When Thomas touched the nail scarred hands, and the spear scar on Jesus' abdomen, he fell down before Jesus, and proclaimed Him, "My Lord and My God!!!".

Paul enumerates over and over in so many of his epistles that Jesus is God.

Jesus Himself said, "Before Abraham I AM".   The greek break down of that "I AM", is Jehovah/God Almighty/the Alpha and Omega.......or Beginning and End.
*********


----------



## JakeStarkey

LDS teaching has never presented a unified, seamless theology.  It certainly does not today.  However, much is offered in the LDS church to the average joe and jane, who wish to stay there even if they find it all confusing.  For those folks, they may want to check out staylds.com.  This is a discussion site for LDS who find certain matters irritating, stupid, or outright wrong, but still wish to remain active, temple-going LDS.  It's worth a look.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> LDS teaching has never presented a unified, seamless theology.  It certainly does not today.  However, much is offered in the LDS church to the average joe and jane, who wish to stay there even if they find it all confusing.  For those folks, they may want to check out staylds.com.  This is a discussion site for LDS who find certain matters irritating, stupid, or outright wrong, but still wish to remain active, temple-going LDS.  It's worth a look.



Actually it has presented a unified seamless theology. It's seamless to people like me but others disagree. I haven't found any seams though others think they have. I don't know why you think we don't have a uniform doctrine but we really do and always have. Now there have been new things added from time to time by revelation, but the church has always followed the prophet who reveals the will of Christ. I may check out your website. Perhaps I will get more legitimate questions there than I will here.


----------



## trueblue

JakeStarkey said:


> LDS teaching has never presented a unified, seamless theology.  It certainly does not today.  However, much is offered in the LDS church to the average joe and jane, who wish to stay there even if they find it all confusing.  For those folks, they may want to check out staylds.com.  This is a discussion site for LDS who find certain matters irritating, stupid, or outright wrong, but still wish to remain active, temple-going LDS.  It's worth a look.



Examples? I've never heard that accusation about the LDS faith.


----------



## BigBarry

The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.

Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.
> 
> Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?



Do you change your underwear every day?


----------



## trueblue

Eightball: What is your take on Genesis 1:26-27 which says that we were created in the image of God? How could this be so if He didn't have a physical body with a distinct image?

Or what about 1 John 4:16 that says God is love? Written by the same John to whom you refer, doesn't the fact that this verse is obviously figurative suggest that "God is spirit" could also be figurative in nature?

I see a lot of these kinds of scriptures that seem to suggest that God is a physical being and that there are three separate personages (like the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3 where all three are present). I understand where you're coming from with the scriptures about him being one, but you can't deny there are other scriptures that seem to suggest that they are three separate beings.

I believe that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons and that God and Christ each have separate, physical bodies of flesh and bone. I also believe that they are three separate parts of one Godhead with one central purpose. And I have just as many scriptures to support my view as you have to support yours.

So how is a person to decide what is really true?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

trueblue said:


> Eightball: What is your take on Genesis 1:26-27 which says that we were created in the image of God? How could this be so if He didn't have a physical body with a distinct image?
> 
> Or what about 1 John 4:16 that says God is love? Written by the same John to whom you refer, doesn't the fact that this verse is obviously figurative suggest that "God is spirit" could also be figurative in nature?
> 
> I see a lot of these kinds of scriptures that seem to suggest that God is a physical being and that there are three separate personages (like the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3 where all three are present). I understand where you're coming from with the scriptures about him being one, but you can't deny there are other scriptures that seem to suggest that they are three separate beings.
> 
> I believe that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons and that God and Christ each have separate, physical bodies of flesh and bone. I also believe that they are three separate parts of one Godhead with one central purpose. And I have just as many scriptures to support my view as you have to support yours.
> 
> So how is a person to decide what is really true?



The only thing that creates the illusion of a trinity that is one is when people INTERPRET what they read. Rather that just accept what they read. None of the passages used to justify the trinity as one actually do so. A child can and does say they are one with their parents at times. Does that suddenly mean that the child IS the parent?

Jesus was used by God to create things. That was and is his purpose. He is so like God as to be the same , but not physically one. Simply in thought and deed and belief. Jesus existed BEFORE the Earth and before man. God created him first and thus the reason he is called his first born. All of this is in the Bible. One must twist what is said in the Bible to create the fiction that there is a trinity of one.


----------



## BigBarry

Truthspeaker said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.
> 
> Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you change your underwear every day?
Click to expand...


I asked you first.

Do you ever play "magic plates" and pretend that your dinner plates are the golden plates and then act out joseph translating them? I bet that's a fave game while the women churn butter.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.
> 
> Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you change your underwear every day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you first.
> 
> Do you ever play "magic plates" and pretend that your dinner plates are the golden plates and then act out joseph translating them? I bet that's a fave game while the women churn butter.
Click to expand...


When are you going to grow up?


----------



## BigBarry

T, what do you enjoy more, milking a cow or your wife, if ya know what I mean... 

And I'll take that as a no for the daily change of religious undies.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Is anyone in agreement with me that the above idiot should be banned from the board?


----------



## BigBarry

T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?


----------



## Eightball

RetiredGySgt said:


> trueblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball: What is your take on Genesis 1:26-27 which says that we were created in the image of God? How could this be so if He didn't have a physical body with a distinct image?
> 
> Or what about 1 John 4:16 that says God is love? Written by the same John to whom you refer, doesn't the fact that this verse is obviously figurative suggest that "God is spirit" could also be figurative in nature?
> 
> I see a lot of these kinds of scriptures that seem to suggest that God is a physical being and that there are three separate personages (like the baptism of Christ in Matthew 3 where all three are present). I understand where you're coming from with the scriptures about him being one, but you can't deny there are other scriptures that seem to suggest that they are three separate beings.
> 
> I believe that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are three separate persons and that God and Christ each have separate, physical bodies of flesh and bone. I also believe that they are three separate parts of one Godhead with one central purpose. And I have just as many scriptures to support my view as you have to support yours.
> 
> So how is a person to decide what is really true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that creates the illusion of a trinity that is one is when people INTERPRET what they read. Rather that just accept what they read. None of the passages used to justify the trinity as one actually do so. A child can and does say they are one with their parents at times. Does that suddenly mean that the child IS the parent?
> 
> Jesus was used by God to create things. That was and is his purpose. He is so like God as to be the same , but not physically one. Simply in thought and deed and belief. Jesus existed BEFORE the Earth and before man. God created him first and thus the reason he is called his first born. All of this is in the Bible. One must twist what is said in the Bible to create the fiction that there is a trinity of one.
Click to expand...


I'll let scripture speak very clearly again:



> *The Deity of Jesus Christ*
> 
> 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and *the Word was God*.
> 
> 2. He was in the beginning with God.
> 
> 3. All things came into being through Him, *and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being*.



Bringing up scripture that states "in our or His image" is using inductive reasoning instead of deductive.  Yes, God in His unique but mysterious person did become a Man when He indeed entered time and space with physical human birth in Bethlehem.

The problem again is that the LDS approach to Jesus is clearly humanistic, or fleshly, in origin and disregards the "not-of-man"/"uncreated" and "is our Creator" aspect of God.  The trinity is a manmade word to describe as best as possible a most infinite, and beyond our finite-minds description of God's make-up.

John's gospel/book is so very, very clear.  Even in Genesis, it says let us make man....Yet Jesus says God is one....  Surely this is confusing to the natural mind, just as "eternity" is uncomprehensible to the finite mind.  We nod in agreement to eternity as something with no end, yet when we really try to comprehend "eternity" our brains go "tilt".

Also keep in mind that eternity is totally not related to "time" as time has a start and a stop or at least sense of physicality.

Eternity means something that didn't have a "start" or an "end".

Christ said clearly that He is the "I AM" then then the Jews wanted to stone Him for "clearly" announcing that He was God, not a god or another god.  There is but "one" Alpha and Omega".

Collosians clearly states that all Creation, space/time/being/sense of awareness........all things.............were Created through and by Christ Jesus.  Genesis says that God is the only Creator.

These are all evidences of a Creator/God that that has a most intriguing, yet mind boggling make-up.  

God pre-existed eternally.  He was not created.  That is what "I AM" means.  This again puts our finite minds into "tilt".

Joseph Smith and the later prophets did not comprehend this most intriguing nature of God's make up, as all man cannot, yet in my opinion needed to "box" God into something that would be understandable to man's finite mind/understanding.  Thus, the doctrine of a bone and flesh god, that exudes a total existence/being of created origin.  Again this flies in the face of "Before Abraham, I AM", as clearly stated by Jesus Christ.  Also in Hebrews, (Author either Paul or Apollos), Jesus is referred to as Melkizedek the priest from Abraham's day.  It is stated that Melkizedek had no lineage or human lineage.  Many bible scholars believe that Melkizedek was one of many pre-incarnate visitations by Jesus Christ.  Seems to make sense as Genesis or the bible which normally gives lineages to all important characters leaves Melikizedek's absent.

Science works overtime trying to explain why things happen, occur, or just exist.  Science does this with great expertise, starting with a hypothesis, and hopefully working towards a theory, and then a law or fact.

When it comes to the makeup of the Judeau/Christian God, science cannot tap into it at all.  God jumps and trumps the realm of matter, existence, time, etc....  The scriptures scream out clearly that Christ is God, and is pre-existent/eternal in every way.  Yet in some mind-blowing way, He and God our One.  The Holy Spirit is referred in masculine tense throughout the bible, and by Jesus to His disciples.

To say that "God used Jesus to create all things" is total unfounded conjecture.  Collosians does not say that at all nor does John.

This is an attempt to fit the biblical Jesus into the LDS parameters of their non-biblical definition of Jesus.

The third Person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, was sent by Jesus, as He clearly stated to His disciples before His ascension into the heavenlies to sit at the right hand of God.  He said that the H.S. was being sent "in His Place".  To also firm up the One-God Three persons explanation, Jesus said that He and the father are One, not just in agreement, but are One as in the "same".  Check out the original greek tense for "One", and it doesn't standing alongside and totally separate, but One in mind, being, purpose.....etc.....

The said that He was the vine and we were the branches.  We could not live or survive without the nourishment of the vine itself.

Did Jesus talk to Himself in the Garden or on the Cross, or when He went off to pray............Bolder Dash!  That is "finite" mans explanation cause man can't understand how Jesus can talk to God the Father and also be God too.  So finite man must do it within the parameters of his/man's physical, time, matter, limitations, and say, God can't express Himself as three personages yet be one in mind, being, intent.........It just doesn't compute.

The true Holy Spirit abiding Christians don't "tizzy" over this most mysterious topic, but just "accept" that God is above and beyond us when it comes to understanding His makeup.  Afterall, He made us, not the other way around. 
******
Maybe someday at the great ressurrection or the time when those who die and are Christians and the bible says they will see Him face to face, we will be given minds that can comprehend or understand this most mysterious, and infinite aspect of God's makeup/being.  For now, the true Christian is not hung up about why Jesus calls Himself God/I AM, or evidences such as having the power to ressurrect the dead(Lazarus), or the power to take back up His life after crucifixion.........The true Christian just accepts that scripture is God breathed through the His inspiration of many authors over a long span of time from the O.T. to N.T..  

The true biblical Christians knows that God is "omnipotent" and because of that, he/she knows that scripture has been kept intact from the time of it's original God inspired authorships up to present.

This is the other "bugaboo" that the LDS church exists or stands or falls upon.  God had to be non-omnipotent, which totally goes against His very nature/attribute.

To believe in a god that can't keep His Word to mankind protected throughout the ages is not a god that man can rely upon for peace, serenity, protection, and kept-promises for the future or present.

The whole of the LDS church stands or falls upon the above statement.  God must be weak/inept in order for Mormonism to flourish, and be accepted.  All other LDS teachings aside, the core of it's doctrine is that the present day bible is accurate only where it agrees with it's latter day prophet's teachings/findings in the BOM, Pearl of Great Price, and Journal of Discourses.

I.E.:  The LDS church stands or falls upon it's founder's credibility, and the accounts that he gave to his followers.  When they are put up against the bible of that time, the KJV, it falls very short, and very anti-biblical.  The LDS church claims that where the KJV and J.S. Jr.'s and later prophets teachings are at "logger heads" then the bible is corrupted.  Now we are back to a very weak, and non-omnipotent Judeau/Christian God, who in the O.T. and N.T. reveal a much different personage and power/ability.

I personally cannot, and will not abide in a god who can't protect his communications to mankind over the centuries.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing seamless is their magic shorts.
> 
> Hey T, do you change your holy undergarments every day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you change your underwear every day?
Click to expand...


Lots of junior high school kids don't, so BB might not be any different from his classmates.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BigBarry said:


> T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?



Hello!

Moderators?

Administrators?

Anyone out there?

This is unacceptable.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Moderators?
> 
> Administrators?
> 
> Anyone out there?
> 
> This is unacceptable.
Click to expand...


There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing.  One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper".  I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.  

Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BigBarry said:
> 
> 
> 
> T, what tastes better, your wife's poossy or your pastor's cum shots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Moderators?
> 
> Administrators?
> 
> Anyone out there?
> 
> This is unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing.  One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper".  I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.
> 
> Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.
Click to expand...


Well there is a red flag above each post you can click on to report stuff including rude or harrassing posts like the ones recently posted. I've reported a bunch of them and nothing has happened yet.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Moderators?
> 
> Administrators?
> 
> Anyone out there?
> 
> This is unacceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing.  One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper".  I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.
> 
> Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well there is a red flag above each post you can click on to report stuff including rude or harrassing posts like the ones recently posted. I've reported a bunch of them and nothing has happened yet.
Click to expand...


Based on what I've been reading on this forum, I'd say most likely nothing will.  Those other two I mentioned don't allow personal insults, have curse filters, and a generally higher level of dialogue.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are message boards that don't allow that sort of thing.  One is called "House of Politics", another is "Whistlestopper".  I'd recommend either or both of them if you want to have a discussion that doesn't descend to the junior high school insult level.
> 
> Anything goes on this board, or so it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well there is a red flag above each post you can click on to report stuff including rude or harrassing posts like the ones recently posted. I've reported a bunch of them and nothing has happened yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Based on what I've been reading on this forum, I'd say most likely nothing will.  Those other two I mentioned don't allow personal insults, have curse filters, and a generally higher level of dialogue.
Click to expand...


interesting... I may check them out.


----------



## trueblue

Truthspeaker said:


> Is anyone in agreement with me that the above idiot should be banned from the board?



I think _*everyone*_ is in agreement...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 12 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 4 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?



Honestly, Truthspeaker, I just have difficulty with that from a critical thinking perspective.  It's a bit like an author selling a book on alien abduction going on T.V. and claiming he actually saw an alien body in the woods.  I would have trouble trusting his account, since 1) anecdotes are not evidence and 2) it is convenient enough to bring his motivation into question.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 12 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?





> He just fell over the ruins or hewas looking for them? And why?



Here is the account. Joseph and some of the men thought some of the hills were peculiar looking as they camped near them. So Joseph decided to get a company together to explore them. They thought they were man made hills and decided to excavate a portion of the hills. This is what they claim to have found.  Because of their belief in the book of mormon and it's claims of ancient societies and mounds being heaped up for military purposes, they were curious. This is what they claimed to have found.Zelph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> How did he know his name?



He didn't know his name until he prayed to God for a revelation on the subject.



> Lamanite? Isn't that a floor tile?



No. It is a group of people descended from or associated with the children of Laman, Lemuel or the sons of Ishmael or Zoram. It's a very broad term which is more religious than genetic.


----------



## trueblue

Eightball: That was a very long, confusing definition. I'm glad I knew ahead of time what you were going to say or I never would've made it through. Of course I don't believe a God that wanted to inspire belief in himself would be so mysterious and confusing. Nor do I see the discrepancies you claim from your interpretation of the same scriptures, no matter how often they are repeated.

I do agree, however, with your statement that the LDS Church rises or falls with the credibility of Joseph Smith. Either it was as he said and he did indeed see God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, or he didn't. If he did, he was a prophet who has shed great light on the nature of God and the LDS Church is true. If he did not, he was not a prophet, and the closest thing to Christ's Church on earth is Catholicism. Any other option is a derivation of Catholicism (or non-Christian altogether) and therefore more distant from true power and authority and without any claim on divine authority.

I believe it is true because of my experiences with the LDS faith. I believe it because I took it for a test drive and every premise I tested held. Since those experiences I have seen many others test the same basic principles of the LDS faith and reach the same results and conclusions independent of myself or other outside influence. I've come to have such confidence in these processes, such as sincere prayer, that I am comfortable saying that I know they work-- I know it is true.

You are not expected to believe me or any other person on these kinds of things. God is our Heavenly Father and He will speak to us if we pray to Him-- but we must pray in faith, with open, sincere hearts and a willingness to do whatever we're told (regardless of how it matches our political views or our personal reasoning). If you or I do so in the name of Christ, that prayer will be answered-- just as it has been for me and millions of others in all nations, languages, demographics or socio-economic groups. We can ask God directly if Joseph Smith was a prophet and whether the LDS faith is true. We can show our faith in prayer by studying a bit on our own first-- by trying it out. Reading in the Book of Mormon is a great, credible, risk-free way to do this.

That is all the LDS Church offers the world-- an opportunity to learn independently and ask God to know if it is true. The invitation is open to everyone. We get excited about it sometimes because of how our lives are positively impacted afterward in ways most of us never would have thought beforehand.

So that's where I'm coming from. Through answers to prayers I feel confident saying that I know that Joseph Smith did see God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ. And I cannot deny the implications that follow such a marvelous event.

From my view, it is the trinitarians who are twisting, see. Because clearly, if Joseph Smith saw them as two, separate, physical beings who taught him about who they were, etc., then the the trinity is an absurd notion created by apostates. If Joseph didn't see them, then I readily admit that he is the heretic. I don't suppose there is any way to resolve that conflict other than to ask God. I have done so and am confident and comforted by the answer I have received many times.

If you haven't already, I invite you to do the same. You don't have to receive the same answer I did. But if you're really sincere and really want to know, you will.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did everyone hear know that Joseph Smith discovered some ruins of an ancient soldier with a lamanite arrow in him? He described his name as Zelph; and that he was a righteous man who served under a famous prophet named Onandagus. A man he described as much like Moroni, but not mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The ruins were buried undereath 12 inches of soil and was discovered on the march of Zions camp to Missouri. Pretty cool huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, Truthspeaker, I just have difficulty with that from a critical thinking perspective.  It's a bit like an author selling a book on alien abduction going on T.V. and claiming he actually saw an alien body in the woods.  I would have trouble trusting his account, since 1) anecdotes are not evidence and 2) it is convenient enough to bring his motivation into question.
Click to expand...


Well I've read the account and because I value the character of the man Joseph Smith, I believe him, since he was not a liar. I'm not trying to prove this incident happened but here are the eyewitness accounts. Zelph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This discovery produces more questions in my mind than answers because I am such a detail inquisitive person. But it does fascinate me. I don't have a problem trusting the account because he never tried to sell it for profit. He never made money off his religion. He never tried. His motivation was only to find truth and expose it to the world. So he is one of three things to people. Deceitful, deluded or inspired of God. Each person has to make their own conclusions


----------



## Truthspeaker

KingKonga said:


> *This is what they claimed to have found.*
> 
> So you don't believe them either?
> Where's the body and the arrow?
> 
> *He didn't know his name until he prayed to God for a revelation on the subject.*
> 
> In other words, he just made it up.



I make it plain and simple. Joseph never made a thing up in his whole life. He was an honest man. I believe the bones are kept somewhere but I'd have to do some research on the subject. It doesn't matter.

I see that you are either new to this thread or are a reincarnation of Big Barry the heckler.
Is there anything of substance that you would like to contribute? Perhaps an unloaded question or poignant factual statement?

The point of this thread is not to prove my faith to others, but to state what my faith actually teaches or is. People decide for themselves when presented with the straight dope.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It has been brought to my attention one of the oldest criticisms of the Book of Mormon. I'm glad it has been brought up. Because it allows me to brush up.

The existence of steel in 600bc and the use of metallurgy in the new world. Orthodox archaeologists ignore unpopular specimens of steel or metal of any kind prior to 900AD. But you must understand that the scientific world has it's hierarchy, resulting in many dogmas and unfair dismissals of challenges to the contrary.

This is a fantastic article about how little science really knows and how much there is to still be discovered. I mean think about it really. If science stopped the world and made an announcement that steel was first discovered in 13AD, does that REALLY mean there was no steel before 13AD? or is it just that we haven't found any? Who has authority to say that it wasn't known to other civilizations in other parts of the world. Curiously the Bible mentions steel in the days of Jeremiah. Curiously the same time period as Lehi. Also mentioning that the sword of Laban "was of the most precious steel", indicating that it was not a common item, and of great value as gold or silver. Laban was a prominent man and know to be rich so when it was taken from his treasury it makes sense that it was not as common as steel is today and was in fact rare.
Rare does not mean non existant.
Also steel and iron from those time periods will most of the time disintigrate due to corrosion, only careful protection of steel and iron will preserve them for archaeological finding today. 

Please read this article carefully. You will see that we have much to learn about the origins of metallurgy. Metals, Weapons, and the Book of Mormon (Mormon Answers/LDSFAQ)


Also at the end of the day, who is to say that God cannot reveal metallurgy to his people at different times and in different places?


----------



## Truthspeaker

KingKonga said:


> I know a couple of mormons (my parents, lol) and they believe in all the weird shit, if it works for you fine. But you seem a little unsure of yourself and mormonism, you should study some more, maybe I can help you?



How quaint of you. Did you just jump in here and come to the conclusion that I the OP of this thread am unsure of my religion?

Since the first post I have answered a legitimate onslaught of questions and attacks and have continued to affirm my position and testimony regarding the truth of my church. 

.....oh wait... I just got it silly me... you were being sarcastic


----------



## Truthspeaker

> But you seem a little unsure of yourself and mormonism, you should study some more, maybe I can help you?


And just what pertinent information do you have that I have neglected in this lengthy discussion? If you can help, please do.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KingKonga said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you seem a little unsure of yourself and mormonism, you should study some more, maybe I can help you?
> 
> 
> 
> And just what pertinent information do you have that I have neglected in this lengthy discussion? If you can help, please do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much every thing you write is bogus. You new to the church?
Click to expand...


How so? and Yes?


----------



## Eightball

An old friend of my long departed Dad, did a lot of research on the Missouri mounds.  There was not connection between J.S. Jr's phrophesies, and what was found at those archeological sights.

Sorry, but no metalurgy found...........Lots of clay pots, and shards though.  Carbon dating is very clear too.

Yes, agent man was able to come up with some interesting metalurgy before it was discovered or developed.  There is evidence that Iron Meteorites were used to pound out some weaponry and other pieces well before man new how to forge iron or steel.

These Iron/steel meteorites didn't seem to stimulate or correlate with the beginning of Iron smelting.

The myriads of Indian burial mounds found all over the Midwest was a "no-brainer" and wasn't something that J.S. Jr. prophesied before their being found.  There was much pillaging of the contents of mounds before J.S. Jr. tried to connect them to Laminites or ancient visitors that preceded Columbus and Leif Erikson.





_American Indian burial mounds, like this one in Central Missouri, are difficult to identify because there is no state database of their locations. In the past, many burial mounds have been located only after they have been damaged by construction. Despite the photograph, the location of this mound is unknown.   ¦  Courtesy of Missouri State Historical Society_
Ancient history - Columbia Missourian


> On one of many pinnacles along the bluffs lining the Missouri River southwest of Columbia, atop the steep face of jagged rock plunging to the landing, there is an inconspicuous 10-foot lump of earth.
> 
> What appears to be a natural point in the landscape  insignificant in the swath of hills and valleys  is a burial mound, formed by human hands thousands of years ago.
> 
> In another state
> 
> Related Media
> 
> Early Mississippi/Middle Mississippi
> 
> A Gulf Coast shell gorget  an ornament usually worn over the chest  created during the Woodland Period is featured at the Museum of Anthropology in MUs Swallow Hall.
> 
> A collection of pottery samples from the Woodland Period are displayed at MUs Swallow Hall. Civilizations in central valleys and Missouri and Mississippi rivers started making pottery and building burial mounds around 600 B.C. Shown here are Naples Dentate stamped pot shards and Renner crosshatched pot shards.
> 
> Late Woodland continued
> 
> Archaeologists survey a site at Rogers Shelter in southern Missouri during a salvage work inspection trip in 1964. From left are Carl Chapman, Wilfred Logan, Henry W. Hamilton and Zorro Bradley. In 1986, Chapman established an 11,000-year timeline for a civilization that lived in the Rogers Shelter area. The discovery is one of the longest cultural sequences found in Missouri.
> 
> Late Woodland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Les Bourgeois Winery in Rocheport is an example of both an obtrusive and nonobtrusive blufftop development, says Jeff Barrow of Columbias Planning and Zoning Commission. Although the restaurant, top right, sticks out, the winerys A-frame, top left, blends into the natural settings, Barrow says.
> 
> Middle Woodland
> 
> A collection of bone awls  tools for scraping and making holes  and bone fish hooks created during the Woodland Period are displayed at an exhibit at MUs Swallow Hall.
> 
> Early Woodland timeline
> 
> Current periods
> 
> An excavation at a site in St. Joseph was conducted under the direction of Carl Chapman in 1966. Chapman, the first person to graduate from MU with experience in American archaeology, is credited with providing much of the knowledge of Missouris historical and archaeological record.
> 
> Riverfront connection
> 
> Mississippi Period/Migration
> 
> A Snyders corner-notched point created during the Woodland Period is featured in an exhibit in Swallow Hall.
> 
> Woodland era burial mound
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> American Indian burial mounds abound in mid-Missouri, especially along the blufftops of the river. Many date back 2,000 years or more to what is called the Woodland Period, from about 500 B.C. to about A.D. 900.
> 
> With developer Jose Lindners purchase of the former W.B. Smith Feed Mill and Hatchery property  1,024 acres between the city and the river  government officials say city annexation is inevitable. And others say if planning doesnt precede development, the future of the burial mounds along the blufftops is uncertain at best.
> 
> Few protections exist for the prehistoric sites. The federal legislation meant to protect them only applies to development projects that are on federal land or use federal money. State protection only applies to known prehistoric sites.
> 
> But without an official database, many sites only become known when construction runs into them, at which point archaeologists say the damage is generally already extensive.
> 
> 
> Layers of history
> 
> While some city and county officials seek ways to protect the burial mounds, development creeps steadily southwest toward the water.
> 
> Boone County is home to more recorded burial mounds and other archaeological sites than any other Missouri county, with 1,300 known sites as of Aug. 31.
> 
> There are 37,000 known sites in the state, but thats probably a small fraction of the total, said Judith Deel, an officer with the State Historic Preservation Office.
> 
> Burial mounds were typically built on blufftops overlooking rivers or streams. In some cases, mound builders saved the bones of their tribes dead for years until they camped in one area long enough to build a mound. As a result, some mounds contain bones and cremations from different years.
> 
> Many of these mounds have been excavated in the past, and the information gleaned from their contents has given archaeologists a picture of Missouri that dates back at least 12,000 years to the Woodland Period and earlier.
> 
> Some recent discoveries were accidental. In 1989, during a construction project along Forum Boulevard, a mound was hit. Because it was already damaged and partly exposed, archaeologists decided to excavate its contents. They found the remains of 11 people from the Late Woodland Period, about A.D. 700 to A.D. 900.
> 
> They also found a female who was about 20 years old when she died, sealed in a limestone tomb and buried in the mound. Carbon dating showed she had lived in the Early Woodland Period, between 850 B.C. and 450 B.C.
> 
> Much of what is known about the historical and archaeological record of Missouri is owed to Carl Chapman, the first person to graduate from MU with experience in American archaeology. Chapman dedicated his life to discovering Missouris history and prehistory.
> 
> In 1986, Chapman was researching the Rogers Shelter area in the Osage River Basin when he established what he estimated to be an 11,000-year timeline  from about 10,000 B.C. to about A.D. 1,000  for one civilization in Missouri. The discovery is one of the longest cultural sequences found in the state.
> 
> He also uncovered a mastodon tusk near Miami, Mo., in the 1970s. Even more significant was the flake knife found next to it, suggesting people may have lived in Missouri at the same time as the mastodon  about 18,000 years ago.


----------



## Skeptik

If Zelph's remains are in a museum somewhere, as seems likely given the claims made, have they been carbon dated to see whether they are from the period in question?  If they are, then there is some credibility to the story.  If they are from a couple of hundred years ago or so, then they're about as credible as Calaveras Man.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> If Zelph's remains are in a museum somewhere, as seems likely given the claims made, have they been carbon dated to see whether they are from the period in question?  If they are, then there is some credibility to the story.  If they are from a couple of hundred years ago or so, then they're about as credible as Calaveras Man.



I'm still researching what happened to the bones and the stone arrow discovered. I'm sure the carbon dating is not as important as one might think, because we already know there were people in Missouri in that time period. The kentucky mummies(mummified in the egyptian style) were dated to the book of mormon times. The key is the identification of the man as Zelph. That would prove undoubtedly that his name was revealed to Joseph by God. A true miracle. Joseph also mentioned the exact manner of his death which was peculiar. To just come up with that type of an explanation unrehearsed on the spot is remarkable.

What's more interesting to me would be a recreation of the face which they can do these days with our technology. That's why I'd like to see the bones.

If the bones are not found it's not a big deal to me because back then they had no concept of the need to preserve the bones for carbon dating. Also they were on a hasty journey to Missouri and they probably didn't have much time or care to preserve the bones since they were hurrying to Missouri from Kirtland Ohio. Had they known the scrutiny modern scientists could put such ancient discoveries under, undoubtedly they would have taken extreme measures to preserve the discovery and excavate the rest of the site.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KingKonga said:


> *They key is the identification of the man as Zelph. That would prove undoubtedly that his name was revealed to Joseph by God. A true miracle. Joseph also mentioned the exact manner of his death which was peculiar. To just come up with that type of an explanation unrehearsed on the spot is remarkable.*
> 
> How are you going to prove what the dude's name was?
> Joseph mentioned the manner of his death... after he saw the arrow?



No he concluded the more peculiar detail that he was slowed as a result of his thigh being broken because of a stone from a sling, then the arrow killed him. Read the article before you spout off.


----------



## Truthspeaker

KingKonga said:


> So where is this Zilch dude?
> How you going to prove his name was Zelph anyways?
> So he broke his leg, then got shot with an arrow? Hate to tell you but you don't die from a broken leg.



You can definitely die from a broken leg if no one helps you and you don't get medical attention. Infection can set in and blood poisoning can subsequently kill you among other bacteria from the hemorraging. 

But it was stated that the arrow killed him. He said the break actually came in an earlier battle in his younger years and he was slowed by the effects of it as he got older. He was also missing teeth which indicated he was an older man at the time of his death.


----------



## Jesus Christ

You're hearing this from the horse's mouth: mormonism is a badly bastardized version of my teachings with no relevance or credibility.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Jesus Christ said:


> You're hearing this from the horse's mouth: mormonism is a badly bastardized version of my teachings with no relevance or credibility.



In the last days(which we are in) there shall come false prophets and false christs(you qualify). It was recorded here in USMessageboard that Jesus is come back!

So tell me. If you are really Jesus Christ please explain where you were during the three days after your crucifixion? What have you been doing since you've been gone for so long?
What's it like to have an immortal body? How can we all go back and join you in heaven? Which church is best for me to join?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Peanut said:


> Imagine, banning Jesus!



Is that what happened? Is he banned from US Messageboard? That's hilarious.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I guess I have answered everyone's questions. I am very happy now. Unless I am wrong?


----------



## Eightball

Yes:

You have "responded" to all questions/statements in response to your topic, but I wouldn't call that a victory for Mormonism.

The question is:  Have you responded with "sufficient" or "correct" answers to all the questions that have been raised about your belief system.

IMO:  No.  

First of all, you call yourselves Christians, but you deny  so many of the tenets of the N.T., concerning the nature of Christ.

Secondly, your belief system only accepts bible passages that agree with your latter day prophet/president's alleged prophesys from your Mormon god.

That is not only inductive based reasoning, it is "cherry picking" the bible's verses to support your faith system.
******
Paul warned that there would be in the future those that would say, "Here's the Christ"......or "I've found the Christ", and he strongly cautioned the early Christian church to "beware", as there would be folks who would claim to have the truth, what in reality were "ravenous wolves" in "sheeps" clothing.  I.E. They would present themselves as syrupy sweet,  down-home, with "I don't swear", "I live a clean life" outward presentation, yet inwardly were bringing a twisted, anti-biblical message.
*****
Omnipotence of God?:  What does that mean to you Truthspeaker?  Does that mean that God is strong enough to keeps some things in "check" and according to His will, and other things He cannot?

Now if the bible was originally inspired by God, but your church teaches that it is only right in-so-far as it supports your latter day prophesies, and then it is basically corrupted by man; could you explain what an "omnipotent" God is in the LDS realm or definition?

Omnipotent I believe, means in in certain words, "Almighty, All Powerful".  That means that nothing escapes God's sovereignty, and I would assume that the early scriptures would be included too.

God raises up nations and leaders, and brings them down just as easily.  The bible says in both John and Colossians that all things were created in and through Jesus Christ.  Here we have total omnipotence.

Now if you subscribe to a belief that God made it and then sat back and let it go awry, you are welcome to believe that.  There is one big "but" that comes with that.  How does this jive with God's nature?  The last definition would define God as a "cosmic killjoy" who isn't unlike the Greek/Roman Gods who manipulated mankind like they were marrionette dolls.

In order for the LDS/Mormon belief system to be acceptable, we or all of us must accept that God, even-though "omnipotent" somehow let His holy scriptures to mankind become partially or totally corrupted by "uninspired" mankind.  

Why?:  Why would the God/Jehovah/El Shaddai/Lord God Almighty let this most important message from Him to mankind fall into this state?

You can't give an adequate answer unless you "deny" God's "omnipotence" which is clearly displayed/explained//defined in the bible.

Really, all the various teachings/doctrines in the BOM, Journal of Discourses/Pearl of Great Price.....etc, etc... really don't need to muddle this up anymore.  Bottom line: The bible is not sufficient for the Mormon/LDS system of faith.  It is considered incomplete, or corrupted.

So where do we stand?  You say you have the truth, and us bible based folks, believe we have the truth.

I think that the big dividing line isn't visitations from angels, or latter day messages but defining who God is.  Is He omnipotent from the very beginning, or is He not?


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> I guess I have answered everyone's questions. I am very happy now. Unless I am wrong?



One question: Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?


----------



## California Girl

I like Mormons. They're decent people generally.

Not so long ago, I was accosted by a drunk guy on a train in the UK. Crowds of people completely ignored the situation.... the only two who stepped forward to help this 'damsel in distress' were two Mormon Missionaries.  Not only did they insert themselves quietly and firmly between me and the drunk guy but they stayed one either side until my stop.


----------



## Skeptik

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have answered everyone's questions. I am very happy now. Unless I am wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One question: Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
Click to expand...


Mormons have no problems with the theory of evolution.  The theology says that the Earth was created in seven "periods of time", not in "seven days", so they don't have to do mental gymnastics to try to deny evolution and claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, as some of the fundamentalists try to do.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have answered everyone's questions. I am very happy now. Unless I am wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One question: Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
Click to expand...


Great question. I personally do not believe Man evolved from lesser species. but I do believe animals can evolve. The church does not believe man evolved from any lower species either. 

My problem with the theory of evolution is this:
If we evolved from apes, why aren't there still hybrid type species evolving now? Why are chimps gaining intelligence past what they've shown?

Most scientists all agree that we came from a common ancestor. But they are all baffled by the sudden growth spike of intelligence about 6-10 thousand years ago. They all scratch their heads because they believe evolution of that kind would need another 500 million years or so. The rapidity of this growth to me is a strong evidence for the PLACING of man on this earth, rather than his evolvement from previous species.

That being said, if the theory of evolution WERE to be proven, it would only clarify to me in detail how God formed man. My mind is already made up on the subject, but I'm always open to new evidence.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Boosterman said:


> How about Santa Claus?



Everyone who knows anything about history knows that Ol Saint Nick was a real guy. He's just not around anymore.


----------



## Truthspeaker

california girl said:


> i like mormons. They're decent people generally.
> 
> Not so long ago, i was accosted by a drunk guy on a train in the uk. Crowds of people completely ignored the situation.... The only two who stepped forward to help this 'damsel in distress' were two mormon missionaries.  Not only did they insert themselves quietly and firmly between me and the drunk guy but they stayed one either side until my stop.



wwjd?


----------



## Avatar4321

Since it's been a while since I responded in particular on this thread, i figured i would right now.




Eightball said:


> Yes:
> 
> You have "responded" to all questions/statements in response to your topic, but I wouldn't call that a victory for Mormonism.
> 
> The question is:  Have you responded with "sufficient" or "correct" answers to all the questions that have been raised about your belief system.
> 
> IMO:  No.



And how do you determine our answers are insufficient or incorrect? And how do you conclude yours are?



> First of all, you call yourselves Christians, but you deny  so many of the tenets of the N.T., concerning the nature of Christ.



Because we are Christians. We are disciples of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and have been called of Him to preach His Gospel to His people. There isnt a single aspect of the New Testament that we reject. We believe in the Atonement and literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. And it is through Him, by Him, and of Him, we are saved.



> Secondly, your belief system only accepts bible passages that agree with your latter day prophet/president's alleged prophesys from your Mormon god.
> 
> That is not only inductive based reasoning, it is "cherry picking" the bible's verses to support your faith system.



Incorrect, of course. I have no doubt that we may disagree with your interpretation of some passages. But we do not cherry pick. However, i have yet to see you acknowledge the clear Biblical passages teaching the Doctrine of Diefication which you still deny.





> Paul warned that there would be in the future those that would say, "Here's the Christ"......or "I've found the Christ", and he strongly cautioned the early Christian church to "beware", as there would be folks who would claim to have the truth, what in reality were "ravenous wolves" in "sheeps" clothing.  I.E. They would present themselves as syrupy sweet,  down-home, with "I don't swear", "I live a clean life" outward presentation, yet inwardly were bringing a twisted, anti-biblical message.



I completely agree. Paul did warn of those that would come perverting the messages. Christ did as well.

Of course, that doesnt mean that you are correct and we are wrong. Obviously, we could argue who is right and wrong all day. The real answer can only be answered by the Holy Spirit. Which is why ask no one to take our word on anything. Study for yourself and go to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ and He will show you by the power of the Holy Spirit that it's true.

That's also why we present to men the Book of Mormon and tell them to read it for themselves and ask God to know whether it's true. It's given with a promise that all may know if they will humble themselves before God. That is the only reason I know. I asked the Lord. And the Spirit revealed to me the truth. And I can add my own testimony to the other witnesses that I know the Book of Mormon is true. And I cannot deny it or I would be lying before God, the angels of the heavens, and even to myself, if I did.

And the beautiful part of God's Plan of Happiness is that anyone can ask and recieve. Anyone can seek and find. Anyone who lacks wisdom can ask of God and gain it. The Holy Spirit can reveal with power the truth of God to anyone who seeks it



> Omnipotence of God?:  What does that mean to you Truthspeaker?  Does that mean that God is strong enough to keeps some things in "check" and according to His will, and other things He cannot?



It means that He has the power to do anything that can possibly be done. That doesn't necessarily mean He does everything that can possibly be done.




> Now if the bible was originally inspired by God, but your church teaches that it is only right in-so-far as it supports your latter day prophesies, and then it is basically corrupted by man; could you explain what an "omnipotent" God is in the LDS realm or definition?
> 
> Omnipotent I believe, means in in certain words, "Almighty, All Powerful".  That means that nothing escapes God's sovereignty, and I would assume that the early scriptures would be included too.
> 
> God raises up nations and leaders, and brings them down just as easily.  The bible says in both John and Colossians that all things were created in and through Jesus Christ.  Here we have total omnipotence.
> 
> Now if you subscribe to a belief that God made it and then sat back and let it go awry, you are welcome to believe that.  There is one big "but" that comes with that.  How does this jive with God's nature?  The last definition would define God as a "cosmic killjoy" who isn't unlike the Greek/Roman Gods who manipulated mankind like they were marrionette dolls.



And here is your problem. You assume that the Bible is the only collection of books God has ever inspired. This makes absolutely no sense. God is the Sovereign over the entire earth. As you said, He raises up nations and leads and brings them down just as quickly. It's just as easy for Him to command one nation to write as He has commanded other nations to write.

And because you have the Bible, you think you have everything God has caused to be written? The Bible doesnt suggest that. In fact, the Gospel of John is clear that the works and words of Christ could not be contained in all the Books of the world. Paul spoke clearly that he was writing the Saints about the milk of the Gospel and not the meat. We have clear holes in the ministry of Christ. What happened during the 40 days Christ taught the Apostles after His resurrection? What is the paradise Christ mentioned that He and the thief met at the day He died when He did not ascend into heaven until after He rose from the dead? What did Christ teach the people in all the sermons that weren't recorded? What about the miracles that never made the Gospels? What about the other books of scripture the Bible mentions that are now considered lost?

There is so much about God we dont know, and yet you want to limit it all to the books we have in the Bible. Why? God wants to open the floodgates of Heaven. He wants to show all His children everything He has in store for them. Why place posts up and say "I will go no further?" God wanted Moses to prepare the Israelites to enter into His presence. They refused to do so and were punished with 40 years of wandering. They were given the Law of Moses to point them toward Christ. 

The Apostles tried to do the same. And the people went into Apostasy so quickly that Paul had to chastize the Galatians for already turning to another Gospel. All of the Epistles in the New Testament demonstrate the Apostles attempts to keep the Church on the Straight and narrow path and the opposition they faced doing so. The people killed them rather than accept their message. And after their death the ordinances were changed and the Everlasting Covenant was broken as Isaiah predicted. They fell away as Paul, John, and Christ prophecied.



> In order for the LDS/Mormon belief system to be acceptable, we or all of us must accept that God, even-though "omnipotent" somehow let His holy scriptures to mankind become partially or totally corrupted by "uninspired" mankind.



You think the fact that human beings have touched and transcribed past revelations that somehow dilutes the power of God? We are a fallen people. We have been so since the Fall of Adam and will be until Christ returns. God works with imperfect people. The Bible is not inerrant. It never claims to be. It's a tool to point people to the Father and to Christ who are perfect. They are the ones we should rely on. They are the ones we place our faith in.

You'll notice the pattern from the scriptures, when the people turn away from God, He calls a prophet, He sends and Apostle. He reveals the Truth to them and they preach it to the people. This is the pattern. It has been so since the days of Adam, it will be until Christ comes in Glory. Possibly past then. And as the scriptures indicate the servants of God are never appreciated in their time. It's only after they pass on that their message is accepted as truth. And that's how Satan gets the people to ignore the next one that comes. The Pharisees, the Scribes, the Saducees, all trusted in the scriptures of dead prophets, yet rejected the Son of God when He came. Why do you think today is different? 




> Why?:  Why would the God/Jehovah/El Shaddai/Lord God Almighty let this most important message from Him to mankind fall into this state?



I happen to believe the message of the Bible is very well preserved considering what God had to work with in the late Roman Empire and the Middle ages. The problem is people had lost the authority to speak for God. They lost the gift of the Holy Ghost as a result and people decided they would interpret the Bible themselves rather than turn to God who could teach them all of it. Is it any wonder there are countless versions of the Bible? Is it any wonder that 3 devout Christians can go into a room and intepret the Bible 20 different ways? You think Christ wanted people to simply follow their interpretations of the Bible and form thousands of different denominations? Or do you think Christ taught a unifying doctrine? Is this really what God wants? God, who is a God of order, who established ordinances and families to place us in our order? And who has authority to such? Who can baptize? who can give the Holy Ghost? It's evident from the Book of Acts, that it cant be done by just anyone.

And while I wasnt intending to do this originally, I feel I should. Since Oliver articulates the points much better than I do, I think I should share his words:







> These were days never to be forgottento sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, Interpreters, the history or record called The Book of Mormon.
> 
> To notice, in even few words, the interesting account given by Mormon and his faithful son, Moroni, of a people once beloved and favored of heaven, would supersede my present design; I shall therefore defer this to a future period, and, as I said in the introduction, pass more directly to some few incidents immediately connected with the rise of this Church, which may be entertaining to some thousands who have stepped forward, amid the frowns of bigots and the calumny of hypocrites, and embraced the Gospel of Christ.
> 
> No men, in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up His Church, and especially when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> After writing the account given of the Saviors ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easy to be seen, as the prophet said it would be, that darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. On reflecting further it was as easy to be seen that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. For the question might be asked, have men authority to administer in the name of Christ, who deny revelations, when His testimony is no less than the spirit of prophecy, and His religion based, built, and sustained by immediate revelations, in all ages of the world when He has had a people on earth? If these facts were buried, and carefully concealed by men whose craft would have been in danger if once permitted to shine in the faces of men, they were no longer to us; and we only waited for the commandment to be given Arise and be baptized.
> 
> This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon Him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us His will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the Gospel of repentance. What joy! what wonder! what amazement! While the world was racked and distractedwhile millions were groping as the blind for the wall, and while all men were resting upon uncertainty, as a general mass, our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the blaze of day; yes, moreabove the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature! Then his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words, I am thy fellow-servant, dispelled every fear. We listened, we gazed, we admired! Twas the voice of an angel from glory, twas a message from the Most High! And as we heard we rejoiced, while His love enkindled upon our souls, and we were wrapped in the vision of the Almighty! Where was room for doubt? Nowhere; uncertainty had fled, doubt had sunk no more to rise, while fiction and deception had fled forever!
> 
> But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!
> 
> I shall not attempt to paint to you the feelings of this heart, nor the majestic beauty and glory which surrounded us on this occasion; but you will believe me when I say, that earth, nor men, with the eloquence of time, cannot begin to clothe language in as interesting and sublime a manner as this holy personage. No; nor has this earth power to give the joy, to bestow the peace, or comprehend the wisdom which was contained in each sentence as they were delivered by the power of the Holy Spirit! Man may deceive his fellow-men, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till naught but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind. The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel, the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Saviors goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry; and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that day which shall never cease.Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 (October 1834), pp. 1416.





> You can't give an adequate answer unless you "deny" God's "omnipotence" which is clearly displayed/explained//defined in the bible.



You seem to think that because He can do everything, God does do everything. He could make me a multi billionaire in two seconds if He chose to. He has that power. He does not do it. Why? Because He is wiser than I am

God is doing a work in the last days, one that will make the Israelite journey out of slavery look like nothing. And key to that work is the Book of Mormon. Why did He choose this way to do it? I don't know. But I dont think it's wise to ignore God when He reveals more of His word to His people. He does so for a reason. And part of that reason, I believe, is because the Bible has been so much attacked that He wanted a second testimony to the Gospel sent before the world. People may deny the Word of Christ to the Jews. But they have a much harder time deny the Word of Christ to a multitude of nations, all testifying of one Eternal God the Father and one Jesus Christ.



> Really, all the various teachings/doctrines in the BOM, Journal of Discourses/Pearl of Great Price.....etc, etc... really don't need to muddle this up anymore.  Bottom line: The bible is not sufficient for the Mormon/LDS system of faith.  It is considered incomplete, or corrupted.



First, the Journal of Discourses? Let's be honest here. It's not a volume of scripture. You know, its not a volume we consider scripture. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Second, Why should we settle for anything less than everything God has to offer? Why should we settle for coal when God wants to give us diamonds? Why settle for a kiddie pool when God gives you an ocean to swim in? Why settle for less than God has promised? 

Why? because you are comfortable? Are you afraid that if you let go of the Bible as all there is it will somehow dimiss your faith in God? Have faith in God and don't limit yourself to what God has once said. He has much more to say to you if you will listen.



> So where do we stand?  You say you have the truth, and us bible based folks, believe we have the truth.



I say God has the truth. And I hope to learn every one He is willing to share with me. I dont want to be limited. I want to become the man God wants me to be. What truth do you have that we do not? We believe the Bible to contain Gods words. We simply dont accept the false doctrine that it's all God has or will ever say. Especially when it says the exact opposite!



> I think that the big dividing line isn't visitations from angels, or latter day messages but defining who God is.  Is He omnipotent from the very beginning, or is He not?



But we aren't dealing with God's omnipotence here are we? We are dealing with the fallen nature of man. Can man do anything perfectly? Can they convey truth perfectly? If so, why didn't God just give Adam all the rules and why dont we have them directly from Him? Why did He need to call any Prophet after Adam? 

It's an easy answer. Its because we are fallen. We have to learn line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. We need constant tutelage from God. And we need to learn the lessons ourself. We cant be saved through revelation for Adam. We can't even be saved through revelation for our parents. We have to be saved through our own direct revelation from God. And while the scriptures can be a tool to teach and edify us, they cannot save us.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Boosterman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Santa Claus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who knows anything about history knows that Ol Saint Nick was a real guy. He's just not around anymore.
Click to expand...


I know I'm nitpicking here. But you mean he isnt alive in mortality anymore. He is somewhere. Everyone who has ever lived is somewhere.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boosterman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about Santa Claus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who knows anything about history knows that Ol Saint Nick was a real guy. He's just not around anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I'm nitpicking here. But you mean he isnt alive in mortality anymore. He is somewhere. Everyone who has ever lived is somewhere.
Click to expand...


Of course.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> california girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> i like mormons. They're decent people generally.
> 
> Not so long ago, i was accosted by a drunk guy on a train in the uk. Crowds of people completely ignored the situation.... The only two who stepped forward to help this 'damsel in distress' were two mormon missionaries.  Not only did they insert themselves quietly and firmly between me and the drunk guy but they stayed one either side until my stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wwjd?
Click to expand...


Apparently, He'd send in the Mormons! LOL.


----------



## Truthspeaker

What a great California person!


----------



## actsnoblemartin

mormons are quite friendly, i like um.



Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.


----------



## Truthspeaker

actsnoblemartin said:


> mormons are quite friendly, i like um.
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
Click to expand...


wOOO hOOOO! i LIKE nice people. The polls are rising every day. But it is clear there are still plenty of old misconceptions out there about us.


----------



## necritan

Hey guys....wanna go have some beer's...????


----------



## Zona

Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.


----------



## California Girl

Zona said:


> Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.



He's also a Libertarian, a recovering alcoholic, and a really nice guy but don't let that stop you accusing him of being a rabid republican hatemonger.....  Stupidity is not illegal, have at it. 

So, Glenn is a nice guy, and a Mormon - you just proved my point. Mormons are decent people. Thanks  Zona.


----------



## Avatar4321

necritan said:


> Hey guys....wanna go have some beer's...????



Id love a root beer. Thank you!


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.



And he is so much the better for it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormons are OK.  No better, no worse than others.  How they live their beliefs, particularly in being able to honestly answer the temple-recommend interview questions, is what counts.


----------



## Zona

What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?


----------



## Skeptik

California Girl said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's also a Libertarian, a recovering alcoholic, and a really nice guy but don't let that stop you accusing him of being a rabid republican hatemonger.....  Stupidity is not illegal, have at it.
> 
> So, Glenn is a nice guy, and a Mormon - you just proved my point. Mormons are decent people. Thanks  Zona.
Click to expand...


Beck is a Libertarian?  Really?  Where does he stand on abortion and legalization of drugs, then?  It would seem that there wouldn't be very many Libertarian Mormons because of those two issues.

As for him being a "nice guy", that's a matter of opinion.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?



1829. before the Church was founded. Read the Book of Mormon sometime and you wouldnt look so ignorant.


----------



## Zona

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1829. before the Church was founded. Read the Book of Mormon sometime and you wouldnt look so ignorant.
Click to expand...


Pressure was also felt by the LDS during the 1970's because of the LDS' institutionalized racism. The IRS was threatening to cancel the church's non-profit tax exempt status. University sports teams were refusing to compete in Utah. This pressure was relieved on *1978*-JUN-6 when the church received a new revelation from God to end the practice of discrimination against persons of African-American heritage

Racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)

Ignorance indeed.


----------



## California Girl

Skeptik said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's also a Libertarian, a recovering alcoholic, and a really nice guy but don't let that stop you accusing him of being a rabid republican hatemonger.....  Stupidity is not illegal, have at it.
> 
> So, Glenn is a nice guy, and a Mormon - you just proved my point. Mormons are decent people. Thanks  Zona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beck is a Libertarian?  Really?  Where does he stand on abortion and legalization of drugs, then?  It would seem that there wouldn't be very many Libertarian Mormons because of those two issues.
> 
> As for him being a "nice guy", that's a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


You would need to ask Glenn. I don't speak on behalf of others.... however, I will say that I find it perfectly understandable. I am pro-life and Catholic. However, I am also a believer in individual rights and responsibilities so, although I am pro-life, I also believe that it is not my place to tell another person that they cannot have an abortion - because that is inflicting my opinion on your life. 

If everybody believed, as I do, that we are each responsible for ourselves, the country would be what the founding fathers intended it to be.... a beacon of true democracy and a glorious republic. An example for the rest of the world to aspire to and envy. We were that country once, and we could be again......

If only we would stop electing self-serving, dishonest, idiots.


----------



## Skeptik

California Girl said:


> If only we would stop electing self-serving, dishonest, idiots.



That would be a giant step forward, wouldn't it?  

Maybe if fewer voters based their votes on TV ads and party affiliation, we could at least begin to accomplish such a miracle.


----------



## Zona

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1829. before the Church was founded. Read the Book of Mormon sometime and you wouldnt look so ignorant.
Click to expand...




Zona said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1829. before the Church was founded. Read the Book of Mormon sometime and you wouldnt look so ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure was also felt by the LDS during the 1970's because of the LDS' institutionalized racism. The IRS was threatening to cancel the church's non-profit tax exempt status. University sports teams were refusing to compete in Utah. This pressure was relieved on *1978*-JUN-6 when the church received a new revelation from God to end the practice of discrimination against persons of African-American heritage
> 
> Racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
> 
> Ignorance indeed.
Click to expand...


Comment?


----------



## California Girl

Skeptik said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only we would stop electing self-serving, dishonest, idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a giant step forward, wouldn't it?
> 
> Maybe if fewer voters based their votes on TV ads and party affiliation, we could at least begin to accomplish such a miracle.
Click to expand...


Indeed, that would be a leap in the right direction. Sadly, with our current education system teaching us what to think instead of how to think, it would take some effort. Still, just because something is hard does not mean it is not achievable or not worth trying.


----------



## mskafka

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.




I'm sure that this has already been mentioned on here, but my issue is with polygamy.  I realize that this practice doesn't represent the majority of Mormons.  Glenn Beck isn't helping my view.  I wouldn't want him representing my faith, just as I wouldn't want Michael Moore representing it.  

One of my Mormon friends recently gave me a dissertation on why polygamy was justified.  There was some merit to the argument (fewer men due to war, a woman being widowed, etc...)  but does that really translate to the current times?


----------



## necritan

Skeptik said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's also a Libertarian, a recovering alcoholic, and a really nice guy but don't let that stop you accusing him of being a rabid republican hatemonger.....  Stupidity is not illegal, have at it.
> 
> So, Glenn is a nice guy, and a Mormon - you just proved my point. Mormons are decent people. Thanks  Zona.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beck is a Libertarian?  Really?  Where does he stand on abortion and legalization of drugs, then?  It would seem that there wouldn't be very many Libertarian Mormons because of those two issues.
> 
> As for him being a "nice guy", that's a matter of opinion.
Click to expand...


Tell me where the hell Libertarians view abortion as ok..???


----------



## Skeptik

necritan said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's also a Libertarian, a recovering alcoholic, and a really nice guy but don't let that stop you accusing him of being a rabid republican hatemonger.....  Stupidity is not illegal, have at it.
> 
> So, Glenn is a nice guy, and a Mormon - you just proved my point. Mormons are decent people. Thanks  Zona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a Libertarian?  Really?  Where does he stand on abortion and legalization of drugs, then?  It would seem that there wouldn't be very many Libertarian Mormons because of those two issues.
> 
> As for him being a "nice guy", that's a matter of opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me where the hell Libertarians view abortion as ok..???
Click to expand...


At the risk of further derailing this thread:

Sure.  It's right here.



> Reproductive Rights: Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Comment?



First, you really need to learn how to quote properly. 

Second, as I pointed out earlier, you should actually read the Book of Mormon sometime. If you did you would know that our doctrine since it was translated was the following:



> 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; *and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white,* bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and *all are alike unto God,* both Jew and Gentile.  (2 Nephi 26:33)



Sure sounds "sub-human" there, does it?

Again, if you bothered to read the Book you would know that.


----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> You would need to ask Glenn. I don't speak on behalf of others.... however, I will say that I find it perfectly understandable. I am pro-life and Catholic. However, I am also a believer in individual rights and responsibilities so, although I am pro-life, I also believe that it is not my place to tell another person that they cannot have an abortion - because that is inflicting my opinion on your life.
> 
> If everybody believed, as I do, that we are each responsible for ourselves, the country would be what the founding fathers intended it to be.... a beacon of true democracy and a glorious republic. An example for the rest of the world to aspire to and envy. We were that country once, and we could be again......
> 
> If only we would stop electing self-serving, dishonest, idiots.



Honestly, I think we vote politicians that accurately reflect the state of our nation. We say we want honest, selfless, intelligent people, yet we keep voting for as you put it "self-serving, dishonest, idiots." Unfortunately, I fear this is because they accurately represent the views of too many people. We live in a culture of corruption. Where dishonesty is rewarded. Where people dont care about real knowledge, only looking intelligent so they can get more money or live in comfort.

Until enough of the people change their lives to be living selfless honest lives, we cannot expect that they would reasonably pick people that would reflect those values.


----------



## necritan

Skeptik said:


> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck is a Libertarian?  Really?  Where does he stand on abortion and legalization of drugs, then?  It would seem that there wouldn't be very many Libertarian Mormons because of those two issues.
> 
> As for him being a "nice guy", that's a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me where the hell Libertarians view abortion as ok..???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At the risk of further derailing this thread:
> 
> Sure.  It's right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reproductive Rights: Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Some stupid guys "Guide to the third biggest party" article really sums up such a hot issue like abortion. 

Libertarians view abortion as a grey area in general. Those are those who view the fetus as a legitimate human..w/ rights.....and those who view the opposite. 

Sorry....Libertarians as a whole do not view abortion as ok. One thing you got right though is that the ones who do view abortion as ok have no need for government assistance or involvement.


----------



## Skeptik

necritan said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> necritan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me where the hell Libertarians view abortion as ok..???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the risk of further derailing this thread:
> 
> Sure.  It's right here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reproductive Rights: Pro-choice, but opposes all federal funding of abortion and most federal entitlements for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, including the child tax credit. Opposes involuntary or fraudulent sterilization.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some stupid guys "Guide to the third biggest party" article really sums up such a hot issue like abortion.
> 
> Libertarians view abortion as a grey area in general. Those are those who view the fetus as a legitimate human..w/ rights.....and those who view the opposite.
> 
> Sorry....Libertarians as a whole do not view abortion as ok. One thing you got right though is that the ones who do view abortion as ok have no need for government assistance or involvement.
Click to expand...


As a Libertarian, I think you have the right to your opinion, however wrong I think it is.  The quote is from a summary of the Libertarian platform.  Clearly, the philosophy is to allow individuals to make that choice, just like any other choice.

OK, back to the subject at hand.


----------



## Truthspeaker

necritan said:


> Hey guys....wanna go have some beer's...????



How bout some Root Beers?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?



Never


----------



## Truthspeaker

mskafka said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that this has already been mentioned on here, but my issue is with polygamy.  I realize that this practice doesn't represent the majority of Mormons.  Glenn Beck isn't helping my view.  I wouldn't want him representing my faith, just as I wouldn't want Michael Moore representing it.
> 
> One of my Mormon friends recently gave me a dissertation on why polygamy was justified.  There was some merit to the argument (fewer men due to war, a woman being widowed, etc...)  but does that really translate to the current times?
Click to expand...


You are right that this topic has been one of the most consistently brought up. I have dealt with it and answered that very question dozens of times. I have to go to sleep tonight but if you continue reading on you will most assuredly find the answers within the first ten pages of this thread in detail. Please read those and I promise to get back to you tomorrow. Thank you for positively contributing to the thread as many have nothing but smut to sling around. I'm grateful for all people who ask the toughest possible questions they can without holding back for fear of breaking my faith. Trust me. I have heard it before. C-ya tomorrow.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never
Click to expand...


By denying black people the opportunity to take part in your Priesthood, wouldn't that be treating them as lesser beings than those of other races?

Also, didn't your church teach that their black skin color was a curse based on your latter day prophet's interpretation of Cain and Abel?

Then miraculously one of your church president/prophets had a "miraculous" word from god saying that the curse was off, around the time that your church was under public scrutiny for denying priesthood to the black members?


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> What year did they say Blacks were not sub human?  78 or 79?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By denying black people the opportunity to take part in your Priesthood, wouldn't that be treating them as lesser beings than those of other races?
> 
> Also, didn't your church teach that their black skin color was a curse based on your latter day prophet's interpretation of Cain and Abel?
> 
> Then miraculously one of your church president/prophets had a "miraculous" word from god saying that the curse was off, around the time that your church was under public scrutiny for denying priesthood to the black members?
Click to expand...


Do Catholics believe women are sub human?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> By denying black people the opportunity to take part in your Priesthood, wouldn't that be treating them as lesser beings than those of other races?



You might think so when you present the concept the way YOU do; with no background or context. But we're not presenting the same concept you are assuming.




> Also, didn't your church teach that their black skin color was a curse based on your latter day prophet's interpretation of Cain and Abel?



No, that was not the case. That was a misunderstanding of Brigham Young's statements.




> Then miraculously one of your church president/prophets had a "miraculous" word from god saying that the curse was off, around the time that your church was under public scrutiny for denying priesthood to the black members?




Again, aqcuiring an understanding of the doctrine itself and the context with the history will serve you well. 

Such an acquisition you could have made if you would ever read any of my posts. You really are without excuse. You've been trolling around since almost the beginning of this thread so either you're pretending you didn't read my previous answer on the subject or you are so oblivious that it makes sense. Which is it? I can't wait to hear your next spin-answer.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> By denying black people the opportunity to take part in your Priesthood, wouldn't that be treating them as lesser beings than those of other races?
> 
> Also, didn't your church teach that their black skin color was a curse based on your latter day prophet's interpretation of Cain and Abel?
> 
> Then miraculously one of your church president/prophets had a "miraculous" word from god saying that the curse was off, around the time that your church was under public scrutiny for denying priesthood to the black members?



No. If you are familiar with the Bible, youd realize that not all people are entitled to the Priesthood at all histories of the world. In the days of Moses the Priesthood was limited to the lineage of Aaron among the levites. A few of the tribe of Rueben tried to demand the priesthood, they were killed by God.

So did God's limitation of the priesthood to Aaron's seed at this time mean everyone else was subhuman?

Does the fact that Christ preached the Gospel to the Jews and did not teach the Gentiles mean that the Gentiles are subhuman? They werent even allowed to be taught the Gospel for a time! And then later just "convenient" recieved a revelation to take the Gospel to the Gentiles when the Jews wouldnt hear it anymore. Is that what you really believe?

It's been prophecied since the days of Joseph Smith that the Priesthood would go to all the world. And all were invited to come to Christ from the beginning. One of the largest reasons Governor Boggs issued the order to kill all mormons in Missouri was because the Mormons were against slavery and had no problem teaching the Gospel to blacks. One of the ultimate sins in a slave state. Sub human? Not coming from the mormons.

If the "revelation" was going to come because of convenience, it would have come in the 1950s when President McKay wanted to allow all to recieve the priesthood. It would have come in the 1960s when there was actual political pressure to change it. It wouldn't have come in 1978 when the political pressure was long since past. 

And it had nothing to do with political pressure anyway. It had everything to do with the first Temple in Brazil being built and and the desire of the First Presidency and Twelve that the blessings be given to all people as promised. it came through fasting and prayer. Of not only the leadership but alot of other people who knew the time was coming.

You can try to attack us all you want. You can lie and mislead people about what we believe. But your own attacks will destroy your own faith much faster than ours. Christ gave His life for us. And through Him both the living and the dead can be redeemed. All mankind will hear the voice of the Gospel. All will have an opportunity to recieve the blessings. No one is sub human. To pretend otherwise is absurd.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar:

Your assumption goes this way........Levites=light skinned people.......

There are skin color gradations of every human race; Mongoloid, Caucazoid, Negroid, and Australoid.

All 4 recognized races can and do come in very dark pigmentation, and are not all of the Negroid race which for the most part is of African continental origin.

Your premise falls apart as the bible just says that they are Levites.  Levites as well as the other 11 tribes brought with them Egyptian slaves, and also those of Egypt that went along with the Exodus.  This is all in the O.T..  Of those Egyptians many were accepted into Judaism by marriage, and by strict Hebrew regulation.

No doubt many Levites were very dark skinned as well as their cousins of the other 11 tribes.

To distinguish who could participate in the LDS priesthood based on skin color really came down to separating-out those of the Negroid race in particular.  Right?  A person who might be of Mexican ancestry that would most likely be Caucasian and Mongoloid mix could easily have very dark skin pigmentation.  Were they singled out as those of the African/Negroid race?  Think about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Book of Mormon will founder on the continuing DNA evidence.

The majority of FARMS/FAIR (Mormon apologetic think tanks) are going to try the "Limited Geography" argument for the Jewish immigrants into an isolated area in Central or South America.  The BoM and contemporary documents of the 1830s and 1840s are going to blow that defense sky high.

The next defense after that may be more successful.  It will be the BoM is "metaphorical", the story "reflects true principles before the foundation of the world", not a literal story.

Watch and see.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> The Book of Mormon will founder on the continuing DNA evidence.
> 
> The majority of FARMS/FAIR (Mormon apologetic think tanks) are going to try the "Limited Geography" argument for the Jewish immigrants into an isolated area in Central or South America.  The BoM and contemporary documents of the 1830s and 1840s are going to blow that defense sky high.
> 
> The next defense after that may be more successful.  It will be the BoM is "metaphorical", the story "reflects true principles before the foundation of the world", not a literal story.
> 
> Watch and see.



There is no DNA evidence. You cant have DNA evidence when you dont know what the original DNA looks like. Do you have a strand of Lehi's DNA? How about his wife? or Ismael and his wife? Zoram? Do you know what Lamanite DNA looked like after the change? Until you do you cant say it's not there. If you pretend otherwise you arent looking at the DNA evidence that actually exists. Which, of course, is non-existant.

Let's go even alittle more general. Do you have any DNA any of Joseph of Egypts descendents prior to the Assyrian/Babylonian exiles? We don't even have that much.

Till you have some DNA, you can't say that DNA evidence proves the Book of Mormon inaccurate. You have nothing to test. We have no DNA evidence.

And that's excluding the obvious effects of DNA from other populations being introduced at later point in time. Or the populations that exists before they arrived.

No, I have no doubt the we will continue to teach the truth. The Book of Mormon is real. It happened. Get used to it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Avatar:
> 
> Your assumption goes this way........Levites=light skinned people.......
> 
> There are skin color gradations of every human race; Mongoloid, Caucazoid, Negroid, and Australoid.
> 
> All 4 recognized races can and do come in very dark pigmentation, and are not all of the Negroid race which for the most part is of African continental origin.
> 
> Your premise falls apart as the bible just says that they are Levites.  Levites as well as the other 11 tribes brought with them Egyptian slaves, and also those of Egypt that went along with the Exodus.  This is all in the O.T..  Of those Egyptians many were accepted into Judaism by marriage, and by strict Hebrew regulation.
> 
> No doubt many Levites were very dark skinned as well as their cousins of the other 11 tribes.
> 
> To distinguish who could participate in the LDS priesthood based on skin color really came down to separating-out those of the Negroid race in particular.  Right?  A person who might be of Mexican ancestry that would most likely be Caucasian and Mongoloid mix could easily have very dark skin pigmentation.  Were they singled out as those of the African/Negroid race?  Think about it.



Skin color has never been a factor in anything with the priesthood.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> The majority of FARMS/FAIR (Mormon apologetic think tanks) are going to try the "Limited Geography" argument for the Jewish immigrants into an isolated area in Central or South America.  The BoM and contemporary documents of the 1830s and 1840s are going to blow that defense sky high.



No actually they are not. The "Limited Geography" concept has been suggested and is most likely but the concept itself only suggests that  MOST of the Book of Mormon events took place in mesoamerica. It does not prevent other events outside mesoamerica from happening. You do not understand what the "Limited Geography Argument" really is. You don't understand what the book of Mormon actually says either. Which documents are you suggesting will blow us "sky high". I think every document and attack on the book has come and gone the way of waves against a cliff. If there was a destroying argument against the book of mormon, it would have come already. It wouldn't have been revealed by you on US Message Board.



> The next defense after that may be more successful.  It will be the BoM is "metaphorical", the story "reflects true principles before the foundation of the world", not a literal story.





> Watch and see.



That will NEVER happen. Never. No, you are the one who will see. There will be no metaphorical sidestep. We've been claiming the actual story literally happened for 169 years. We're not going to change our tune. 

Like Brigham Young has stated: "Our gospel is the one that invites all scientific discovery. It invites all new revealed truths. It is one that will forever sustain science. For true science is part of the religion of God. True science, true religion. Such things any truthseeker embraces. This gospel is one of education, of intellectual discovery, and not of dogmatic dismissal. I say it in the name of Jesus Christ, with knowledge."
~ Discourses of Brigham Young


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Avatar:
> 
> Your assumption goes this way........Levites=light skinned people.......
> 
> There are skin color gradations of every human race; Mongoloid, Caucazoid, Negroid, and Australoid.
> 
> All 4 recognized races can and do come in very dark pigmentation, and are not all of the Negroid race which for the most part is of African continental origin.
> 
> Your premise falls apart as the bible just says that they are Levites.  Levites as well as the other 11 tribes brought with them Egyptian slaves, and also those of Egypt that went along with the Exodus.  This is all in the O.T..  Of those Egyptians many were accepted into Judaism by marriage, and by strict Hebrew regulation.
> 
> No doubt many Levites were very dark skinned as well as their cousins of the other 11 tribes.
> 
> To distinguish who could participate in the LDS priesthood based on skin color really came down to separating-out those of the Negroid race in particular.  Right?  A person who might be of Mexican ancestry that would most likely be Caucasian and Mongoloid mix could easily have very dark skin pigmentation.  Were they singled out as those of the African/Negroid race?  Think about it.




You just don't listen....

Priesthood qualification has never...EVER had anything to do with skin color.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I'm sure that this has already been mentioned on here, but my issue is with polygamy.



You are right, this issue has been dealt with before. I must admit I also had my concerns. But concerns stem from different sources. Some stem from a dislike of the practice due to modern ideology that husbands and wives must be madly in love and devoted only to each other. This romantic notion is shared by almost everyone in our culture today including myself. Mostly because of movies and television portraying the euphoria of such a relationship. In reality most marriages start out that way in dating but don't stay that way during the course of the marriage. Hence the current divorce rate. The concept of sharing a spouse is repulsive to most of us for this reason because it just doesn't seem fair.

Anther concern with polygamy stems from the idea that a polygamous husband is simply indulging in his lustful desires and taking advantage of uneducated and weak minded women; seeking out a forum where he can dominate within that arena and subject the females in his harem to his every wish and command.
This would by my major area of concern because I hate everything associated with a man who does this.

However, most concerns come from people who hate it because they would never do it themselves. I don't think I could see myself doing it. I have a hard enough time making my own marriage work with just one woman. Women today are very demanding. In general much more than those of the past. But just because someone could not see themselves doing it doesn't mean they should automatically condemn those who willingly participate of their own accord and desire. 
Most women are only satisfied with a monogomous romantic relationship. Others just want companionship and protection. Some are content with being alone. Some just want sex(these usually don't bother getting married.)

But we need to be careful not to judge people in these relationships too quickly. We need to first understand the mindset of the people who engage in it and what reasons they are doing it for. Polygamous relationships made much more sense in a time when women and men had clear cut distinct separate roles. Breadwinner/father and homemaker/wife. The vast majority of women only desired to embrace their roles in these times. The concept of fantastic romantic love was often considered by many no more than a childish pipe dream in those times. 
A responsible polygamous man who made the commitment to marry several women instead of sleeping around with multiple mistresses is far more respectable than the typical man today who aims to do just that. 
The commitment to marry meant that the parents of the bride to be given away held the man responsible for their daughters providence and love. In a different time in a different culture this idea was respectable.
But today polygamous men are seen as slime. Some definitely are but we should judge them individually and not prejudiced. We should certainly hold promiscuous men of today's age in far less regard than polygamous men. Instead, today's society just accepts it as something "guys just do" if not glamorizing their escapades in hollywood and pop culture.



> I realize that this practice doesn't represent the majority of Mormons.


You are right. All "Mormons" in fact do not practice polygamy. People who go on tv as "Mormon polygamist fundamentalists" are not what they claim to be. We are the fundamentalists. Not them. They broke away from us because they failed to follow the teachings of the church.



> Glenn Beck isn't helping my view.  I wouldn't want him representing my faith, just as I wouldn't want Michael Moore representing it.



I've only heard good things from Glen Beck. But I notice on these boards he's getting roasted. I'd like to hear what statements he's making that are causing these harsh criticisms of him.



> One of my Mormon friends recently gave me a dissertation on why polygamy was justified.  There was some merit to the argument (fewer men due to war, a woman being widowed, etc...)  but does that really translate to the current times?



God has commanded polygamy among his people at select times throughout history. Be it known that our teaching is that polygamy is always a sin unless done in obedience to the command of God through his true prophets. This was the case in old and new testament times and briefly during the formative period of time in our church's early history. The reasons are first and foremost God's reasons. The participants were also chosen by God to live in that generation, He knowing the desires of his children individually(hence the reason we were selected to live in THIS generation). The first reason was to speed the process of populating his church. The other reason was for the protection and providence of widows in a time where frontier life was exceedingly perilous for any person, let alone a single woman, never mind if she had children from her widower.

So no. These reasons do not translate to current times. That is why we don't practice it AT ALL today.

I hope this is a satisfactory answer for you. And thank you for the question.


----------



## California Girl

The polygamy thing is an interesting one.... 

Why not? As long as it is entered into freely by all parties and we don't have 14 year old girls being married off to 50 year old men, I see no reason to judge people on how they choose to live. If we accept same sex couples, why are polygamous groups any less worthy of acceptance?


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> I've only heard good things from Glen Beck. But I notice on these boards he's getting roasted. I'd like to hear what statements he's making that are causing these harsh criticisms of him.




Have you heard this little gem?

Here are some more interesting quotes.

I've never understood just what the attraction is between Mormons and the right wing.  Actually, it's an unrequited love, as the right wing in general, and  especially the so called "religious right", has no use for Mormons. 



Truthspeaker said:


> So no. These reasons do not translate to current times. That is why we don't practice it AT ALL today.
> 
> I hope this is a satisfactory answer for you. And thank you for the question.



NO, they don't translate well to 21st. century culture.  The only way polygamy is going to work is if the men follow a leader who has the power to dictate it, and the women have no choice but to go along with it.  That was the way it was in 19th. century Utah, and the way it still is in some of the backward communities dominated by so called "fundamentalist Mormons", who really aren't Mormons at all.


----------



## California Girl

Mormons, like Catholics, appear out of step with todays society. That is because our religions don't change their stance to suit public opinion. They just are. You either accept the teachings of the Church or you do not but the Church doesn't change. I like that. I'm glad they don't move on their fundamental beliefs.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Have you heard this little gem?



I saw in this video that it was trying to smear Beck without letting him finish so I'd really have to hear the rest of his explanation.



> Here are some more interesting quotes.



Again with these quotes, I need some more background. I'd especially like to read the so called poem the 7 year old wrote about Africa. Having lived in and loved the people of Africa with all my heart, I'm disinclined to believe this 7 year old has any real knowledge on the subject.




> I've never understood just what the attraction is between Mormons and the right wing.  Actually, it's an unrequited love, as the right wing in general, and  especially the so called "religious right", has no use for Mormons.



We're not really concerned with being labeled right or left. At least I'm not. We just have certain values and others label us accordingly.




> NO, they don't translate well to 21st. century culture.  The only way polygamy is going to work is if the men follow a leader who has the power to dictate it, and the women have no choice but to go along with it.  That was the way it was in 19th. century Utah, and the way it still is in some of the backward communities dominated by so called "fundamentalist Mormons", who really aren't Mormons at all.



Having an extensive knowlege about polygamy, especially in early Mormon culture, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Our religion has always preached the divine nature of women and how they are God's greatest creation. Just because we have preached that Men and Women have different roles does not mean we preach that women are to be subserviant to their husbands. It is written in our canon of scriptures:

D&C 121:37

"...but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." 


This scripture was in direct revelation to Joseph Smith on the responsibility of men who hold the priesthood. Many men at the time thought it was ok to "boss" their families around. This was clear instruction from God that men are not to be so.

Polygamy was not dictated to the general population. It was revealed as a commandment to a few. Not the whole community. The actual numbers are between 2 and 5 % of men engaged in the practice. Most of  whom were leaders. Certainly no one was forced to engage in it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You two clearly do not understand the DNA issue, but the time will come when you will.

Truthspeaker, you better go look up Brigham Young and others' speeches about the Royal Abrahamic priesthood, lineage, and race.  Your statement of denial is one of the most ignorant (meaning uneducated that I have ever read about Mormon issues) that I have ever read.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> I saw in this video that it was trying to smear Beck without letting him finish so I'd really have to hear the rest of his explanation.



Oh, he was allowed to finish.  Beck tends to open his mouth without engaging his brain first.  It's likely he saw how absurd his statement was, but, once said, he couldn't unsay it. 



Truthspeaker said:


> Again with these quotes, I need some more background. I'd especially like to read the so called poem the 7 year old wrote about Africa. Having lived in and loved the people of Africa with all my heart, I'm disinclined to believe this 7 year old has any real knowledge on the subject.



I'm not sure about those quotes, either.  Some of them may have been taken out of context and hyped.  If you listen to him, though, you begin to get the feeling that he likes to make outrageous statements just to get attention, much like Limbaugh, Hannity et. al.





Truthspeaker said:


> We're not really concerned with being labeled right or left. At least I'm not. We just have certain values and others label us accordingly.



Yes, I understand that, and that the church tries to be as apolitical as possible.  The individual members, however, tend to the extreme right, at least in my experience.  Yet, the extreme right has a vast misunderstanding of Mormon theology and how that might relate to political ideology.  Did you follow the last primary, especially the candidacy of Mitt Romney?  I really thought he was the best candidate, still do, and think he would most likely have been nominated had he been a Baptist or something.  He would also have had a much better chance of winning than John McCain ever did.



Truthspeaker said:


> Having an extensive knowlege about polygamy, especially in early Mormon culture, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. Our religion has always preached the divine nature of women and how they are God's greatest creation. Just because we have preached that Men and Women have different roles does not mean we preach that women are to be subserviant to their husbands. It is written in our canon of scriptures:



Yes, but going back to the polygamy as actually practiced in 19th. century Utah, it looks to me to have been at odds with the idea of the divine nature of women, or of men for that matter.  

Have you ever read The 19th. Wife, by David Ebershoff?  It does provide an interesting look at polygamy as practiced by the Mormon pioneers and as practiced today by the fringe groups in Utah.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> You two clearly do not understand the DNA issue, but the time will come when you will.
> 
> Truthspeaker, you better go look up Brigham Young and others' speeches about the Royal Abrahamic priesthood, lineage, and race.  Your statement of denial is one of the most ignorant (meaning uneducated that I have ever read about Mormon issues) that I have ever read.



Thank you for your eloquent retort. Thank you for explaining to me the meaning of ignorant. Thank you.

I've been through the DNA issue already....Did I miss something? The DNA of native americans is one of the first issues I dealt with....oh about on the first page of this discussion and several times since. So I repeat, what did I miss? Be sure to continue using small words so the ignorant likes of myself can understand your advanced scholarship.

As to the Brigham Young Speeches. I'm familiar with them all. Do you really think you are more of an expert on my religion than myself, who studies it for an hour each day for the past 20 years? And you haven't joined us yet? That is remarkable.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Yes, but going back to the polygamy as actually practiced in 19th. century Utah, it looks to me to have been at odds with the idea of the divine nature of women, or of men for that matter.



there is far more written in contemporary and publicly read books in our churches that teach the divine nature of women than the handful of cultic outcasted polygamous wives tales.



> Have you ever read The 19th. Wife, by David Ebershoff?  It does provide an interesting look at polygamy as practiced by the Mormon pioneers and as practiced today by the fringe groups in Utah.



I'm surprised you bring up this book since it is admittedly a work of fiction based on history. Have you read the book yourself? It won awards in Utah as one of the best fictional writings of the year.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, you have not been "through" the DNA issue or about Brigham Young.  

You better go talk to Blair Hodges at the Neal Maxwell Institute to help you stop sounding like an idiot here.  I am truly writing this in your best interest.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> there is far more written in contemporary and publicly read books in our churches that teach the divine nature of women than the handful of cultic outcasted polygamous wives tales.



Yes, of course.  I understand the church's position on the divine nature of women.  The actual practice of polygamy seems to me to have been at odds with that teaching.  





Truthspeaker said:


> I'm surprised you bring up this book since it is admittedly a work of fiction based on history. Have you read the book yourself? It won awards in Utah as one of the best fictional writings of the year.



Yes, I've read it.  It may be a work of fiction, but it is based on historical research.  What is your take on it?  Was the practice of polygamy by the Mormon pioneers accurately represented in the book?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> No, you have not been "through" the DNA issue or about Brigham Young.
> 
> You better go talk to Blair Hodges at the Neal Maxwell Institute to help you stop sounding like an idiot here.  I am truly writing this in your best interest.



Go ahead, make me look like an idiot. What did I miss?

And by the way, cut the crap like you know some huge secret the rest of us don't. You can lose the mystical shaman act. You're not the wise old guy who lives in the back simply observing the goings and doings of the young, while he muses on his Indiana Jones like experiences from his ancient past. You act almost as if you would charge people for your expositories on Mormonism. It's all been said and done before.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is far more written in contemporary and publicly read books in our churches that teach the divine nature of women than the handful of cultic outcasted polygamous wives tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course.  I understand the church's position on the divine nature of women.  The actual practice of polygamy seems to me to have been at odds with that teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised you bring up this book since it is admittedly a work of fiction based on history. Have you read the book yourself? It won awards in Utah as one of the best fictional writings of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I've read it.  It may be a work of fiction, but it is based on historical research.  What is your take on it?  Was the practice of polygamy by the Mormon pioneers accurately represented in the book?
Click to expand...


I haven't read that book but I am reading the woman's actual account right now in her book Wife No. 19. She is very bitter in the words I read of hers so far. She seems very uneducated about the doctrines itself despite having grown up in the prophet's home. I'll let you know more when I finish.


----------



## Godboy

Im sure you like spouting off about all the glories of your peaceful religion, while ignoring the fact that its all based on absurd lies from the infamous con man known as Joseph Smith, and he wrote your humorous bible by looking into a hat. You people have serious issues with logic.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Im sure you like spouting off about all the glories of your peaceful religion, while ignoring the fact that its all based on absurd lies from the infamous con man known as Joseph Smith, and he wrote your humorous bible by looking into a hat. You people have serious issues with logic.



Correction 'Godboy', Joseph the Seer, translated the Book of Mormon, by the power of God through instruments provided him. He didn't commence a translation of the Bible until later.


----------



## Godboy

Truthspeaker said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure you like spouting off about all the glories of your peaceful religion, while ignoring the fact that its all based on absurd lies from the infamous con man known as Joseph Smith, and he wrote your humorous bible by looking into a hat. You people have serious issues with logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction 'Godboy', Joseph the Seer, translated the Book of Mormon, by the power of God through instruments provided him. He didn't commence a translation of the Bible until later.
Click to expand...


Thats because the first time he was going through the process of having it transcribed by his assistant, the assistans wife tested Joseph smith, by getting her husband (the assistant) to pretend like he lost all the writings they made up to that date. The idea being, that if Joseph was actually telling the truth about being able to read the exact word of god word for word, while staring into a top hat, he should be able to duplicate those exact words again. 

All they would have to do is compare the first 50 pages side by side and see if there was any difference. If it was identical, he was telling the truth, but if it wasnt, then he was obviously lying. 

...and what was the end result of this test? Joseph flew off the handle when he found out and said god punished him for allowing the transcripts to be seen by the assistant and his wife, and now he can no longer read the stones, so making a duplicate was now impossible. 

What a fucking joke, and you clowns believe it. Good luck with that.


----------



## Godboy

Should i go into detail about Josephs activities before he became your holy leader? Shall i talk about him ripping off farmers by convincing them that he could find water (during terrible droughts) using only a divining rod? History shows he was run out of more than one town after he took all their money but offered no results.

He was a fucking con man, and people are still being conned by him today.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure you like spouting off about all the glories of your peaceful religion, while ignoring the fact that its all based on absurd lies from the infamous con man known as Joseph Smith, and he wrote your humorous bible by looking into a hat. You people have serious issues with logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction 'Godboy', Joseph the Seer, translated the Book of Mormon, by the power of God through instruments provided him. He didn't commence a translation of the Bible until later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats because the first time he was going through the process of having it transcribed by his assistant, the assistans wife tested Joseph smith, by getting her husband (the assistant) to pretend like he lost all the writings they made up to that date. The idea being, that if Joseph was actually telling the truth about being able to read the exact word of god word for word, while staring into a top hat, he should be able to duplicate those exact words again.
> 
> All they would have to do is compare the first 50 pages side by side and see if there was any difference. If it was identical, he was telling the truth, but if it wasnt, then he was obviously lying.
> 
> ...and what was the end result of this test? Joseph flew off the handle when he found out and said god punished him for allowing the transcripts to be seen by the assistant and his wife, and now he can no longer read the stones, so making a duplicate was now impossible.
> 
> What a fucking joke, and you clowns believe it. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...


You also don't realize that if Joseph translated the words exactly they had designed that they were going to publish discrepancies in the original since they had made changes to the original text. God was not going to let them succeed in their evil design. Joseph disobeyed direct orders not to show the manuscript to anyone else and on the third time he said yes to prove to Joseph that disobedience has bad consequences. 

And what kind of an upstanding individual are you? Randomly jumping in and hurling insults at a religion. Especially uneducated ones to boot.


----------



## Godboy

Truthspeaker said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction 'Godboy', Joseph the Seer, translated the Book of Mormon, by the power of God through instruments provided him. He didn't commence a translation of the Bible until later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats because the first time he was going through the process of having it transcribed by his assistant, the assistans wife tested Joseph smith, by getting her husband (the assistant) to pretend like he lost all the writings they made up to that date. The idea being, that if Joseph was actually telling the truth about being able to read the exact word of god word for word, while staring into a top hat, he should be able to duplicate those exact words again.
> 
> All they would have to do is compare the first 50 pages side by side and see if there was any difference. If it was identical, he was telling the truth, but if it wasnt, then he was obviously lying.
> 
> ...and what was the end result of this test? Joseph flew off the handle when he found out and said god punished him for allowing the transcripts to be seen by the assistant and his wife, and now he can no longer read the stones, so making a duplicate was now impossible.
> 
> What a fucking joke, and you clowns believe it. Good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You also don't realize that if Joseph translated the words exactly they had designed that they were going to publish discrepancies in the original since they had made changes to the original text. God was not going to let them succeed in their evil design. Joseph disobeyed direct orders not to show the manuscript to anyone else and on the third time he said yes to prove to Joseph that disobedience has bad consequences.
> 
> And what kind of an upstanding individual are you? Randomly jumping in and hurling insults at a religion. Especially uneducated ones to boot.
Click to expand...


I hurl random insults at any ridiculous claims people make. You ought to see my work in the conspiracy section.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Should i go into detail about Josephs activities before he became your holy leader? Shall i talk about him ripping off farmers by convincing them that he could find water (during terrible droughts) using only a divining rod? History shows he was run out of more than one town after he took all their money but offered no results.
> 
> He was a fucking con man, and people are still being conned by him today.



Please go into detail because all such lies are false. Please prove it.

I could launch an offensive against your religious tenets that would be far more embarassing than anything you think you know about "Mormonism". But that wouldn't be like me. That's not the point of this thread, to expose the truth about Judaism.

Once again, I must repeat, you may think we are deluded because of whatever information you are privy to(biased or otherwise) but I'm going to set the record straight as to if we believe something or not. I can set forth strong evidence Joseph was not a con-man, let alone a prophet. You can't prove to the contrary. All you have is rumor. I have documents.

But of course we all know, documents must be tested as to their veracity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have not been "through" the DNA issue or about Brigham Young.
> 
> You better go talk to Blair Hodges at the Neal Maxwell Institute to help you stop sounding like an idiot here.  I am truly writing this in your best interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead, make me look like an idiot. What did I miss?
> 
> And by the way, cut the crap like you know some huge secret the rest of us don't. You can lose the mystical shaman act. You're not the wise old guy who lives in the back simply observing the goings and doings of the young, while he muses on his Indiana Jones like experiences from his ancient past. You act almost as if you would charge people for your expositories on Mormonism. It's all been said and done before.
Click to expand...


Yep, you are lost.  Nope, I am not a mystical shaman, but I know your faith and history far better and more honestly than you do.  Yes, I do observe what you are doing, and I have no trouble calling you out, you young sprout.  Contact Blair Hodges; consider yourself "here" on assignment, and you are floundering.  You need some serious guidance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is far more written in contemporary and publicly read books in our churches that teach the divine nature of women than the handful of cultic outcasted polygamous wives tales.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course.  I understand the church's position on the divine nature of women.  The actual practice of polygamy seems to me to have been at odds with that teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised you bring up this book since it is admittedly a work of fiction based on history. Have you read the book yourself? It won awards in Utah as one of the best fictional writings of the year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I've read it.  It may be a work of fiction, but it is based on historical research.  What is your take on it?  Was the practice of polygamy by the Mormon pioneers accurately represented in the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't read that book but I am reading the woman's actual account right now in her book Wife No. 19. She is very bitter in the words I read of hers so far. She seems very uneducated about the doctrines itself despite having grown up in the prophet's home. I'll let you know more when I finish.
Click to expand...


Yes, she was bitter, and TruthSpeaker is right about that.  And, no, she was far more educated about what was going on then that Truthspeaker is now.  T'speaker is beginning to realize just how woefully ignorant (uneducated) he is about his own faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, of course.  I understand the church's position on the divine nature of women.  The actual practice of polygamy seems to me to have been at odds with that teaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I've read it.  It may be a work of fiction, but it is based on historical research.  What is your take on it?  Was the practice of polygamy by the Mormon pioneers accurately represented in the book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read that book but I am reading the woman's actual account right now in her book Wife No. 19. She is very bitter in the words I read of hers so far. She seems very uneducated about the doctrines itself despite having grown up in the prophet's home. I'll let you know more when I finish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, she was bitter, and TruthSpeaker is right about that.  And, no, she was far more educated about what was going on then that Truthspeaker is now.  T'speaker is beginning to realize just how woefully ignorant (uneducated) he is about his own faith.
Click to expand...


Bottom line is that there are actual things we teach and things we don't teach. Ms. Young outright stated that Joseph Smith "set himself up as another Messiah." This is absolutely false. No where in any writings any where did Joseph Smith claim to be any kind of Messiah. That was one of the first major errors in her understanding. More to come later.....

For every misinformed opinion as Ms. Young's, there are hundreds of better and favorable opinions of our church. It's all up to the individual to decide who to believe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

....and this one is precious:

"being a woman in bondage to mormonism was far worse than any Negro slavery."

That is double rich. Some one please strike up the music

I'd like to see any lashes on her back or any transactional history of her being sold.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker:

You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.

This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.

Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.


----------



## Godboy

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker:
> 
> You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.
> 
> This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.
> 
> Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.



He was essentially brainwashed into believing in it since a young age. Its one of the very few ways a person can believe in complete horse shit like the mormon book.


----------



## Skeptik

Godboy said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker:
> 
> You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.
> 
> This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.
> 
> Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was essentially brainwashed into believing in it since a young age. Its one of the very few ways a person can believe in complete horse shit like the mormon book.
Click to expand...


Have you even read this book you're condemning?  

If not, are you just relying on what someone has told you?

Or what?


----------



## Godboy

Skeptik said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker:
> 
> You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.
> 
> This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.
> 
> Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was essentially brainwashed into believing in it since a young age. Its one of the very few ways a person can believe in complete horse shit like the mormon book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you even read this book you're condemning?
> 
> If not, are you just relying on what someone has told you?
> 
> Or what?
Click to expand...


I prefer more realism in my science fiction. His book didnt even try. Besides, ive never read Mein Kampf and i know its fucking bullshit too.


----------



## Modbert

This thread has dragged on longer than the Titanic. And just like the Titanic, it's bound to sink.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker:
> 
> You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.
> 
> This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.
> 
> Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.



Well, I am about truth. We don't want converts for the wrong reason. We want people who join because they choose to. Not because we talk them into it. If anything, conversations like this will prompt people to do their own research and decide for themselves. If someone is willing to cast the church away because of opinions on USMB, then they aren't the kind of person that is ready for our church anyway. Their time will have to come later, when they are ready to do their own private soul searching.

Our teachings are calculated to divide people, just like Jesus said they would.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dogbert said:


> This thread has dragged on longer than the Titanic. And just like the Titanic, it's bound to sink.



Well perhaps you can contribute Dogberty style!

What do you have to ask?


----------



## Zona

1978, blacks were considered to not be sub human.  Good for the mormons.  Of course they had to be threatened to tax away their tax exemption away, but they did it....they actually said blacks were human from then on.  Good for them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker:
> 
> You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.
> 
> This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.
> 
> Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was essentially brainwashed into believing in it since a young age. Its one of the very few ways a person can believe in complete horse shit like the mormon book.
Click to expand...


Do you really take that statement of yours seriously? You might ALMOST have a very small point if I was born and raised in Utah or some place completely opposite to the environment I've grown up in here in San Francisco. If there is any place on earth that will make you question your beliefs it's here. Please don't come with the lame argument of brainwashing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> 1978, blacks were considered to not be sub human.  Good for the mormons.  Of course they had to be threatened to tax away their tax exemption away, but they did it....they actually said blacks were human from then on.  Good for them.



Zona, the Book of Mormon was printed in 1830, not 1978. The Book itself says "all are alike unto God. Male and female, black and white, bond and free...."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker:
> 
> You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.
> 
> This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.
> 
> Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am about truth. We don't want converts for the wrong reason. We want people who join because they choose to. Not because we talk them into it. If anything, conversations like this will prompt people to do their own research and decide for themselves. If someone is willing to cast the church away because of opinions on USMB, then they aren't the kind of person that is ready for our church anyway. Their time will have to come later, when they are ready to do their own private soul searching.
> 
> Our teachings are calculated to divide people, just like Jesus said they would.
Click to expand...


This thread will not encourage fence sitters to research at all, Truth.  They will hop off the fence onto the other side and forget about you.  Now if you were to talk knowingly about your subjects, who knows.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1978, blacks were considered to not be sub human.  Good for the mormons.  Of course they had to be threatened to tax away their tax exemption away, but they did it....they actually said blacks were human from then on.  Good for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona, the Book of Mormon was printed in 1830, not 1978. The Book itself says "all are alike unto God. Male and female, black and white, bond and free...."
Click to expand...


That was not what the church policy or doctrine was from 1844 until 1978.  Otherwise, that good man Spencer W. Kimball (and I mean that sincerely) would not have had need for guidance on this issue.

Contact the Neal Maxell Institute at BYU for help, mean.  I man it, Truth, you are an embarassment to your church!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker:
> 
> You might want to request that your thread be killed-off, as I think your losing fence walking converts and potential converts.
> 
> This may or may not be your "mission" but I'd suggest you take to bicycling door to door, as this "Truth About Mormonism" thread is woefully going downward in respect to helping your church gain converts.
> 
> Can't understand how a nice handsome, and intelligent dude like yourself can hang onto this false hope, in a system of belief built upon a foundation of sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am about truth. We don't want converts for the wrong reason. We want people who join because they choose to. Not because we talk them into it. If anything, conversations like this will prompt people to do their own research and decide for themselves. If someone is willing to cast the church away because of opinions on USMB, then they aren't the kind of person that is ready for our church anyway. Their time will have to come later, when they are ready to do their own private soul searching.
> 
> Our teachings are calculated to divide people, just like Jesus said they would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread will not encourage fence sitters to research at all, Truth.  They will hop off the fence onto the other side and forget about you.  Now if you were to talk knowingly about your subjects, who knows.
Click to expand...


How do you know that oh all seeing one. I've gotten half positive comments about this thread and half negative. That's about what I expected.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1978, blacks were considered to not be sub human.  Good for the mormons.  Of course they had to be threatened to tax away their tax exemption away, but they did it....they actually said blacks were human from then on.  Good for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona, the Book of Mormon was printed in 1830, not 1978. The Book itself says "all are alike unto God. Male and female, black and white, bond and free...."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was not what the church policy or doctrine was from 1844 until 1978.  Otherwise, that good man Spencer W. Kimball (and I mean that sincerely) would not have had need for guidance on this issue.
> 
> Contact the Neal Maxell Institute at BYU for help, mean.  I man it, Truth, you are an embarassment to your church!
Click to expand...


Do you think for one minute that I don't know about 1978's revelation on the priesthood?

Let's back up here a minute. When I say I've already dealt with this issue, especially since I served my mission in Africa, don't tell me I haven't dealt with this issue. Let me go back.....again.....and copy and paste from page 15.....

permalink 221 and 223


----------



## Truthspeaker

http://www.usmessageboard.com/922153-post221.html


----------



## Truthspeaker

http://www.usmessageboard.com/922153-post223.html


----------



## JakeStarkey

LDS apostle under fire for civil-rights analogy - Salt Lake Tribune

This is what I mean, T'speaker, about running your mouth about what you don't understand.

I am through with your ignorance for a while.


----------



## Zona

Truthspeaker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1978, blacks were considered to not be sub human.  Good for the mormons.  Of course they had to be threatened to tax away their tax exemption away, but they did it....they actually said blacks were human from then on.  Good for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona, the Book of Mormon was printed in 1830, not 1978. The Book itself says "all are alike unto God. Male and female, black and white, bond and free...."
Click to expand...


OH really?


JAN-4, Utah became the 45th state in the union.  
 Pressure was also felt by the LDS during the 1970's because of the LDS' institutionalized racism. The IRS was threatening to cancel the church's non-profit tax exempt status. University sports teams were refusing to compete in Utah. This pressure was relieved on 1978-JUN-6 when the church received a new revelation from God to end the practice of discrimination against persons of African-American heritage. 


Racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)

Racism is very ugly and sometimes hard to face, I understand this.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> LDS apostle under fire for civil-rights analogy - Salt Lake Tribune
> 
> This is what I mean, T'speaker, about running your mouth about what you don't understand.
> 
> I am through with your ignorance for a while.



You're kidding right?

You change the subject to Prop 8?

Since you're changing subjects, I'll change with you. We don't apologize for our values. They are given to us from God. We should be allowed to believe that. 

You are upset with Elder Oaks because he says that the persecution is similar to what happened to blacks in the south. Well, of course we all know that these protests were not to that extreme. Elder Oaks knows that as well as anyone. But these protests are about as extreme as can be gotten away with in today's society. If we didn't have tougher laws in place to protect our freedoms it would be just as bad and will probably get worse. 

But wait, the "professor" who calls out Oaks by asking how many girls were burned in our churches, or how many men were hanged, castrated and defiled in such a disgusting manner as happened to blacks in the south, fails to realize that much of the same happened to us in the 1830's thru 40's. He should have his degree stripped from him for his own lack of study. The Ku Klux Klan and the Missouri black painted mobs were one and the same as far as I'm concerned. 

You wanna talk gory details you think we're ignorant of?
Do use your powers of sophistry to imagine what it would look and feel like to be tarred black from head to toe in the same boiling substance....Think of it drying and adhering itself like spackle or paste. Imagine after the 3rd degree burns trying to tear it off with large chunks of hair and skin coming with it, opening up wounds to exposure and excessive bleeding in an era without much medical knowledge. Think of the women murdered and raped and the children executed by double barrel shotguns. Their justification? "T'wer better they dead then that they growed up to be them damned mormons."~mobster's quote
Think of wives and children having their homes burned in the snowy winter and forced to escape and walk miles to the next shelter with babies in their arms. Think of frostbite and lost limbs. The casualities faced on the journey west to Utah were a direct result of the savagery in missouri. Think of the men hacked to pieces even after they were dead and buried. The people who died of disease and exposure due to legislated eviction from the state were literally murdered by the mob who chased them out. We know about whippings. We know about lynchings. We know about murder and rape. We know about being ripped from our families and friends. We know about the government issuing an extermination order as if we were roaches. WE DO KNOW. AND YOU BETTER LOOK YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR BEFORE YOU CALL SOMEONE ELSE IGNORANT. 

Oh but that was a long time ago right? We never faced such oppression ourselves right? Why should we feel we can relate to them?

Wait a second! You can't say those exact same things to a black person right? Yes you can, and so can we.

We know brutality. Were it not for the pioneers among the blacks and people like the Mormons, we wouldn't have laws in place to protect us from mobs and rioters. So in very deed Elder Oaks knows that the same persecuting spirit that possessed the mobs in the south and in missouri was present in these demonstrations against the mormons during prop 8.

Why don't you go educate yourself(that means gain knowledge for said self).

When we compare our persecution with the persecution of blacks or indians or jews or any other group of God's children you had better believe it with God and Jesus as our witness that we know what we're talking about and that ignorant is as ignorant does.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> JAN-4, Utah became the 45th state in the union.
> Pressure was also felt by the LDS during the 1970's because of the LDS' institutionalized racism. The IRS was threatening to cancel the church's non-profit tax exempt status. University sports teams were refusing to compete in Utah. This pressure was relieved on 1978-JUN-6 when the church received a new revelation from God to end the practice of discrimination against persons of African-American heritage.
> 
> 
> Racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
> 
> Racism is very ugly and sometimes hard to face, I understand this.



"I feel to ache in my heart for the children of that race. The blessings of God are sure to come upon them in the due time of the Lord. The world is not ready for them to have the priesthood as yet, but the time soon cometh that the first may be last and the last may be first."
~Joseph Smith Jr.

It is doubtless that many in Israel felt the same way when told not to preach the Gospel to the gentiles or the heathen because the time was not right. This utterance by Joseph is more a prophecy than anything. 
We all knew it was coming eventually. You see God is a God of convenience. He is a God of wisdom and temperance. He knows all things from the beginning. He knew that the time wasn't right for whatever reason. I'm convinced part of that reason is that it would have brought further persecution upon the church more than it could withstand. You see Missouri was a slave state and weren't too fond of Mormons or blacks. We were there with the blacks. We knew what it was like. The candidacy of Joseph Smith for President only further infuriated the mob with his daring new proposal to buy all the slaves and set them free. You can only imagine how well this went with Missourians. 

Don't give me that "institutionalized racism" crap. We could care less who BYU plays on the football field.


----------



## Zona

Truthspeaker said:


> JAN-4, Utah became the 45th state in the union.
> Pressure was also felt by the LDS during the 1970's because of the LDS' institutionalized racism. The IRS was threatening to cancel the church's non-profit tax exempt status. University sports teams were refusing to compete in Utah. This pressure was relieved on 1978-JUN-6 when the church received a new revelation from God to end the practice of discrimination against persons of African-American heritage.
> 
> 
> Racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
> 
> Racism is very ugly and sometimes hard to face, I understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I feel to ache in my heart for the children of that race. The blessings of God are sure to come upon them in the due time of the Lord. The world is not ready for them to have the priesthood as yet, but the time soon cometh that the first may be last and the last may be first."
> ~Joseph Smith Jr.
Click to expand...


Then suddenly in 1978, now is the time..right when they threatened the mormon  tax exemption.  They  suddenly saw the light, and said, yes, blacks are not sub human...now please can we stay tax exempt?  Pretty please.  

It was preached by your guy that blacks were sub human until then.  the day after that, I am sure all feelings of racial superiority were non existent...right?

Racism is a a ugly thing.  Seriously.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JAN-4, Utah became the 45th state in the union.
> Pressure was also felt by the LDS during the 1970's because of the LDS' institutionalized racism. The IRS was threatening to cancel the church's non-profit tax exempt status. University sports teams were refusing to compete in Utah. This pressure was relieved on 1978-JUN-6 when the church received a new revelation from God to end the practice of discrimination against persons of African-American heritage.
> 
> 
> Racism in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
> 
> Racism is very ugly and sometimes hard to face, I understand this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I feel to ache in my heart for the children of that race. The blessings of God are sure to come upon them in the due time of the Lord. The world is not ready for them to have the priesthood as yet, but the time soon cometh that the first may be last and the last may be first."
> ~Joseph Smith Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then suddenly in 1978, now is the time..right when they threatened the mormon  tax exemption.  They  suddenly saw the light, and said, yes, blacks are not sub human...now please can we stay tax exempt?  Pretty please.
> 
> It was preached by your guy that blacks were sub human until then.  the day after that, I am sure all feelings of racial superiority were non existent...right?
> 
> Racism is a a ugly thing.  Seriously.
Click to expand...


 It's so easy to call someone a racist. It takes true stupidity to ignore facts to the contrary as well as history in the 1830's up to the late 70's where the general populous was far more racist than any Mormon teaching. 
As I said before. God reveals things in his own due time. The seed of Cain were ready for the priesthood. It was another sign of the times to usher in the second coming of Christ. But all this religious mumbo just goes way over your head right?


----------



## Zona

Truthspeaker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I feel to ache in my heart for the children of that race. The blessings of God are sure to come upon them in the due time of the Lord. The world is not ready for them to have the priesthood as yet, but the time soon cometh that the first may be last and the last may be first."
> ~Joseph Smith Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then suddenly in 1978, now is the time..right when they threatened the mormon  tax exemption.  They  suddenly saw the light, and said, yes, blacks are not sub human...now please can we stay tax exempt?  Pretty please.
> 
> It was preached by your guy that blacks were sub human until then.  the day after that, I am sure all feelings of racial superiority were non existent...right?
> 
> Racism is a a ugly thing.  Seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's so easy to call someone a racist. It takes true stupidity to ignore facts to the contrary as well as history in the 1830's up to the late 70's where the general populous was far more racist than any Mormon teaching.
> As I said before. God reveals things in his own due time. The seed of Cain were ready for the priesthood. It was another sign of the times to usher in the second coming of Christ. But all this religious mumbo just goes way over your head right?
Click to expand...


Perhaps it did go over my head.  Stop me when I am wrong..in 1978, suddenly and after being threatened to lose tax exemption, Blacks were considered to not be sub human.  

Its not complicated at all really, FREAKING 1978, they became human freaking beings in your religion.  Go reference any religion you want, ITS FREAKING 1978 when your people saw the light (because of a threat)...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cody Wilde said:


> I've always wondered, do Mormon women shave their underarms and legs, or is that frowned upon (like in France, for example)?



there is no religious doctrine on shaving other than it's part of the men's leadership dress code currently.


----------



## Skeptik

If there is anything in church literature at any time indicating that the Mormon church thought that blacks were "sub human", I've never seen it. 

Have you, Zona, or are you just saying that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker condemned himself with his own words, fulfilling biblical standards.  It is very hard to ignore the facts, but 'Speak does it with ease.

Fact, Mormonism was racist, and where it still follows the royal Abrahamic priesthood by lineage, it still is racist.  Simply refer to the hundreds of thousands of patriarchal blessings.  Note that almost everyone refers to which tribe of Israel the recipient is noted to beloning, either by blood or by adoption, which immediately leads to a change in blood.

Yes, President Brigham Young was racist.  Go online to the Journal of Discourses and do some reading.

Yes, President John Taylor was racist.  Go online to the Journal of Discourses and do some reading.

Yes, First Counselor George Q. Cannon was racist.  Go online to the Journal of Discourses and do some reading.

Yes, President of the Quorum of Twelve Rudger Clawson was racist.  Go online and search his talks and sermons.

Yes, Apostles Mark E. Peterson and Delbert Stapely (contemporaries of that good man President Spencer W. Kimball) were racist.  Go online and search their talks and sermons.

Don't believe me or T'Speaker.  Go do your own research, and you will find out the truth.


----------



## Eightball

*Oh, by the way*......................?  *The Christian Bible says*: 





> *Barbarian, Scythian, slave&#8212;all are united with us in Christ Jesus (Col..3:11)
> *


*Mormon Doctrine Totally Disagrees with Collosians 3:11*  The Levitical Priesthood was not based on race, but on a clan or family that came from the loins of Levi, one of Jacob's sons.  God designated that those who would be in charge of all Temple rites were to be decendents of Levi, or Levites.  They were not designated according to facial features, skin color etc.......nor were they Priests because God saw them as specially blessed over Levi's other brothers and their decendents.  In fact God designated special duties/responsibilities for every one of Jacob's sons and their progeny.  Not once in the bible will you see any connection between God designating a priesthood position and the physical/racial makeup of that person.

Many like to say that Paul condoned slavery by not talking against it.  That is far from it.  Paul designated special letters to Christian slave owners to treat their slaves with love, and fairness, and also told the slaves to do their work unto God, not their slave owner.  I.E.  Glorify God through obediance.  Did Paul dig slavery as good.  I doubt it if you read his Epistles.  In fact Paul referred himself a "slave" of Christ.  "When I am weak He/God is strong."  So He/Paul saw his infirmities as opportunities for the God to work His strength through Paul's weak physical, mental, emotional state....and believe me, Paul endured and went through so many floggings, imprisonments, etc...........It would make your head spin.

Dear Joseph Smith Jr. gets rightly imprisoned for attempting to destroy a town/news printing press for printing articles not favorable to him and his followers in Illinois, and he shoots it out with an irate crowd and earns martyrdom.  Christ went like a Lamb to slaughter.......In total humility, yet total control and strength of God Almighty.  Jesus did not condemn those who crucified Him, but prayed to His Father for their forgiveness.



> *Blacks are Inferior*
> 
> Church leader Bruce R. McConkie, on the denial of equality for Africans:
> 
> &#8220;NEGROES IN THIS LIFE ARE DENIED THE PRIESTHOOD; under NO circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation IS NOT CARRIED AFFIRMATIVELY TO THEM... &#8220;NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES WHERE THE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS ARE CONCERNED...&#8221; (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p. 477)
> 
> Not Inferior?
> 
> 
> 
> *Future President of the Mormon church, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:*
> 
> &#8220;Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness HE BECAME THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE.&#8221;
> (The Way to Perfection, page 101)
> 
> 
> 
> *More from Smith:*
> 
> &#8220;There is a reason why one man is BORN BLACK and with OTHER DISADVANTAGES, while another is BORN WHITE with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there.&#8221;
> (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 61)
> 
> *Blacks Have Dishonorable Bodies*
> 
> *Apostle Orson Pratt *taught that some people don't receive an "honourable body" because they sided with the Devil in a previous life:
> 
> &#8220;At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did NOT TAKE A VERY ACTIVE PART ON EITHER SIDE, BUT RATHER THOUGHT THE DEVIL HAD BEEN ABUSED, AND CONSIDERED HE HAD RATHER THE BEST CLAIM TO THE GOVERNMENT. These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they CONSIDERED WORTHY OF AN HONOURABLE BODY on this earth: but it came to pass that Ham, the son of Noah, saw the nakedness of his father while he lay drunk in his tent, and he with 'wicked joy,' ran like Rigdon, and made the wonderful disclosure to his brethren; while Shem and Japheth took a garment, with pity and compassion, laid it upon their shoulders&#8212;went backwards and covered their father,... The conduct of the former BROUGHT THE CURSE OF SLAVERY upon him, while that of the latter secured blessings, jurisdiction, power and dominion....Canaan, the son of Ham, received the curse; for Noah wished to place the curse as remote from himself as possible. He therefore placed it upon his grandson instead of his son. Now, it would seem cruel to force PURE celestial spirits into the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would be ill appropriate, putting the PRECIOUS and VILE together. But those spirits in heaven that rather LENT AN INFLUENCE to the DEVIL, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies information concerning the doctrine of pre-existence: &#8220;Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not in the ACCURSED lineage of Canaan; and hence the NEGRO or African race.&#8221;
> (Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests' Quorum, in Nauvoo. April 27th, 1845, printed in Liverpool, page 30)


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Truthspeaker condemned himself with his own words, fulfilling biblical standards.  It is very hard to ignore the facts, but 'Speak does it with ease.



This is pure spin on your part because I have called you out to display what facts I have ignored. Whatever you have presented I have specifically answered with our side of the story. What's wrong with you?



> Fact, Mormonism was racist, and where it still follows the royal Abrahamic priesthood by lineage, it still is racist.



First you just made a matter-of-fact statement with out any examples to back it up as if we're supposed to just accept it without questioning it. Here's all the dictionary.com definitions for racist:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. (We never did that.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. (We never did that. The priesthood policy did not teach inferiority of the black race. It only denied the lineage of Cain access to the priesthood for a limited time.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.We've certainly never had hatred or intolerance of another race. Sinful individuals don't count. If they do so they are in opposition to the doctrine of the church. 




> Simply refer to the hundreds of thousands of patriarchal blessings.  Note that almost everyone refers to which tribe of Israel the recipient is noted to beloning, either by blood or by adoption, which immediately leads to a change in blood.



If you are calling us racist for this, then you are claiming God was a racist. If you claim God is a racist, then we can never get anywhwere because you probably believe in a fair and loving God or no God at all. 




> Yes, President Brigham Young was racist.  Go online to the Journal of Discourses and do some reading.



I've already read all his so-called racist statements. It's very hard for any person in this day and age to image ANYONE from that day was NOT a racist. Contextual knowledge will set you free when reading quotes from a different era.



> Yes, President John Taylor was racist.  Go online to the Journal of Discourses and do some reading.



I've already read all his so-called racist statements. It's very hard for any person in this day and age to image ANYONE from that day was NOT a racist. Contextual knowledge will set you free when reading quotes from a different era.



> Yes, First Counselor George Q. Cannon was racist.  Go online to the Journal of Discourses and do some reading.



I've already read all his so-called racist statements. It's very hard for any person in this day and age to image ANYONE from that day was NOT a racist. Contextual knowledge will set you free when reading quotes from a different era.



> Yes, President of the Quorum of Twelve Rudger Clawson was racist.  Go online and search his talks and sermons.


 I haven't read his statements before but again, 
It's very hard for any person in this day and age to image ANYONE from that day was NOT a racist. Contextual knowledge will set you free when reading quotes from a different era.



> Yes, Apostles Mark E. Peterson and Delbert Stapely (contemporaries of that good man President Spencer W. Kimball) were racist.  Go online and search their talks and sermons.



Mark E. Peterson and as far as I know, Delbert Stapely, were both good men who misunderstood the doctrine and were corrected by the very wonderful Spencer W. Kimball. Both retracted their statements and their statements are not considered doctrine. People are imperfect you know and not beyond correction. Even Apostles. That is the reason we have the established order in place. To occasionally correct individuals who may mispeak.
This was common among the early saints of Jesus church following his crucifixion. There were many false if not well intentioned ideas being circulated among the Corinthian, Thessalonian and Phillipian saints. Hence those local leaders needed to be corrected by Paul in his letters to them. This same order that existed then exists now being handed down to Joseph Smith from the Biblical apostles. We'll note the many imperfections of the apostles in the Bible, most notably Judas, but also other apostles too. Jesus corrected them many times, as he did Joseph Smith and other early apostles. 





> Don't believe me or T'Speaker.  Go do your own research, and you will find out the truth



Amen to that!!!! That's what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Zona

http://www.mrm.org/curse-of-cain


Skeptik said:


> If there is anything in church literature at any time indicating that the Mormon church thought that blacks were "sub human", I've never seen it.
> 
> Have you, Zona, or are you just saying that?



Do you know exactly whey they were denied priesthood until 78?  Do you think out of the kindness of their hearts they decided to change?  NOpe, they were threatened with taking away their tax exemption.  That is the only reason they publically "changed".  They are racists.

"were more valiant than others&#8230;Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).

According to Brigham Young, Joseph Smith classified these people as The Seed of Cain. Young said that "Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'" (The Way to Perfection, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.105).

"It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black" (The Way to Perfection, p.107).

Joseph Fielding Smith stated, "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race" (The Way to Perfection, p.101).

http://www.mrm.org/curse-of-cain


----------



## Avatar4321

What a surprise. Can't find a source of doctrine supporting your claim.

Because the scriptures are very clear:



> 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)



You ignore the prophecies. You ignore President McKay's pleas with the Lord for the time to come for the Priesthood to come to all worthy. Most racists I know do that. You ignore the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ is still today one of the few faiths that has _never_ segregated congregations because of race.

You ignore the fact that any empty threats of removing "tax exempt" status occured nearly a decade prior to 1978. And would never have been carried out due to the blatant unconstitutionality of it. You ignore the very huge issue of building the first Temple in Brazil. This is not convient for you to take into account because you presume racism when there is none.

There was no more racism in the Priesthood restrictions (especially since they werent based on race, they were based on lineage), then there was on God's commands to prohibt the Gentiles from recieving the Gospel during Christ's ministry and the few years after it. But why should I expect you to realize this? You don't know God. You don't understand His power. You seem to think that your life is all there is and nothing else matters. If you understand the purposes of God and Hisi ways, you will see how His plan of Happiness will ensure that all people who have ever walked the face of the earth will have an opportunity to partake of the Atonement of Christ and recieve the Ordinances they need.

When the people recieve the ordinances and fullness of glory doesnt matter. Because this lifetime is a mere drop in the bucket of what's to come.  And the blessings of the covenant and ordinances are open to all who have lived, who now live, and will live in the future. When we recieve them isnt important. The fact that we get them is. And no one who has ever lived will be denied. God will redeem the living and the dead. 

Mock, lie, misrepresent, remove obscure passages out of context. It isnt going to change the fact that you are wrong on this matter. And it's only because you are unwilling to consider the facts before making your conclusion.


----------



## Zona

Eactly...just like I said, morons are racist and only changed their written racist laws because they were being called out as racist and were about to lose their tax exemption.  Great group  your defending there bucko.

They would still have those racist ways if they were afraid to lose their tax exemption.


----------



## Skeptik

Zona said:


> Eactly...just like I said, morons are racist and only changed their written racist laws because they were being called out as racist and were about to lose their tax exemption.  Great group  your defending there bucko.
> 
> They would still have those racist ways if they were afraid to lose their tax exemption.



Why do you keep repeating nonsense, after Avatar showed you that it was nonsense?  Do you think that repetition can change fiction to fact somehow?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The fact, Septik, is that Mormon history is one of persecution and discrimination against peoples of color, including African Americans.  Your whole history from Brigham Young right down to Stapely and Petersen are littered with it.

You are guilty of the heresy of a royal Abrahamic priesthood of lineage, which is inherently racist.  That you don't want to believe it means nothing.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact, Septik, is that Mormon history is one of persecution and discrimination against peoples of color, including African Americans.  Your whole history from Brigham Young right down to Stapely and Petersen are littered with it.
> 
> You are guilty of the heresy of a royal Abrahamic priesthood of lineage, which is inherently racist.  That you don't want to believe it means nothing.





You say that Mormon history is one of persecution and discrimination, without citing a single incident, nor a single source to back up your assertion.  Why would anyone be expected to take it seriously?  If no one is to be expected to take it seriously, why post it at all?


----------



## Zona

Zona said:


> http://www.mrm.org/curse-of-cain
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is anything in church literature at any time indicating that the Mormon church thought that blacks were "sub human", I've never seen it.
> 
> Have you, Zona, or are you just saying that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know exactly whey they were denied priesthood until 78?  Do you think out of the kindness of their hearts they decided to change?  NOpe, they were threatened with taking away their tax exemption.  That is the only reason they publically "changed".  They are racists.
> 
> "were more valiant than othersThose who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).
> 
> According to Brigham Young, Joseph Smith classified these people as The Seed of Cain. Young said that "Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'" (The Way to Perfection, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.105).
> 
> "It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black" (The Way to Perfection, p.107).
> 
> Joseph Fielding Smith stated, "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race" (The Way to Perfection, p.101).
> 
> http://www.mrm.org/curse-of-cain
Click to expand...




Skeptik said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eactly...just like I said, morons are racist and only changed their written racist laws because they were being called out as racist and were about to lose their tax exemption.  Great group  your defending there bucko.
> 
> They would still have those racist ways if they were afraid to lose their tax exemption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep repeating nonsense, after Avatar showed you that it was nonsense?  Do you think that repetition can change fiction to fact somehow?
Click to expand...


Did you not read what I posted first?  

Avitar didnt show me anything that proved the racist ways of this religion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact, Septik, is that Mormon history is one of persecution and discrimination against peoples of color, including African Americans.  Your whole history from Brigham Young right down to Stapely and Petersen are littered with it.
> 
> You are guilty of the heresy of a royal Abrahamic priesthood of lineage, which is inherently racist.  That you don't want to believe it means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that Mormon history is one of persecution and discrimination, without citing a single incident, nor a single source to back up your assertion.  Why would anyone be expected to take it seriously?  If no one is to be expected to take it seriously, why post it at all?
Click to expand...


The evidence you ask for has been posted above many times.  Let's move on.

No should believe either Skeptik or me.  All anyone needs to do is to begin reading in the _Journal of Discourses_, and begin reading Mormon history, both pro and con.  The problems will become obvious very quickly.

My concern here is not whether Mormonism is a christian sect.  Without a doubt, in my opinion, it is as valid a sect of Christianity as is any other that holds Jesus as God.

My concern here is with the unsupportable assertion that it is the one true church authorized by Jesus Christ to administer priesthood ordinances with eternal consequences.  It is not.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cody Wilde said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cody Wilde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered, do Mormon women shave their underarms and legs, or is that frowned upon (like in France, for example)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no religious doctrine on shaving other than it's part of the men's leadership dress code currently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wtf does that mean? Only the men shave their legs?
> And shouldn't you have a big long beard shaved around the mouth?
> 
> Btw, all religions are racists, they all discriminate against all other religions and almost all of them discriminate against women. I'm sure that in Mormonism, the wife has her place in the home.
> 
> PS Truthspeaker, your tie is gay.
Click to expand...


Talking about discrimination. You think all people who wear a simple blue tie are gay? I'm wearing a solid navy suit with gold shirt and a plain blue tie with white/gray diagonal stripes. I'm not sure how that looks gay but I thought it's funny that your entire statement is full of discrimination. Perhaps you think everyone who dresses in business attire looks gay. Ok.

You also discriminated against all religions saying they are all discriminatory. One of the top 5 most ignorant statements of all time.

Are you really not smart enough to realize that the simple statement "shaving" implies only the shaving of a man's face?

Get a life. Seriously.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Avitar didnt show me anything that proved the racist ways of this religion.



Precisely. So why are you talking to a wall right now? We have showed you nothing to prove the racist ways of our religion. You said it. Now are you ready to join us?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact, Septik, is that Mormon history is one of persecution and discrimination against peoples of color, including African Americans.  Your whole history from Brigham Young right down to Stapely and Petersen are littered with it.
> 
> You are guilty of the heresy of a royal Abrahamic priesthood of lineage, which is inherently racist.  That you don't want to believe it means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say that Mormon history is one of persecution and discrimination, without citing a single incident, nor a single source to back up your assertion.  Why would anyone be expected to take it seriously?  If no one is to be expected to take it seriously, why post it at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence you ask for has been posted above many times.  Let's move on.
> 
> No should believe either Skeptik or me.  All anyone needs to do is to begin reading in the _Journal of Discourses_, and begin reading Mormon history, both pro and con.  The problems will become obvious very quickly.
> 
> My concern here is not whether Mormonism is a christian sect.  Without a doubt, in my opinion, it is as valid a sect of Christianity as is any other that holds Jesus as God.
> 
> My concern here is with the unsupportable assertion that it is the one true church authorized by Jesus Christ to administer priesthood ordinances with eternal consequences.  It is not.
Click to expand...


That's a fair opinion of yours. But we see it differently and in light of the Book of Mormon being true, it changes our perspective. We understand historical events differently than you do. Many things in history don't seem to make sense as we look back on them. But that's because we didn't live in those times. 
I'm not just talking about Mormon history. We shouldn't be so quick to judge. We should do a lot of study on the subject before jumping to conclusions. 
You might change your opinion if you began a serious, scholarly and prayerful study on the Book of Mormon itself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cody Wilde said:


> I never claimed that I didn't discriminate, I said religions discriminate. Does your woman know her place in your household?
> 
> I'll make the question as simple as possible for you because you seem reluctant to answer: are mormon women as a rule allowed to shave anything? Yes or fucking no.
> 
> PS I think I saw Sean Penn wearing your tie when he played the gay mayor in "Milk". I believe that light blue means that you like to catch.



I answered your question already. Please inform any of us why we should take you seriously after a meltdown like that.


----------



## amrchaos

Hold it--wait a second--what is the Book of Mormons?

Why do we need another Holy Book, again??
Apparently, there must be a God because he keeps trying to confuse us with all these "Holy Books"!!


----------



## Avatar4321

amrchaos said:


> Hold it--wait a second--what is the Book of Mormons?
> 
> Why do we need another Holy Book, again??
> Apparently, there must be a God because he keeps trying to confuse us with all these "Holy Books"!!



The Book of Mormon is a record containing the the fulness of the Gospel which was given to those on the ancient American continent. It contains the writings of their prophets and the account of Christ's appearance to them after His resurrection from the dead.

It was written to convince all men that Jesus really is the Christ, the Son of God. And to show that God remembers His covenants and is merciful to all people. It is meant to be a second witness to prove the veracity fo the Bible's account of the Atonement and Resurrection.

The Book of Mormon also comes with a promise given that those who read the book and who ask God with sincerity and faith will be shown by the Power of the Holy Ghost that the Book is true.

We give copies of the Book of Mormon away for free at Mormon.org - Home under the free media section. We invite all men and women to read the book for themselves and ask the Lord whether it's true.

i hope that sums up your question.


----------



## Avatar4321

Cody Wilde said:


> Ya, I bet you anything your woman knows her place is in the home, cooking, cleaning and having babies. You just won't say it cuz you think we'll all know that you know your religion discriminates against at least women (we know you know anyways). Probably don't allow them to shave anything or else it's everything, always to the extreme. I know weirdos like you. They come to my house regularly.



Well, then you know alot of things that just aren't correct. dont you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

amrchaos said:


> Hold it--wait a second--what is the Book of Mormons?
> 
> Why do we need another Holy Book, again??
> Apparently, there must be a God because he keeps trying to confuse us with all these "Holy Books"!!



There is no "Book of Mormons".

The Book of Mormon is a record of God's dealings with ancient americans. Similar to his dealings with people from the ancient fertile crescent area.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Cody Wilde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, I bet you anything your woman knows her place is in the home, cooking, cleaning and having babies. You just won't say it cuz you think we'll all know that you know your religion discriminates against at least women (we know you know anyways). Probably don't allow them to shave anything or else it's everything, always to the extreme. I know weirdos like you. They come to my house regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you know alot of things that just aren't correct. dont you?
Click to expand...


"It's not so much what we don't know as it is what we do know that ain't so"  Mark Twain.

Mark Twain was a wise man.  Heed his words.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cody Wilde said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cody Wilde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed that I didn't discriminate, I said religions discriminate. Does your woman know her place in your household?
> 
> I'll make the question as simple as possible for you because you seem reluctant to answer: are mormon women as a rule allowed to shave anything? Yes or fucking no.
> 
> PS I think I saw Sean Penn wearing your tie when he played the gay mayor in "Milk". I believe that light blue means that you like to catch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered your question already. Please inform any of us why we should take you seriously after a meltdown like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, I bet you anything your woman knows her place is in the home, cooking, cleaning and having babies. You just won't say it cuz you think we'll all know that you know your religion discriminates against at least women (we know you know anyways). Probably don't allow them to shave anything or else it's everything, always to the extreme. I know weirdos like you. They come to my house regularly.
Click to expand...


You're seriously wacked out man. I hate hairy ladies. It grosses me out


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cody Wilde said:


> *It was written to convince all men that Jesus really is the Christ, the Son of God.*
> 
> God couldn't convince the men himself? So some cowboy had to write another book?



At last you have revealed what I suspected all along. John Lemmon was the only one who used the term cowboy. We haven't heard much from him lately. Welcome back Johnny come lately.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I can prove it's you too if we never hear from the banished account of John Lemmon again


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cody Wilde said:


> Everyone who went west in the 1800s was a cowboy. Geez, learn your history. So your Lemmon guy was right.
> So tell me, does your wife know her place in your household as your maid and baby machine?



You should know that all people in the Wilde Wilde west were cowboys.

But in the real old west there were miners, coal workers, railroad builders, women, farmers and other non cowboy professions.

If I had it in me to try and boss my wife around, she'd leave me in a heart beat. She's made two babies for me but that hardly makes her a machine. She's done with two.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I can prove it's you too if we never hear from the banished account of John Lemmon again



> I'm not sure that phrase even makes any sense.



I'll explain with small words so that you'll be sure to understand me.

If John Lemmon doesn't come back to defend himself. That means he got banished. He was an avid subscriber to this thread before he presumably(hope that's not too big a word) got banished from USMB on account of his constant trolling.



> So tell me, does your wife know her place in your household as your maid and baby machine? It's ok, we all know it's a yes. So you openly discriminate against women



I already answered your question in the negative. What's wrong with you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Cody Wilde said:


> *She's made two babies for me *
> Shows how little you think of her.



????


----------



## Skeptik

Actually, Mormons like to tell this story of the value of women.  Read it over, and see if they are still "second class citizens."

Johnny Lingo and the Eight Cow Wife


----------



## Skeptik

Cody Wilde said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cody Wilde said:
> 
> 
> 
> *She's made two babies for me *
> Shows how little you think of her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As though you didn't have 2 babies together, but she made 2 for you. Shows that you think she works for you.
> 
> PS your tie is still gay.
> 
> Skep, anyone who pays for a bride proves how little they think of them, as though they are just chattel and now the man owns her.
Click to expand...


You totally missed the point of the story.


----------



## Truthspeaker

different cultures, diferent places, different mindsets. Something the Wilde imagination can't conceptualize.


----------



## eots

Biggy Smallz said:


> Mormons are the retarded brother of the religious world, they smile a lot and are generally pretty harmless but don't offer up a whole lot to the knowledge of the world.



 the world could benifit from more smiling and harmlessness..for what ever reason


----------



## Skeptik

Biggy Smallz said:


> Mormons are the retarded brother of the religious world, they smile a lot and are generally pretty harmless but don't offer up a whole lot to the knowledge of the world.



Much as your post, no doubt typed while smiling, is pretty harmless but adds nothing to the knowledge being shared on this thread.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Biggy Smallz said:


> Mormons are the retarded brother of the religious world, they smile a lot and are generally pretty harmless but don't offer up a whole lot to the knowledge of the world.



Wow. 

I don't think I know of any religion that preaches the need for secular knowledge as well as spiritual knowledge to the extent that we do.


"A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge."
~Joseph Smith


----------



## pare

The idea of racism is bothersome. I think this needs clarification. 

The way I understand it from the scriptures, God put up the race barrier for the purpose of segregating the righteous and the wicked. 

2 Nephi 5: 21-22
  21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. 
  22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 

2 Nephi 26: 33
  33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. 

According to the scriptures, God made the mark (i.e., skin color) on the various races, and so the mark is a good thing and it is for a good purpose - because of course God "doeth that which is good" only. If any person wants to contest this idea - let that person go defy God if that person wants to... 

The scriptures clearly state that the "skin of blackness" was intended so that those who are wicked will not be enticing to the righteous. The idea behind the skin colors is mainly to separate the rigtheous and the wicked so that the rigtheous will not be altogether corrupted by the wickedness of the wicked. 

The skin of blackness was also a protective mark in the case of Cain. It is also apparently intended to help inspire those who have the mark to humble themselves before the Lord and repent - when people are born with a curse, either they approach the Lord in humility asking what they've done to deserve their lot in life, or they defy the Lord and prove their wickedness before the Lord.

Now, clearly, all people - black and white, etc. - are welcome to partake of the goodness of the Lord and are welcome to be together if they fulfill the rigtheousness that the Lord requires. 

The wicked who are marked with the loathsome color become lovely if they repent of their iniquities (the black is then become beautiful), whereupon they are allowed their place with the righteous. 

The skin colors are intended not as a license for acts of prejudice [i.e., the judgement and condemnation before any actual proof, which is wrong]. The skin colors are intended so that the righteous may be privileged to be cautious and so that the wicked may be reminded to mend their ways. 

The skin colors are intended as a blessing to everyone so that everyone may have the privilege to return to God if they choose to. Thus, "all are alike unto God" because everyone gets the opportunity with enough coaxing from God (for instance, the skin colors) so that everyone may come to terms with what they have done in the past and acknowledge their state before God. 

I do not believe that God placed people into their racial groups unjustly; each of us are where we are because in God's judgment our particular lot in life is the fairest and the best for us, so that we may return to him if we do well - indeed he said to Cain, "if thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted?" 


There is really nothing wrong with being "racist" (or "discriminating") for as long as it is not used as a license for acts of prejudice. Acts of prejudice are another matter - that is, prejudicial acts are always wrong. 

The reality is that we have the various races and therefore we can't help but be discriminating on account of the racial groupings, especially because the racial groupings present varying starting points for the just and fair (or equal) opportunity to advance in our state before God. Being unequally yoked is hard, although it is not altogether forbidden to be unequally yoked. 

The Lord Jesus Christ himself was unequally yoked with us and bore our burdens. Yet, the Lord loves us so much that he condescended and suffered to be the sinless sacrifice so that he may claim us as his reward before God the Father - his Father who is also our Father. 

The Lord Jesus Christ himself was rather discriminating. He said he was sent only unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and he essentially called the canaanite woman, who is of the cursed race, a "dog"; he discriminated but he did not prejudge and send her immediately away; he was simply cautious and waited a while; and when the canaanite woman proved herself worthy of the blessing she sought, he gave her that blessing. 

St Matthew 15: 22-28 
  22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 
  23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 
  24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 
  25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 
  26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children&#8217;s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 
  27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters&#8217; table. 
  28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. 

Thus, on the matter of the skin colors, the members of the Mormon Church are taught to be cautious or, put another way, to be "discriminating," in order to help ensure our return to God who is our Father - but the members of the Mormon Church are never taught to be prejudicial. 


I recently needed a house help to do chores that multiplied on account of our new baby; and I received a recommended young woman who was pretty much aboriginal at a glance. She had dark skin, kinky hair; her clothes were filthy; she had a festering boil on one leg; she had lice in her unruly hair; worms in her, perhaps; and she was socially uncouth in her ways. But I couldn't send her away just like that. 

So I told her that I am requiring her to be clean, to take at least two showers a day, to disinfect her festering leg, and to obey orders properly. She was not allowed to handle the baby and was segregated to a room in our house until we can be comfortable if she improved. I gave her a week in our home to prove herself worthy to be a house help. 

Unfortunately, she was hard-headed and would not follow orders accordingly. She would do things in the unruly ways that she was accustomed to in her aboriginal home, and she remained in her filthy ways with her own self. So, I finally paid her her salary for the ten-days she was with us and sent her away. 

Prejudicial - I surely wasn't. 

But I must admit that I was cautious and racially discriminating, noting the race and culture she was from and belonged to and her appearance and manners when first presented to us. Yet I nonetheless gave her her opportunity with us and I risked my own home because of the principle involved. But, based on what I saw and experienced of her ways, the young woman was not up to it. I couldn't risk my home any longer to be corrupted in the many ways it could have been corrupted if I allowed that young aboriginal woman to continue with us for a longer time. 

Now, I don't have to tell you the racial diversity of the friends I have... 

I understand the stigma attached to the words "racist" and "racial discrimination". But the "cautiousness" of "racial discrimination" as I've somehow explained is not the "injustice" of "racial prejudice" that I've also explained somewhat. The former is technically rather a good thing, but the latter is clearly wrong. One can do racial discrimination and yet not be guilty of racial prejudice, as I think was exemplified in my own recent experience - but I think God will be the judge of that.
. . .


----------



## Skeptik

Having a light skin is the result of having less melanin.  Melanin is the agent that colors skin, and protects us from the sun.  Everyone except for albinos has some, and, of course, some have more than others. 

A lack of melanin in the skin is the result of adaptation to the climate of Northern Europe, where there is little sun.  A whiter skin results in more absorption of UV rays, and therefore more vitamin D.  In warmer, more tropical climates, a darker skin was more of a survival trait, as it protected against too much sun.

In other words, the color of human skin is the result of natural selection based on the climates in which different people lived.

There is nothing inherently more desirable in having a lack of melanin in the skin, except for the natural tendency of humans to like the looks of people who more or less look the same as they do.  Being "delighsome" is in the eye of the beholder.

Given where Jesus was born and lived, it is quite likely that he had quite a lot of melanin in his skin, also, and was therefore not "white and delightsome", but more likely quite dark.  If he had looked like a Swede, he would have stood out as being quite different from his fellows.

God did not "curse" anyone with a dark skin.  That is ridiculous.


----------



## pare

Skeptik said:


> Having a light skin is the result of having less melanin. . .
> 
> . . . a darker skin was more of a survival trait, as it protected against too much sun.
> 
> In other words, the color of human skin is the result of natural selection based on the climates in which different people lived. . .
> 
> God did not "curse" anyone with a dark skin.  That is ridiculous.



150 years since the publication of his theory and 200 years since Darwin's birth against 6000 years of the doctrine divinely revealed to man, I think the votes are heavy against the Darwinian idea. That really is ridiculous!

I once asked an atheist if he believed in "justice" and if he did then what about the billions who were inflicted the wrongs and died without justice. His idea was that when people died that's the end of it. This life is all there is to it. In other words, he was simply saying there is no such thing as "justice". 

I think it is difficult to trust a person who does not believe in justice. You simply can't know what he might do if justice is not in his considerations.


----------



## Skeptik

pare said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a light skin is the result of having less melanin. . .
> 
> . . . a darker skin was more of a survival trait, as it protected against too much sun.
> 
> In other words, the color of human skin is the result of natural selection based on the climates in which different people lived. . .
> 
> God did not "curse" anyone with a dark skin.  That is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 150 years since the publication of his theory and 200 years since Darwin's birth against 6000 years of the doctrine divinely revealed to man, I think the votes are heavy against the Darwinian idea. That really is ridiculous!
> 
> I once asked an atheist if he believed in "justice" and if he did then what about the billions who were inflicted the wrongs and died without justice. His idea was that when people died that's the end of it. This life is all there is to it. In other words, he was simply saying there is no such thing as "justice".
> 
> I think it is difficult to trust a person who does not believe in justice. You simply can't know what he might do if justice is not in his considerations.
Click to expand...


Modern science is not antithetical to the existence of god.  There is no conflict between evolution and religion, except where the adherents to religion are asked to believe the impossible, such as the so called "young Earth" notion.  If there are 6,000 year old writings that say that god revealed that a dark skin is a curse,  then we should take those writings for what they are:  ancient writings from a time before modern science and enlightenment, when only an elite few could read and write and people believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits and that the Earth was the center of creation.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Modern science is not antithetical to the existence of god.  There is no conflict between evolution and religion, except where the adherents to religion are asked to believe the impossible, such as the so called "young Earth" notion.  If there are 6,000 year old writings that say that god revealed that a dark skin is a curse,  then we should take those writings for what they are:  ancient writings from a time before modern science and enlightenment, when only an elite few could read and write and people believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits and that the Earth was the center of creation.



I completely concur that modern science is not antithetical to the existance of God. Thats one of the things I like about Mormonism, we have always been and will continue to be open to science.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Having a light skin is the result of having less melanin.  Melanin is the agent that colors skin, and protects us from the sun.  Everyone except for albinos has some, and, of course, some have more than others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lack of melanin in the skin is the result of adaptation to the climate of Northern Europe, where there is little sun.  A whiter skin results in more absorption of UV rays, and therefore more vitamin D.  In warmer, more tropical climates, a darker skin was more of a survival trait, as it protected against too much sun.
> 
> 
> 
> This "natural selection" I preach of is chosen by God. It is clear to me that he wants all of his children to be best adapted to their climates.
> 
> In other words, the color of human skin is the result of natural selection based on the climates in which different people lived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing inherently more desirable in having a lack of melanin in the skin, except for the natural tendency of humans to like the looks of people who more or less look the same as they do.  Being "delighsome" is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right. The curse was placed on the Lamanites, militant enemies of the Nephites, in order to identify the enemy and to be un-"enticing" to the Nephites in their times. Those people specifically. Because before that, they all came from the same family. God ordained that separation and often works in curious ways as these. The curse was removed a long time ago, before 400AD. I repeat, the curse no longer exists today. A concept not realized by unstudious mormons and otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given where Jesus was born and lived, it is quite likely that he had quite a lot of melanin in his skin, also, and was therefore not "white and delightsome", but more likely quite dark.  If he had looked like a Swede, he would have stood out as being quite different from his fellows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jews have various differing shades of skin in those days. Their features are known. He was bearded, probably olive skinned, the shading we are not certain of. His hair was likely wavy or curly. Nowhere was it claimed that he looked like a Northern European. The only people to actually note the color of his skin is the many differing tribes throughout the north and south american continent who describe the many different visits of Christ to the many different tribes during the first century and thereafter leading up to Cortez and Columbus. He had many different names, "The Plumed Serpent", Kate-Zahl, Wakea, Waikano,(The Lord of Wind and Water), Quetzal-Coatl, Mohnt-Azoma, etc. All of these oral legends depict him as a "Pale God", who healed the sick, raised the dead, taught the religion of "My Father", Chose 12 disciples to lead the people when he left, taught baptism, sacred temple marriage, abolition of slavery, love one another, ending human sacrifice and many other teachings which "coincidentally" seem straight out of the Bible. He is described as "not short" and "taller than most", with reddish brown hair, grey-green eyes like the deep ocean, cross marks in his hands, always wearing a white robe with small black "t"shaped crosses embroidered all around the hemline of his robe, always wearing golden sandals. He is always described as "white".
> 
> This was not a concoction of Joseph Smith or any Mormon. These are the true legends as told in secret among nearly all the Indian tribes, especially among the older, very wise leaders. Smith knew of none of these legends. The story of Jesus Visit among the Nephites appears to be just one more stop on his way to visit many other peoples existing before and after them in the Americas. The tales are chilling when you read them one by one. I can relate some to you if you like.
> 
> The bottom line is color doesn't save anyone. There are reasons for our color. Many reasons. But we shouldn't define ourselves by color. As truly the "Prophet" Kate-Zahl once said to the people of Ancient Tula near present day Teotihuacan : One good deed is worth far more than the most precious jewels or emeralds of any kind. Do you think you masters can be borne past the gates of Heaven on the backs of your servants? Nay it is not so. For my Father has many dwellings in heaven. To enter therein, you must follow my teachings.
> 
> He then blessed the people and healed the hunchbacks, dwarfs and others who were maimed or withered. When he finally left his beloved city of ancient Tula, people wept bitterly as he warned them to prepare for his return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God did not "curse" anyone with a dark skin.  That is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn't say it's ridiculous, but it has happened only once in holy writ. That was to the Lamanites referred to in the Book of Mormon. No one else has ever been mentioned as having been cursed with a dark skin. Not even the seed of Cain.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Modern science is not antithetical to the existence of god


. 
Well said. It is in support.



> There is no conflict between evolution and religion, except where the adherents to religion are asked to believe the impossible, such as the so called "young Earth" notion.


The more we learn the more we learn how much we do NOT know. I don't think it's as cut and dry as people want it to be. Whatever method God used for placing us here in this earth is fine by me. As yet it is not proven in scientific circles the theory of evolution, even though it seems likely with animals. Where scientists keep scratching their heads is the inexplicable rapid development of intellect, discovery, and civilization around 6000 years ago. 
My opinion is that God created the earth in 7 periods of time. How many millions of years did it take? I don't know and I don't care. What's important is that we are created in His image. I believe we were placed here after many species of animals had had their run and played their role in shaping the world for us to live in. I believe that was close to 6 or 7 thousand years ago. What I do know is that we all have a lot to learn about unrevealed history. I shake my head every time some scientist or religious zealot comes up with their boxed-in final take on the subject, as if they really know when they don't. At least you can't know such a thing secularly. It can be revealed in the spirit through meditation and prayer but that is the only way until concrete definite scientific proof comes out. 

but then again, how trustworthy is the scientific world when it is always backtracking. 



> If there are 6,000 year old writings that say that god revealed that a dark skin is a curse,  then we should take those writings for what they are:  ancient writings from a time before modern science and enlightenment, when only an elite few could read and write and people believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits and that the Earth was the center of creation



There were many uneducated ancients. The popular and arrogant notion of today's people is that we are so much smarter than them. In the pearl of Great Price, Abraham shows a far more advanced notion of the cosmos than modern people thought possible. 
The ancient Mayan, and Tollan calendar of the america's was 1000 years ahead of their European counterparts. In fact there is much knowledge in roadmaking in the ancient jungle systems that clearly surpasses our own road making skills in 2009. Their cement is flawless, 4 feet thick with no cracks even after thousands of years buried in the constant attacking jungle climate. Beneath these roads is a 9 foot layer of sandstone to create a far more stable and permanent foundation than any roads built today. It also proves that Romans were not the first to come up with concrete. That art is lost along with many others in craftsmanship and astrology. 
We shouldn't be so hasty to judge the ignorance of the ancients. Rather we should focus on gaining all the knowledge we can from them. At least the fragments they left behind. Each generation and people has technology that can benefit the world. We shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we have it all.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly right. The curse was placed on the Lamanites, militant enemies of the Nephites, in order to identify the enemy and to be un-"enticing" to the Nephites in their times. Those people specifically. Because before that, they all came from the same family. God ordained that separation and often works in curious ways as these. The curse was removed a long time ago, before 400AD. I repeat, the curse no longer exists today. A concept not realized by unstudious mormons and otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the dark skin curse didn't refer to the relative swarthiness of the natives vs the European newcomers?  I'd always been led to believe that the so called curse was an explanation of why the light skinned people were supposed to be more "godly" than the native Americans.
> 
> What you say does make sense, even if there is no way to prove that some of the ancient Americans suddenly developed a dark skin.  That would have to go in a category with other miracles, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


----------



## Godboy

Truthspeaker said:


> Biggy Smallz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are the retarded brother of the religious world, they smile a lot and are generally pretty harmless but don't offer up a whole lot to the knowledge of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I don't think I know of any religion that preaches the need for secular knowledge as well as spiritual knowledge to the extent that we do.
> 
> 
> "A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge."
> ~Joseph Smith
Click to expand...


What mormons spread is NOT knowledge. The statement by biggy smallz is still true and valid.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So, the dark skin curse didn't refer to the relative swarthiness of the natives vs the European newcomers?  I'd always been led to believe that the so called curse was an explanation of why the light skinned people were supposed to be more "godly" than the native Americans


.  

No that was not the case. Many people fail to immerse themselves in what the book ACTUALLY says. It was referring to the Lamanites. In the book of 4th Nephi we read that there "were no more manner of =ites among them. And the curse was lifted from all who were under it."

We never read of the curse reappearing. This curse has always been mistaken for the skin of the African race but it is not so. It was a specific unprecedented occurance of a skin color curse.



> What you say does make sense, even if there is no way to prove that some of the ancient Americans suddenly developed a dark skin.  That would have to go in a category with other miracles, wouldn't it?



Of course it would. But these people mingled and mingled and mingled with themselves and other cultures over a thousand years. that's why their skin color is fairly neutral in worldwide terms. Most of the darkness of their skin I attribute to outside living in a hot climate. Look at the skin color of the babies and you will see what they're really born with.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biggy Smallz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are the retarded brother of the religious world, they smile a lot and are generally pretty harmless but don't offer up a whole lot to the knowledge of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> I don't think I know of any religion that preaches the need for secular knowledge as well as spiritual knowledge to the extent that we do.
> 
> 
> "A man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge."
> ~Joseph Smith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What mormons spread is NOT knowledge. The statement by biggy smallz is still true and valid.
Click to expand...


whatever


----------



## Avatar4321

Godboy said:


> What mormons spread is NOT knowledge. The statement by biggy smallz is still true and valid.



Do you ever tire of just coming up with new screen names?


----------



## Truthspeaker

I just finished reading this jawdropping book called "He walked the Americas." by L. Taylor Hansen. This person was born in 1889 and died in 1979. She spent nearly 30 years on a personal quest to gather the unwritten legends of the past for as many native tribes as would speak to her. That's a long time. She had never heard of the Book of Mormon and therefore was certainly not a member of our church. Her interviews revealed chilling stories. Here are some quotes of some of the natives who contributed to the stories:

"We are the Ancients, and our skin is red: with us, the Sacred Color. These are our legends told about the campfires on winter's evenings. When you string them together, remember our great pride.  Now we are looking down and our feathers are drooping. Tell the legends so that our young men will realize that the ancestor threads run in many directions. Through the tribes we have captured and with whom we have intermarried there is a red thread which runs back to the Red Land long sunken in the Destruction. There is a thread which runs far to the south where the mountain tops touch the sky and the Thunder Bird moves through the lightning&#8217;s. There is a golden thread which touches Tollan, The Mighty, and beautiful Tula, while through some of our mothers there is a white thread to the words of The Prophet. Tell my young men to listen." 
--Asa Delugie, War Chief of the Mescallero Apaches. 

"This is our book. May you write it in beauty as we have told it in beauty."--Zeahley Tso, Chief of the Navajo.

`"There is evidence that some of our ancestors may have come from the ancient trading empire of Chan Chan centuries before the rise of the Incan Power in Peru. Tell my people to learn of this great power which once ruled eyes. Tell them to look up and learn." 

--So-Sah-kuku, Chief Snake Priest of Oraibi. 


"This is our book-these legends of Ancient times. They are of the blood which courses through our veins. We of the Seven Tribes of the Black Tortoise once had a Dream of Empire. Yet farther back through the cycles of Time we knew the Great Wakon-Tankah, but we forgot His words. These legends should help us to look up and remember." 

--Shooting Star, of the Dakota Sioux.


After reading this book, a completely non-mormon Christian preacher remarked:
&#8220;In a world of jaded emotions and broken dreams this book can reopen the doorways to your heart. Taylor Hansen has created a classic work, one that honors the Christ in all of us.&#8221; 

Rev. Dr. Robert Ghost Wolf


----------



## pare

I thought perhaps I should add a bit more with scriptural support since the copy-and-paste provides some ease.

Moses 5: 4-7. 16-25
  4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence. 
  5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord. 
  6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me. 
  7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth. 
. . .
  16 And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him? 
  17 And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 
  18 And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord. 
  19 And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. 
  20 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; 
  21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 
  22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen? 
  23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him; 
  24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world. 
  25 And it shall be said in time to come  That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent. 

Gen. 4: 13-15
  13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 
  14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. 
  15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. 

We read from above about Cain's corruption of the priesthood ordinance symbolizing the Great Sacrifice. They were commanded to offer the firstlings of their flocks, which offering was a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. But Cain made his own variation of the ordinance - "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." 

Cain could not be trusted regarding priesthood matters. "The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect." 

Cain disregarded the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. As a priest, who was called to perform the ordinance in which a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father was offered, Cain failed miserably. Cain disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood; and therefore the priesthood authority was withdrawn from Cain.

Cain was called Perdition. This was apparently the kind of spirit that he was before he was born. The scripture says "for thou wast also before the world." 

Cain became the father of people who perpetuated the "abominations' that "were had from Cain". The people who were born in the lineage of Cain were born in the lineage of Cain because they were very much of the same spirit as Cain's before they were born into the world. Cain's lineage perpetuated the abominations and the curse was continued; they bore the mark of the curse and they were denied the priesthood authority because they cannot be trusted. 

A similar disregard of the sacred things of the priesthood was perpetuated by Ham after the flood; and the mark of the curse which is the "blackness" was brought on Canaan, which again ordained a lineage into which rebellious spirits were born - because these spirits must have been rebellious like Cain before they came into the world.

Gen. 9: 18-27
  18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 
  19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. 
  20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 
  21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 
  22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 
  23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness. 
  24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 
  25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 
  26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 
  27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 

Moses 7: 8
  8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people. 

The land was actually cursed with so much melanin-producing heat and a blackness came upon the children of Canaan that they were particularly despised among all people. 

As far as I know the mark of the curse and its meaning as pertains the descendants of Canaan was never lifted by any sacred pronouncement until the 1978 declaration of a revelation to Pres. Spencer W. Kimball of the Mormon Church.


The mark of the curse was also placed on the Lamanites who disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood. The Lamanites sought to destroy those who honored the priesthood.

Alma 3: 7 (7-16)
  7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. 

And then the mark of the curse was erased when everyone became very righteous after the visit of the resurrected Christ. 

4 Nephi 1: 17, 20
17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. 

However, after a while, again there came a great divide among the people; the people grouped themselves into Nephites and Lamanites and they had terrible wars that practically annihilated the Nephites and only "Lamanites" were left alive. These again became a dark, filthy and loathsome people. 

Mormon 5: 15
15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry. 

But there was no more mention of any curse put upon them as pertaining to the priesthood restrictions - except that there is mention that they became idolatrous unbelievers, which means they had no worthy priesthood holders.


The latter-day leaders actually acknowledged the scriptural stipulations regarding the curse associated with the skin of blackness, especially as eprtains the descendants of Canaan (which I think was understood to be the African people). The blacks were 'generally' not ordained the priesthood authority and could not therefore administer the priesthood ordinances. 

Like the Canaanite woman who implored the Lord, they were allowed certain blessings - like that in the ordinances for the forgiveness of sins. But they were not allowed the ordinances for exaltation since these entailed that they be entrusted the priesthood authority to administer the priesthood ordinances. This is of course until the 1978 declaration.

I was already a convert to the Mormon Church many years before the 1978 declaration regarding the priesthood for the black people. It was not a surprise or an extraordinarily difficult issue for us. We were satisfied by the scriptural explanations and personal spiritual confirmations regarding the 1978 declaration. 

The Lord must have deemed it prudent for the Church to not have black priesthood holders during the time when blacks were generally slaves and when the black culture was pretty much un-enticing. This ended of course when the black people gained enough social respectability and also the honor before the Lord (circa 1978). 

In sum, I think the terms "racist/racism", "racial discrimination" and "racial prejudice" should be understood and used correctly. 

. . .

As for the science thing, I actually like the science ideas mixed with the religion (e.g., among my faves is "kinematic relativity" as reconciled with LDS ideas ) -

The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth.  "That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy," said the First Presidency in their Christmas greeting to the Saints, "but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men we do not accept, nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense, but everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us, no matter where it may be found."  ["Words in Season from the First Presidency," Deseret Evening News, 17 Dec. 1910, 3.] 

I do not see how the idea of the evolution of man from the apes "tends to right conduct,.. harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity."
. . .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good heavens, TruthSpeaker is trying to interpret the mythology of the tribes literally.  No wonder he is so lost in his own thread.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Good heavens, TruthSpeaker is trying to interpret the mythology of the tribes literally.  No wonder he is so lost in his own thread.



I'm not interpreting anything. From here on out I am going to relay each of these native american legends exactly. At least one per day. You can take them for what they are worth. These legends told by the many tribes are claimed to have literally happened, not metaphorically happened. In a little while I am going to relate the entire story of the God Wakea as told by ALL Polynesian tribes. I'll do it on my lunchbreak.


----------



## Truthspeaker

pare said:


> I thought perhaps I should add a bit more with scriptural support since the copy-and-paste provides some ease.
> 
> Moses 5: 4-7. 16-25
> 4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
> 5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
> 6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
> 7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
> . . .
> 16 And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?
> 17 And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
> 18 And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord.
> 19 And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
> 20 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;
> 21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
> 22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?
> 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;
> 24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.
> 25 And it shall be said in time to come  That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent.
> 
> Gen. 4: 13-15
> 13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
> 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
> 15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
> 
> We read from above about Cain's corruption of the priesthood ordinance symbolizing the Great Sacrifice. They were commanded to offer the firstlings of their flocks, which offering was a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. But Cain made his own variation of the ordinance - "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord."
> 
> Cain could not be trusted regarding priesthood matters. "The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect."
> 
> Cain disregarded the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. As a priest, who was called to perform the ordinance in which a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father was offered, Cain failed miserably. Cain disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood; and therefore the priesthood authority was withdrawn from Cain.
> 
> Cain was called Perdition. This was apparently the kind of spirit that he was before he was born. The scripture says "for thou wast also before the world."
> 
> Cain became the father of people who perpetuated the "abominations' that "were had from Cain". The people who were born in the lineage of Cain were born in the lineage of Cain because they were very much of the same spirit as Cain's before they were born into the world. Cain's lineage perpetuated the abominations and the curse was continued; they bore the mark of the curse and they were denied the priesthood authority because they cannot be trusted.
> 
> A similar disregard of the sacred things of the priesthood was perpetuated by Ham after the flood; and the mark of the curse which is the "blackness" was brought on Canaan, which again ordained a lineage into which rebellious spirits were born - because these spirits must have been rebellious like Cain before they came into the world.
> 
> Gen. 9: 18-27
> 18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
> 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
> 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
> 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
> 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
> 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness.
> 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
> 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
> 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 
> Moses 7: 8
> 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
> 
> The land was actually cursed with so much melanin-producing heat and a blackness came upon the children of Canaan that they were particularly despised among all people.
> 
> As far as I know the mark of the curse and its meaning as pertains the descendants of Canaan was never lifted by any sacred pronouncement until the 1978 declaration of a revelation to Pres. Spencer W. Kimball of the Mormon Church.
> 
> 
> The mark of the curse was also placed on the Lamanites who disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood. The Lamanites sought to destroy those who honored the priesthood.
> 
> Alma 3: 7 (7-16)
> 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
> 
> And then the mark of the curse was erased when everyone became very righteous after the visit of the resurrected Christ.
> 
> 4 Nephi 1: 17, 20
> 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.
> 
> However, after a while, again there came a great divide among the people; the people grouped themselves into Nephites and Lamanites and they had terrible wars that practically annihilated the Nephites and only "Lamanites" were left alive. These again became a dark, filthy and loathsome people.
> 
> Mormon 5: 15
> 15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
> 
> But there was no more mention of any curse put upon them as pertaining to the priesthood restrictions - except that there is mention that they became idolatrous unbelievers, which means they had no worthy priesthood holders.
> 
> 
> The latter-day leaders actually acknowledged the scriptural stipulations regarding the curse associated with the skin of blackness, especially as eprtains the descendants of Canaan (which I think was understood to be the African people). The blacks were 'generally' not ordained the priesthood authority and could not therefore administer the priesthood ordinances.
> 
> Like the Canaanite woman who implored the Lord, they were allowed certain blessings - like that in the ordinances for the forgiveness of sins. But they were not allowed the ordinances for exaltation since these entailed that they be entrusted the priesthood authority to administer the priesthood ordinances. This is of course until the 1978 declaration.
> 
> I was already a convert to the Mormon Church many years before the 1978 declaration regarding the priesthood for the black people. It was not a surprise or an extraordinarily difficult issue for us. We were satisfied by the scriptural explanations and personal spiritual confirmations regarding the 1978 declaration.
> 
> The Lord must have deemed it prudent for the Church to not have black priesthood holders during the time when blacks were generally slaves and when the black culture was pretty much un-enticing. This ended of course when the black people gained enough social respectability and also the honor before the Lord (circa 1978).
> 
> In sum, I think the terms "racist/racism", "racial discrimination" and "racial prejudice" should be understood and used correctly.
> 
> . . .
> 
> As for the science thing, I actually like the science ideas mixed with the religion (e.g., among my faves is "kinematic relativity" as reconciled with LDS ideas ) -
> 
> The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth.  "That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy," said the First Presidency in their Christmas greeting to the Saints, "but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men we do not accept, nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense, but everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us, no matter where it may be found."  ["Words in Season from the First Presidency," Deseret Evening News, 17 Dec. 1910, 3.]
> 
> I do not see how the idea of the evolution of man from the apes "tends to right conduct,.. harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity."
> . . .



I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you Pare. We need to be very careful that we don't project meanings from the scriptures that aren't there. I think we need to read the scriptures as literally as possible in most cases. 
The scriptures clearly state the land of Canaan was cursed with much heat. It also clearly states the Lamanites of Book of Mormon times were cursed with a skin of blackness. It also clearly states this curse was removed before the Book ended.
The scriptures clearly state that the seed of Cain were cursed "as to the priesthood", but only "marked" with dark skin. This mark was clearly for one purpose. To distinguish one as a descendant of Ham/Cain. The other is clear that it was a blessing of adaptation to a climate cursed with heat in which they would be confined for the most part of several thousand years. 

My biggest disagreement with you is this. You know better that all people who have been given a body in this life have done so by achieving a great honor in the pre-mortal realm; that of keeping their "first estate", which is clear proof they chose the plan of Jesus and not Lucifer. So you must abandon the concept of Cain's wickedness prior to his birth. He chose the Lord's plan on that side but did not keep his "second estate" which is this life and chose to join Satan the second time around. Speculation on the reason why people are born into certain races is worthless. We all chose Jesus prior to our birth so none of the rest matters. We are all born into different circumstances for reasons known to God only. But the reason for our birth is clear: To show that we can overcome the difficulties with which we will be faced. We will all experience similar levels of challenges. They'll just be in different aspects of life. Blacks face different challenges than whites and vice versa. But we'll all have to choose obedience to God's commands in the face of great pressure to do otherwise.
That is the official doctrine of the Church. All else is speculation if positive at all.


----------



## Eightball

pare said:


> I thought perhaps I should add a bit more with scriptural support since the copy-and-paste provides some ease.
> 
> Moses 5: 4-7. 16-25
> 4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
> 5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
> 6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
> 7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
> . . .
> 16 And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?
> 17 And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
> 18 And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord.
> 19 And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
> 20 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;
> 21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
> 22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?
> 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;
> 24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.
> 25 And it shall be said in time to come &#8212; That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent.
> 
> Gen. 4: 13-15
> 13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
> 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
> 15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
> 
> We read from above about Cain's corruption of the priesthood ordinance symbolizing the Great Sacrifice. They were commanded to offer the firstlings of their flocks, which offering was a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. But Cain made his own variation of the ordinance - "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord."
> 
> Cain could not be trusted regarding priesthood matters. "The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect."
> 
> Cain disregarded the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. As a priest, who was called to perform the ordinance in which a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father was offered, Cain failed miserably. Cain disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood; and therefore the priesthood authority was withdrawn from Cain.
> 
> Cain was called Perdition. This was apparently the kind of spirit that he was before he was born. The scripture says "for thou wast also before the world."
> 
> Cain became the father of people who perpetuated the "abominations' that "were had from Cain". The people who were born in the lineage of Cain were born in the lineage of Cain because they were very much of the same spirit as Cain's before they were born into the world. Cain's lineage perpetuated the abominations and the curse was continued; they bore the mark of the curse and they were denied the priesthood authority because they cannot be trusted.
> 
> A similar disregard of the sacred things of the priesthood was perpetuated by Ham after the flood; and the mark of the curse which is the "blackness" was brought on Canaan, which again ordained a lineage into which rebellious spirits were born - because these spirits must have been rebellious like Cain before they came into the world.
> 
> Gen. 9: 18-27
> 18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
> 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
> 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
> 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
> 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
> 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father&#8217;s nakedness.
> 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
> 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
> 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 
> Moses 7: 8
> 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
> 
> The land was actually cursed with so much melanin-producing heat and a blackness came upon the children of Canaan that they were particularly despised among all people.
> 
> As far as I know the mark of the curse and its meaning as pertains the descendants of Canaan was never lifted by any sacred pronouncement until the 1978 declaration of a revelation to Pres. Spencer W. Kimball of the Mormon Church.
> 
> 
> The mark of the curse was also placed on the Lamanites who disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood. The Lamanites sought to destroy those who honored the priesthood.
> 
> Alma 3: 7 (7-16)
> 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
> 
> And then the mark of the curse was erased when everyone became very righteous after the visit of the resurrected Christ.
> 
> 4 Nephi 1: 17, 20
> 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.
> 
> However, after a while, again there came a great divide among the people; the people grouped themselves into Nephites and Lamanites and they had terrible wars that practically annihilated the Nephites and only "Lamanites" were left alive. These again became a dark, filthy and loathsome people.
> 
> Mormon 5: 15
> 15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
> 
> But there was no more mention of any curse put upon them as pertaining to the priesthood restrictions - except that there is mention that they became idolatrous unbelievers, which means they had no worthy priesthood holders.
> 
> 
> The latter-day leaders actually acknowledged the scriptural stipulations regarding the curse associated with the skin of blackness, especially as eprtains the descendants of Canaan (which I think was understood to be the African people). The blacks were 'generally' not ordained the priesthood authority and could not therefore administer the priesthood ordinances.
> 
> Like the Canaanite woman who implored the Lord, they were allowed certain blessings - like that in the ordinances for the forgiveness of sins. But they were not allowed the ordinances for exaltation since these entailed that they be entrusted the priesthood authority to administer the priesthood ordinances. This is of course until the 1978 declaration.
> 
> I was already a convert to the Mormon Church many years before the 1978 declaration regarding the priesthood for the black people. It was not a surprise or an extraordinarily difficult issue for us. We were satisfied by the scriptural explanations and personal spiritual confirmations regarding the 1978 declaration.
> 
> The Lord must have deemed it prudent for the Church to not have black priesthood holders during the time when blacks were generally slaves and when the black culture was pretty much un-enticing. This ended of course when the black people gained enough social respectability and also the honor before the Lord (circa 1978).
> 
> In sum, I think the terms "racist/racism", "racial discrimination" and "racial prejudice" should be understood and used correctly.
> 
> . . .
> 
> As for the science thing, I actually like the science ideas mixed with the religion (e.g., among my faves is "kinematic relativity" as reconciled with LDS ideas ) -
> 
> The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth.  "That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy," said the First Presidency in their Christmas greeting to the Saints, "but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men we do not accept, nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense, but everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us, no matter where it may be found."  ["Words in Season from the First Presidency," Deseret Evening News, 17 Dec. 1910, 3.]
> 
> I do not see how the idea of the evolution of man from the apes "tends to right conduct,.. harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity."
> . . .



Sadly, most of your references for the black skin curse our from Mormon books, and very little from the bible.  What you do quote from the O.T. does not support the black skin curse in any way.

There is one human priesthood, and it is the priesthood of believers or born-again Christians...............There is one ultimate Priest, and that is Jesus Christ.

The Melchizodek was one Priest, in whom Abraham gave worship, and tithes from battles etc..  It is strongly believed that the Melchizodek of the O.T. was the "pre-incarnate" Christ Jesus.  As Paul states in the N.T. that this Melchizodek had now past lineage; and rightly so if He indeed is Christ Jesus, the incarnation of God Almighty.

You will not win over converts if you continue to use references such as the very unaccepted book of "Moses" or "BOM" verses.

Within the bible itself there is no evidence of a black skin curse upon Cain or his progeny.  In fact God goes on to say that he will guard or protect Cain, even after he commited the murder of his brother Abel.

J.S. Jr. came up with all kinds of crazy, hair-brained ideas, and because he was venerated by his band of followers, it was accepted as gospel.  

J.S. Jr. in no way had the credentials in his life to be considered a prophet of God.  He lived a life in N.Y. that typified everything that would be called nowadays, a "con artist"...........He and his father were both into conning folks with treasure hunting schemes.  

I would put Joseph Smith Jr. in the same category and Bob Tilton; a false teacher to the "n" degree.

His followers have had to excuse and make up all kinds of reasons for all the incongruities of his statements of the past, as well as the later prophet/presidents.

To the outside world looking at the Mormon church with unbiased eyes of observation, the incongruities are too obvious, but to those who are in the LDS cult, it all makes sense.

To biblically based Christains who are filled and abiding in the Holy Spirit, the Mormon church reeks of apostasy, and anti-biblical teaching.

Yes, you LDS folks definitely get spiritual direction for your doctrine, but you overlook the bold fact that the spiritual world is made up of myriads of fallen angels now called "demons" and a fallen leader named "Lucifter/Satan/The Devil", whom Jesus saw fall to earth as He stated in the N.T. gospel.

Satan comes costumed/disguised as a lamb, but is a ravenous wolf.  Every time those nicely dressed young men in their white shirts ties, and dark slacks come to my door, my heart is so saddened.  I dialogue with them and pray in my heart during these visits that God will drop the scales from their eyes as happened to Paul who pursued the early followers/Christians of Jesus Christ.

The bible doesn't teach that there is a progression of gods, and that good Mormon men can attain godhood.  This is all the very anti-Christian foot prints of a cult.

The bible says that there is but "one name" under heaven and earth that men may be saved, and that is Jesus Christ.

Jesus Himself even taught that there was a "Hell" for both Satan and His demonic host, and also those who die in their sins, not placing their faith in Christ and His human-soul redeeming work on the cross.

Your church has castrated God Almighty, by claiming that a new, and corrected revelation needed to come in 1830, as the bible was not accurate in total because of man's corruption.

That whole premise or belief, completely negates God Almighty's great attribute of being "OMNIPOTENT"...........which in plain terms means that God didn't allow his important message of salvation/redemption of this fallen Adamic race to become warped, or pieces-missing, or scribed incorrectly through the last few thousand years.

The Dead Sea scrolls testify to this accuracy, as a nearly complete Isaiah scroll, nearly 2,000 years old was found, and when compared to our present day Isaiah in the Holy bible is not off at all!

That alone dis-proves the LDS premise that the bible is not accurate.

Also your churchs' statement that the bible is "ok" where it agrees with your latter day prophet agreements, and is not "ok" where it disagrees is apalling!!!!!  In other words, the BOM, Journnal of Discourses, Pearl of Great Price, all trump the bible...........Yes the bible that was inspired by the "OMNIPOTENT" God, The "I AM", "El Shaddai.....
******
Just because there are millions of followers of your doctrine/church, this does not put God's seal of approval upon it.  Your church lays out a broad, easy to digest doctrine, and typifies what Jesus called the "broad" easy road that leads to destruction.

Your church members claim that they were unmercilessly persecuted.........Hum bug!!!  Just read Hebrews of the N.T. and you'll find out what real, vivid, tortuous persecution for believing/following Jesus Christ entails.  Can't remember when Mormons were sawed in two, burned at the stake, etc....  for their faith.  Yes, they were run out of town, and rightly so, as they brought a false gospel, to towns that had strong Christian, biblical populace.  

J.S. Jr. crossed the line, and violated common sane law, when he attempted to destroy that illinoise town news printing press.  He didn't want anti-Mormon printed messages being distributed throughout the region, took the law in his own hands.

In those days, the local newspaper was the lifeblood of a community.  You destroy their press, and you did a big wrong.  It wasn't that much less severe than horse stealing.

Anyway, we've heard the yada yada yada of Smith Jr. being a martyr for dieing while in jail shooting it out with the towns people who confronted him.  Compare his alleged martyrdom to the many saints of the bible, such as Steven, Paul, Peter, etc.... and it is a laughable joke, if it wasn't so sad.

Jesus went like the Passover Lamb to His death.  Paul also did not attempt to fight his way from the Roman headsman's axe, nor did Peter fight back when he requested to be crucified upside down, as he did not want to emmulate the way his Lord and Saviour died.  Total humility, and humbleness.  Peter was rebuked in the Garden for taking up his sword to protect Jesus.  

Jesus washed the feet of His disciples..........He was teaching them a very important thing.  You will be servants with servant's hearts.

That is what the Holy Spirit places in the true Christians heart.  A heart of humility, humbleness, and an undieing love for God.  A love that willing to take abuse without sending back abuse.  A heart that willing to give up a warm blanket and be cold so that another can be warm.  
*******


----------



## Truthspeaker

This response of yours seems vaguely familiar.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I copied this from the book since I couldn't find the entire story online:

*The God Wakea*

Once in the days long-vanished, with three great ships which had sailed from the Sunset Lands, came white-robed Wakea- the Fair God who healed the injured, raised the dead, and walked on water. He came to an outlying island of the Tahitian group where two tribes were fighting bitterly.
Now however, the Plynesians are all one people, anciently calling themselves the Maori, from New Zealand to Easter Island off the South American coastline. They were the Vikings of the sunrise, rowing their long-boats over the trackless ocean, guiding themselves by the stars of the heavens, and speaking one language from Hawaii southward. They used the same plants, kept the same animals and sang the same songs of the ancients. One of these was of the God Wakea.
To an island where men were fighting for the possession of the good land came three ships with giant sails like enormous birds with wings uplifted, glowing goldenly in the dawn-light. Suddenly frozen to immobility were the warriors as the ships moved around a jutting headland.
&#8220;What mannor of monsters are these with the great wings?&#8221;said one
&#8220;Perhaps they have come to devour the people.&#8221; Said another
Forgotten was the heat of the battle. Friend and foe stood facing seaward, weapons clutched in paralyzed fingers, staring in wide-eyed wonder. The ships oarsmen, whose paddles looked like a hundred centipede legs touching the water, rested now from their task of moving the giant monsters forward.
The Islanders saw something white moving toward them. Apperently it had come from the great birds, and it glided easily over the water with the rhythmical ease of a man walking.
As the spot of white came closer, they saw in amazement that this was a Fair God, man-like in form, but unlike their people. Soon they could see him clearly, the gold of the dawn-light shining behind and around him, making a halo of his long curling hair and beard. They saw the foam-like swish of his garments. As he came up on the wet sand, the warriors stared in fright at his garments; they were dry. Now they knew that a god stood among them, for none but gods can walk on water.
From his garments, so foam-white, they looked to his pale face and then into his eyes. They were strange eyes, grey-green as the depths of the water, and like it, ever changing. Now those eyes flashed with anger as he stared about him and looked upon the injured.
A god had come from the sea to walk among them and his forst look was that of anger! The warriors fell down as one man and began an old chant anciently employed to a god for forgiveness. When they dared again raise up their own eyes, they saw him going among the injured and dying who arose from their pain to find themselves well of body as soon as his hand or his garments had touched them.
Thus on this never to be forgotten day came the beloved Wakea to live for a while among the people.
When the villagers arrived with presents, creeping on their knees toward him, he signaled the ships. Small boats now left the great birds and brought other strangers. These men, though something like him in features, and like him bearded, were different in two ways from the god Wakea. Most plain to see was that their garments were not white but colored. But there was something beside this material difference: it was the way these friends looked upon their leader. In their eyes one could see their reverence. In their speech one could feel their love.
Friend and foe among the Polynesians now set about to entertain the strangers. Putting forth their choicest dishes, making welcome with song and dance. They invited the strangers to partake of the great feast. They had planned an entire night of merrymaking, but alas, as the sun began to paint the western sky with the colors of the orchids, hanging in profusion in the forest, they could see that the strangers were preparing to leave them.
The sadness they felt at this discovery was suddenly reversed when they saw the strangers bidding tearful farewells to the god Wakea. Scarcely had the people dreamed of this good fortune, for now it was becoming very obvious that the god Wakea was planning no journey, but would remain among them.
Respectfully at a short distance stood the people, while Wakea comforted the tearful strangers.  They saw him point to the direction of the sunrise, and wondered among themselves what he might be saying in his strange language.
Then, after many further embraces, they watched the strangers enter the small boats and row back to the great bird ships. As Wakea stood there on the sand watching sadly, the chief stepped up quietly and pointed to a high point which looked over the jutting headland around which the strangers were now passing. Wakea nodded quickly, followed the chief and some of the people to the sun-painted high point. There they together watched the three ships move into the sunset, fading at last into the sea of beauty. Only then did they return to the village, and the great ships were never more seen by the tribesmen.
Very quickly Wakea learned Polynesian. The people were amazed at the speed of his learning. As the long days passed, he began to teach the tribesmen. He told them of the One god who ruled the heavens. Who spoke through the volcanoes  and who breathed on the ocean. To him, war was not of his making, for his law was love one another. For Wakea they gave up war and the sacrifice of children which had kept down their populations so they would not overeat the islands
Then the men carried him with them, taking Wakea from island to island so each one would meet the strange fair god whose hands were miracles of healing. Many then were the songs of Wakea and many the legends, which down the long vistas of time have been forgotten. Yet his name has never been forgotten.
Wakea had one strange custom. Every morning before the dawn he would rise and pray toward the dawn star on some high point facing seaward. When they asked him why he did this he said that even so would his friends be praying in that far off distant land across the ocean.
The people remembered, thought of that day when he had come to them; of his friends who had wept when they were leaving; and how he had pointed for them towards the sunrise heavens.
Finally the fair god knew well all of the islands and there was not one where he had not landed, feasted with and taught the people. It was then that he looked more often toward the direction of the dawning, and asked questions about the lands of the dawn star.  The people were not entirely unacquainted with the continent lying eastward. Did they not have the yam to eat, and call it by it&#8217;s ancient South American name? Yet they were loathe to lose the healer, this strange god who answered to the name they had given him: Wakea, Fair God of the Ocean.
As long as they could they tried to dissuade his growing desire to travel eastward. Yet they loved him too much to deny his desire, and so preparations were made for the long journey to be made on the boats of the migrations.
Through their tears they watched him take his seat in the long boat while one child called out in a voice broken by sobbing&#8221;
&#8220;Are we never to see you Wakea?&#8221;
In his melodious voice the fair god made answer:
&#8220;One day you will see me returning, even as I came, through the light of the dawning, if you remember to keep my commandments and always love one another.&#8221;
The conoes of many rowers carried much food and water. Through wind and storm they stayed together, keeping each other in sight in the day time, and at night by alternate chanting.
Thus from the islands and into the sunrise, rode the long boats carrying Wakea, beautiful creature of peace and laughter whose curling brown hair trapped the red-gold of sunlight and whose strange level eyes held the sea&#8217;s deepest mystery, changing like water in light and shadow. So the Fair God  moved into the dawn toward the Lands of the Dawn Star, sped onward by the chants of farewell sung by the sorrowing people. And since that day, though some have said the he is sometimes seen in spirit, yet in the flesh they are still waiting for him to come back to his beloved islands of Polynesia.


----------



## pare

Truthspeaker said:


> pare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought perhaps I should add a bit more with scriptural support since the copy-and-paste provides some ease.
> 
> Moses 5: 4-7. 16-25
> 4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
> 5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
> 6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
> 7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
> . . .
> 16 And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?
> 17 And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
> 18 And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord.
> 19 And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
> 20 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;
> 21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
> 22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?
> 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;
> 24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.
> 25 And it shall be said in time to come  That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent.
> 
> Gen. 4: 13-15
> 13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
> 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
> 15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
> 
> We read from above about Cain's corruption of the priesthood ordinance symbolizing the Great Sacrifice. They were commanded to offer the firstlings of their flocks, which offering was a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. But Cain made his own variation of the ordinance - "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord."
> 
> Cain could not be trusted regarding priesthood matters. "The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect."
> 
> Cain disregarded the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. As a priest, who was called to perform the ordinance in which a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father was offered, Cain failed miserably. Cain disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood; and therefore the priesthood authority was withdrawn from Cain.
> 
> Cain was called Perdition. This was apparently the kind of spirit that he was before he was born. The scripture says "for thou wast also before the world."
> 
> Cain became the father of people who perpetuated the "abominations' that "were had from Cain". The people who were born in the lineage of Cain were born in the lineage of Cain because they were very much of the same spirit as Cain's before they were born into the world. Cain's lineage perpetuated the abominations and the curse was continued; they bore the mark of the curse and they were denied the priesthood authority because they cannot be trusted.
> 
> A similar disregard of the sacred things of the priesthood was perpetuated by Ham after the flood; and the mark of the curse which is the "blackness" was brought on Canaan, which again ordained a lineage into which rebellious spirits were born - because these spirits must have been rebellious like Cain before they came into the world.
> 
> Gen. 9: 18-27
> 18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
> 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
> 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
> 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
> 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
> 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness.
> 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
> 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
> 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 
> Moses 7: 8
> 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
> 
> The land was actually cursed with so much melanin-producing heat and a blackness came upon the children of Canaan that they were particularly despised among all people.
> 
> As far as I know the mark of the curse and its meaning as pertains the descendants of Canaan was never lifted by any sacred pronouncement until the 1978 declaration of a revelation to Pres. Spencer W. Kimball of the Mormon Church.
> 
> 
> The mark of the curse was also placed on the Lamanites who disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood. The Lamanites sought to destroy those who honored the priesthood.
> 
> Alma 3: 7 (7-16)
> 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
> 
> And then the mark of the curse was erased when everyone became very righteous after the visit of the resurrected Christ.
> 
> 4 Nephi 1: 17, 20
> 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.
> 
> However, after a while, again there came a great divide among the people; the people grouped themselves into Nephites and Lamanites and they had terrible wars that practically annihilated the Nephites and only "Lamanites" were left alive. These again became a dark, filthy and loathsome people.
> 
> Mormon 5: 15
> 15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
> 
> But there was no more mention of any curse put upon them as pertaining to the priesthood restrictions - except that there is mention that they became idolatrous unbelievers, which means they had no worthy priesthood holders.
> 
> 
> The latter-day leaders actually acknowledged the scriptural stipulations regarding the curse associated with the skin of blackness, especially as eprtains the descendants of Canaan (which I think was understood to be the African people). The blacks were 'generally' not ordained the priesthood authority and could not therefore administer the priesthood ordinances.
> 
> Like the Canaanite woman who implored the Lord, they were allowed certain blessings - like that in the ordinances for the forgiveness of sins. But they were not allowed the ordinances for exaltation since these entailed that they be entrusted the priesthood authority to administer the priesthood ordinances. This is of course until the 1978 declaration.
> 
> I was already a convert to the Mormon Church many years before the 1978 declaration regarding the priesthood for the black people. It was not a surprise or an extraordinarily difficult issue for us. We were satisfied by the scriptural explanations and personal spiritual confirmations regarding the 1978 declaration.
> 
> The Lord must have deemed it prudent for the Church to not have black priesthood holders during the time when blacks were generally slaves and when the black culture was pretty much un-enticing. This ended of course when the black people gained enough social respectability and also the honor before the Lord (circa 1978).
> 
> In sum, I think the terms "racist/racism", "racial discrimination" and "racial prejudice" should be understood and used correctly.
> 
> . . .
> 
> As for the science thing, I actually like the science ideas mixed with the religion (e.g., among my faves is "kinematic relativity" as reconciled with LDS ideas ) -
> 
> The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth.  "That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy," said the First Presidency in their Christmas greeting to the Saints, "but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men we do not accept, nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense, but everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us, no matter where it may be found."  ["Words in Season from the First Presidency," Deseret Evening News, 17 Dec. 1910, 3.]
> 
> I do not see how the idea of the evolution of man from the apes "tends to right conduct,.. harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity."
> . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you Pare. We need to be very careful that we don't project meanings from the scriptures that aren't there. I think we need to read the scriptures as literally as possible in most cases.
> The scriptures clearly state the land of Canaan was cursed with much heat. It also clearly states the Lamanites of Book of Mormon times were cursed with a skin of blackness. It also clearly states this curse was removed before the Book ended.
> The scriptures clearly state that the seed of Cain were cursed "as to the priesthood", but only "marked" with dark skin. This mark was clearly for one purpose. To distinguish one as a descendant of Ham/Cain. The other is clear that it was a blessing of adaptation to a climate cursed with heat in which they would be confined for the most part of several thousand years.
> 
> My biggest disagreement with you is this. You know better that all people who have been given a body in this life have done so by achieving a great honor in the pre-mortal realm; that of keeping their "first estate", which is clear proof they chose the plan of Jesus and not Lucifer. So you must abandon the concept of Cain's wickedness prior to his birth. He chose the Lord's plan on that side but did not keep his "second estate" which is this life and chose to join Satan the second time around. Speculation on the reason why people are born into certain races is worthless. We all chose Jesus prior to our birth so none of the rest matters. We are all born into different circumstances for reasons known to God only. But the reason for our birth is clear: To show that we can overcome the difficulties with which we will be faced. We will all experience similar levels of challenges. They'll just be in different aspects of life. Blacks face different challenges than whites and vice versa. But we'll all have to choose obedience to God's commands in the face of great pressure to do otherwise.
> That is the official doctrine of the Church. All else is speculation if positive at all.
Click to expand...


Truthspeaker,

Of course, we can respectfully disagree where we disagree. And we can also happily agree where we agree.

I can only say that what I share here is according to my understanding of things. I am not a General Authority, and so I cannot vouch that what I say here is the official doctrine of the Church. I speak here simply as a humble member of the Church. 

And so, please, everyone, note that I speak only according to my understanding of the doctrines of the LDS Church. If I get corrected by one with the proper authority, then I will stand corrected. Of course, that will not disuade me from asking for explanations regarding the doctrine of which somebody attempts to correct me.

Truthspeaker, let me just say thank you for your efforts.

. . .


----------



## Truthspeaker

Any comments on the Wakea post?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth, you crack me up.  You better query the folks at the Neal Maxwell Institute about your intepretations above about valiant angels, cursed colors, and descendents.  You will make them swallow their bubble gum.  They gave up that thinking a long time ago, and I truly think your President Monson would tell you to shut up.  Tell you what.  Go and email his office what you posted above to Pare.  I won't do it, but I will challenge you to do it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

pare said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought perhaps I should add a bit more with scriptural support since the copy-and-paste provides some ease.
> 
> Moses 5: 4-7. 16-25
> 4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his presence.
> 5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
> 6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
> 7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
> . . .
> 16 And Adam and Eve, his wife, ceased not to call upon God. And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said: I have gotten a man from the Lord; wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, Cain hearkened not, saying: Who is the Lord that I should know him?
> 17 And she again conceived and bare his brother Abel. And Abel hearkened unto the voice of the Lord. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
> 18 And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord.
> 19 And in process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
> 20 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering;
> 21 But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect. Now Satan knew this, and it pleased him. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
> 22 And the Lord said unto Cain: Why art thou wroth? Why is thy countenance fallen?
> 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;
> 24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.
> 25 And it shall be said in time to come  That these abominations were had from Cain; for he rejected the greater counsel which was had from God; and this is a cursing which I will put upon thee, except thou repent.
> 
> Gen. 4: 13-15
> 13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
> 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
> 15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
> 
> We read from above about Cain's corruption of the priesthood ordinance symbolizing the Great Sacrifice. They were commanded to offer the firstlings of their flocks, which offering was a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. But Cain made his own variation of the ordinance - "Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord."
> 
> Cain could not be trusted regarding priesthood matters. "The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering; But unto Cain, and to his offering, he had not respect."
> 
> Cain disregarded the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father. As a priest, who was called to perform the ordinance in which a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father was offered, Cain failed miserably. Cain disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood; and therefore the priesthood authority was withdrawn from Cain.
> 
> Cain was called Perdition. This was apparently the kind of spirit that he was before he was born. The scripture says "for thou wast also before the world."
> 
> Cain became the father of people who perpetuated the "abominations' that "were had from Cain". The people who were born in the lineage of Cain were born in the lineage of Cain because they were very much of the same spirit as Cain's before they were born into the world. Cain's lineage perpetuated the abominations and the curse was continued; they bore the mark of the curse and they were denied the priesthood authority because they cannot be trusted.
> 
> A similar disregard of the sacred things of the priesthood was perpetuated by Ham after the flood; and the mark of the curse which is the "blackness" was brought on Canaan, which again ordained a lineage into which rebellious spirits were born - because these spirits must have been rebellious like Cain before they came into the world.
> 
> Gen. 9: 18-27
> 18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
> 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
> 20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
> 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
> 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
> 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their fathers nakedness.
> 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
> 25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
> 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
> 
> Moses 7: 8
> 8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
> 
> The land was actually cursed with so much melanin-producing heat and a blackness came upon the children of Canaan that they were particularly despised among all people.
> 
> As far as I know the mark of the curse and its meaning as pertains the descendants of Canaan was never lifted by any sacred pronouncement until the 1978 declaration of a revelation to Pres. Spencer W. Kimball of the Mormon Church.
> 
> 
> The mark of the curse was also placed on the Lamanites who disregarded the sacred things of the priesthood. The Lamanites sought to destroy those who honored the priesthood.
> 
> Alma 3: 7 (7-16)
> 7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
> 
> And then the mark of the curse was erased when everyone became very righteous after the visit of the resurrected Christ.
> 
> 4 Nephi 1: 17, 20
> 17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.
> 
> However, after a while, again there came a great divide among the people; the people grouped themselves into Nephites and Lamanites and they had terrible wars that practically annihilated the Nephites and only "Lamanites" were left alive. These again became a dark, filthy and loathsome people.
> 
> Mormon 5: 15
> 15 And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.
> 
> But there was no more mention of any curse put upon them as pertaining to the priesthood restrictions - except that there is mention that they became idolatrous unbelievers, which means they had no worthy priesthood holders.
> 
> 
> The latter-day leaders actually acknowledged the scriptural stipulations regarding the curse associated with the skin of blackness, especially as eprtains the descendants of Canaan (which I think was understood to be the African people). The blacks were 'generally' not ordained the priesthood authority and could not therefore administer the priesthood ordinances.
> 
> Like the Canaanite woman who implored the Lord, they were allowed certain blessings - like that in the ordinances for the forgiveness of sins. But they were not allowed the ordinances for exaltation since these entailed that they be entrusted the priesthood authority to administer the priesthood ordinances. This is of course until the 1978 declaration.
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker,
> 
> Of course, we can respectfully disagree where we disagree. And we can also happily agree where we agree.
> 
> 
> 
> I can only say that what I share here is according to my understanding of things. I am not a General Authority, and so I cannot vouch that what I say here is the official doctrine of the Church. I speak here simply as a humble member of the Church.
> 
> And so, please, everyone, note that I speak only according to my understanding of the doctrines of the LDS Church. If I get corrected by one with the proper authority, then I will stand corrected. Of course, that will not disuade me from asking for explanations regarding the doctrine of which somebody attempts to correct me.
> 
> Truthspeaker, let me just say thank you for your efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks pare,
> I'm glad someone besides me is chiming in. This is a discussion forum so it's all good. the only way we will ever learn is if we all keep an open mind. The problem of circularity someitmes found on these boards is that people get their mind made up and don't want to explore the other side.
> Although I have told everyone that my mind is made up to the veracity of the Church, I have told everyone that I am willing to listen to all points of view, however uncomfortable or taboo they may appear to be. I'm on a mission to flush out all the toughest questions. In a way it is a personal vindication that I've been seeking. I feel I've come up against the toughest waves, but like the cliff, my faith is still standing. Others will say I don't know, but I do know that Christ lived and visited his people. I'm further and further convinced that his travels spanned the globe; accounts of which travels are piece by piece coming to the knowledge of the world.
> When the Nephites asked why Jesus was leaving them, he answered, "I go to show myself unto the other lost tribes of Israel. For they are not lost unto the father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them."
> 
> This book I was telling people about gives me the biggest goosebumps when I read it because he uses so many of the same exact words when visiting these other native tribes not of the Nephites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## pare

Truthspeaker, after re-reading my posts, I think you may be right on the matter of abandoning the idea of Cain's wickedness before his birth. 

The word "wicked" is not appropriate. I should have said "lukewarm" and "less valiant" or even "less devoted" spirits. Because, if I remember correctly, what has been taught us is that there were noble and great spirits in the premortal world and also that the premortal spirits had varying degrees of devotion to the Lord Jesus and to God in the premortal world. I think I jumbled my contextual use of the word "wicked." My apologies.

Now, perhaps, because some premortal spirits were less valiant and lukewarm, these spirits were given more challenges in the mortal world and not just the different challenges at the same level of difficulty as that of others. But, like I said, perhaps. So, that is speculative. But that somehow makes sense according to what we can see of other people's lot in life.

However, it is clear that there are those who have been relegated to a race in which they were not given the privilege of the priesthood for a very long while - which to my understanding means that they were not entrusted the priesthood because they could not be trusted to magnify or enlarge the prieshood since they don't have the devotion to the Lord. 

In the mortal world, Cain actually proved that he loved Satan more than God and rejected the greater counsel from God. But those who descended from Cain suffered the curse of having the priesthood denied to them without the actual disobedient actions in the mortal world. And while Cain was born into a family with godly parents, Cain's descendants were born into a lineage who loved Satan and hated God and where thus denied the priesthood. And so also with Ham and his descendants. The Lamanites, too.

Regarding Cain being a perdition even before he wast in the world, I based my understanding on verse 24 "thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world." But you could be right the relevant idea is probably not there - and my interpretation may be speculative...

Also, I think in the Book of Abraham God said all the spirits in the heavenly counsel were "good" and among the "good" there were the noble and great ones. I can't find the scripture now.

Now, perhaps some people actually deserve to be tested more by being born into a cursed lineage with the more difficult level of challenges. So, what do you think regarding this? - of course, from what you know of the official doctrine and what you see by your own experience...

. . .


----------



## pare

I think I must add.

There is the idea that a very few are ordained to be vessels of wrath; the idea is that God in his foreknowledge knew that these few would be sons of perdition at whatever throw of the dice that God could possibly do for them. God must have placed them in the most conducive but just circumstance to prove themselves worthy of the high goal; but it became inevitable for them to choose the bad - as for instance, Cain who apparently had a very close relationship with God yet Cain loved Satan more than God, and also Judas who betrayed the Lord. God knew what they were and what evil they would do; and it would have been better for them not to have been born; but God sent them here on earth because they were necessary in God's great plan. 

Cain and Judas were not born into a lineage cursed as pertaining to the priesthood; but their high callings in the priesthood became their undoing because by their priesthood they obtained the greater light yet rebelled against God.

One is therefore led to the idea that perhaps it has been a blessing to those who were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood because the restriction actually precluded their having the greater light which is the only circumstance under which they could have committed the unforgivable sin. Even if they fail to achieve the high goal, at least they earn a measure of salvation in the kingdoms of glory. 

I think here is the reasoning why we sometimes talk in parables (riddles) to some people; it spares them the perdition. 

Yet, for those who are truly in the sincere search for the knowledge of God, let them knock at the door, let them search for God in earnest and surely they will find Him - and certainly so if they go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I know that in these last days this is the only church wherein the earnest will truly and thoroughly find Him. 

. . .

I said you may be right _about letting go of the idea regarding Cain's wickedness before his birth_. 

However, there are a few people in the scriptures that I can remember were actually declared as sons of perdition. Cain is one and Judas is one. 

Obviously, they both had the high priesthood whereby they obtained the greater light. As I've stated, the circumstance of having the greater light "is the only circumstance under which they could have committed the unforgivable sin."

Both Cain and Judas were non-blacks who committed the unforgivable sin. 

In our day, blacks can have the priesthood. It may be possible that this time when a son of perdition will be revealed he would be a black man... This is of course pure speculation... (And these speculations, although helps in guiding our perspectives, are as we say in church "not essential to salvation.")

. . .


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth, you crack me up.  You better query the folks at the Neal Maxwell Institute about your intepretations above about valiant angels, cursed colors, and descendents.  You will make them swallow their bubble gum.  They gave up that thinking a long time ago, and I truly think your President Monson would tell you to shut up.  Tell you what.  Go and email his office what you posted above to Pare.  I won't do it, but I will challenge you to do it.



I've been known to take pride in my sense of humor. Glad to make you smile in one way or another. I've already done my consulting with the blessed institute. Please tell me where I contradict what they say. I'm fine with the doctrine being put forth here. If you aren't happy with it then fine. I can't please everybody. Neither could Jesus. When are you ever going to bring some examples of how erroneous I am instead of just saying I'm erroneous? Where is your authority to tell us what we believe when you aren't even a member of our church?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, you crack me up.  You better query the folks at the Neal Maxwell Institute about your intepretations above about valiant angels, cursed colors, and descendents.  You will make them swallow their bubble gum.  They gave up that thinking a long time ago, and I truly think your President Monson would tell you to shut up.  Tell you what.  Go and email his office what you posted above to Pare.  I won't do it, but I will challenge you to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been known to take pride in my sense of humor. Glad to make you smile in one way or another. I've already done my consulting with the blessed institute. Please tell me where I contradict what they say. I'm fine with the doctrine being put forth here. If you aren't happy with it then fine. I can't please everybody. Neither could Jesus. When are you ever going to bring some examples of how erroneous I am instead of just saying I'm erroneous? Where is your authority to tell us what we believe when you aren't even a member of our church?
Click to expand...


Jesus couldn't please everyone either?  You are absolutely amazing.  You actually include the Son of God, the "I AM" in your incongruities.   

The pride exuded by you Truthspeaker is something of the highest order.  "Me and Jesus" both get picked-on.

You can't hold a candle to Jesus, and the persecution He endured is because He expressed the "truth" as He was the "Word" come in the flesh.  The Word was with God, and was God............You ain't.  You are flesh, but not of Christ's flesh.  The only similarity between you and Him is that you had human fleshly bodies.  That's where it ends.
********
You have been hit or exposed or bombarded over hundreds of pages of thread with valid incongruities of your church, yet you blow'em off or say that you answered the inquirey.  

You've and your Mormon tag-team of posters here have never adequately answered how an "Omnipotent God" could allow His God-inspired Word become corrupted or inaccurate or incomplete over all these years?  The question is convenitently ignored.

In fact, why would our loving, Omnipotent Creator let His written Word become unsatisfactory in total, and need to be "fixed" by Moroni and J.S. Jr.?

Can the Mormon god, trully be omnipotent?  Foundationally, your church stands upon the attributes of a "non-omnipotent" god, or one of a succession of gods.  

Funny how the Apostle Paul said their would be many Anti-Christs before the real biggee shows up as described in Revelations by the Apostle John, while exiled on the island of Patmos?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Jesus couldn't please everyone either?  You are absolutely amazing.  You actually include the Son of God, the "I AM" in your incongruities.



What is inaccurate about that? Christ taught the truth, and they killed Him for it. You think the servant is somehow better than the master?  That somehow we are supposed to make everyone happy when Christ didnt? He didnt bring everyone peace and forgiveness. He brought it to those that repented. The Gift is available to all, but can a gift you dont accept make you happy?



> The pride exuded by you Truthspeaker is something of the highest order.  "Me and Jesus" both get picked-on.



If we are doing what Christ did, why should we expect to accomplish more than He did? The calling of a disciple is to wade through persecution as the master did.




> You can't hold a candle to Jesus, and the persecution He endured is because He expressed the "truth" as He was the "Word" come in the flesh.  The Word was with God, and was God............You ain't.  You are flesh, but not of Christ's flesh.  The only similarity between you and Him is that you had human fleshly bodies.  That's where it ends.



Has anyone claimed that they have suffered more than Christ? 





> ********
> You have been hit or exposed or bombarded over hundreds of pages of thread with valid incongruities of your church, yet you blow'em off or say that you answered the inquirey.



You're wrong, of course. You ahve been bombarded with over a hundred pages of a thread showing how you have no concept of what you are critisizing. Specifically where in the scriptures you find everything to support the Restoration. You still ignore it.

For example, I know for a fact that Ive pointed out countless references in the Bible for the Doctrine of Diefication. You still pretend as though its blaphemy to acknowledge that the scriptures teach that the ultimate state of man is to become a god. When Christ himself stated that those who recieved the Word of God were gods.

Yet you continue to claim as though the Bible doesnt teach it. You refuse to address a single verse quoted contrary to your view. In fact, all you ever do on this therad is cut and paste from various webpages criticisms that have been answered again and again.



> You've and your Mormon tag-team of posters here have never adequately answered how an "Omnipotent God" could allow His God-inspired Word become corrupted or inaccurate or incomplete over all these years?  The question is convenitently ignored.



When you realize that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, the question is absurd. Are you claiming that Christ was corrupted? When you stop worshipping the scriptures and realize that we are to worship the Father through Christ, you realize how absurd objections are. 

Oh, and we have addressed this dozens of time. You still ignore our answers. So the real question is why do you have to lie when we have over 100 pages of proof?

Where does God say that He would take away human agency and the human factor from any record? Where does he say that the Bible is all there is? He doesnt. You know that and you continue to act as though if God doesnt act the way *you* think He should then He is somehow not all powerful.

God has never intended man to live off revelations meant to another. We are to live by the revelations He gives us. He preserves His word by Constantly revealing it to each and every generation.

Which version of the scriptures is the uncorrupted perfect version?



> In fact, why would our loving, Omnipotent Creator let His written Word become unsatisfactory in total, and need to be "fixed" by Moroni and J.S. Jr.?



The more appropriately, why would an omnopotent Creator suddenly become silent and reveal no more to His children when He has done so in every generation the Gospel has been revealed to the earth?

Why should we ignore the scriptures when they expressly prophecy that the Lord will send an angel in the last day carrying the Everlasting Gospel for the people?

Why should we honor dead prophets and ignore the living ones? The Pharisees did that and Christ blasted them for it. They were so certain they were living correctly beause of their interpretations of old revelations that they missed the ultimate revelation of all: The Son of God in their midsts. How are your actions any different than theirs?



> Can the Mormon god, trully be omnipotent?  Foundationally, your church stands upon the attributes of a "non-omnipotent" god, or one of a succession of gods.



Nonsense, and you know it.



> Funny how the Apostle Paul said their would be many Anti-Christs before the real biggee shows up as described in Revelations by the Apostle John, while exiled on the island of Patmos?



Seems irrelevant to your post at hand, but what exactly makes you think that _you_ arent the anti-christ in this situation?


----------



## Dr Grump

I just love it when hardcore Christians can't agree. Now you know why us non-believers think religion is hogwash. People interpret the scripts to suit themselves and announce it is "the truth"....


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr Grump said:


> I just love it when hardcore Christians can't agree. Now you know why us non-believers think religion is hogwash. People interpret the scripts to suit themselves and announce it is "the truth"....



Course, it could just be because you dont bother putting in any effort to understand. Nor any bother to find God on your own.


----------



## Dr Grump

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when hardcore Christians can't agree. Now you know why us non-believers think religion is hogwash. People interpret the scripts to suit themselves and announce it is "the truth"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course, it could just be because you dont bother putting in any effort to understand. Nor any bother to find God on your own.
Click to expand...


Oh, I put the effort in. With religious education classes I was always in the top 3 or 4 in the class....

Your comment, BTW, had nothing to do with my point. The Catholics say they have all the answers, as do the Mormons, then the Presbyterians, then the Lutherans, then the 7th day adventists, then the Baptists, then the Greek and Russian Orthodox...

...face it, you guys can't even decide amongst yourselves what is what...

And I haven't even started on the Sunni/Shi'ite/Nazari Muslims and Orthodox/Hisadic/Secular Jews...


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> And I haven't even started on the Sunni/Shi'ite/Nazari Muslims and Orthodox/Hisadic/Secular Jews...



and conservative jews... and reform jews...and kabbalists...

at least Jews are honest about it...we KNOW that if you ask 3 Jews a question, you get ten opinions.


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr Grump said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when hardcore Christians can't agree. Now you know why us non-believers think religion is hogwash. People interpret the scripts to suit themselves and announce it is "the truth"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course, it could just be because you dont bother putting in any effort to understand. Nor any bother to find God on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I put the effort in. With religious education classes I was always in the top 3 or 4 in the class....
> 
> Your comment, BTW, had nothing to do with my point. The Catholics say they have all the answers, as do the Mormons, then the Presbyterians, then the Lutherans, then the 7th day adventists, then the Baptists, then the Greek and Russian Orthodox...
> 
> ...face it, you guys can't even decide amongst yourselves what is what...
> 
> And I haven't even started on the Sunni/Shi'ite/Nazari Muslims and Orthodox/Hisadic/Secular Jews...
Click to expand...


I was unaware that we needed a consensus to determine what the truth is. I foolishly thought we were supposed to seek it for ourselves from the Source and then live it.


----------



## Dr Grump

Aye


----------



## Dr Grump

Avatar4321 said:


> I was unaware that we needed a consensus to determine what the truth is. I foolishly thought we were supposed to seek it for ourselves from the Source and then live it.



You don't think 1 billion Catholics have consensus? Or Baptists? Or Mormons? 

Even the above is YOUR own interpretation of what Christianity is supposed to be. If there is no consensus, you have no religion (or sect of a certain religion)...


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr Grump said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that we needed a consensus to determine what the truth is. I foolishly thought we were supposed to seek it for ourselves from the Source and then live it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think 1 billion Catholics have consensus? Or Baptists? Or Mormons?
> 
> Even the above is YOUR own interpretation of what Christianity is supposed to be. If there is no consensus, you have no religion (or sect of a certain religion)...
Click to expand...


Did I say that? 

You are saying that because there is no consensus between the various sects, none are believable. I pointed out how every sect finding consensus doesnt determine what is true. the facts determine what are true.

Now you are arguing internal consensus within a sect, which is a completely different aspect.

I dont think consensus determines truth, period. I do think that if you are honestly seeking out the truth, that you will keep the commandments of God. And as you do that the Lord will continue to reveal the truth and His will to you until you are one with God. And if that is your goal, the fact that there is no consensus now is irrelevant. Because the goal is to be one, its not something that happens instantenously.

The scriptures may be interpreted differnetly, that doesnt mean that all interpretations are correct. That is one of the points of discussion on the scriptures, to flesh out the true interpretations. However, despite this the only way to know the truth for one self is to humble yourself before God and ask Him to reveal the truth to you. So you can live it and serve God and glorify Him through your service.

To simply pronounce them all wrong because there is no consensus, is just illogical and intellectually, and honestly, lazy. Do you think that because two people disagree on a verse, that you are excused from seeking the truth on the matter?

Either Jesus Christ rose from the dead or He didnt. Either the Book of Mormon is a true record or it's not. The fact that rational people disagree, doesn't mean that neither answer is correct. It just means you need to go to the source and find out the truth from God.


----------



## Dr Grump

Avatar4321 said:


> It just means you need to go to the source and find out the truth from God.



And i have yet to meet anybody who has done so. Met plenty of people who have claimed such though....but I don't believe them...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar: I was unaware that we needed a consensus to determine what the truth is. I foolishly thought we were supposed to seek it for ourselves from the Source and then live it.

===============

I thought your prophets, Avatar, determined the "consensus" for "what the truth is."  You are not playing cleanly or fairly.

And, by the by, the earlier post by T'speaker about the concept of "pre-existent valiant spirits" and race etc is an outdated, shopworn much earlier LDS speculation that is no longer current among the LDS leadeship.  Go to LDS.org for a far more current position on the "blacks" and the Priesthood.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar: I was unaware that we needed a consensus to determine what the truth is. I foolishly thought we were supposed to seek it for ourselves from the Source and then live it.
> 
> ===============
> 
> I thought your prophets, Avatar, determined the "consensus" for "what the truth is."  You are not playing cleanly or fairly.
> 
> And, by the by, the earlier post by T'speaker about the concept of "pre-existent valiant spirits" and race etc is an outdated, shopworn much earlier LDS speculation that is no longer current among the LDS leadeship.  Go to LDS.org for a far more current position on the "blacks" and the Priesthood.



You're wrong. God determines what the truth is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar is parsing poorly.  Latter Day Saints (LDS), such as Avatar and Truthspeaker and others here, believe that their prophets reveal that consensus of God's will.  LDS merely ratify that consensus through personal prayer and pondering.  In other words, God is not going to speak for humanity to Avatar or me, and Avatar and I can't speak for God other than how He has revealed unto each of us individually for our own needs.  If Avatar attempted to speak to the LDS Church in the name of God, her prophets would silence her and excommunicate her if necessary.

Here is an interesting article on DNA and the genetic ancestors of Native Americans.  http://www.genetica rchaeology. com/research/ Native_Americans _descended_ from_a_single_ ancestral_ group_DNA_ study_confirms. asp


----------



## pare

Latter Day Saints (LDS) believe that God reveals the truth and His will through His prophets, and the prophets declare the truth and the will of God to the Church (mainly, the people who are in this world but are not of this world) and also to all humanity. 

The prophets have the priesthood authority from God that gives them the privilege to receive revelations and prophesy to the people as a whole or to particular persons as individuals. 

Other LDS leaders are also given the privilege to receive pertinent revelations through the Holy Spirit but only for the Church "units" for which they are given particular authority. 

Each of us is allowed the privilege to receive personal revelations on the truth and the will of God for ourselves through the Holy Spirit if we prove ourselves worthy. 

We therefore may determine for ourselves what the truth is and what the will of God is. But, sadly, we may also deceive ourselves if we have not prepared ourselves. 

. . .

_Truth according to a consensus of the people_ would be something that people in the majority voted upon to be the "truth." This is according to the popular idea that "the voice of the people is the voice of God." However, strictly, "the voice of the people" - even in the majority - is not necessarily the voice of God. Thus, _truth according to a consensus of the people_ is not necessarily the truth. The voice of God as the principal voice [or even the lone voice] in the consensus makes the consensus the truth. 

God has been trying to make people understand the truth so that they might obey His will. 

But most people don't even understand what the particulars are, and therefore they can't know what the truth is. Hence most people don't know God's will and therefore are unable to obey His will. 

. . .


----------



## Avatar4321

Why is revelation such a difficult concept for you? God reveals His will to His children. It's not consensus. People cant just agree what to call God's will and make it so. Only God can reveal His will. And the only way to learn that is through Humble supplication for the truth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr Grump said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just love it when hardcore Christians can't agree. Now you know why us non-believers think religion is hogwash. People interpret the scripts to suit themselves and announce it is "the truth"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course, it could just be because you dont bother putting in any effort to understand. Nor any bother to find God on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I put the effort in. With religious education classes I was always in the top 3 or 4 in the class....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religious classes do nothing but teach the tenets of different religions. Hopefully accurately, hopefully without biased interjections from the "professor".
> God is not found in class. He's found in private meditation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment, BTW, had nothing to do with my point. The Catholics say they have all the answers, as do the Mormons, then the Presbyterians, then the Lutherans, then the 7th day adventists, then the Baptists, then the Greek and Russian Orthodox...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Catholics do ANYTHING but claim to have all the answers. Their teaching is that you can't get all the answers. That everything is part of the great mystery of god; and since you can't know, you shouldn't question, which is the very essence of dogma.
> 
> The Presbyterians are a branch off of Calvinism who originally claimed the Pope to be the anti-christ. They believe the Bible itself to be infallible. They now believe that if you confess your faith and believe in Jesus you will be saved. If you don't you're going to hell. Pretty cut and dry who gets in to them.
> 
> The Lutherans are formed because of people who adopted Martin Luther's 95 theses into their religion. They too exist only to oppose the Catholic church. they believe the Bible infallible and the only document to be used for judgment in spiritual matters. They teach that everyone is going to heaven as a free gift from Jesus.
> 
> Seventh Day adventists have a peculiar obsession with the Jewish Sabbath Day being a major part of salvation. They think you need to observe it on Saturday to be in good standing with God.
> 
> Baptists focus on the need for baptism to get into heaven and particularly by immersion. All else burn in the lake of fire.
> 
> Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are essentially Catholicism. But even they broke away from the Roman Catholic church over doctrinal differences. They teach that all will go to hell if they don't accept their doctrines. Even if they never get a chance to hear them. Babies included.
> 
> We never claimed to have all the answers. We believe all that God has revealed. We believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to His kingdom.
> 
> We have NEVER claimed others are going to hell because they do not subscribe to our religion. Muslims certainly do. Jews not so much. They believe God judges on the heart. We agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...face it, you guys can't even decide amongst yourselves what is what...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is you are lumping us all together as if we believe we all are going to make it. That's not fair because we are all trying to separate ourselves from other churches. There can only be one true church, not two, or a thousand. That's because there can only be one correct answer to any theologic question. Different interpretations will always come but that doesn't mean they are all wrong together. It takes patience, desire and deep meditation to commune with God to get the right answers and weed out erroneous creeds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I haven't even started on the Sunni/Shi'ite/Nazari Muslims and Orthodox/Hisadic/Secular Jews...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's as simple as self righteous people condemning other self righteous people when they are all committing major sins by being and doing so. People who do such things think they know God because they know the verses of their scriptures; But they really don't because their violent actions do not agree with what their scriptures teach. Only according to their wild and secretly intentional manipulations of those scriptures.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr Grump said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just means you need to go to the source and find out the truth from God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And i have yet to meet anybody who has done so. Met plenty of people who have claimed such though....but I don't believe them...
Click to expand...


If you don't believe them then that's your prerogotive. It's my opinion that you have not had a true burning desire to know for yourself that God even exists, let alone what is his true religion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar: I was unaware that we needed a consensus to determine what the truth is. I foolishly thought we were supposed to seek it for ourselves from the Source and then live it.
> 
> ===============
> 
> I thought your prophets, Avatar, determined the "consensus" for "what the truth is."  You are not playing cleanly or fairly.
> 
> And, by the by, the earlier post by T'speaker about the concept of "pre-existent valiant spirits" and race etc is an outdated, shopworn much earlier LDS speculation that is no longer current among the LDS leadeship.  Go to LDS.org for a far more current position on the "blacks" and the Priesthood.



Thanks for changing the subject and again showing your lack of understanding our leadership from top to bottom. But I agree that everyone should visit lds.org as much as possible. 

The Prophet's word is not a consensus. It's a revelation direct from God. There's no democracy on the subject of what God's word is. It's a true monarchy with announcements coming from the Top.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar is parsing poorly.  Latter Day Saints (LDS), such as Avatar and Truthspeaker and others here, believe that their prophets reveal that consensus of God's will.  LDS merely ratify that consensus through personal prayer and pondering.  In other words, God is not going to speak for humanity to Avatar or me, and Avatar and I can't speak for God other than how He has revealed unto each of us individually for our own needs.  If Avatar attempted to speak to the LDS Church in the name of God, her prophets would silence her and excommunicate her if necessary.
> 
> Here is an interesting article on DNA and the genetic ancestors of Native Americans.  http://www.genetica rchaeology. com/research/ Native_Americans _descended_ from_a_single_ ancestral_ group_DNA_ study_confirms. asp



Of course God reveals us what we need to know. It would be contrary to order to have random people receive revelations for the whole church. It doesn't make sense logically.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Of course God reveals us what we need to know. It would be contrary to order to have random people receive revelations for the whole church. It doesn't make sense logically.



And yet anyone can know anything that is revealed to the Leaders through the same way. Through Humble prayer.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Here is an interesting article on DNA and the genetic ancestors of Native Americans.  http://www.genetica rchaeology. com/research/ Native_Americans _descended_ from_a_single_ ancestral_ group_DNA_ study_confirms. asp.



Thanks for coming back to this. It needs to be understood the DNA issue. It is indeed an interesting article. But it's just that. Interesting. It raises more questions than answers.
I don't doubt for one minute that there was a large migration from across the Siberian land bridge. But people who claim that that's the ONLY way people ever got here are clinging to a prejudicial dogma. The evidence in support of other migrations is now at the staggering point. People fail to realize just how much ancient trade happened accross the oceans in the ancient americas. Which is the reason why archaeologists continue to scratch their heads at the appearance of cocoa and tobacco and as many as 96 confirmed vegetables/plant species known to have origins in only the americas, appearing in ancient precolumbian Egypt and middle eastern countries. There are mountainous amounts of arguments for and against the Book of Mormon voyages described. It tells us one thing. One answer is correct. Either those migrations happened, or they didn't. 

Bear in mind these thoughts however, the migrations of the Jaredites, Nephites and Mulekites were all very small and shouldn't really be called migrations more than voyages. These were three secret voyages by small groups of people travelling unannounced. 

Scientists who think transoceanic voyages pre-columbus were impossible assume so IGNORANTLY(yes ignorantly. Just because someone has a scientist title doesn't mean they are beyond ignorance) and arrogantly. They believe our society is so advanced that it was so far ahead of theirs that they couldn't possibly have gained the technology on their own. they ignore that many technologies have been lost to time with the death of nations. This is a proven fact. They may even do so out of spite towards the Book of Mormon. Refusing to examine it's contents out of sheer stubbornness.

They also continue to ignore unrelated scientific evidence that the Knights templar came here in boats prior to Columbus. And oh yeah, the Vikings too. More and more we are finding that the technology was available. It was available to the ancient aboriginals who traveled an equivalent distance to Australia from Eurasia. How about the pacific Islanders?uh.................

These small voyages would not make them the primary people on the continent. But then again, as more and more discoveries are made, the more we realize we just don't know. 
For example the discovery of Stella 5 at Izapa Chiapas clearly depicting in great detail the vision of the tree of life in Lehi's vision.
Such things cannot be cast aside because of prejudice. I'm not demanding people join the church because of archaeological discoveries. I'm demanding an end to prejudicial dogmas not willing to open their minds to anything other than their conceited views. That's why their ideas are called theories, and not laws or facts. Too often theories are presented as a matter of fact. Too often gullible individuals believe them because they are "scientists"; forgetting that scientists are always taking a step back for every two they take forward.

When are people going to look at history responsibly?


----------



## Truthspeaker

This is an INCREDIBLE website. You can click on the links of each character and the linguist begins to explain how this language is decipherable. He seems to have cracked the code as to what the characters mean. This is truly awesome. 
Reformed Egyptian Anthon Transcript


----------



## JakeStarkey

And putting  Truthspeaker's whole post above into context with the original editions of the Book of Mormon and the contemporary writings, journals, sermons, and diaries leads to the great discussions of the nex decade: were the Book of Mormon peoples the great civilizations the original and subsequent Mormon leader sermonized about, were they a small group tucked away somewhere in south or centeral America, or is the BoM a wonderful fiction with great truths embedded into it?

These next decades will be a wonderful time for Mormon scholarship.


----------



## JakeStarkey

For more about the "valiant spirits" discussion of blacks and the LDS priesthood, research Rudger Clawson, Mark E. Peterson, Delbert Stapely and contact the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Knowledge at Brigham Young University for the latest apologetics on African American and the LDS priesthood.
Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Home


----------



## Truthspeaker

I've always hated the term apologetics because it seems to carry with it the idea we are appologizing for our beliefs and sticking to them in spite of major flaws. 
We have nothing to apologize for in our doctrine. I'm glad you are giving some publicity to the Maxwell Institute. It's refreshing. But I still as yet to disagree with anything they present. Which puzzles me every time you think I'm at odds with them. Please give an example of where I said something contrary to them.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> This is an INCREDIBLE website. You can click on the links of each character and the linguist begins to explain how this language is decipherable. He seems to have cracked the code as to what the characters mean. This is truly awesome.
> Reformed Egyptian Anthon Transcript



Reputable Egyptologists/scholars years ago refuted this "reformed heiroglyphics", yet your church has to perpetuate it any way they can.

I.E.  It is 19th century fakery.  Only your church and it's LDS sponsored or member researchers accept it as valid.


----------



## N4mddissent

Truthspeaker said:


> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I have answered everyone's questions. I am very happy now. Unless I am wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One question: Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great question. I personally do not believe Man evolved from lesser species. but I do believe animals can evolve. The church does not believe man evolved from any lower species either.
> 
> My problem with the theory of evolution is this:
> If we evolved from apes, why aren't there still hybrid type species evolving now? Why are chimps gaining intelligence past what they've shown?
> 
> Most scientists all agree that we came from a common ancestor. But they are all baffled by the sudden growth spike of intelligence about 6-10 thousand years ago. They all scratch their heads because they believe evolution of that kind would need another 500 million years or so. The rapidity of this growth to me is a strong evidence for the PLACING of man on this earth, rather than his evolvement from previous species.
> 
> That being said, if the theory of evolution WERE to be proven, it would only clarify to me in detail how God formed man. My mind is already made up on the subject, but I'm always open to new evidence.
Click to expand...


Go here and then tell me what you think.  More specifically, consider this section which I find very compelling.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an INCREDIBLE website. You can click on the links of each character and the linguist begins to explain how this language is decipherable. He seems to have cracked the code as to what the characters mean. This is truly awesome.
> Reformed Egyptian Anthon Transcript
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reputable Egyptologists/scholars years ago refuted this "reformed heiroglyphics", yet your church has to perpetuate it any way they can.
> 
> I.E.  It is 19th century fakery.  Only your church and it's LDS sponsored or member researchers accept it as valid.
Click to expand...


This is not the Hoffman forgery. There is a difference between the two. This is the actual "Anthon Script". Common sense dictates that the uneducated Smith had no such ability to write in such curious workmanship. The mere appearance has a strong sense of antiquity. 
By the way this reputable scholar who cracked the code explains in great simplicity how these figures are decipherable. His work is undeniable. Click to the website and refute him yourself.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an INCREDIBLE website. You can click on the links of each character and the linguist begins to explain how this language is decipherable. He seems to have cracked the code as to what the characters mean. This is truly awesome.
> Reformed Egyptian Anthon Transcript
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reputable Egyptologists/scholars years ago refuted this "reformed heiroglyphics", yet your church has to perpetuate it any way they can.
> 
> I.E.  It is 19th century fakery.  Only your church and it's LDS sponsored or member researchers accept it as valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not the Hoffman forgery. There is a difference between the two. This is the actual "Anthon Script". Common sense dictates that the uneducated Smith had no such ability to write in such curious workmanship. The mere appearance has a strong sense of antiquity.
> By the way this reputable scholar who cracked the code explains in great simplicity how these figures are decipherable. His work is undeniable. Click to the website and refute him yourself.
Click to expand...


Truthspeaker:  Your dream'n and hope'n but your wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon_transcript


> *Mainstream scholars' view of reformed Egyptian*
> 
> Standard language reference works contain no reference to "reformed Egyptian".[3] No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" orthography as it has been described in Mormon belief. For instance, in 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, "From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America&#8230; In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian'."[8] Klaus Baer, another Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, called the characters of the "Caractors" document nothing but "doodlings".[9] Anthropologist Michael D. Coe of Yale University, an expert in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican studies, has written, "Of all the peoples of the pre-Columbian New World, only the ancient Maya had a complete script."[10]
> 
> * The "Caractors" document*
> 
> Caractors document. Also known as the Anthon TranscriptIn 1828 Martin Harris, a farmer from Palmyra, New York received from Joseph Smith a copy of some of the "reformed Egyptian" characters from the gold plates in order to obtain scholarly opinion about their authenticity. Harris then presented the material to at least three scholars in the eastern United States, the most important being Charles Anthon, a noted classicist at Columbia College.[11]
> 
> In 1887, David Whitmer said that he had the piece of paper that Harris had showed to Anthon and the other scholars.[12] This short document is known as the Caractors document or the Anthon Transcript.
> 
> *Anthon's account of meeting with Harris
> Anthon believed "reformed Egyptian" to be a hoax:[13]*
> 
> The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be "reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics" is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me&#8230; Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax &#8230;On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calendar given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived&#8230; the paper contained any thing else but "Egyptian Hieroglyphics."[14]
> Pomeroy Tucker, a contemporary of Harris and Joseph Smith, wrote that all the scholars whom Harris visited "were understood to have scouted the whole pretense as too depraved for serious attention, while commiserating the applicant as the victim of fanaticism or insanity."[15]
> 
> Because Anthon's description seems inconsistent with the "caractors document"&#8212;for instance, there is no "rude delineation of a circle"&#8212;the latter may be only a portion of the material that Harris took to Anthon. Of course, Anthon might also have erred in his description of document; but as Dan Vogel has noted, Anthon must have realized that the document might be produced and his error revealed.[16]
> 
> *Harris' account of his meeting with Anthon*
> 
> According to an account which Joseph Smith attributed to Harris,[17] Anthon "stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. [Harris] then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters." According to the same account, Anthon provided Harris with a certificate as to the veracity of the characters but tore it up after learning the characters were copied from a book said to have been delivered by an angel.[18] Regardless of whether or not Anthon ever wrote such a certificate, it is highly unlikely that Anthon would have been able to read Egyptian hieroglyphs in the late 1820s when Harris showed him the writing specimen because during this period Egyptology was in its infancy.[19] In any case, after his visit with Anthon, Harris was willing to mortgage his farm to publish the Book of Mormon, although it is also possible that his eagerness was based (as he boasted to his wife and sister-in-law) on his belief that the Book of Mormon would be a financial windfall.[20]
> 
> *Hofmann Forgery*
> 
> Hofmann forgery of "Reformed Egyptian" document, LDS archives. Note the columnar arrangement and the "Mexican Calendar" described by Anthon.During the early 1980s, forger Mark Hofmann sold alleged Mormon materials to Mormon investors and the LDS Church, including a sample of reformed Egyptian characters


----------



## Truthspeaker

Oh come now, you just copied and pasted from Wikipedia who only reported the claims made by both sides. but you neglect the most recent findings of the man who cracked the code. Wikipedia is trying their best to be impartial. One can only glean from their representation on the subject that there are conflicting accounts. This latest observation I posted is very interesting and demands attention that the previous scientists "dismiss" without giving it a chance.


----------



## Truthspeaker

N4mddissent said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N4mddissent said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question: Do you accept the Theory of Evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great question. I personally do not believe Man evolved from lesser species. but I do believe animals can evolve. The church does not believe man evolved from any lower species either.
> 
> My problem with the theory of evolution is this:
> If we evolved from apes, why aren't there still hybrid type species evolving now? Why are chimps gaining intelligence past what they've shown?
> 
> Most scientists all agree that we came from a common ancestor. But they are all baffled by the sudden growth spike of intelligence about 6-10 thousand years ago. They all scratch their heads because they believe evolution of that kind would need another 500 million years or so. The rapidity of this growth to me is a strong evidence for the PLACING of man on this earth, rather than his evolvement from previous species.
> 
> That being said, if the theory of evolution WERE to be proven, it would only clarify to me in detail how God formed man. My mind is already made up on the subject, but I'm always open to new evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go here and then tell me what you think.  More specifically, consider this section which I find very compelling.
Click to expand...


I understand that just because some of the same genes seem to be located in all life forms doesn't mean they evolved from one common specimen. To me it's as simple as saying God has control of all the elements and just because he used the same elements, in different combinations, to create different life forms; it doesn't mean that man evolved from a lesser species. The genetic similarities of apes and humans is irrelevant to me because I can see that God just wanted to prove that all it takes is a little dose of a few materials to make us that much better than animals.

Like I mentioned before, there are no apes becoming smarter and teaching these things to their children. There is no morphing of man and apes going on right now. If man evolved from apes a really long time ago you would still see apes and hybrid species becoming new humans. There are no such hybrids. The bridge between apes and humans may be 2%. But that 2% is the same as 100% since no apes are making the transition. 

We all are related because we all are made up of the same periodic table of elements that God has complete control of. Do you think man made the table up just because we charted it and put it in our classrooms?

Whatever knowledge we gain is simply an uncovering of something God knew long before.

Perhaps I can finally get 8-ball to agree with me on something.

Today's scientists are doing exactly what Paul said people of the last days would be doing."Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

2nd Timothy chapter 3:6-7.

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
  8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.


----------



## jungulator

I don't know what people's beef with the Mormons is all about. Every Mormon I have ever met has been extremely polite and decent people. I don't know what more you could ask out of a religion. I mean honestly, I've never heard of a Mormon blowing themselves up to further their cause.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jungulator, read the _Deseret News _and the _Salt Lake Tribune _for a week.  You will quickly be disabused that Mormons (including the LDS) are much different than other folks in their behavior.  Having written the above, let me admit that I sure like the LDS in my town.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Jungulator, read the _Deseret News _and the _Salt Lake Tribune _for a week.  You will quickly be disabused that Mormons (including the LDS) are much different than other folks in their behavior.  Having written the above, let me admit that I sure like the LDS in my town.



I sure would like it if for once you would include a specific.


----------



## Dr.House

Bump


----------



## Liability

A girl in my old high school class became a Mormon back in those dark old ages of my "yute."  I discussed Latter Day Saints theology with her a couple of times, but could not pursue it since she was a bit too deeply immersed in it for my taste.  She said  that part of the religious belief of the Mormons was that we can all ultimately be Gods (or part of the One God?)  She wasn't entirely clear on it, and when I learned that it was also a very sexually repressed religion, I ran away.

A couple of other times in my life some "missionaries" came a knockin' at my door to talk about Jesus in the New World. 

I lost interest in such chats WAY early.

I cannot buy any part of the Gold Tablets story.  Too convienently "lost" for me to give it any credence.

What I know about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could thus fill a thimble, well, partly.

What I do know about it, I find unpersuasive.

On the other hand, Mormonism beats the living snot out of Islam which I consider to be a truly vile and depraved religion.

No offense.


----------



## Dr.House

Not my cup of tea either...


----------



## Dr.House

This is an interesting thread, though...


----------



## Dr.House

I didn't know Harry Reid was a Mormon...

Harry Reid: A Mormon in the middle - Salt Lake Tribune


----------



## Terry

I know little also.  While living in Hawaii I went to the Polynesian Cultural Center which is run by Mormons.  It was so hot, I had a fever and wanted to sit down somewhere.  The only place was a theater and what were they showing. Some film about the founder of Mormon religion and those tablets.  I couldn't at that time understand how anyone could adopt that nonsense but never really cared either.  I'm never one to knock down ones religion except maybe the one that practice murder in Allah's name. LOL


----------



## Si modo

Dr.House said:


> This is an interesting thread, though...


It is.  I haven't seen this thread.  I'll try to catch up in it.


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> A girl in my old high school class became a Mormon back in those dark old ages of my "yute."  I discussed Latter Day Saints theology with her a couple of times, but could not pursue it since she was a bit too deeply immersed in it for my taste.  She said  that part of the religious belief of the Mormons was that we can all ultimately be Gods (or part of the One God?)  She wasn't entirely clear on it, and when I learned that it was also a very sexually repressed religion, I ran away.
> 
> A couple of other times in my life some "missionaries" came a knockin' at my door to talk about Jesus in the New World.
> 
> I lost interest in such chats WAY early.
> 
> I cannot buy any part of the Gold Tablets story.  Too convienently "lost" for me to give it any credence.
> 
> What I know about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could thus fill a thimble, well, partly.
> 
> What I do know about it, I find unpersuasive.
> 
> On the other hand, Mormonism beats the living snot out of Islam which I consider to be a truly vile and depraved religion.
> 
> No offense.


That's pretty much my take - they seem really repressed, not only sexually, but in just enjoying some simple and harmless things in life.

Although, the Mormons that I have met have all been pretty decent folks.  We just had little in common.


----------



## California Girl

I like this thread, and Truthspeaker is such a great representative for his faith. I like Mormons.... generally, I find them to be decent people. I may not agree with their belief system but, as belief systems go, they do a lot of really good work. 

Total big up to the Mormons!


----------



## California Girl

I dated a Mormon guy once. He was really, really nice. And seriously hot looking! LOL.


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> I like this thread, and Truthspeaker is such a great representative for his faith. I like Mormons.... generally, I find them to be decent people. I may not agree with their belief system but, as belief systems go, they do a lot of really good work.
> 
> Total big up to the Mormons!


Yes.  They really value their philanthropy and the quality of it.  That's quite honorable.


----------



## California Girl

Actually, we dated more than once.


----------



## Dr.House

Helluva choir, too!

Those Christmas specials are spectacular....


----------



## California Girl

Maybe Truthspeaker could answer this one..... I seem to recall that the Mormons own a lot of property in Los Vegas. I find that odd with their view of gambling. 

I kinda remember it cuz I was in Vegas once with a friend and.... long story, short version.... we 'ran out of cash' and couldn't get back to California. Anyway, guy I dated lived in Provo, Ut. and I called him.  (Didn't want to 'fess up to the parents and couldn't face the lecture from only available brother - our Preach -huh Si Modo? LOL) Anyway, he dropped everything and bailed us out. Good guy. 

So, my opinion, based on the Mormons I know - pretty damned cool bunch.


----------



## California Girl

Dr.House said:


> Helluva choir, too!
> 
> Those Christmas specials are spectacular....



Hell yea! Those guys know how to sing!!! 

Can one say 'hell yea' in a thread about Mormons? LOL


----------



## California Girl

California Girl said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helluva choir, too!
> 
> Those Christmas specials are spectacular....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yea! Those guys know how to sing!!!
> 
> Can one say 'hell yea' in a thread about Mormons? LOL
Click to expand...


Oh crap, I should not have said hell!


----------



## California Girl

California Girl said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Helluva choir, too!
> 
> Those Christmas specials are spectacular....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell yea! Those guys know how to sing!!!
> 
> Can one say 'hell yea' in a thread about Mormons? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh crap, I should not have said hell!
Click to expand...


Oh shit! I should not have said crap.


----------



## Si modo

Dr.House said:


> Helluva choir, too!
> 
> Those Christmas specials are spectacular....


Damn straight!


----------



## California Girl

Senator Hatch is a Mormon, I think. I kinda like him. He seems a reasonably decent guy - for a politician.


----------



## Si modo

As DC has no skyline to speak of (altitude regulations for structures), the Mormon temple adds a bit of good spice to driving on the beltway.  It's pretty prominent.


----------



## chanel

Mitt Romney is yummy.


----------



## California Girl

chanel said:


> Mitt Romney is yummy.



Good point! For a politician - definitely one of the better looking ones.

And..... an intelligent man. Personally, I think he might make a decent POTUS. I would have given serious thought to voting for Mitt last time around. Economically, probably the smartest of the bunch last time around. 

I wonder if he'll run in '12?


----------



## Si modo

chanel said:


> Mitt Romney is yummy.


And, he's from a Michigan family.  There is a county in Michigan, Berrien, that is mostly Mormon.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A girl in my old high school class became a Mormon back in those dark old ages of my "yute."  I discussed Latter Day Saints theology with her a couple of times, but could not pursue it since she was a bit too deeply immersed in it for my taste.  She said  that part of the religious belief of the Mormons was that we can all ultimately be Gods (or part of the One God?)  She wasn't entirely clear on it, and when I learned that it was also a very sexually repressed religion, I ran away.
> 
> A couple of other times in my life some "missionaries" came a knockin' at my door to talk about Jesus in the New World.
> 
> I lost interest in such chats WAY early.
> 
> I cannot buy any part of the Gold Tablets story.  Too convienently "lost" for me to give it any credence.
> 
> What I know about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could thus fill a thimble, well, partly.
> 
> What I do know about it, I find unpersuasive.
> 
> On the other hand, Mormonism beats the living snot out of Islam which I consider to be a truly vile and depraved religion.
> 
> No offense.
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much my take - they seem really repressed, not only sexually, but in just enjoying some simple and harmless things in life.
> 
> Although, the Mormons that I have met have all been pretty decent folks.  We just had little in common.
Click to expand...


I agree.  Except when they (like some other prechy religions) come knocking on the door to talk about God with me, I kinda like them.

They tend to be good simple honest warm folks.

Their history is a bit messed up.

But that was then.

They are an adaptable lot.


----------



## Liability

I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney.


----------



## Liability

Why would a Christian denomination call its major cathedral a "tabernacle?"

Isn't that more of a Judaic thing?


----------



## Dr.House

Liability said:


> Why would a Christian denomination call its major cathedral a "tabernacle?"
> 
> Isn't that more of a Judaic thing?



I think its a word used for large congregational houses of wordhip...


----------



## California Girl

Dr.House said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a Christian denomination call its major cathedral a "tabernacle?"
> 
> Isn't that more of a Judaic thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its a word used for large congregational houses of wordhip...
Click to expand...


I'm sure that Truthspeaker will clarify for us. He's a honey that guy.


----------



## Liability

Dr.House said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a Christian denomination call its major cathedral a "tabernacle?"
> 
> Isn't that more of a Judaic thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its a word used for large congregational houses of wordhip...
Click to expand...


I'm sure that's it.

I guess maybe the Latter Day Saints were/are a bit NON-AntiSemitic in some ways?



> Main Entry: 1tab·er·na·cle
> Pronunciation: \&#712;ta-b&#601;r-&#716;na-k&#601;l\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin tabernaculum, from Latin, tent, from taberna hut
> Date: 13th century
> 1 a often capitalized : a tent sanctuary used by the Israelites during the Exodus b archaic : a dwelling place c archaic : a temporary shelter : tent
> 2 : a receptacle for the consecrated elements of the Eucharist; especially : an ornamental locked box used for reserving the Communion hosts
> 3 : a house of worship; specifically : a large building or tent used for evangelistic services
> 
>  tab·er·nac·u·lar  \&#716;ta-b&#601;r-&#712;na-ky&#601;-l&#601;r\ adjective


 tabernacle - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary


----------



## chanel

Mitt looks like a movie star.  My only fear of him running for POTUS is that he is so drop dead gorgeous that he must have a Monica in his past.  In fact did I mention my real name is Monica?


----------



## Liability

chanel said:


> Mitt looks like a movie star.  My only fear of him running for POTUS is that he is so drop dead gorgeous that he must have a Monica in his past.  In fact did I mention my real name is Monica?



Oh Monica.  Did you ever get the stain outta that blue dress?


----------



## Liability

Is this a GREAT thread or WHAT?


----------



## Si modo

It IS a great thread!

I bet the Mormons don't look too kindly on drug runners.  I could be wrong, though, as I'm still learning about Mormons.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> It IS a great thread!
> 
> I bet the Mormons don't look too kindly on drug runners.  I could be wrong, though, as I'm still learning about Mormons.



Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It IS a great thread!
> 
> I bet the Mormons don't look too kindly on drug runners.  I could be wrong, though, as I'm still learning about Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
Click to expand...

You are right.  No nicotine, either.  Hell, one can't even buy certain items in Berrien County, MI (Mormon county) - no ciggies, no alcohol - it's a dry county.


----------



## chanel

Do they dance?  I love dancing!!!!


----------



## Avatar4321

Si modo said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting thread, though...
> 
> 
> 
> It is.  I haven't seen this thread.  I'll try to catch up in it.
Click to expand...


Good luck. I dont think ive caught up and ive been posting in it for a while.


----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> I dated a Mormon guy once. He was really, really nice. And seriously hot looking! LOL.



I didnt know we dated... wow where was i?


----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> Maybe Truthspeaker could answer this one..... I seem to recall that the Mormons own a lot of property in Los Vegas. I find that odd with their view of gambling.
> 
> I kinda remember it cuz I was in Vegas once with a friend and.... long story, short version.... we 'ran out of cash' and couldn't get back to California. Anyway, guy I dated lived in Provo, Ut. and I called him.  (Didn't want to 'fess up to the parents and couldn't face the lecture from only available brother - our Preach -huh Si Modo? LOL) Anyway, he dropped everything and bailed us out. Good guy.
> 
> So, my opinion, based on the Mormons I know - pretty damned cool bunch.



Las Vegas was actually an early Mormon Colony that was abandoned in 1857. Not sure it had the same name then but there was a small settlement there. And not all of Vegas is the strip.


----------



## Avatar4321

chanel said:


> Do they dance?  I love dancing!!!!



Yes... but better than Elaine.


----------



## Intense

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It IS a great thread!
> 
> I bet the Mormons don't look too kindly on drug runners.  I could be wrong, though, as I'm still learning about Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
Click to expand...


Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!


----------



## Avatar4321

Intense said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It IS a great thread!
> 
> I bet the Mormons don't look too kindly on drug runners.  I could be wrong, though, as I'm still learning about Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
Click to expand...


Huggy is bent out of shape over this thread? why?


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huggy is bent out of shape over this thread? why?
Click to expand...


Most unclear, but probably related to the fact that he's a wicked douche.

Call it a hunch.


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dated a Mormon guy once. He was really, really nice. And seriously hot looking! LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt know we dated... wow where was i?
Click to expand...


  You don't even remember? Damn! We dated for a while!! That's hurtful!! I was sure you would remember me.


----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> You don't even remember? Damn! We dated for a while!! That's hurtful!! I was sure you would remember me.



Were you the blonde or the brunette?


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Truthspeaker could answer this one..... I seem to recall that the Mormons own a lot of property in Los Vegas. I find that odd with their view of gambling.
> 
> I kinda remember it cuz I was in Vegas once with a friend and.... long story, short version.... we 'ran out of cash' and couldn't get back to California. Anyway, guy I dated lived in Provo, Ut. and I called him.  (Didn't want to 'fess up to the parents and couldn't face the lecture from only available brother - our Preach -huh Si Modo? LOL) Anyway, he dropped everything and bailed us out. Good guy.
> 
> So, my opinion, based on the Mormons I know - pretty damned cool bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Las Vegas was actually an early Mormon Colony that was abandoned in 1857. Not sure it had the same name then but there was a small settlement there. And not all of Vegas is the strip.
Click to expand...


Ohhh! Ok. 

Well, I've learned something from this thread. 

Actually two things. One about Vegas and the other that you're a Mormon.  Cool


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huggy is bent out of shape over this thread? why?
Click to expand...


I would hazzard a guess that he's upset cuz this thread is more interesting than his stupid rants about everyone who dares not be a liberal?


----------



## chanel

Avatar4321 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huggy is bent out of shape over this thread? why?
Click to expand...



Like this?


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even remember? Damn! We dated for a while!! That's hurtful!! I was sure you would remember me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you the blonde or the brunette?
Click to expand...


Both!


----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even remember? Damn! We dated for a while!! That's hurtful!! I was sure you would remember me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you the blonde or the brunette?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both!
Click to expand...


One of the reasons i miss california lol


----------



## Liability

Miss California.

That's funny.

On an unrelated note, I have some questions for our CJCoLDS (Mormon) buddies:

Has anybody found those missing Gold Tablets yet?

And, when one gets REALLY REALLY hungry, is it still okay to eat your travel companions?


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> Miss California.
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> On an unrelated note, I have some questions for our CJCoLDS (Mormon) buddies:
> 
> Has anybody found those missing Gold Tablets yet?
> 
> And, when one gets REALLY REALLY hungry, is it still okay to eat your travel companions?



yeah, well i said one reason. i didnt say there were enough reasons to get me to go back.

They arent missing. Moroni has them.

never heard that its every alright to eat your traveling companion let alone still.


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miss California.
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> On an unrelated note, I have some questions for our CJCoLDS (Mormon) buddies:
> 
> Has anybody found those missing Gold Tablets yet?
> 
> And, when one gets REALLY REALLY hungry, is it still okay to eat your travel companions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, well i said one reason. i didnt say there were enough reasons to get me to go back.
> 
> They arent missing. Moroni has them.
> 
> never heard that its every alright to eat your traveling companion let alone still.
Click to expand...


My bad.  Smith DID return the Golden PLATES to the Angel Moroni.  Of course.  Too bad that this means nobody else can now verify the underlying record of Mormonism.  Oh well.  I guess Angels need gold, too.

As for Mormons eating their traveling companions, I might have to go back and re-read the old histories of the Donner Party.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> My bad.  Smith DID return the Golden PLATES to the Angel Moroni.  Of course.  Too bad that this means nobody else can now verify the underlying record of Mormonism.  Oh well.  I guess Angels need gold, too.
> 
> As for Mormons eating their traveling companions, I might have to go back and re-read the old histories of the Donner Party.



There were 12 witnesses for the plates. Much like there were Twelve witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ. And the Holy Spirit can tell us the truth of all things. I have no doubt that Moroni shows the plates to whomever the Lord wants Him to.

As for the Donner party. I thought they were heading for California. I could be wrong though its been a while since i read up on that.


----------



## Si modo

Avatar4321 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting thread, though...
> 
> 
> 
> It is.  I haven't seen this thread.  I'll try to catch up in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck. I dont think ive caught up and ive been posting in it for a while.
Click to expand...

I'm still catching up, but I do like posting here.


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  Smith DID return the Golden PLATES to the Angel Moroni.  Of course.  Too bad that this means nobody else can now verify the underlying record of Mormonism.  Oh well.  I guess Angels need gold, too.
> 
> As for Mormons eating their traveling companions, I might have to go back and re-read the old histories of the Donner Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were 12 witnesses for the plates. Much like there were Twelve witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ. And the Holy Spirit can tell us the truth of all things. I have no doubt that Moroni shows the plates to whomever the Lord wants Him to.
> 
> As for the Donner party. I thought they were heading for California. I could be wrong though its been a while since i read up on that.
Click to expand...


12 witnesses?  Oh, well.  That makes it all credible, then.  For there couldn't possibly be any group of 12 folks who have agreed to a fraud.

And I believe the Donner Party was heading to California.

Why that matters, I have no idea.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> 12 witnesses?  Oh, well.  That makes it all credible, then.  For there couldn't possibly be any group of 12 folks who have agreed to a fraud.



It's not the fact that there are witnesses that makes it credible. Though it does burn the argument that no one else saw anything. And it does follow the law of witnesses described in the scriptures.

No, what makes it credible is the lives of the actual witnesses. 

How many people who know they are part of a fraud are willing to die for it? How many people, after being excommunicated and having a major falling out with the leader of the presumed fraud, will continue to affirm their testimonies that they saw the plates and the Angel till the day they die rather than denounce it?

How many people who know they took part in a fraud will later return after being excommunicated, and submit themselves before the people to be rebaptized despite knowing they will have no position of authority as they once had?

How many people will give up their fortunes to knowingly take part in a fraud with provides no monetary benefit for them?

It's extremely odd behavior if 12 people were in on a conspiracy.


----------



## Intense

Liability said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  Smith DID return the Golden PLATES to the Angel Moroni.  Of course.  Too bad that this means nobody else can now verify the underlying record of Mormonism.  Oh well.  I guess Angels need gold, too.
> 
> As for Mormons eating their traveling companions, I might have to go back and re-read the old histories of the Donner Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were 12 witnesses for the plates. Much like there were Twelve witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ. And the Holy Spirit can tell us the truth of all things. I have no doubt that Moroni shows the plates to whomever the Lord wants Him to.
> 
> As for the Donner party. I thought they were heading for California. I could be wrong though its been a while since i read up on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12 witnesses?  Oh, well.  That makes it all credible, then.  For there couldn't possibly be any group of 12 folks who have agreed to a fraud.
> 
> And I believe the Donner Party was heading to California.
> 
> Why that matters, I have no idea.
Click to expand...


I believe Donner Pass is up by Reno and Susanville.


----------



## chanel

Holy moly - 163 pages! Interesting stuff.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Heck, the loonies here have half of America in on taking down the 9-11 towers.

Nazis died for their beliefs.

9-11 highjackers died for their beliefs.

Smith died for his beliefs. 

Go back and see if any of the witnesses admitted to actually seeing the tablets with their own eyes.

Also give the famly relationships of the twelve witnesses.


----------



## RadiomanATL

Booga-booga


----------



## California Girl

Liability said:


> Is this a GREAT thread or WHAT?



I agree. It's an awesome thread. I particularly like that the Mormons among us treat people respectfully, even when those people don't deserve it.


----------



## Intense

Even Huggy!!!


----------



## chanel

That's so true intense, but as a half practicing Catholic, my agnostic half tells me not to be so kind to such a loser. Too bad I'm not as loving as the Mormons.


Great thread BTW.


----------



## RadiomanATL




----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> I agree. It's an awesome thread. I particularly like that the Mormons among us treat people respectfully, even when those people don't deserve it.



It's not easy. and I will free admit I am far less than perfect. I am not perfectly patient and kind. But there is one quote I read from Joseph Smith when i was a teenager that stuck with me very strongly. It's this one:



> The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.
> 
> It is a love of liberty which inspires my soulcivil and religious liberty to the whole of the human race. Love of liberty was diffused into my soul by my grandfathers while they dandled me on their knees.
> 
> If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Living with Others in Peace and Harmony


----------



## Avatar4321

RadiomanATL said:


>



For some reason, I dont think that's accurate. Maybe its all the kids in all the mormon families i know. Just because someone is a slut, doesnt mean they arent good in bed with their spouse.


----------



## Si modo

I didn't know you were Mormon, Avatar.

And, I do believe the Donner party was going to California.

I hear the Donners have the original patent on Soylent Green.


----------



## Intense

Si modo said:


> I didn't know you were Mormon, Avatar.
> 
> And, I do believe the Donner party was going to California.
> 
> I hear the Donners have the original patent on Soylent Green.



Wagon's East was John Candy's last Movie, He died while making it. It is worth seeing and a good laugh. 


[edit] Party formation
The nucleus of the party consisted of the families of George Donner, his brother Jacob, and James F. Reed of Springfield, Illinois, plus their hired hands, about 33 people in all, with nine covered wagons. They set out for California in mid-April 1846, arrived at Independence, Missouri, on May 10, 1846, and left two days later.[1]

On May 19, 1846, the Donners and Reeds joined a large wagon train captained by William H. Russell. Most of those who became members of the Donner Party were also in this group. For the next two months the travelers followed the California Trail until they reached the Little Sandy River, in what is now Wyoming, where they camped alongside several other overland parties. There, those emigrants who had decided to take a new route ("Hastings Cutoff," named after its promoter, Lansford Hastings), formed a new wagon train. They elected George Donner their captain, creating the Donner Party, on July 19.[1] At its height, it numbered 87 emigrants with 23 wagons.[2]

The Donner Party continued westward to Fort Bridger, where Hastings Cutoff began, and set out on the new route on August 31. They endured great hardships while crossing the Wasatch Mountains and the Great Salt Lake Desert, finally rejoining the California Trail near modern Elko, Nevada, on September 26. The "shortcut" had taken them over three weeks longer than had they used the customary route. They met further setbacks and delays while traveling along Nevada's Humboldt River.[1]

[edit] Snow at Donner Pass
When they reached the Sierra Nevada at the end of October, a snowstorm blocked their way over what is now known as Donner Pass. Demoralized and low on supplies, about three quarters of the emigrants camped at a lake (now called Donner Lake), while the Donner families and a few others camped about six miles (ten kilometers) away, in the Alder Creek Valley.[1]

The emigrants slaughtered their remaining oxen, but there was not enough meat to feed so many for long. In mid-December, fifteen of the trapped emigrants, later known as the Forlorn Hope, made snowshoes and set out for Sutter's Fort, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) away. This group consisted of 10 men and five women. When one man gave out and had to be left behind, the others continued, but soon became lost and ran out of food. Caught without shelter in a raging blizzard, four of the party died. The survivors resorted to cannibalism, then continued on their journey; three more died and were also cannibalized. Close to death, the seven surviving snowshoers&#8212;two men, and all five of the women&#8212;finally reached safety on the western side of the mountains on January 18, 1847.[1]

[edit] Legacy
Donner Memorial State Park, near the town of Truckee, California, at the eastern end of Donner Lake, commemorates the disaster; the area where the Donner families camped at Alder Creek has been designated a National Historic Landmark. 
Several places in western states take their names from the Donner Party: Donner Hill, Donner-Reed Pass, and Donner Spring in Utah; Donner Springs in Nevada; and Donner Lake, Pass, Peak, and Summit in California. 
*The route the Donner Party blazed into the Salt Lake Valley via Emigration Canyon was used the following year by the vanguard company of Mormon pioneers. The section from Fort Bridger to the valley became part of the Mormon Trail and remained the main route to Salt Lake City into the 1860s. *
The memory of the Donner disaster prompted Californians to fund relief teams during the gold rush. They sent men eastward along the trails to take food and water to overland emigrants, saving many lives.[3] 


Donner Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Liability

California Girl said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a GREAT thread or WHAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It's an awesome thread. I particularly like that the Mormons among us treat people respectfully, even when those people don't deserve it.
Click to expand...


I don't deserve to be treated with respect?  

Oh wait. 

As a general rule, that's probably true.

Nevermind.

Could be worse.

I could be the smuggly bastige whining about this great thread.


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 witnesses?  Oh, well.  That makes it all credible, then.  For there couldn't possibly be any group of 12 folks who have agreed to a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact that there are witnesses that makes it credible. Though it does burn the argument that no one else saw anything. And it does follow the law of witnesses described in the scriptures.
> 
> No, what makes it credible is the lives of the actual witnesses.
> 
> How many people who know they are part of a fraud are willing to die for it? How many people, after being excommunicated and having a major falling out with the leader of the presumed fraud, will continue to affirm their testimonies that they saw the plates and the Angel till the day they die rather than denounce it?
> 
> How many people who know they took part in a fraud will later return after being excommunicated, and submit themselves before the people to be rebaptized despite knowing they will have no position of authority as they once had?
> 
> How many people will give up their fortunes to knowingly take part in a fraud with provides no monetary benefit for them?
> 
> It's extremely odd behavior if 12 people were in on a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


Well, I can tell my tweaking has become offensive.

I like tweaking.  But except for Islam, I don't like to be unnecessarily offensive about anyone's religion.

So, I apologize.

I do, however, wish to keep bumping this thread.

It is a great thread.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> Well, I can tell my tweaking has become offensive.
> 
> I like tweaking.  But except for Islam, I don't like to be unnecessarily offensive about anyone's religion.
> 
> So, I apologize.
> 
> I do, however, wish to keep bumping this thread.
> 
> It is a great thread.



I wasnt offended at all. Quite the opposite. nice to have discussions with respectful people.


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a GREAT thread or WHAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It's an awesome thread. I particularly like that the Mormons among us treat people respectfully, even when those people don't deserve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't deserve to be treated with respect?
> 
> Oh wait.
> 
> As a general rule, that's probably true.
> 
> Nevermind.
> 
> Could be worse.
> 
> I could be the smuggly bastige whining about this great thread.
Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt Cali-G meant that YOU were being disrespectful. 

But it is a great thread.


----------



## eagleseven

I generally like Mormons, though I personally find their sacred text to be about as probable as the Bible. Still, great people overall.


----------



## chanel




----------



## California Girl

Liability said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12 witnesses?  Oh, well.  That makes it all credible, then.  For there couldn't possibly be any group of 12 folks who have agreed to a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the fact that there are witnesses that makes it credible. Though it does burn the argument that no one else saw anything. And it does follow the law of witnesses described in the scriptures.
> 
> No, what makes it credible is the lives of the actual witnesses.
> 
> How many people who know they are part of a fraud are willing to die for it? How many people, after being excommunicated and having a major falling out with the leader of the presumed fraud, will continue to affirm their testimonies that they saw the plates and the Angel till the day they die rather than denounce it?
> 
> How many people who know they took part in a fraud will later return after being excommunicated, and submit themselves before the people to be rebaptized despite knowing they will have no position of authority as they once had?
> 
> How many people will give up their fortunes to knowingly take part in a fraud with provides no monetary benefit for them?
> 
> It's extremely odd behavior if 12 people were in on a conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I can tell my tweaking has become offensive.
> 
> I like tweaking.  But except for Islam, I don't like to be unnecessarily offensive about anyone's religion.
> 
> So, I apologize.
> 
> I do, however, wish to keep bumping this thread.
> 
> It is a great thread.
Click to expand...



I certainly didn't mean you. Just that it makes a change to participate in a thread where people don't use agression (me included) to make a point.


----------



## Intense

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can tell my tweaking has become offensive.
> 
> I like tweaking.  But except for Islam, I don't like to be unnecessarily offensive about anyone's religion.
> 
> So, I apologize.
> 
> I do, however, wish to keep bumping this thread.
> 
> It is a great thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt offended at all. Quite the opposite. nice to have discussions with respectful people.
Click to expand...


So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???


----------



## Avatar4321

Intense said:


> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???



Eh. ive never watched it so i couldnt tell you. It does promote people asking questions though and I think that usually turns out to be good


----------



## Intense

Avatar4321 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh. ive never watched it so i couldnt tell you. It does promote people asking questions though and I think that usually turns out to be good
Click to expand...


That's part of the mixed blessing.


----------



## Avatar4321

Intense said:


> That's part of the mixed blessing.



Yeah I suppose it is. Honestly, I dont its influencing much at all though.  I just hope people dont take tv shows as gospel.


----------



## Skeptik

California Girl said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney is yummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point! For a politician - definitely one of the better looking ones.
> 
> And..... an intelligent man. Personally, I think he might make a decent POTUS. I would have given serious thought to voting for Mitt last time around. Economically, probably the smartest of the bunch last time around.
> 
> I wonder if he'll run in '12?
Click to expand...


He already is.

I wonder what total nonsense about his religion will be repeated  as fact this time around?


----------



## Intense

Avatar4321 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's part of the mixed blessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I suppose it is. Honestly, I dont its influencing much at all though.  I just hope people dont take tv shows as gospel.
Click to expand...


Next You will tell me that the Soprano's were fake. Don't fool around like that.


----------



## California Girl

Skeptik said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mitt Romney is yummy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point! For a politician - definitely one of the better looking ones.
> 
> And..... an intelligent man. Personally, I think he might make a decent POTUS. I would have given serious thought to voting for Mitt last time around. Economically, probably the smartest of the bunch last time around.
> 
> I wonder if he'll run in '12?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He already is.
> 
> I wonder what total nonsense about his religion will be repeated  as fact this time around?
Click to expand...


Personally, I was very disappointed with the whining about his faith. It is immaterial to me what religion someone chooses to practice.

There was a time when it was thought that a Catholic could never be POTUS.... and then along came JFK.


----------



## Intense

California Girl said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point! For a politician - definitely one of the better looking ones.
> 
> And..... an intelligent man. Personally, I think he might make a decent POTUS. I would have given serious thought to voting for Mitt last time around. Economically, probably the smartest of the bunch last time around.
> 
> I wonder if he'll run in '12?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He already is.
> 
> I wonder what total nonsense about his religion will be repeated  as fact this time around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I was very disappointed with the whining about his faith. It is immaterial to me what religion someone chooses to practice.
> 
> There was a time when it was thought that a Catholic could never be POTUS.... and then along came JFK.
Click to expand...


After the Coordinated Political Assassination of of Tom Delay, Romney was My first choice of the field that developed. Now I'd put Him first again, with Huckabee second, I'd love to see a prominent position for Sarah, Cabinet Level minimum.


----------



## Christopher

California Girl said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a GREAT thread or WHAT?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It's an awesome thread. I particularly like that the Mormons among us treat people respectfully, even when those people don't deserve it.
Click to expand...


As another Mormon on this forum, I hope I have lived up to that.  I can get carried away sometimes.

I agree, this is an excellent thread.


----------



## Christopher

Intense said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can tell my tweaking has become offensive.
> 
> I like tweaking.  But except for Islam, I don't like to be unnecessarily offensive about anyone's religion.
> 
> So, I apologize.
> 
> I do, however, wish to keep bumping this thread.
> 
> It is a great thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt offended at all. Quite the opposite. nice to have discussions with respectful people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???
Click to expand...


The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.


----------



## Liability

Continuing a theme from a few posts back:

I don't recall ever meeting ANY Mormon (not even the mormon missionaries who were utterly unable to convince me of anything about their religion) whom I would consider bad people.  

Whatever one might think of their religion, I gotta join with those who commend the Mormons as people.  There may be some exceptions, but for the most part, judging by  the Mormons I have met in my life, they are decent, good people.

Has anybody here ever had a truly negative experience at that hands of a Mormon?


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> Continuing a theme from a few posts back:
> 
> I don't recall ever meeting ANY Mormon (not even the mormon missionaries who were utterly unable to convince me of anything about their religion) whom I would consider bad people.
> 
> Whatever one might think of their religion, I gotta join with those who commend the Mormons as people.  There may be some exceptions, but for the most part, judging by  the Mormons I have met in my life, they are decent, good people.
> 
> Has anybody here ever had a truly negative experience at that hands of a Mormon?


Yes, when I wanted some caffeine from a Mormon-run quick store. Don't get between my caffeine and me and expect me to have nice things to say for the next hour.

About Romney, his religion doesn't bother me and it's irrelevant, unless he is some flaming fundie about it.  His flip-flopping does bother me, though.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already is.
> 
> I wonder what total nonsense about his religion will be repeated  as fact this time around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I was very disappointed with the whining about his faith. It is immaterial to me what religion someone chooses to practice.
> 
> There was a time when it was thought that a Catholic could never be POTUS.... and then along came JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the Coordinated Political Assassination of of Tom Delay, Romney was My first choice of the field that developed. Now I'd put Him first again, with Huckabee second, I'd love to see a prominent position for Sarah, Cabinet Level minimum.
Click to expand...


Tom got what he deserved (disgraced) and sent back to that sinkhole by Houston.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt offended at all. Quite the opposite. nice to have discussions with respectful people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.
Click to expand...


I have known several active LDS families that are plurally married, mostly in Salt Lake but a couple around Denver, too.  It doesn't matter at all if the LDS church approves or not.  The families certainly consider themselves LDS, and that is what counts.


----------



## chanel

I had some Mormon friends in high school. Great kids. Star athletes.


----------



## mudwhistle

I guess you could classify me as a Mormon.

I haven't been active for awhile but the church and the way of life are both wholesome and family friendly.

I don't believe in the doctrine......the reason I split from the church was because of what I would call discriminatory practices.

Aside from that....I can think of worse churches to join.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> I have known several active LDS families that are plurally married, mostly in Salt Lake but a couple around Denver, too.  It doesn't matter at all if the LDS church approves or not.  The families certainly consider themselves LDS, and that is what counts.



Why the heck not? i mean why not ignore clear deliniations of who is or is not a member of the Church? i mean that baptism or excommunication is meaningless. As long as you claim it, who cares whether its true or not?

Any member caught engaging in plural marriage would be excommunicated. IE they would no longer be LDS. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Avatar4321

mudwhistle said:


> I guess you could classify me as a Mormon.
> 
> I haven't been active for awhile but the church and the way of life are both wholesome and family friendly.
> 
> I don't believe in the doctrine......the reason I split from the church was because of what I would call discriminatory practices.
> 
> Aside from that....I can think of worse churches to join.



There are worse??? then us? Seriously? I never would have known that from the way people talk


----------



## Intense

Christopher said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt offended at all. Quite the opposite. nice to have discussions with respectful people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.
Click to expand...


The show distinguishes well and paints LDS in a better light.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I was very disappointed with the whining about his faith. It is immaterial to me what religion someone chooses to practice.
> 
> There was a time when it was thought that a Catholic could never be POTUS.... and then along came JFK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the Coordinated Political Assassination of of Tom Delay, Romney was My first choice of the field that developed. Now I'd put Him first again, with Huckabee second, I'd love to see a prominent position for Sarah, Cabinet Level minimum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tom got what he deserved (disgraced) and sent back to that sinkhole by Houston.
Click to expand...


What did Tom deserve Ass Hat. Lets Gerrymander and screw up Texas some more with no respect to People. Shame on You and your bad math shit head. Those Boundary lines were reason enough to indict the likes of all of you. You had to make up law that wasn't in existence at the time of the occurrences to go after him? Fuck Off! What happened to Jefferson should have happened to half of the DNC Ass wipe. And What did You do with him when caught dead to rights? Put him on the ethics committee? And Where is He now after the light of Justice nailed his ass?


----------



## mudwhistle

Avatar4321 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you could classify me as a Mormon.
> 
> I haven't been active for awhile but the church and the way of life are both wholesome and family friendly.
> 
> I don't believe in the doctrine......the reason I split from the church was because of what I would call discriminatory practices.
> 
> Aside from that....I can think of worse churches to join.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are worse??? then us? Seriously? I never would have known that from the way people talk
Click to expand...


Well what does it really matter what people think?

We've all been taught most of our lives that there would come a time when we would become targets. The reason last year was because of politics. They couldn't afford to have somebody like Romney spoiling it for Obama.


----------



## chanel

> Larry King is an agnostic Jew, but he attends church occasionally with his wife, Shawn King, a "devout Mormon." He has been friendly to the Church in the media, and he has interviewed President Gordon B. Hinkley.



http://www.famousmormons.net/rumor.html

Very nice to hear.


----------



## mudwhistle

Intense said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The show distinguishes well and paints LDS in a better light.
Click to expand...


I've watched it a couple of times. It doesn't hold a flattering light on the church. 

Hollywood is well known for showing the worst side of Christianity and "Big Love" is no exception.

Nothing about the show gives me the feeling..."Hey, I wanna join that church!!"


----------



## Intense

mudwhistle said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show distinguishes well and paints LDS in a better light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've watched it a couple of times. It doesn't hold a flattering light on the church.
> 
> Hollywood is well known for showing the worst side of Christianity and "Big Love" is no exception.
> 
> Nothing about the show gives me the feeling..."Hey, I wanna join that church!!"
Click to expand...


Honest assessment. There is some good the show, but I agree it has the potential to do more damage than good. Still, it did not compare to real News events last year, if you think back. Again, that was not LDS. 

I voted for Romney last time, and I didn't like the way McCain and Huckabee Teamed up against Him. Nor did I like the Polarization of the Christian Right against Him. I don't agree with Your Spiritual Beliefs, yet We share common values. It is not a Political Issue for me at all.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> A girl in my old high school class became a Mormon back in those dark old ages of my "yute."  I discussed Latter Day Saints theology with her a couple of times, but could not pursue it since she was a bit too deeply immersed in it for my taste.  She said  that part of the religious belief of the Mormons was that we can all ultimately be Gods (or part of the One God?)  She wasn't entirely clear on it, and when I learned that it was also a very sexually repressed religion, I ran away.
> 
> A couple of other times in my life some "missionaries" came a knockin' at my door to talk about Jesus in the New World.
> 
> I lost interest in such chats WAY early.
> 
> I cannot buy any part of the Gold Tablets story.  Too convienently "lost" for me to give it any credence.
> 
> What I know about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could thus fill a thimble, well, partly.
> 
> What I do know about it, I find unpersuasive.
> 
> On the other hand, Mormonism beats the living snot out of Islam which I consider to be a truly vile and depraved religion.
> 
> No offense.


No offense taken. To be clear, the Golden Plates were not lost. They were taken. The reason people don't believe the golden plates story is because they don't believe in miracles or they don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

There are some more persuasive points of our doctrine if you would care to examine them. But that's neither here nor there.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Si modo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A girl in my old high school class became a Mormon back in those dark old ages of my "yute."  I discussed Latter Day Saints theology with her a couple of times, but could not pursue it since she was a bit too deeply immersed in it for my taste.  She said  that part of the religious belief of the Mormons was that we can all ultimately be Gods (or part of the One God?)  She wasn't entirely clear on it, and when I learned that it was also a very sexually repressed religion, I ran away.
> 
> A couple of other times in my life some "missionaries" came a knockin' at my door to talk about Jesus in the New World.
> 
> I lost interest in such chats WAY early.
> 
> I cannot buy any part of the Gold Tablets story.  Too convienently "lost" for me to give it any credence.
> 
> What I know about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could thus fill a thimble, well, partly.
> 
> What I do know about it, I find unpersuasive.
> 
> On the other hand, Mormonism beats the living snot out of Islam which I consider to be a truly vile and depraved religion.
> 
> No offense.
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much my take - they seem really repressed, not only sexually, but in just enjoying some simple and harmless things in life.
> 
> Although, the Mormons that I have met have all been pretty decent folks.  We just had little in common.
Click to expand...


I'm not repressed at all.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Si modo said:


> As DC has no skyline to speak of (altitude regulations for structures), the Mormon temple adds a bit of good spice to driving on the beltway.  It's pretty prominent.



My parents were married in that temple.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A girl in my old high school class became a Mormon back in those dark old ages of my "yute."  I discussed Latter Day Saints theology with her a couple of times, but could not pursue it since she was a bit too deeply immersed in it for my taste.  She said  that part of the religious belief of the Mormons was that we can all ultimately be Gods (or part of the One God?)  She wasn't entirely clear on it, and when I learned that it was also a very sexually repressed religion, I ran away.
> 
> A couple of other times in my life some "missionaries" came a knockin' at my door to talk about Jesus in the New World.
> 
> I lost interest in such chats WAY early.
> 
> I cannot buy any part of the Gold Tablets story.  Too convienently "lost" for me to give it any credence.
> 
> What I know about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints could thus fill a thimble, well, partly.
> 
> What I do know about it, I find unpersuasive.
> 
> On the other hand, Mormonism beats the living snot out of Islam which I consider to be a truly vile and depraved religion.
> 
> No offense.
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much my take - they seem really repressed, not only sexually, but in just enjoying some simple and harmless things in life.
> 
> Although, the Mormons that I have met have all been pretty decent folks.  We just had little in common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Except when they (like some other prechy religions) come knocking on the door to talk about God with me, I kinda like them.
> 
> They tend to be good simple honest warm folks.
> 
> Their history is a bit messed up.
> 
> But that was then.
> 
> They are an adaptable lot.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know what group of people has a clean history in your book?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Why would a Christian denomination call its major cathedral a "tabernacle?"
> 
> Isn't that more of a Judaic thing?



Tabernacle is an english word:
any place or house of worship, esp. one designed for a large congregation. You think of it as Jewish because that's the english word the King James writers used to describe the Jewish temple.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a Christian denomination call its major cathedral a "tabernacle?"
> 
> Isn't that more of a Judaic thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its a word used for large congregational houses of wordhip...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's it.
> 
> I guess maybe the Latter Day Saints were/are a bit NON-AntiSemitic in some ways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Main Entry: 1tab·er·na·cle
> Pronunciation: \&#712;ta-b&#601;r-&#716;na-k&#601;l\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin tabernaculum, from Latin, tent, from taberna hut
> Date: 13th century
> 1 a often capitalized : a tent sanctuary used by the Israelites during the Exodus b archaic : a dwelling place c archaic : a temporary shelter : tent
> 2 : a receptacle for the consecrated elements of the Eucharist; especially : an ornamental locked box used for reserving the Communion hosts
> 3 : a house of worship; specifically : a large building or tent used for evangelistic services
> 
>  tab·er·nac·u·lar  \&#716;ta-b&#601;r-&#712;na-ky&#601;-l&#601;r\ adjective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tabernacle - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Click to expand...


We're the best friends the Jews ever had, and they don't even know it.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its a word used for large congregational houses of wordhip...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's it.
> 
> I guess maybe the Latter Day Saints were/are a bit NON-AntiSemitic in some ways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Main Entry: 1tab·er·na·cle
> Pronunciation: \&#712;ta-b&#601;r-&#716;na-k&#601;l\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin tabernaculum, from Latin, tent, from taberna hut
> Date: 13th century
> 1 a often capitalized : a tent sanctuary used by the Israelites during the Exodus b archaic : a dwelling place c archaic : a temporary shelter : tent
> 2 : a receptacle for the consecrated elements of the Eucharist; especially : an ornamental locked box used for reserving the Communion hosts
> 3 : a house of worship; specifically : a large building or tent used for evangelistic services
> 
>  tab·er·nac·u·lar  \&#716;ta-b&#601;r-&#712;na-ky&#601;-l&#601;r\ adjective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tabernacle - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're the best friends the Jews ever had, and they don't even know it.
Click to expand...


You are Among The Best Friends The Jew's ever had, and Yes, They seem to miss that one allot.


----------



## Truthspeaker

chanel said:


> Do they dance?  I love dancing!!!!



Don't let the smile fool you. I got moves.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Intense said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It IS a great thread!
> 
> I bet the Mormons don't look too kindly on drug runners.  I could be wrong, though, as I'm still learning about Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
Click to expand...


I miss Huggy. I miss my friend


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I miss Huggy. I miss my friend
Click to expand...


Go visit Him on His Thread. He needs company.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy is bent out of shape over this thread? why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most unclear, but probably related to the fact that he's a wicked douche.
> 
> Call it a hunch.
Click to expand...


Nailed it.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, as I understand their religion, don't even drink coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I miss Huggy. I miss my friend
Click to expand...


I like you but your taste in friends is a tad hinky.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Miss California.
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> On an unrelated note, I have some questions for our CJCoLDS (Mormon) buddies:
> 
> Has anybody found those missing Gold Tablets yet?
> 
> And, when one gets REALLY REALLY hungry, is it still okay to eat your travel companions?



The plates were removed for safekeeping by Moroni the angel. they will be back. We will all get to see them one day.

Dude you crack me up! The Donner Party were not Mormons.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they dance?  I love dancing!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the smile fool you. I got moves.
Click to expand...


I need evidence!


----------



## Liability

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they dance?  I love dancing!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the smile fool you. I got moves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need evidence!
Click to expand...


I have seen Elaine dance.

I need a drynk!  I'm not a Mormon (or a Muslim) (or a Baptist), so my religion does not prohibit it!

Thank God!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Intense said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> He already is.
> 
> I wonder what total nonsense about his religion will be repeated  as fact this time around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I was very disappointed with the whining about his faith. It is immaterial to me what religion someone chooses to practice.
> 
> There was a time when it was thought that a Catholic could never be POTUS.... and then along came JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the Coordinated Political Assassination of of Tom Delay, Romney was My first choice of the field that developed. Now I'd put Him first again, with Huckabee second, I'd love to see a prominent position for Sarah, Cabinet Level minimum.
Click to expand...


I'm very surprised you mentioned an absolute slime like Huckabee. there couldn't be a more two faced, selfish and bitter person. Can't hold back on that guy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Christopher said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasnt offended at all. Quite the opposite. nice to have discussions with respectful people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist." If there were such a thing, we would be it, not the breakoffs


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I was very disappointed with the whining about his faith. It is immaterial to me what religion someone chooses to practice.
> 
> There was a time when it was thought that a Catholic could never be POTUS.... and then along came JFK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After the Coordinated Political Assassination of of Tom Delay, Romney was My first choice of the field that developed. Now I'd put Him first again, with Huckabee second, I'd love to see a prominent position for Sarah, Cabinet Level minimum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very surprised you mentioned an absolute slime like Huckabee. there couldn't be a more two faced, selfish and bitter person. Can't hold back on that guy.
Click to expand...


I agree! There's something about Huckabee that just makes me suspicious. Mitt, on the other hand..... yeap, I would consider voting for him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Continuing a theme from a few posts back:
> 
> I don't recall ever meeting ANY Mormon (not even the mormon missionaries who were utterly unable to convince me of anything about their religion) whom I would consider bad people.
> 
> Whatever one might think of their religion, I gotta join with those who commend the Mormons as people.  There may be some exceptions, but for the most part, judging by  the Mormons I have met in my life, they are decent, good people.
> 
> Has anybody here ever had a truly negative experience at that hands of a Mormon?



I have. There is such a thing. The Bishop who interviewed me to be baptized eventually cheated on his wife, apostatized and ran away from his family of 6 kids for a younger woman.


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Continuing a theme from a few posts back:
> 
> I don't recall ever meeting ANY Mormon (not even the mormon missionaries who were utterly unable to convince me of anything about their religion) whom I would consider bad people.
> 
> Whatever one might think of their religion, I gotta join with those who commend the Mormons as people.  There may be some exceptions, but for the most part, judging by  the Mormons I have met in my life, they are decent, good people.
> 
> Has anybody here ever had a truly negative experience at that hands of a Mormon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. There is such a thing. The Bishop who interviewed me to be baptized eventually cheated on his wife, apostatized and ran away from his family of 6 kids for a younger woman.
Click to expand...


"apostatized!" Now that there is a cool word, if it IS actually a word!  

In any event, once he apostatized I hypothesize that he ceased to be a Mormon, and thus he cannot be one of the _bad people_ who _are_ Mormons.

Convenient?

You BET!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> So while We are here getting ready to leave Huggy's Thread in the dust, may I respectfully ask You Your take on "Big Love"? Do You find it helpful or hurtful, or a mixed blessing to LDS???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have known several active LDS families that are plurally married, mostly in Salt Lake but a couple around Denver, too.  It doesn't matter at all if the LDS church approves or not.  The families certainly consider themselves LDS, and that is what counts.
Click to expand...


No, what counts is the truth. Just because Islamic terrorists think they're doing god's will by killing infadels, doesn't mean "that's what counts." They are not approved by us and our official leadership, and that's the truth.


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miss California.
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> On an unrelated note, I have some questions for our CJCoLDS (Mormon) buddies:
> 
> Has anybody found those missing Gold Tablets yet?
> 
> And, when one gets REALLY REALLY hungry, is it still okay to eat your travel companions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plates were removed for safekeeping by Moroni the angel. they will be back. We will all get to see them one day.
> 
> Dude you crack me up! The Donner Party were not Mormons.
Click to expand...


No.  But the Mormons took advantage of the poor bastards thus getting them to the point where they had to engage in cannabalism.

Which makes the Mormons who did that to the poor bastards even lower than cannibals.

Unless, of course, I'm just all wet on this whole "history" thang.


----------



## Truthspeaker

mudwhistle said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I see with the show, although I have never watched it, is that from what I understand it portrays the Fundamentalist LDS faith (FLDS).  This is a completely separate sect that broke away from the mainstream LDS faith and many people confuse this and believe every Mormon today practices polygamy.  I think that can be a bad thing with some of the recent things going on with the FLDS and some of its leaders like Warren Jeffs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The show distinguishes well and paints LDS in a better light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've watched it a couple of times. It doesn't hold a flattering light on the church.
> 
> Hollywood is well known for showing the worst side of Christianity and "Big Love" is no exception.
> 
> Nothing about the show gives me the feeling..."Hey, I wanna join that church!!"
Click to expand...


The title itself is corny and creepy. I saw a few clips of the show. Definitely not members of our church. If they attend it is not with all the wives and they are kept secret from the Bishop. They are lying. But what is more likely is that they attend their own breakoff religion that has many similarities with the real church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow!!! This is the Thread Huggy is so bent out of shape over? I like Posting here!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I miss Huggy. I miss my friend
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like you but your taste in friends is a tad hinky.
Click to expand...


More like a tad sarcastic


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I miss Huggy. I miss my friend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like you but your taste in friends is a tad hinky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like a tad sarcastic
Click to expand...


I thought it was a 'Mormon' thing - befriending those who are beyond redemption!


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do they dance?  I love dancing!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the smile fool you. I got moves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need evidence!
Click to expand...


I'm the tallest one. But I only dance with a mask on.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8vyfG1aJW4]YouTube - jabbawockeez michael jackson[/ame]


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the Coordinated Political Assassination of of Tom Delay, Romney was My first choice of the field that developed. Now I'd put Him first again, with Huckabee second, I'd love to see a prominent position for Sarah, Cabinet Level minimum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very surprised you mentioned an absolute slime like Huckabee. there couldn't be a more two faced, selfish and bitter person. Can't hold back on that guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree! There's something about Huckabee that just makes me suspicious. Mitt, on the other hand..... yeap, I would consider voting for him.
Click to expand...


You do know about him getting busted for having a secret family after the elections right?

and how about this one?
White Civil Rights » Mike Huckabee Hard Drive Scandal
or his role in the release of serial rapists
Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't let the smile fool you. I got moves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need evidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm the tallest one. But I only dance with a mask on.
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8vyfG1aJW4]YouTube - jabbawockeez michael jackson[/ame]
Click to expand...




H O T ! ! !


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Continuing a theme from a few posts back:
> 
> I don't recall ever meeting ANY Mormon (not even the mormon missionaries who were utterly unable to convince me of anything about their religion) whom I would consider bad people.
> 
> Whatever one might think of their religion, I gotta join with those who commend the Mormons as people.  There may be some exceptions, but for the most part, judging by  the Mormons I have met in my life, they are decent, good people.
> 
> Has anybody here ever had a truly negative experience at that hands of a Mormon?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. There is such a thing. The Bishop who interviewed me to be baptized eventually cheated on his wife, apostatized and ran away from his family of 6 kids for a younger woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "apostatized!" Now that there is a cool word, if it IS actually a word!
> 
> In any event, once he apostatized I hypothesize that he ceased to be a Mormon, and thus he cannot be one of the _bad people_ who _are_ Mormons.
> 
> Convenient?
> 
> You BET!
Click to expand...


Not convenient for his wife and kids. Not convenient that he was once a voice for our church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Miss California.
> 
> That's funny.
> 
> On an unrelated note, I have some questions for our CJCoLDS (Mormon) buddies:
> 
> Has anybody found those missing Gold Tablets yet?
> 
> And, when one gets REALLY REALLY hungry, is it still okay to eat your travel companions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plates were removed for safekeeping by Moroni the angel. they will be back. We will all get to see them one day.
> 
> Dude you crack me up! The Donner Party were not Mormons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  But the Mormons took advantage of the poor bastards thus getting them to the point where they had to engage in cannabalism.
> 
> Which makes the Mormons who did that to the poor bastards even lower than cannibals.
> 
> Unless, of course, I'm just all wet on this whole "history" thang.
Click to expand...


There is no truth to the story that we in any way caused donner party suffering.


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like you but your taste in friends is a tad hinky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like a tad sarcastic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought it was a 'Mormon' thing - befriending those who are beyond redemption!
Click to expand...


I'll be anyone's friend. He just won't be mine.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very surprised you mentioned an absolute slime like Huckabee. there couldn't be a more two faced, selfish and bitter person. Can't hold back on that guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree! There's something about Huckabee that just makes me suspicious. Mitt, on the other hand..... yeap, I would consider voting for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know about him getting busted for having a secret family after the elections right?
> 
> and how about this one?
> White Civil Rights » Mike Huckabee Hard Drive Scandal
> or his role in the release of serial rapists
> Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release
Click to expand...


I tend to treat this sort of stuff - particularly when it comes to light when it is most serendipitious - with a large pinch of salt. Not that it isn't true but I'm always suspicious about timing. 

But..... I have a serious question about Mormons.....  How come y'all get married so young?


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like a tad sarcastic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was a 'Mormon' thing - befriending those who are beyond redemption!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be anyone's friend. He just won't be mine.
Click to expand...


He's even more stupid than I had credited him as. Color me Suprised Pink!


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree! There's something about Huckabee that just makes me suspicious. Mitt, on the other hand..... yeap, I would consider voting for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know about him getting busted for having a secret family after the elections right?
> 
> and how about this one?
> White Civil Rights » Mike Huckabee Hard Drive Scandal
> or his role in the release of serial rapists
> Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to treat this sort of stuff - particularly when it comes to light when it is most serendipitious - with a large pinch of salt. Not that it isn't true but I'm always suspicious about timing.
> 
> But..... I have a serious question about Mormons.....  How come y'all get married so young?
Click to expand...


Because time is a wastin. We desire families and we know what we want and don't have the hardest time picking apart a potential spouse hoping they're gonna be perfect. 

Also Brigham Young once said that any man over the age of 27 and unmarried was a menace to society. also, due to presentism, that statement doesn't apply to our day, community and age.

Interestingly enough, I can't think of too many guys that age or above that are single, that contribute much to society.


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plates were removed for safekeeping by Moroni the angel. they will be back. We will all get to see them one day.
> 
> Dude you crack me up! The Donner Party were not Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But the Mormons took advantage of the poor bastards thus getting them to the point where they had to engage in cannabalism.
> 
> Which makes the Mormons who did that to the poor bastards even lower than cannibals.
> 
> Unless, of course, I'm just all wet on this whole "history" thang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no truth to the story that we in any way caused donner party suffering.
Click to expand...


On that point, we disagree.

But to the extent that some Mormons did deserve some level of blame, I do not actually attribute that to Mormons in general. I was just being jocular on that level, before.


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. There is such a thing. The Bishop who interviewed me to be baptized eventually cheated on his wife, apostatized and ran away from his family of 6 kids for a younger woman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "apostatized!" Now that there is a cool word, if it IS actually a word!
> 
> In any event, once he apostatized I hypothesize that he ceased to be a Mormon, and thus he cannot be one of the _bad people_ who _are_ Mormons.
> 
> Convenient?
> 
> You BET!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not convenient for his wife and kids. Not convenient that he was once a voice for our church.
Click to expand...


No.  But convenient that he is not actually a Mormon.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BTW is Huggy to blame for this recent influx of human beings willing to discuss civilly with one another? What is his thread all about?


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know about him getting busted for having a secret family after the elections right?
> 
> and how about this one?
> White Civil Rights » Mike Huckabee Hard Drive Scandal
> or his role in the release of serial rapists
> Documents Expose Huckabee's Role In Serial Rapist's Release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to treat this sort of stuff - particularly when it comes to light when it is most serendipitious - with a large pinch of salt. Not that it isn't true but I'm always suspicious about timing.
> 
> But..... I have a serious question about Mormons.....  How come y'all get married so young?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because time is a wastin. We desire families and we know what we want and don't have the hardest time picking apart a potential spouse hoping they're gonna be perfect.
> 
> Also Brigham Young once said that any man over the age of 27 and unmarried was a menace to society. also, due to presentism, that statement doesn't apply to our day, community and age.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I can't think of too many guys that age or above that are single, that contribute much to society.
Click to expand...


Oh, I guess that kinda makes sense. My fiance was a Mormon.... although he left the Church and became a Catholic (like me).... but he used to refer to me as his Pearl of Great Price - I never knew where that expression came from until about a year or so ago.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> BTW is Huggy to blame for this recent influx of human beings willing to discuss civilly with one another? What is his thread all about?



Yes, he had ambitions to overtake this thread with his stupid neocons list. Some of us resent that so we're here to defend the Mormons!


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> BTW is Huggy to blame for this recent influx of human beings willing to discuss civilly with one another? What is his thread all about?



SMuggly started a thread to "discuss" as uncivilly as possible, his concern with "traitrous" "neocon" "&%$#s"  (I choose to edit that last f-bomb out of respect for folks who are more civil and polite than Smuggly is -- or than I am).

The problem is that SMuggly has absolutely no clue what a "neocon" is.  And he uses the term "traitorous" in a way that Amnesty International would consider torture.

It is SMuggly's stated desire to generate bigger posting numbers on his sub-moronic thread than you generated with this thread.

The civility here is just a natural spill-over, resulting from NOT trying to "communicate" with a guy like SMuggly.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plates were removed for safekeeping by Moroni the angel. they will be back. We will all get to see them one day.
> 
> Dude you crack me up! The Donner Party were not Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  But the Mormons took advantage of the poor bastards thus getting them to the point where they had to engage in cannabalism.
> 
> Which makes the Mormons who did that to the poor bastards even lower than cannibals.
> 
> Unless, of course, I'm just all wet on this whole "history" thang.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no truth to the story that we in any way caused donner party suffering.
Click to expand...


The Connection with The Donner Party, is that They Blazed the Trail Through and Around Salt Lake, Which the Mormons used to found the City.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> BTW is Huggy to blame for this recent influx of human beings willing to discuss civilly with one another? What is his thread all about?



Actually it is about outperforming Huggy's Thread and leaving it in the dust. You never mind that though. This has been an interesting day here... huh. God works in mysterious ways.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ah... That is rich. He actually said he could generate a longer standing thread than this one? With that topic? He'll have to do it himself. I wasn't trying to create the longest standing thread or anything but I guess that's what it turned out to be. I don't really care who has the longer thread. It ain't about quantity. 
Actually I think the song thread is the longest. But I've been at this for a year now so it will have to be a pretty universal topic to outlast this one. I could stop now and it will be one of the longest of all time?


----------



## Intense

You The Man!!!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Intense said:


> You The Man!!!


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> No.  But the Mormons took advantage of the poor bastards thus getting them to the point where they had to engage in cannabalism.
> 
> Which makes the Mormons who did that to the poor bastards even lower than cannibals.
> 
> Unless, of course, I'm just all wet on this whole "history" thang.



I think you are a bit wet. Mormons didnt settle Utah till a year after the Donner party. Im sure had the Saints been there, the Donner party wouldnt have been remembered.


----------



## Avatar4321

Intense said:


> You The Man!!!



Thank you for noticing... oh wait, that was to me right?


----------



## Tony_S

Joe Rogan on Mormons....

Click Here


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tony_S said:


> Joe Rogan on Mormons....
> 
> Click Here



Wow Joe, I didn't know you had it in ya. What a complete freakin moron.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I tend to treat this sort of stuff - particularly when it comes to light when it is most serendipitious - with a large pinch of salt. Not that it isn't true but I'm always suspicious about timing.
> 
> But..... I have a serious question about Mormons.....  How come y'all get married so young?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because time is a wastin. We desire families and we know what we want and don't have the hardest time picking apart a potential spouse hoping they're gonna be perfect.
> 
> Also Brigham Young once said that any man over the age of 27 and unmarried was a menace to society. also, due to presentism, that statement doesn't apply to our day, community and age.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I can't think of too many guys that age or above that are single, that contribute much to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I guess that kinda makes sense. My fiance was a Mormon.... although he left the Church and became a Catholic (like me).... but he used to refer to me as his Pearl of Great Price - I never knew where that expression came from until about a year or so ago.
Click to expand...


Wonder who reminded you of that.


----------



## Si modo

Truthspeaker said:


> BTW is Huggy to blame for this recent influx of human beings willing to discuss civilly with one another? What is his thread all about?


Yes, it is nice to see human beings speaking civilly to one another, even disagreeing human beings, isn't it?


----------



## California Girl

mudwhistle said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because time is a wastin. We desire families and we know what we want and don't have the hardest time picking apart a potential spouse hoping they're gonna be perfect.
> 
> Also Brigham Young once said that any man over the age of 27 and unmarried was a menace to society. also, due to presentism, that statement doesn't apply to our day, community and age.
> 
> Interestingly enough, I can't think of too many guys that age or above that are single, that contribute much to society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I guess that kinda makes sense. My fiance was a Mormon.... although he left the Church and became a Catholic (like me).... but he used to refer to me as his Pearl of Great Price - I never knew where that expression came from until about a year or so ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wonder who reminded you of that.
Click to expand...


Whoever it was, he's a wonderful, wonderful person. He will always have a very special place in my heart.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I guess that kinda makes sense. My fiance was a Mormon.... although he left the Church and became a Catholic (like me).... but he used to refer to me as his Pearl of Great Price - I never knew where that expression came from until about a year or so ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder who reminded you of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever it was, he's a wonderful, wonderful person. He will always have a very special place in my heart.
Click to expand...


Must have been ether Huggy or Gaybiker.

Whomever it is he's one lucky guy.


----------



## Dr.House

Si modo said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW is Huggy to blame for this recent influx of human beings willing to discuss civilly with one another? What is his thread all about?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is nice to see human beings speaking civilly to one another, even disagreeing human beings, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Absolutely...  Kudos to those willing to do so in this thread...


----------



## California Girl

I actually wouldn't mind living in Utah. It's a kinda cool state.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> I actually wouldn't mind living in Utah. It's a kinda cool state.



Especially during the Winter.


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> I actually wouldn't mind living in Utah. It's a kinda cool state.


It's a bit hot and dry and land-locked for my tastes, but it is nice to visit.  Bryce Canyon is gorgeous.


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I guess that kinda makes sense. My fiance was a Mormon.... although he left the Church and became a Catholic (like me).... but he used to refer to me as his Pearl of Great Price - I never knew where that expression came from until about a year or so ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder who reminded you of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoever it was, he's a wonderful, wonderful person. He will always have a very special place in my heart.
Click to expand...


The Pearl of Great Price is a book that contains some of the ancient writings of Abraham, Moses and some modern writings of Joseph Smith Jr.


----------



## Truthspeaker

mudwhistle said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually wouldn't mind living in Utah. It's a kinda cool state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially during the Winter.
Click to expand...


More like a friggin cold state


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> More like a friggin cold state



Better for dates... then they have to stay close


----------



## mudwhistle

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder who reminded you of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever it was, he's a wonderful, wonderful person. He will always have a very special place in my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Pearl of Great Price is a book that contains some of the ancient writings of Abraham, Moses and some modern writings of Joseph Smith Jr.
Click to expand...


Goes along with the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants.


----------



## Liability

How do you change a Mormon into a moron?

(A)  Take away the second "m," or
(B)  convert him or her into the Islamic Faith.


How do you change an adherent of Islam into a moron?

(A)  You don't.  They are already there.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually wouldn't mind living in Utah. It's a kinda cool state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially during the Winter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like a friggin cold state
Click to expand...


Pussy!!!!  What do You think about St. George?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> How do you change a Mormon into a moron?
> 
> (A)  Take away the second "m," or
> (B)  convert him or her into the Islamic Faith.
> 
> 
> How do you change an adherent of Islam into a moron?
> 
> (A)  You don't.  They are already there.



I think that's an immature post. Seriously, don't take this personal but you gotta pay attention to the things you say. Do you think we've never heard the childish moron, mormon thing before?
Also it's ignorant to say all adherents of Islam are morons. There are morons everywhere. Although I disagree with Islam, I wouldn't call muslims morons.

The terrorists you speak of are beyond morons.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Intense said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially during the Winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like a friggin cold state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pussy!!!!  What do You think about St. George?
Click to expand...


Hey man I'm from California. San Fran is the coldest I'm used to.


----------



## Si modo

Good skiing in Utah.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> More like a friggin cold state
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pussy!!!!  What do You think about St. George?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey man I'm from California. San Fran is the coldest I'm used to.
Click to expand...


Lived 10 years in Santa Cruz. Miss it!! Miss walking the Golden Gate too!


----------



## Intense

Si modo said:


> Good skiing in Utah.



Road Runner Country!!!


----------



## mudwhistle

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you change a Mormon into a moron?
> 
> (A)  Take away the second "m," or
> (B)  convert him or her into the Islamic Faith.
> 
> 
> How do you change an adherent of Islam into a moron?
> 
> (A)  You don't.  They are already there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's an immature post. Seriously, don't take this personal but you gotta pay attention to the things you say. Do you think we've never heard the childish moron, mormon thing before?
> Also it's ignorant to say all adherents of Islam are morons. There are morons everywhere. Although I disagree with Islam, I wouldn't call muslims morons.
> 
> The terrorists you speak of are beyond morons.
Click to expand...


I think that type of thinking goes beyond immature.

Rosie O'Donnell pretty much spelled out the way progressives think. They tend to take Islam, Mormonism, and Catholicism and lump them all together. They can't tell the difference.


----------



## Intense

mudwhistle said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you change a Mormon into a moron?
> 
> (A)  Take away the second "m," or
> (B)  convert him or her into the Islamic Faith.
> 
> 
> How do you change an adherent of Islam into a moron?
> 
> (A)  You don't.  They are already there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's an immature post. Seriously, don't take this personal but you gotta pay attention to the things you say. Do you think we've never heard the childish moron, mormon thing before?
> Also it's ignorant to say all adherents of Islam are morons. There are morons everywhere. Although I disagree with Islam, I wouldn't call muslims morons.
> 
> The terrorists you speak of are beyond morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that type of thinking goes beyond immature.
> 
> Rosie O'Donnell pretty much spelled out the way progressives think. They tend to take Islam, Mormonism, and Catholicism and lump them all together. They can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...


Look at it as the "Throwing Stones" Phase that normal People out grow.

When's the last time you saw a "Throwing Stones For Jesus" bumper Sticker? How'd You like to see that on the side of a bus?


----------



## Truthspeaker

so what is it about Mormons that just annoys the crap out of any of you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormons are no more annoying than Catholics or Church of Christ or UPC or anyone else believes that their road is the "one true way" to salvation.

I like Mormons as neighbors far more than some of the other evangelical denominations in the Deep South.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> so what is it about Mormons that just annoys the crap out of any of you?



Name Tags. We see You before You see Us. LOL


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Mormons are no more annoying than Catholics or Church of Christ or UPC or anyone else believes that their road is the "one true way" to salvation.
> 
> I like Mormons as neighbors far more than some of the other evangelical denominations in the Deep South.



Pesky concept of absolute truth. I understand why people dont like it, but it still exists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avi, such exists between the individual and the divine only.  There is no mortal intermediary power.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avi, such exists between the individual and the divine only.  There is no mortal intermediary power.



Weren't you complaining just hours ago about people who believe their way is the only way?


----------



## Avatar4321

Oh and a personal gloat for me.

Philadelphia Temple site announced

Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple Site Announced - LDS Newsroom

Whoo!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Oh and a personal gloat for me.
> 
> Philadelphia Temple site announced
> 
> Philadelphia Pennsylvania Temple Site Announced - LDS Newsroom
> 
> Whoo!



That's great. I didn't think it was possible. that's my birthtown too.


----------



## California Girl

mudwhistle said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you change a Mormon into a moron?
> 
> (A)  Take away the second "m," or
> (B)  convert him or her into the Islamic Faith.
> 
> 
> How do you change an adherent of Islam into a moron?
> 
> (A)  You don't.  They are already there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's an immature post. Seriously, don't take this personal but you gotta pay attention to the things you say. Do you think we've never heard the childish moron, mormon thing before?
> Also it's ignorant to say all adherents of Islam are morons. There are morons everywhere. Although I disagree with Islam, I wouldn't call muslims morons.
> 
> The terrorists you speak of are beyond morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that type of thinking goes beyond immature.
> 
> Rosie O'Donnell pretty much spelled out the way progressives think. They tend to take Islam, Mormonism, and Catholicism and lump them all together. They can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...


Got to say though, althought considered perhaps strange bedfellows, when the Mormons and the Catholics work together - they are a hugely beneficial force. Look what they did to Prop 8 in California!!! LOL. 

I think using the 'moron' thing with Mormons is particularly unintelligent. It's so screamingly obvious - I imagine there isn't a Mormon on the planet who has not heard that one hundreds of times. It says more about the person using it than the Mormon it is intended to offend.


----------



## Luissa

I have many mormon relatives, love them no matter what. I just have a problem with the way some of the men treat their wives but I also know that not all them treat their wives in the same way.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually wouldn't mind living in Utah. It's a kinda cool state.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bit hot and dry and land-locked for my tastes, but it is nice to visit.  Bryce Canyon is gorgeous.
Click to expand...


Bryce is just about my favorite place on the planet. Good point about the land-locked thing - I do love to be near to coastline.


----------



## froggy

a self rightous religion in which you write your own bible, please!


----------



## mudwhistle

Luissa said:


> I have many mormon relatives, love them no matter what. I just have a problem with the way some of the men treat their wives but I also know that not all them treat their wives in the same way.



The Mormon church doesn't teach you to treat your spouse except for treat them with respect. 

Those guys are acting that way on their own.


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> a self rightous religion in which you write your own bible, please!



That comment sounded a bit self-righteous as well.

Also very petty considering what was being discussed.


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> a self rightous religion in which you write your own bible, please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That comment sounded a bit self-righteous as well.
> 
> Also very petty considering what was being discussed.
Click to expand...


how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avi, such exists between the individual and the divine only.  There is no mortal intermediary power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you complaining just hours ago about people who believe their way is the only way?
Click to expand...


Don't deflect the discussion, and you are inaccurate anyway.

We are talking about our relationship with the divine, which is of course going to be individual and unsullied by any mortal authority.


----------



## California Girl

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avi, such exists between the individual and the divine only.  There is no mortal intermediary power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you complaining just hours ago about people who believe their way is the only way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't deflect the discussion, and you are inaccurate anyway.
> 
> We are talking about our relationship with the divine, which is of course going to be individual and unsullied by any mortal authority.
Click to expand...


That may be your belief, it is not necessarily the belief of others.


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> a self rightous religion in which you write your own bible, please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That comment sounded a bit self-righteous as well.
> 
> Also very petty considering what was being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.
Click to expand...


Where does this "WE" come from?

Did you write the New Testiment?


The original Bible or Torah was the first several chapters of the Old Testiment. Then the New Testiment was added and other chapters added to the Old Testiment.

Jews could claim "YOU" added another book to their book.


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That comment sounded a bit self-righteous as well.
> 
> Also very petty considering what was being discussed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does this "WE" come from?
> 
> Did you write the New Testiment?
> 
> 
> The original Bible or Torah was the first several chapters of the Old Testiment. Then the New Testiment was added and other chapters added to the Old Testiment.
> 
> Jews could claim "YOU" added another book to their book.
Click to expand...

Revelation 22:18-19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

What is God saying here?

You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: This is the End. Dont tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.

Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever. 

Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18. 

Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this "WE" come from?
> 
> Did you write the New Testiment?
> 
> 
> The original Bible or Torah was the first several chapters of the Old Testiment. Then the New Testiment was added and other chapters added to the Old Testiment.
> 
> Jews could claim "YOU" added another book to their book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelation 22:18-19
> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 
> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> 
> What is God saying here?
> 
> You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: This is the End. Dont tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.
> 
> Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.
> 
> Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God
Click to expand...


You sound like Al Gore. "The matter is closed to discussion"

Jesus said the Bible was to be a living document to be written in our hearts. If it is living why is it impossible for a living thing to grow? I tend to trust Jesus more then John who wrote the book of Revelation.

Another thing you might want to note. The King James version was written centuries later and some of the books in the original version were taken out, changes made in the original text to fit the language of the day. So in effect the Bible we read today was banned according to the book of Revelation.


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this "WE" come from?
> 
> Did you write the New Testiment?
> 
> 
> The original Bible or Torah was the first several chapters of the Old Testiment. Then the New Testiment was added and other chapters added to the Old Testiment.
> 
> Jews could claim "YOU" added another book to their book.
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation 22:18-19
> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 
> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> 
> What is God saying here?
> 
> You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: This is the End. Dont tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.
> 
> Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.
> 
> Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like Al Gore. "The matter is closed to discussion"
> 
> Jesus said the Bible was to be a living document to be written in our hearts. If it is living why is it impossible for a living thing to grow? I tend to trust Jesus more then John who wrote the book of Revelation.
> 
> Another thing you might want to note. The King James version was written centuries later and some of the books in the original version were taken out, changes made in the original text to fit the language of the day. So in effect the Bible we read today was banned according to the book of Revelation.
Click to expand...


GOD said it was closed.


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation 22:18-19
> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 
> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> 
> What is God saying here?
> 
> You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: This is the End. Dont tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.
> 
> Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.
> 
> Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like Al Gore. "The matter is closed to discussion"
> 
> Jesus said the Bible was to be a living document to be written in our hearts. If it is living why is it impossible for a living thing to grow? I tend to trust Jesus more then John who wrote the book of Revelation.
> 
> Another thing you might want to note. The King James version was written centuries later and some of the books in the original version were taken out, changes made in the original text to fit the language of the day. So in effect the Bible we read today was banned according to the book of Revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD said it was closed.
Click to expand...


The only document that GOD has written is the Ten Commandments. 

Revelation was written by a man.


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like Al Gore. "The matter is closed to discussion"
> 
> Jesus said the Bible was to be a living document to be written in our hearts. If it is living why is it impossible for a living thing to grow? I tend to trust Jesus more then John who wrote the book of Revelation.
> 
> Another thing you might want to note. The King James version was written centuries later and some of the books in the original version were taken out, changes made in the original text to fit the language of the day. So in effect the Bible we read today was banned according to the book of Revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD said it was closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only document that GOD has written is the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Revelation was written by a man.
Click to expand...


so now your sayiny the gospels a lie


----------



## JakeStarkey

California Girl said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you complaining just hours ago about people who believe their way is the only way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't deflect the discussion, and you are inaccurate anyway.
> 
> We are talking about our relationship with the divine, which is of course going to be individual and unsullied by any mortal authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be your belief, it is not necessarily the belief of others.
Click to expand...


In the sense of being antinomian, yes, I agree with you, CG.

I was simply correcting someone else's deflection of argument.


----------



## JakeStarkey

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD said it was closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only document that GOD has written is the Ten Commandments.
> 
> Revelation was written by a man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so now your sayiny the gospels a lie
Click to expand...


froggy, don't put words in a person's mouth.  Quit acting like a simpleton.  You don't speak for God.  I advise you let the Gospels to speak unto those who wish to read them, and you will add to their message by staying out of the intepretation business.


----------



## Intense

California Girl said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's an immature post. Seriously, don't take this personal but you gotta pay attention to the things you say. Do you think we've never heard the childish moron, mormon thing before?
> Also it's ignorant to say all adherents of Islam are morons. There are morons everywhere. Although I disagree with Islam, I wouldn't call muslims morons.
> 
> The terrorists you speak of are beyond morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that type of thinking goes beyond immature.
> 
> Rosie O'Donnell pretty much spelled out the way progressives think. They tend to take Islam, Mormonism, and Catholicism and lump them all together. They can't tell the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got to say though, althought considered perhaps strange bedfellows, when the Mormons and the Catholics work together - they are a hugely beneficial force. Look what they did to Prop 8 in California!!! LOL.
> 
> I think using the 'moron' thing with Mormons is particularly unintelligent. It's so screamingly obvious - I imagine there isn't a Mormon on the planet who has not heard that one hundreds of times. It says more about the person using it than the Mormon it is intended to offend.
Click to expand...


I remember The Catholic Church being the number 2 Church in Utah.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.



And is it our fault you havent listened to anything God has said in 2000 years?

Ive never understood why people seem to think that God spoke to men for thousands of years. And then suddenly now He doesnt. Especially when He has said nothing about not saying any more.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Revelation 22:18-19
> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 
> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> 
> What is God saying here?
> 
> You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: This is the End. Dont tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.
> 
> Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.
> 
> Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God



Do you even bother reading what the scripture actually says? Your interpretation doesnt hold up. John wrote His Gospel and Episltes _after_ he wrote Revelation. According to you John the Revelator is condemned to hell.

Moses said the same exact thing in Deut 4:2.  Apparently anyone who believes the New Testament is going hell if we accept your interpretation.

In Matthew Christ told us how to discern between true and false prophets. Why would he do that if all of them were false? Why would Christ and all the Apostles teach us to ask and recieve, seek and find, if God was going to be absolutely silent and tell us nothing?

Your interpretation is based on ignorance of how the Bible was written. Its a collection of books. No one book. The verse applies solely to the Book of Revelation. Not only that, the condemns men who add or take away from the book. No where in there does God say He is limited by the verse. God can say whatever the heck He want, whenever the heck He want.

In every dispensation of time God has spoken to man through revelation and taught Him from the Heavens. Why would God change now? The fact that you acknowledge that God does not reveal anything to you should send some red flags up about your relationship with God and the authority you have to say anything about the Heavens.

I am not saying this to be mean. I am not saying this to be arrogant. Im saying this because its the simple truth. God reveals His secrets to His servants the prophets. Paul stated that God would give the people Apostles and Prophets along with the other offices of the Priesthood until we all come to a unity of the faith. I think its apparently obvious we havent reached the point where we are at a unity of faith. We arent even close. So where are the Apostles and propehts to teach us? Where are the other offices? Where is the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God? Where are the keys of the Kingdom given to Peter and the Apostles?

I would argue that they exist in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where they were restored by Joseph Smith. And the number one evidence of that is the Book of Mormon. Its evidence that God is not silent. And miracles and revelations cease only when people lack the faith to recieve them.


----------



## froggy

Joseph Fielding Smith must have been the Jim Jones of his day. To say god was a man turned into a god, and to think so many actually believe his sayings.


----------



## Intense

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this "WE" come from?
> 
> Did you write the New Testiment?
> 
> 
> The original Bible or Torah was the first several chapters of the Old Testiment. Then the New Testiment was added and other chapters added to the Old Testiment.
> 
> Jews could claim "YOU" added another book to their book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelation 22:18-19
> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 
> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> 
> What is God saying here?
> 
> You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: This is the End. Dont tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.
> 
> Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.
> 
> Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God
Click to expand...


Sounds like Someone I know. You should check out God's Covenant with Noah or Solomon's Prayer when He dedicated The Temple. 

Jake said it in a sentence. So will I. Seek God First in All things, through Conscience. Let go of the Tangents. Try to notice the little things, be presence conscious. Part of the function of the Book was to get Your attention, it is a tool, don't confuse it with the Big Guy, It limits Us, keeps Us in check, not Him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's an immature post. Seriously, don't take this personal but you gotta pay attention to the things you say. Do you think we've never heard the childish moron, mormon thing before?
> Also it's ignorant to say all adherents of Islam are morons. There are morons everywhere. Although I disagree with Islam, I wouldn't call muslims morons.
> 
> The terrorists you speak of are beyond morons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that type of thinking goes beyond immature.
> 
> Rosie O'Donnell pretty much spelled out the way progressives think. They tend to take Islam, Mormonism, and Catholicism and lump them all together. They can't tell the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got to say though, althought considered perhaps strange bedfellows, when the Mormons and the Catholics work together - they are a hugely beneficial force. Look what they did to Prop 8 in California!!! LOL.
> 
> I think using the 'moron' thing with Mormons is particularly unintelligent. It's so screamingly obvious - I imagine there isn't a Mormon on the planet who has not heard that one hundreds of times. It says more about the person using it than the Mormon it is intended to offend.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's sorta the story of my life. A bunch of Captains Obvious poking jokes at my name and religion. Scott(Beam me up Scotty!) Foster(foster child, foster farms) Price(Price is right, price is wrong,priceless).
As if they're so original.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Luissa said:


> I have many mormon relatives, love them no matter what. I just have a problem with the way some of the men treat their wives but I also know that not all them treat their wives in the same way.



I think we talked about this 150 pages ago. It's not just that "not all them treat their wives in the same way", it's that the vast majority don't.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> a self rightous religion in which you write your own bible, please!



Error.....Does not compute.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> a self rightous religion in which you write your own bible, please!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That comment sounded a bit self-righteous as well.
> 
> Also very petty considering what was being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.
Click to expand...


God has always added and taken away from the beginning. the Bible invites us to learn all we can about God. Paul tells us that if there is anything lovely, praisworthy or of good report, to seek after these things. Who are you to shut the mouth of God?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avi, such exists between the individual and the divine only.  There is no mortal intermediary power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you complaining just hours ago about people who believe their way is the only way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't deflect the discussion, and you are inaccurate anyway.
> 
> We are talking about our relationship with the divine, which is of course going to be individual and unsullied by any mortal authority.
Click to expand...


People will be judged ultimately on their individual relationships with God. We just believe our Church helps develop a relationship with God better than any other.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you figure, we didn't add another book to the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this "WE" come from?
> 
> Did you write the New Testiment?
> 
> 
> The original Bible or Torah was the first several chapters of the Old Testiment. Then the New Testiment was added and other chapters added to the Old Testiment.
> 
> Jews could claim "YOU" added another book to their book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelation 22:18-19
> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 
> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> 
> What is God saying here?
> 
> You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: &#8220;This is the End. Don&#8217;t tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.&#8221;
> 
> Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, &#8220;If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever&#8221;.
> 
> Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God
Click to expand...


This has been dealt with before. I'll briefly repeat what has already been repeated over and over again. 

Can we all agree that the Apostles did not compile the Bible? Yes we can. Thank you for agreeing.

That fact being proven. Who did compile the Bible?
It was many different scholars and priests who were not apostles or prophets. Are you still with me? Great let's move on.

That being said, can we all agree on the iron clad fact that the Bible's books are not in chronological order? Yes. Thank you.

That being said, we can all ascertain that the most recently written of the books was *not* the Revelation of John but was in fact, the gospel of John. If you want to talk about what the last parting words of the Bible *should* be, they would read thus:

*Verse 25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.*


So if you have the right to interpret the writings in revelation to apply to any other book than the book of revelation, I don't think it unreasonable for us to have a right to interpret those words in bold to set an expectation that there will be much more to learn about Jesus than what we find only in the Bible.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation 22:18-19
> For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
> 
> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
> 
> What is God saying here?
> 
> You do not have to be a genius to understand these words. God says: This is the End. Dont tamper with it. The Word of God is now complete. No more messages from God are to be expected. This is the last message from God to the last of the Apostles just before he died. No more prophecies from God will be added.
> 
> Paraphrased God says very plainly in Revelation 22:18, If anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, which has come to that person in a dream, or in a vision, or in an angel visitation, or in a tongue, or even if not a word was spoken but that person saw a comforting light somewhere in the middle of the night, or saw any other supernatural manifestation from God, then know that this person is lying, for God will not give any more Divine revelations or messages; that person is a false prophet, and I have not send them, and he or she deserves to be tormented in the Lake of Fire, so that the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever.
> 
> Therefore if anyone comes to you claiming that he or she has a new message from God, that person has added to the Word of God, the Bible, for the Bible is this One Book that God mentions in Revelation 22:18.
> 
> Here, on the last page of the Bible, God gave a last warning that the Bible is now complete; no one should add words to it, and neither will God add any more words to it. We must realize that the Bible portrays the image of God, and whosoever has additional Divine revelations has added to the words of the Bible, and is guilty of tampering with the image of God. Moreover, if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall deny him entrance to the New Jerusalem, for he or she has also tampered with the image of God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like Al Gore. "The matter is closed to discussion"
> 
> Jesus said the Bible was to be a living document to be written in our hearts. If it is living why is it impossible for a living thing to grow? I tend to trust Jesus more then John who wrote the book of Revelation.
> 
> Another thing you might want to note. The King James version was written centuries later and some of the books in the original version were taken out, changes made in the original text to fit the language of the day. So in effect the Bible we read today was banned according to the book of Revelation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOD said it was closed.
Click to expand...


Opposite.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like Al Gore. "The matter is closed to discussion"
> 
> Jesus said the Bible was to be a living document to be written in our hearts. If it is living why is it impossible for a living thing to grow? I tend to trust Jesus more then John who wrote the book of Revelation.
> 
> Another thing you might want to note. The King James version was written centuries later and some of the books in the original version were taken out, changes made in the original text to fit the language of the day. So in effect the Bible we read today was banned according to the book of Revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOD said it was closed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opposite.
Click to expand...


do you consider this joe smith to be your prophet as he claimed himself to be?


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD said it was closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you consider this joe smith to be your prophet as he claimed himself to be?
Click to expand...


The LDS church considers him to be along the same lines as John the Baptist.

The church also has a living prophet in the church as long as I've known.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you complaining just hours ago about people who believe their way is the only way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't deflect the discussion, and you are inaccurate anyway.
> 
> We are talking about our relationship with the divine, which is of course going to be individual and unsullied by any mortal authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will be judged ultimately on their individual relationships with God. We just believe our Church helps develop a relationship with God better than any other.
Click to expand...


Are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds Christ's authority here on earth to act in His name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for God on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what I have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the LDS church here on earth.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't deflect the discussion, and you are inaccurate anyway.
> 
> We are talking about our relationship with the divine, which is of course going to be individual and unsullied by any mortal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People will be judged ultimately on their individual relationships with God. We just believe our Church helps develop a relationship with God better than any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds Christ's authority here on earth to act in His name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for God on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what I have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the LDS church here on earth.
Click to expand...


The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOD said it was closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you consider this joe smith to be your prophet as he claimed himself to be?
Click to expand...


Yes. And he doesn't go by Joe. Never did.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't deflect the discussion, and you are inaccurate anyway.
> 
> We are talking about our relationship with the divine, which is of course going to be individual and unsullied by any mortal authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People will be judged ultimately on their individual relationships with God. We just believe our Church helps develop a relationship with God better than any other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds Christ's authority here on earth to act in His name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for God on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what I have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the LDS church here on earth.
Click to expand...


Of course we believe what you have written. But you can be a member of God's church all day and twice on sundays but if you don't actually love God and your neighbor, it will not avail you on the judgment day. 

This is a very encouraging scripture and always has been.

in the book of Moroni 7:47we read:
But charity is the pure love of Christ. And it endureth forever. And whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.

That my friends is the gospel of Christ, be you from whatever church you may. Why will it be well with that person even if they are not a member of our church on paper? Because there is going to be a thousand year period where Christ will reign personally on this earth. Only those who are pure in heart will remain during that thousand year period. The pure in heart will be found all over the world and most of whom will have never even heard of the "Mormons". That is the time when the Lord will set the record straight and personally clear up all confusion as to which is his true church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> People will be judged ultimately on their individual relationships with God. We just believe our Church helps develop a relationship with God better than any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds Christ's authority here on earth to act in His name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for God on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what I have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the LDS church here on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority.
Click to expand...


Absolutely Wrong.

The devout "Mormon" believes this text inspired because we like Joseph listened to the advice of the apostle James in chapter one of his book verse 5.

_If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth(scolds) not and it shall be given him._

*We also believe because we took the challenge offered by Moroni in his closing words of chapter 10:3-5*
_ Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
  4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
  5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
  6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is._

So I and many others prayed in private for an answer to the truth of these things. I know as sure as I exist that the book is true because of the personal answers to my prayer. 

Some may call it faith, some may call it delusion. But I call it knowledge. I know what I know. The scriptures have bountiful examples telling us not to "trust in the arm of flesh" or to believe something just because we are told to. We are told to go to the source of all truth, not Joseph Smith, or any other man besides our Father in Heaven.


----------



## Truthspeaker

slightly changing avenues. I'm curious as to what each of you do when you come across beggars in the street. I used to always ignore them, even after reading this scripture. I used to always say to myself:

 What a slob you are! Why can't you get some self respect and go work for what you want? You only are in this situatio because you are lazy and refuse to contribute to society. I'm not giving you a dime of my hard earned money.

Recently I saw a man holding a sign saying "Hungry. Any Help?" The words of this ancient King named Mosiah came into my head:

_And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
  17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just
  18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
  19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
_

I didn't give him any money. But I asked the guy who had as disgusting an appearance as any person I've seen if he had had anything to eat...................He said he hadn't eaten all day. It was 5 o clock and I believed him. I told him I would be right back.......I went across the street to the subway and spent 10 dollars on a hearty footlong meatball sanwich with everything on it and toasted. I never do the meal deal for myself but I got him the drink and the chips. I came back and presented him with this huge meal and...My God....I could feel the greatest sense of accomplishment when I looked in this fellows eyes as he looked in disbelief. He expressed genuine gratitude and I was overcome with the warmest sense of approval before my maker that I had ever felt. I found myself hugging him in my 2000 dollar suit, not caring if he was diseased or filthy. As I walked down the escalator to catch my train home I felt tears coming down my cheeks because I helped a brother of mine.


The next scripture that popped into my head was Jesus in Mattew 25:40
_
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me._


----------



## Truthspeaker

slightly changing avenues. I'm curious as to what each of you do when you come across beggars in the street. I used to always ignore them, even after reading this scripture. I used to always say to myself:

 What a slob you are! Why can't you get some self respect and go work for what you want? You only are in this situatio because you are lazy and refuse to contribute to society. I'm not giving you a dime of my hard earned money.

Recently I saw a man holding a sign saying "Hungry. Any Help?" The words of this ancient King named Mosiah came into my head:

_And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
  17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just&#8212;
  18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
  19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
_

I didn't give him any money. But I asked the guy who had as disgusting an appearance as any person I've seen if he had had anything to eat...................He said he hadn't eaten all day. It was 5 o clock and I believed him. I told him I would be right back.......I went across the street to the subway and spent 10 dollars on a hearty footlong meatball sanwich with everything on it and toasted. I never do the meal deal for myself but I got him the drink and the chips. I came back and presented him with this huge meal and...My God....I could feel the greatest sense of accomplishment when I looked in this fellows eyes as he looked in disbelief. He expressed genuine gratitude and I was overcome with the warmest sense of approval before my maker that I had ever felt. I found myself hugging him in my 2000 dollar suit, not caring if he was diseased or filthy. As I walked down the escalator to catch my train home I felt tears coming down my cheeks because I helped a brother of mine.


The next scripture that popped into my head was Jesus in Mattew 25:40
_
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me._


----------



## Truthspeaker

slightly changing avenues. I'm curious as to what each of you do when you come across beggars in the street. I used to always ignore them, even after reading this scripture. I used to always say to myself:

 What a slob you are! Why can't you get some self respect and go work for what you want? You only are in this situatio because you are lazy and refuse to contribute to society. I'm not giving you a dime of my hard earned money.

Recently I saw a man holding a sign saying "Hungry. Any Help?" The words of this ancient King named Mosiah came into my head:

_And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
  17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just
  18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
  19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
_

I didn't give him any money. But I asked the guy who had as disgusting an appearance as any person I've seen if he had had anything to eat...................He said he hadn't eaten all day. It was 5 o clock and I believed him. I told him I would be right back.......I went across the street to the subway and spent 10 dollars on a hearty footlong meatball sanwich with everything on it and toasted. I never do the meal deal for myself but I got him the drink and the chips. I came back and presented him with this huge meal and...My God....I could feel the greatest sense of accomplishment when I looked in this fellows eyes as he looked in disbelief. He expressed genuine gratitude and I was overcome with the warmest sense of approval before my maker that I had ever felt. I found myself hugging him in my 2000 dollar suit, not caring if he was diseased or filthy. As I walked down the escalator to catch my train home I felt tears coming down my cheeks because I helped a brother of mine.


The next scripture that popped into my head was Jesus in Mattew 25:40    
_
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me._


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> People will be judged ultimately on their individual relationships with God. We just believe our Church helps develop a relationship with God better than any other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds Christ's authority here on earth to act in His name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for God on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what I have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the LDS church here on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we believe what you have written. But you can be a member of God's church all day and twice on sundays but if you don't actually love God and your neighbor, it will not avail you on the judgment day.
Click to expand...


So you admit that you believe your church does far more than develops "a relationship with God better than any other."  You believe that your leaders, your church, and your priesthood are the only authorities to act in God's matters here on earth.  Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> slightly changing avenues. I'm curious as to what each of you do when you come across beggars in the street. I used to always ignore them, even after reading this scripture. I used to always say to myself:
> 
> What a slob you are! Why can't you get some self respect and go work for what you want? You only are in this situatio because you are lazy and refuse to contribute to society. I'm not giving you a dime of my hard earned money.
> 
> Recently I saw a man holding a sign saying "Hungry. Any Help?" The words of this ancient King named Mosiah came into my head:
> 
> _And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
> 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just
> 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
> 19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
> _
> 
> I didn't give him any money. But I asked the guy who had as disgusting an appearance as any person I've seen if he had had anything to eat...................He said he hadn't eaten all day. It was 5 o clock and I believed him. I told him I would be right back.......I went across the street to the subway and spent 10 dollars on a hearty footlong meatball sanwich with everything on it and toasted. I never do the meal deal for myself but I got him the drink and the chips. I came back and presented him with this huge meal and...My God....I could feel the greatest sense of accomplishment when I looked in this fellows eyes as he looked in disbelief. He expressed genuine gratitude and I was overcome with the warmest sense of approval before my maker that I had ever felt. I found myself hugging him in my 2000 dollar suit, not caring if he was diseased or filthy. As I walked down the escalator to catch my train home I felt tears coming down my cheeks because I helped a brother of mine.
> 
> 
> The next scripture that popped into my head was Jesus in Mattew 25:40
> _
> And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me._



Nice that You bought Him a meal. Preconceived notion's, expectation's, should have no place here. Let Conscience dictate, should You find it in Your Heart to Give, do it without regret, cheerfully. Should it bother You to give, don't. We All have different lessons in life, including Those on the Street. You do not know where He has been, and gone through, it is not for You to know. What do You consider in relation to Job or Lazarus? Kindness and Love were the greater gift, without heavy rejection, even greater. There is a game, "Acts of Random Kindness", try it even once a day.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds Christ's authority here on earth to act in His name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for God on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what I have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the LDS church here on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we believe what you have written. But you can be a member of God's church all day and twice on sundays but if you don't actually love God and your neighbor, it will not avail you on the judgment day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you believe your church does far more than develops "a relationship with God better than any other."  You believe that your leaders, your church, and your priesthood are the only authorities to act in God's matters here on earth.  Glad we cleared that up.
Click to expand...


Jake in Truth, that's how most Churches, Religions, States, Countries, Football Teams think. Where ever We live is the center of creation. I find it Everywhere I've been, or as an aspect of most People.


----------



## mudwhistle

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds Christ's authority here on earth to act in His name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for God on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what I have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the LDS church here on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we believe what you have written. But you can be a member of God's church all day and twice on sundays but if you don't actually love God and your neighbor, it will not avail you on the judgment day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you admit that you believe your church does far more than develops "a relationship with God better than any other."  You believe that your leaders, your church, and your priesthood are the only authorities to act in God's matters here on earth.  Glad we cleared that up.
Click to expand...


I guess that can reasonably be said about every religion. Why should LDS be any different and be condemned because of it. I wonder if you cast the same aspersions at Islam as well.


----------



## froggy

Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.



You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.
Click to expand...


so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.


----------



## Intense

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.
Click to expand...


I enjoy The King James. You got to really get in the mind set. New King James flows easy.


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.
Click to expand...


Jesus gave me the truth.

You give me bullshit.


----------



## Truthspeaker

jakestarkey said:


> truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you being righteous in your dealings with your fellow men here?  Your church teaches that it holds christ's authority here on earth to act in his name, and your chuch believes that no other mortal or mortal organization holds that authority to speak for god on earth.  If you or others in your church deny what i have just written, then you are denying the power and authority of the lds church here on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course we believe what you have written. But you can be a member of god's church all day and twice on sundays but if you don't actually love god and your neighbor, it will not avail you on the judgment day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you admit that you believe your church does far more than develops "a relationship with god better than any other."  you believe that your leaders, your church, and your priesthood are the only authorities to act in god's matters here on earth.  Glad we cleared that up.
Click to expand...


bingo


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.



How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with an entirely idiotic statement like that. Are you claiming that the 3 chapters in the entire book of mormon that shows the prophet Nephi quoting Isaiah are the only thing in the entire 500 page book of mormon?
Please do yourself a favor and do just a tiny bit of research before embarrassing whatever faith you are trying to represent.


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course we believe what you have written. But you can be a member of god's church all day and twice on sundays but if you don't actually love god and your neighbor, it will not avail you on the judgment day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you admit that you believe your church does far more than develops "a relationship with god better than any other."  you believe that your leaders, your church, and your priesthood are the only authorities to act in god's matters here on earth.  Glad we cleared that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bingo
Click to expand...


Isn't that the Primary reason most People Join Any Religion?


----------



## froggy

Don't you get upset if people who read the Book of Mormon don't just love it,


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus gave me the truth.
> 
> You give me bullshit.
Click to expand...


And i guess joe says curse words are o k. Do you believe as Joe did that god was first a man?


----------



## froggy

Was the separation from the Church of Christ because they didn't believe Joe's babblings


----------



## Intense

Summary Statistics Pages:
List of the Major World Religions ordered by size. 
Major Branches of Major World Religions 
World's Largest Churches (Religious Bodies) 
   Includes: Top 10 Largest International Religious Bodies 
   See also: Religious Bodies by Date: Oldest to Youngest 
Largest Religious Groups in the U.S.A. 
   See also: Composite U.S. Demographics - incl. race, ethnic, gender, religion, etc. 
Geographical "Top Ten" Lists - Largest communities of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Lutherans, etc. 
World Religions Religion Statistics Geography Church Statistics


----------



## Intense

Whats for Dinner?

Frog Recipes



Tastes Like Chicken! 

How about Posting some tunes???


----------



## Dr.House

Yuk...  No frog for me, thanks...


----------



## Dr.House

Intense said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I enjoy The King James. You got to really get in the mind set. New King James flows easy.
Click to expand...


KJV is ok...  I like the NIV myself...


----------



## HUGGY

Intense said:


> Whats for Dinner?
> 
> Frog Recipes
> 
> 
> 
> Tastes Like Chicken!
> 
> How about Posting some tunes???



Sure.....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34[/ame]


----------



## HUGGY

And the hits just keep coming....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA&feature=fvst[/ame]

No!,,,I'm not Huey Lewis...I told ya I am a Ricky Nelson clone!


----------



## mal

I Know some Mormons...



peace...


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats for Dinner?
> 
> Frog Recipes
> 
> 
> 
> Tastes Like Chicken!
> 
> How about Posting some tunes???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.....
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34[/ame]
Click to expand...


John Lee Hooker is Amazing!


----------



## California Girl

froggy said:


> Was the separation from the Church of Christ because they didn't believe Joe's babblings



Kindly don't be offensive Froggy.


----------



## Intense

California Girl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats for Dinner?
> 
> Frog Recipes
> 
> 
> 
> Tastes Like Chicken!
> 
> How about Posting some tunes???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.....
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Lee Hooker is Amazing!
Click to expand...


You will normally find Him on the Blues Thread, Huggy is doing His part here in helping to leave His Thread in the dust.


----------



## HUGGY

Intense said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lee Hooker is Amazing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will normally find Him on the Blues Thread, Huggy is doing His part here in helping to leave His Thread in the dust.
Click to expand...


My goals have already been accomplished you biatches.  Thanks for playing!


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> slightly changing avenues. I'm curious as to what each of you do when you come across beggars in the street. I used to always ignore them, even after reading this scripture. I used to always say to myself:
> 
> What a slob you are! Why can't you get some self respect and go work for what you want? You only are in this situatio because you are lazy and refuse to contribute to society. I'm not giving you a dime of my hard earned money.
> 
> Recently I saw a man holding a sign saying "Hungry. Any Help?" The words of this ancient King named Mosiah came into my head:
> 
> _And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
> 17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just
> 18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
> 19 For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
> _
> 
> I didn't give him any money. But I asked the guy who had as disgusting an appearance as any person I've seen if he had had anything to eat...................He said he hadn't eaten all day. It was 5 o clock and I believed him. I told him I would be right back.......I went across the street to the subway and spent 10 dollars on a hearty footlong meatball sanwich with everything on it and toasted. I never do the meal deal for myself but I got him the drink and the chips. I came back and presented him with this huge meal and...My God....I could feel the greatest sense of accomplishment when I looked in this fellows eyes as he looked in disbelief. He expressed genuine gratitude and I was overcome with the warmest sense of approval before my maker that I had ever felt. I found myself hugging him in my 2000 dollar suit, not caring if he was diseased or filthy. As I walked down the escalator to catch my train home I felt tears coming down my cheeks because I helped a brother of mine.
> 
> 
> The next scripture that popped into my head was Jesus in Mattew 25:40
> _
> And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me._



I volunteer with the homeless at a local shelter. It's a very grounding experience. I teach computer skills, reading and writing, etc. to help prepare them for work. It is the most rewarding thing I do. Every December since I've been in the UK, I have helped out there over the Christmas holiday - cooking and helping out.


----------



## California Girl

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.
Click to expand...


It's your truth, not THE truth. Learn to spot the difference.


----------



## Intense

HUGGY said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Lee Hooker is Amazing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will normally find Him on the Blues Thread, Huggy is doing His part here in helping to leave His Thread in the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goals have already been accomplished you biatches.  Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...


Aim Low Huggy!!!!


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Lee Hooker is Amazing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will normally find Him on the Blues Thread, Huggy is doing His part here in helping to leave His Thread in the dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goals have already been accomplished you biatches.  Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...


It's interesting, I think, how certain posters, such as you Little Diaper Dude, find it impossible to be respectful - even in the forums where respect is deemed appropriate by even those who disagree among themselves. It's not surprising, but interesting - that even in this thread, you find it necessary to 'flame' others. Says a lot about you as a person - none of it good.


----------



## HUGGY

California Girl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats for Dinner?
> 
> Frog Recipes
> 
> 
> 
> Tastes Like Chicken!
> 
> How about Posting some tunes???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.....
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Lee Hooker is Amazing!
Click to expand...


WAS amazing.  I was lucky enough to sit up all night with him and a guitar player friend of mine sippin Jack Daniels and eatin Kentucky fried chicken.  They played acoustic guitars and John Lee sang for hours...  The best private concert I have ever witnessed.  

I have to give ya props for your work with the homeless.  That is one thing we share and a cause close to my heart.  Good job...


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will normally find Him on the Blues Thread, Huggy is doing His part here in helping to leave His Thread in the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goals have already been accomplished you biatches.  Thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting, I think, how certain posters, such as you Little Diaper Dude, find it impossible to be respectful - even in the forums where respect is deemed appropriate by even those who disagree among themselves. It's not surprising, but interesting - that even in this thread, you find it necessary to 'flame' others. Says a lot about you as a person - none of it good.
Click to expand...

Huggy seems a bit jealous that others are able to discuss civilly, so he's playing a seagull now.  Fly in, shit all over, then fly away.  As with seagulls, don't feed them and there's less shit to dodge.


----------



## California Girl

Intense said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will normally find Him on the Blues Thread, Huggy is doing His part here in helping to leave His Thread in the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goals have already been accomplished you biatches.  Thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aim Low Huggy!!!!
Click to expand...


Mental  midgets always aim low. They find the level of average people unattainable. It's sad really.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goals have already been accomplished you biatches.  Thanks for playing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting, I think, how certain posters, such as you Little Diaper Dude, find it impossible to be respectful - even in the forums where respect is deemed appropriate by even those who disagree among themselves. It's not surprising, but interesting - that even in this thread, you find it necessary to 'flame' others. Says a lot about you as a person - none of it good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huggy seems a bit jealous that others are able to discuss civilly, so he's playing a seagull now.  Fly in, shit all over, then fly away.  As with seagulls, don't feed them and there's less shit to dodge.
Click to expand...


Excellent point, Si modo.


----------



## HUGGY

California Girl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will normally find Him on the Blues Thread, Huggy is doing His part here in helping to leave His Thread in the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goals have already been accomplished you *"biatches"?*.  That's hardly flaming.  Thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's interesting, I think, how certain posters, such as you Little Diaper Dude, find it impossible to be respectful - even in the forums where respect is deemed appropriate by even those who disagree among themselves. It's not surprising, but interesting - that even in this thread, you find it necessary to 'flame' others. Says a lot about you as a person - none of it good.
Click to expand...


Really?...Who have I flamed in this thread? *"biatches"?*.  That's hardly flaming.   In fact who have I repeatedly flamed anywhere that didn't deserve it?  You do not know a thing about me.

You idiots lost...deal with it.  You came to this stupid thread to make it more difficult for me to overtake it in replies and I won...as in you lost.  Quit crying....Christ! you people are pathetic.  I'm not gonna dance all over the place but just as in the TWAT thread you bit off more than you could chew...you wrote checks you couldn't cash.  The proof is what the proof is...  I'm done gloating...see ya...


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOyj4ciJk34
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Lee Hooker is Amazing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WAS amazing.  I was lucky enough to sit up all night with him and a guitar player friend of mine sippin Jack Daniels and eatin Kentucky fried chicken.  They played acoustic guitars and John Lee sang for hours...  The best private concert I have ever witnessed.
> 
> I have to give ya props for your work with the homeless.  That is one thing we share and a cause close to my heart.  Good job...
Click to expand...


I neither seek nor appreciate your 'thanks' for what I do with the homeless. I choose to work with them because I'm a decent person who has been blessed in life. How I choose to repay that good fortune is of no consequence to anyone but me.


----------



## mudwhistle

HUGGY said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goals have already been accomplished you *"biatches"?*.  That's hardly flaming.  Thanks for playing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting, I think, how certain posters, such as you Little Diaper Dude, find it impossible to be respectful - even in the forums where respect is deemed appropriate by even those who disagree among themselves. It's not surprising, but interesting - that even in this thread, you find it necessary to 'flame' others. Says a lot about you as a person - none of it good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?...Who have I flamed in this thread? *"biatches"?*.  That's hardly flaming.   In fact who have I repeatedly flamed anywhere that didn't deserve it?  You do not know a thing about me.
> 
> You idiots lost...deal with it.  You came to this stupid thread to make it more difficult for me to overtake it in replies and I won...as in you lost.  Quit crying....Christ! you people are pathetic.  I'm not gonna dance all over the place but just as in the TWAT thread you bit off more than you could chew...you wrote checks you couldn't cash.  The proof is what the proof is...  I'm done gloating...see ya...
Click to expand...


You are as predictable as Democrats bringing higher taxes.

By the way, the mess that your buddies have made since they took back power really doesn't give you any right to gloat.

You need to quit dancing in your dirty diaper and start paying attention.


----------



## California Girl

mudwhistle said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting, I think, how certain posters, such as you Little Diaper Dude, find it impossible to be respectful - even in the forums where respect is deemed appropriate by even those who disagree among themselves. It's not surprising, but interesting - that even in this thread, you find it necessary to 'flame' others. Says a lot about you as a person - none of it good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?...Who have I flamed in this thread? *"biatches"?*.  That's hardly flaming.   In fact who have I repeatedly flamed anywhere that didn't deserve it?  You do not know a thing about me.
> 
> You idiots lost...deal with it.  You came to this stupid thread to make it more difficult for me to overtake it in replies and I won...as in you lost.  Quit crying....Christ! you people are pathetic.  I'm not gonna dance all over the place but just as in the TWAT thread you bit off more than you could chew...you wrote checks you couldn't cash.  The proof is what the proof is...  I'm done gloating...see ya...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are as predictable as Democrats bringing higher taxes.
> 
> By the way, the mess that your buddies have made since they took back power really doesn't give you any right to gloat.
> 
> You need to quit dancing in your dirty diaper and start paying attention.
Click to expand...


I thought his 'you idiots lost' referred to yet another one of his childish whines about this thread being longer than his, pre-merged, one. 

But now that he's bored with ranting about the book he plagiarised, perhaps I will now name said book. That will be fun.


----------



## Dr.House

tha malcontent said:


> I Know some Mormons...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...



So do I, as a matter of fact...

One is fond of "Green Stuff"...lol


----------



## Terry

When will this game end?  It is getting really old now.  Who cares how long a thread is and stuff. Really, what does one get if they win?  

I'm sorry but I guess I'm getting tired of the same old crap day after day on both sides.  

Oh who am I kidding, this will never end! Just like that thread "Last one to Post"  *sighs*


----------



## froggy

California Girl said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Charlie Bass are what gives Christians a bad name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's your truth, not THE truth. Learn to spot the difference.
Click to expand...


The TRUTH will set you free. Live it Love it.


----------



## froggy

Terry said:


> When will this game end?  It is getting really old now.  Who cares how long a thread is and stuff. Really, what does one get if they win?
> 
> I'm sorry but I guess I'm getting tired of the same old crap day after day on both sides.
> 
> Oh who am I kidding, this will never end! Just like that thread "Last one to Post"  *sighs*



yes terry this thread could go forever and no winner.


----------



## Liability

I have lost interest in this thread.

But I just HAD to come back again to bump it.  

And, what's more -- 

I SHALL return.


----------



## Terry

See I knew it.LOL


----------



## Dr.House

Liability said:


> I have lost interest in this thread.
> 
> But I just HAD to come back again to bump it.
> 
> And, what's more --
> 
> I SHALL return.



I see something new every time I view it...lol


----------



## mal

Dr.House said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I Know some Mormons...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do I, as a matter of fact...
> 
> One is fond of "Green Stuff"...lol
Click to expand...


Why isn't Joey here?... Or Greg?... Not that Greg's a Mormon...

Not that there's anything Wrong with not being a Mormon.



peace...


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Joseph Fielding Smith must have been the Jim Jones of his day. To say god was a man turned into a god, and to think so many actually believe his sayings.



The entire New Testament is based on the Testimony that God did become a man. The Word was made flesh. Why is it blasphemous to believe what you claim to believe?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> do you consider this joe smith to be your prophet as he claimed himself to be?



He was the Prophet of the Restoration. He had the Spirit of Prophecy and testified of Jesus Christ and Christ's work for the last days to prepare the world for His coming. And you dont have to take my word for it. The Holy Spirit will tell you if you ask in faith.`


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority.



Actually, we believe the Book of Mormon to contain the word of God because we have acted in faith and asked God in the name of Jesus Christ whether it was true or not and the Holy Spirit has testified to us that it is true.

The beauty of that is no one has to take my word for it or anyone elses. They can go to the Lord and recieve revelation from God themselves. He can reveal the Truth to them. Because the Heavens are not closed.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> So you admit that you believe your church does far more than develops "a relationship with God better than any other."  You believe that your leaders, your church, and your priesthood are the only authorities to act in God's matters here on earth.  Glad we cleared that up.



Course we do. If there wasnt something special about it, what would be the point? WE are doing more than developing a relationship with our Father in Heaven. We are helping the Lord seal together all the relationships from the time of Adam to the present day. We are helping to prepare a people for His coming.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.



Really? where in the KJV did Abinadi appear? or Alma the Younger and the Sons of Mosiah? Where did Christ appear in America in the KJV?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.



I think you mean well. But I dont think youve read nearly enough to know the truth from fiction when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Probably why you didnt respond to my longer post.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Don't you get upset if people who read the Book of Mormon don't just love it,



Oh really? you've read the Book of Mormon? What part did you like? what did you hate? What did part did you find interesting? What part did you disagree with?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> And i guess joe says curse words are o k. Do you believe as Joe did that god was first a man?



Um of course I do. The New Testament is Clear on the Divinity of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Avatar4321

Si modo said:


> Huggy seems a bit jealous that others are able to discuss civilly, so he's playing a seagull now.  Fly in, shit all over, then fly away.  As with seagulls, don't feed them and there's less shit to dodge.



Mormons dont mind Seagulls. If it werent for them, its unlikely the Salt Lake Valley would have survived the first winter.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> yes terry this thread could go forever and no winner.



I was unaware we were having a competition. I, falsely i suppose, assumed that we were having a discussion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Guys, since I heard about Huggy's obsession with trying to top my thread in posts, I laughed. I think it's ridiculous. We're just talking. Not competing. Please don't bump my thread just to bump it. Contribute without wasting.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Fielding Smith must have been the Jim Jones of his day. To say god was a man turned into a god, and to think so many actually believe his sayings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire New Testament is based on the Testimony that God did become a man. The Word was made flesh. Why is it blasphemous to believe what you claim to believe?
Click to expand...


Joe said God was a man first then a God (I slowed down when i typed this, so you could understand this time Avi).


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you consider this joe smith to be your prophet as he claimed himself to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was the Prophet of the Restoration. He had the Spirit of Prophecy and testified of Jesus Christ and Christ's work for the last days to prepare the world for His coming. And you dont have to take my word for it. The Holy Spirit will tell you if you ask in faith.`
Click to expand...


And if i don't believe joe's babble, will you be mad?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The devout Mormon believes this text is inspired because Joseph Smith said it is. He believes Smith had the authority to claim divine inspiration for the Book of Mormon because the book itself says Smith was a prophet and had such authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we believe the Book of Mormon to contain the word of God because we have acted in faith and asked God in the name of Jesus Christ whether it was true or not and the Holy Spirit has testified to us that it is true.
> 
> The beauty of that is no one has to take my word for it or anyone elses. They can go to the Lord and recieve revelation from God themselves. He can reveal the Truth to them. Because the Heavens are not closed.
Click to expand...


And during your Brainwashing how many times did youhave to read the BOOK OF JOE?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe just copied the KJV and wrote it to fit his ego.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? where in the KJV did Abinadi appear? or Alma the Younger and the Sons of Mosiah? Where did Christ appear in America in the KJV?
Click to expand...


You got that from Joe's book didn;t you. I guess if he'd written christ had the last supper with the indians you'd believed that to.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> so i give you the truth and now i'm the bad guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean well. But I dont think youve read nearly enough to know the truth from fiction when it comes to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Probably why you didnt respond to my longer post.
Click to expand...


I think your reading fiction has warped your sense of the truth.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you get upset if people who read the Book of Mormon don't just love it,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really? you've read the Book of Mormon? What part did you like? what did you hate? What did part did you find interesting? What part did you disagree with?
Click to expand...


it ranks with the FAIRY TALES CHRONICLES.


----------



## Avatar4321

In other words, you havent read a thing. You have no clue what youre talking about. And your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to whatever you think you know thats inaccurate. Did I miss anything at all?


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> In other words, you havent read a thing. You have no clue what youre talking about. And your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to whatever you think you know thats inaccurate. Did I miss anything at all?



Froggy's opinions are a tad on the hinky side.... just take a look at the plethoria of non-threads he starts daily!  He hasn't quite mastered the idea that you can think a thought without starting a thread about it.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you havent read a thing. You have no clue what youre talking about. And your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to whatever you think you know thats inaccurate. Did I miss anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy's opinions are a tad on the hinky side.... just take a look at the plethoria of non-threads he starts daily!  He hasn't quite mastered the idea that you can think a thought without starting a thread about it.
Click to expand...


I think we should start a thread about it.

We'll call it "Members that seem not to be playing with a full deck"


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy seems a bit jealous that others are able to discuss civilly, so he's playing a seagull now.  Fly in, shit all over, then fly away.  As with seagulls, don't feed them and there's less shit to dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons dont mind Seagulls. If it werent for them, its unlikely the Salt Lake Valley would have survived the first winter.
Click to expand...


You guys eat seagulls?   Gross! They are flying rats!


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> In other words, you havent read a thing. You have no clue what youre talking about. And your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to whatever you think you know thats inaccurate. Did I miss anything at all?



I read yo damn book.  It's just about a bunch of squabbling idiots that keep gettin thier dumb asses in slings and everybody hates thier dumb asses then they find some magic plates but no cups or bowls or silverware so they hide the plates hopin to get a complete sevice setting sometime down the road but it never happens.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy seems a bit jealous that others are able to discuss civilly, so he's playing a seagull now.  Fly in, shit all over, then fly away.  As with seagulls, don't feed them and there's less shit to dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons dont mind Seagulls. If it werent for them, its unlikely the Salt Lake Valley would have survived the first winter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys eat seagulls?   Gross! They are flying rats!
Click to expand...


I can see how you would interpret it that way but that was not the case. We never ate the seagulls. The story goes like this: 
There was a huge plague of crickets that descended upon the crops and settlments of our people during the early Utah years. This plague would have surely wiped out the crops and caused mass devastation if there wasn't a miracle to stop them. What happened was the people prayed for a stop to the devastation. Soon a vast flock of seagulls unexpectedly appeared and systematically devoured the crickets, stopping the devastation. 

This miracle was called "The Miracle of the Seagulls and Crickets."


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons dont mind Seagulls. If it werent for them, its unlikely the Salt Lake Valley would have survived the first winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys eat seagulls?   Gross! They are flying rats!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see how you would interpret it that way but that was not the case. We never ate the seagulls. The story goes like this:
> There was a huge plague of crickets that descended upon the crops and settlments of our people during the early Utah years. This plague would have surely wiped out the crops and caused mass devastation if there wasn't a miracle to stop them. What happened was the people prayed for a stop to the devastation. Soon a vast flock of seagulls unexpectedly appeared and systematically devoured the crickets, stopping the devastation.
> 
> This miracle was called "The Miracle of the Seagulls and Crickets."
Click to expand...


That was a joke TS.  Lighten up.  BTW...  Nothin personal about usin your thread as a means to build mine.  I just like challenges... I just like winning.  Sorry I had to trick that pack of idiots to come over and piss in your punch bowl.  Maybe you can convert some of em...  I'm sure your god knows they need some guidance.

PS...the other post is supposed to be funny also..you don't have to defend you religion in it or make corrections.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons dont mind Seagulls. If it werent for them, its unlikely the Salt Lake Valley would have survived the first winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys eat seagulls?   Gross! They are flying rats!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can see how you would interpret it that way but that was not the case. We never ate the seagulls. The story goes like this:
> There was a huge plague of crickets that descended upon the crops and settlments of our people during the early Utah years. This plague would have surely wiped out the crops and caused mass devastation if there wasn't a miracle to stop them. What happened was the people prayed for a stop to the devastation. Soon a vast flock of seagulls unexpectedly appeared and systematically devoured the crickets, stopping the devastation.
> 
> This miracle was called "The Miracle of the Seagulls and Crickets."
Click to expand...


Good luck engaging LittleDiaperDude in any kind of reasoned debate - he's not very good at discussing anything. He's a legend (in his own mind at least) at starting whines and then pretending it's all just fun. He's one of the very few posters here that we can honestly say adds absolutely nothing to the forum.


----------



## HUGGY

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys eat seagulls?   Gross! They are flying rats!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see how you would interpret it that way but that was not the case. We never ate the seagulls. The story goes like this:
> There was a huge plague of crickets that descended upon the crops and settlments of our people during the early Utah years. This plague would have surely wiped out the crops and caused mass devastation if there wasn't a miracle to stop them. What happened was the people prayed for a stop to the devastation. Soon a vast flock of seagulls unexpectedly appeared and systematically devoured the crickets, stopping the devastation.
> 
> This miracle was called "The Miracle of the Seagulls and Crickets."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck engaging LittleDiaperDude in any kind of reasoned debate - he's not very good at discussing anything. He's a legend (in his own mind at least) at starting whines and then pretending it's all just fun. He's one of the very few posters here that we can honestly say adds absolutely nothing to the forum.
Click to expand...


And you think your lies add tro the forum?  Get over yourself twat.  I think "everyone/we" know what you add to the forum.  How'd that attempt to stop me from overtaking this thread and makin it to the top 5 work out for ya?  You are SOOOOOOO pathetic.


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see how you would interpret it that way but that was not the case. We never ate the seagulls. The story goes like this:
> There was a huge plague of crickets that descended upon the crops and settlments of our people during the early Utah years. This plague would have surely wiped out the crops and caused mass devastation if there wasn't a miracle to stop them. What happened was the people prayed for a stop to the devastation. Soon a vast flock of seagulls unexpectedly appeared and systematically devoured the crickets, stopping the devastation.
> 
> This miracle was called "The Miracle of the Seagulls and Crickets."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck engaging LittleDiaperDude in any kind of reasoned debate - he's not very good at discussing anything. He's a legend (in his own mind at least) at starting whines and then pretending it's all just fun. He's one of the very few posters here that we can honestly say adds absolutely nothing to the forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think your lies add tro the forum?  Get over yourself twat.  I think "everyone/we" know what you add to the forum.  How'd that attempt to stop me from overtaking this thread and makin it to the top 5 work out for ya?  You are SOOOOOOO pathetic.
Click to expand...


Actually, LittleWhiningDiaperDude, the pathetic one is you with your constant craving for attention. You're a joke.... You couldn't even resist replying to a post that was talking about you, not to you. You're possibly even more predictable that your whiny little pal.


----------



## HUGGY

California Girl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck engaging LittleDiaperDude in any kind of reasoned debate - he's not very good at discussing anything. He's a legend (in his own mind at least) at starting whines and then pretending it's all just fun. He's one of the very few posters here that we can honestly say adds absolutely nothing to the forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think your lies add tro the forum?  Get over yourself twat.  I think "everyone/we" know what you add to the forum.  How'd that attempt to stop me from overtaking this thread and makin it to the top 5 work out for ya?  You are SOOOOOOO pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, LittleWhiningDiaperDude, the pathetic one is you with your constant craving for attention. You're a joke.... You couldn't even resist replying to a post that was talking about you, not to you. You're possibly even more predictable that your whiny little pal.
Click to expand...


Well so much for you claiming to and admonishing others for respect to the more mans.
Another in your short stay and long list of untruths.

Thanks for playing..*Lying twats on USMBs*


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think your lies add tro the forum?  Get over yourself twat.  I think "everyone/we" know what you add to the forum.  How'd that attempt to stop me from overtaking this thread and makin it to the top 5 work out for ya?  You are SOOOOOOO pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, LittleWhiningDiaperDude, the pathetic one is you with your constant craving for attention. You're a joke.... You couldn't even resist replying to a post that was talking about you, not to you. You're possibly even more predictable that your whiny little pal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well so much for you claiming to and admonishing others for respect to the more mans.
> Another in your short stay and long list of untruths.
> 
> Thanks for playing..*Lying twats on USMBs*
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not the one using foul language in here, am I? So, I think I can tick the 'respect' box, not you. 

As for short stays - interesting, is it not that in my short stay, my rep is actually double yours. I also notice that, after you'd been here for just a few short weeks, you were pretty damned unpopular.   I can see why....


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy seems a bit jealous that others are able to discuss civilly, so he's playing a seagull now.  Fly in, shit all over, then fly away.  As with seagulls, don't feed them and there's less shit to dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons dont mind Seagulls. If it werent for them, its unlikely the Salt Lake Valley would have survived the first winter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys eat seagulls?   Gross! They are flying rats!
Click to expand...


Did anyone but you say anything about eating seagulls? i thought not.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> I read yo damn book.  It's just about a bunch of squabbling idiots that keep gettin thier dumb asses in slings and everybody hates thier dumb asses then they find some magic plates but no cups or bowls or silverware so they hide the plates hopin to get a complete sevice setting sometime down the road but it never happens.



Werent you the guy bragging that he hasnt read a book in 35 years? 

The rest of your synopsis demonstrates how much credibility you have with any sane person.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> That was a joke TS.  Lighten up.  BTW...  Nothin personal about usin your thread as a means to build mine.  I just like challenges... I just like winning.  Sorry I had to trick that pack of idiots to come over and piss in your punch bowl.  Maybe you can convert some of em...  I'm sure your god knows they need some guidance.
> 
> PS...the other post is supposed to be funny also..you don't have to defend you religion in it or make corrections.



There hasnt been a competition.

Oh and jokes need to be funny.


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons dont mind Seagulls. If it werent for them, its unlikely the Salt Lake Valley would have survived the first winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys eat seagulls?   Gross! They are flying rats!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anyone but you say anything about eating seagulls? i thought not.
Click to expand...


  I thought everyone (including non Mormons) knew the significance of seagulls saving the settlers by eating the locusts. I guess not.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read yo damn book.  It's just about a bunch of squabbling idiots that keep gettin thier dumb asses in slings and everybody hates thier dumb asses then they find some magic plates but no cups or bowls or silverware so they hide the plates hopin to get a complete sevice setting sometime down the road but it never happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Werent you the guy bragging that he hasnt read a book in 35 years?
> 
> The rest of your synopsis demonstrates how much credibility you have with any sane person.
Click to expand...


Got me there...I said I hadn't read any *fiction *in 35 years.  My bad.  I read the book of more mans about 5 years ago.  I unlike o so many that post here will admit when I have made an error.  

I didn't get  4.0 in college electronics and mathmatics and logic and programing by not reading any books.  Nor did I get a pilots liscense by not reading any books.  I think you are falling into the often used and never successful pulling shit out of your ass tactic so comon in neo con losing argumentation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I read the book of more mans about 5 years ago.  I unlike o so many that post here will admit when I have made an error.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Got me there...I said I hadn't read any *fiction *in 35 years.  My bad.  I read the book of more mans about 5 years ago.  I unlike o so many that post here will admit when I have made an error.
> 
> I didn't get  4.0 in college electronics and mathmatics and logic and programing by not reading any books.  Nor did I get a pilots liscense by not reading any books.  I think you are falling into the often used and never successful pulling shit out of your ass tactic so comon in neo con losing argumentation.



Actually, you said any book:




HUGGY said:


> Here is the funny part...  I haven't read a book other than a technical manual in over 35 years.  I have authored one and started four others..  What's mine is mine.
> 
> I can't wait to see what she thinks I've stolen.



Absolutely nothing about fiction. And quite honestly, your ignorance just seeps from you.

You can see the exact text of our discussion on the matter here. It's the top post.

But hey, why would i expect you to have any sort of working knowledge about the world around you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Huggy Below:


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> Huggy Below:





I have given out too much rep, but I will be back to rep you for that!!


----------



## froggy

are you a mormon cal gal or are you just here chasing huggy


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> are you a mormon cal gal or are you just here chasing huggy



Froggy.....are you a Christian?????

I was just wondering because anyone who acts like such a tool can't be saved.


----------



## froggy

Why is there no evidence of Mormons in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began? 
After the crucifixion of Jesus, all was in turmoil,and false prophet were around every corner.(2 thessalonians 2:3) Around the time King James had the gospel translated, in the 1800s (and those that translated it were under such scrutiny they made it a point to translate it as close as possible) anyway around that time lo and behold another false prophet appeared Joseph Smith and began the deception.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Why is there no evidence of Mormons in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?
> After the crucifixion of Jesus, all was in turmoil,and false prophet were around every corner.(2 thessalonians 2:3) Around the time King James had the gospel translated, in the 1800s (and those that translated it were under such scrutiny they made it a point to translate it as close as possible) anyway around that time lo and behold another false prophet appeared Joseph Smith and began the deception.



What the heck are you rambling about? Nothing you've just said has any bearing on reality.


----------



## mudwhistle

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there no evidence of Mormons in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?
> After the crucifixion of Jesus, all was in turmoil,and false prophet were around every corner.(2 thessalonians 2:3) Around the time King James had the gospel translated, in the 1800s (and those that translated it were under such scrutiny they made it a point to translate it as close as possible) anyway around that time lo and behold another false prophet appeared Joseph Smith and began the deception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you rambling about? Nothing you've just said has any bearing on reality.
Click to expand...


Froggy is off in his own little world of illusion.


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there no evidence of Mormons in the early centuries, before the alleged apostasy began?
> After the crucifixion of Jesus, all was in turmoil,and false prophet were around every corner.(2 thessalonians 2:3) Around the time King James had the gospel translated, in the 1800s (and those that translated it were under such scrutiny they made it a point to translate it as close as possible) anyway around that time lo and behold another false prophet appeared Joseph Smith and began the deception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you rambling about? Nothing you've just said has any bearing on reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Froggy is off in his own little world of illusion.
Click to expand...

when your brainwashed you can only understand what your programed to understand, nothing else makes sense.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> when your brainwashed you can only understand what your programed to understand, nothing else makes sense.



Well, I suppose you would know better than the rest of us. Must be a tough life you live.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when your brainwashed you can only understand what your programed to understand, nothing else makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose you would know better than the rest of us. Must be a tough life you live.
Click to expand...


There is still hope for you, ask the real God to show you the way.


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck are you rambling about? Nothing you've just said has any bearing on reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy is off in his own little world of illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when your brainwashed you can only understand what your programed to understand, nothing else makes sense.
Click to expand...


Which pretty much explains what your problem is.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> There is still hope for you, ask the real God to show you the way.



He did. He does. and I hope He will for many years in the future.

If He hadnt shown me that the Restoration was real and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet i might be a completely different person now. More importantly if He hadnt revealed to me the precious gift of the Atonement, I wouldnt have hope or healing in my life.

I have to ask this question. And i do so sincerely. I mean absolutely no disrespect. Why do you think God is different now? From the beginning of time He inspired men to write His word. He spoke from the Heavens. He revealed His Gospel from the days of Adam onward. Why do you believe He is somehow no longer doing that? Why do you believe that revelation has ceased when He has not said it has? Why do you believe that prophecy has ceased when the Spirit of Prophecy is what gives men a testimony of Jesus Christ and when His Kingdom has been directed by revelation in ever age of time?

Why is my God, who is active in the world and in my life less real than your silent God?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still hope for you, ask the real God to show you the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He did. He does. and I hope He will for many years in the future.
> 
> If He hadnt shown me that the Restoration was real and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet i might be a completely different person now. More importantly if He hadnt revealed to me the precious gift of the Atonement, I wouldnt have hope or healing in my life.
> 
> I have to ask this question. And i do so sincerely. I mean absolutely no disrespect. Why do you think God is different now? From the beginning of time He inspired men to write His word. He spoke from the Heavens. He revealed His Gospel from the days of Adam onward. Why do you believe He is somehow no longer doing that? Why do you believe that revelation has ceased when He has not said it has? Why do you believe that prophecy has ceased when the Spirit of Prophecy is what gives men a testimony of Jesus Christ and when His Kingdom has been directed by revelation in ever age of time?
> 
> Why is my God, who is active in the world and in my life less real than your silent God?
Click to expand...

maybe one day you will ,as paul did and see the true light, i'm praying you will.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> maybe one day you will ,as paul did and see the true light, i'm praying you will.



Why do you refuse to discuss the issue? Is your position on the matter so unsupportable that you cant back up anything you are saying? Why cant you just answer simple questions?


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when your brainwashed you can only understand what your programed to understand, nothing else makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose you would know better than the rest of us. Must be a tough life you live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is still hope for you, ask the real God to show you the way.
Click to expand...


My understanding is Jesus is the way.....


----------



## Intense

John 

17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:  

17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.   

17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.   Defenders Notes >>

17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.   

17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.   

17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.   

17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.   

17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.   

17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 

17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.   

17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;   

17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.                           

17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.   

17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

The Holy Bible


----------



## Liability

Come ON people!

You guys are turning the discussion about MORMONS into a discussion about religion!

This is UNacceptable!


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when your brainwashed you can only understand what your programed to understand, nothing else makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose you would know better than the rest of us. Must be a tough life you live.
Click to expand...


Froggy is kinda sweet, but his ability to construct anything like a coherent thought is sadly lacking. His habit is to post whatever silliness jumps into his brain.


----------



## Avatar4321

Intense said:


> John
> 
> 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
> 
> 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
> 
> 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
> 
> 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
> 
> 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.   Defenders Notes >>
> 
> 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
> 
> 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
> 
> 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
> 
> 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
> 
> 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
> 
> 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
> 
> 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
> 
> 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
> 
> 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
> 
> 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
> 
> 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
> 
> 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
> 
> 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
> 
> 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
> 
> 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
> 
> 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
> 
> 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
> 
> 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
> 
> 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
> 
> 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
> 
> 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
> 
> The Holy Bible



Good chapter... not sure why you posted it. but good chapter.


----------



## Liability

This thread is in dire need of another dose of 


*BUMP!*


----------



## froggy

California Girl said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when your brainwashed you can only understand what your programed to understand, nothing else makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I suppose you would know better than the rest of us. Must be a tough life you live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Froggy is kinda sweet, but his ability to construct anything like a coherent thought is sadly lacking. His habit is to post whatever silliness jumps into his brain.
Click to expand...


i bet you say that to all the guys and what about my question. Are you mormon?


----------



## froggy

mormons came about in the mid 1800s by joe smith, around the same time the gospels were being translated (fact) Why were there no records of mormons before then?


----------



## amrchaos

froggy said:


> mormons came about in the mid 1800s by joe smith, around the same time the gospels were being translated (fact) Why were there no records of mormons before then?



Atheism is considered the oldest religious belief in the world.  

Why are there no holy books dedicated to Atheistic thought?

I think it is time to write one!!   

For far too long has atheists sat and listened, now it is time we show the others how it suppose to be done.

Religion should not be serious--it should be fun.

Not Dogmatic, but quest inspiring!!

Not dour, but Funny


And I think I have enough screws loose to write up a rough draft for the world's first Holy Book of Atheism.  Totally inspired by GOD, I guess.


----------



## froggy

amrchaos said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> mormons came about in the mid 1800s by joe smith, around the same time the gospels were being translated (fact) Why were there no records of mormons before then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is considered the oldest religious belief in the world.
> 
> Why are there no holy books dedicated to Atheistic thought?
Click to expand...

There is, read the old and new testament, it speaks alot of the ungodly.
So your comparing mormons to atheist. i would not have taken it that far.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> mormons came about in the mid 1800s by joe smith, around the same time the gospels were being translated (fact) Why were there no records of mormons before then?



The Gospels were being translated in the mid 1800s?

Because there werent any mormons until after the Book of Mormon was revealed in 1829...  Why would you expect otherwise?


----------



## Intense

Avatar4321 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> John
> 
> 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
> 
> 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
> 
> 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
> 
> 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
> 
> 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.   Defenders Notes >>
> 
> 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
> 
> 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
> 
> 17:8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
> 
> 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
> 
> 17:10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
> 
> 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
> 
> 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
> 
> 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
> 
> 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
> 
> 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
> 
> 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
> 
> 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
> 
> 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
> 
> 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
> 
> 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
> 
> 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
> 
> 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
> 
> 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
> 
> 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
> 
> 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
> 
> 17:26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
> 
> The Holy Bible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good chapter... not sure why you posted it. but good chapter.
Click to expand...


LOL Trying to effect change.


----------



## Avatar4321

Intense said:


> Good chapter... not sure why you posted it. but good chapter.



LOL Trying to effect change. [/QUOTE]

Try harder.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> mormons came about in the mid 1800s by joe smith, around the same time the gospels were being translated (fact) Why were there no records of mormons before then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gospels were being translated in the 1800s?
> 
> Because there werent any mormons until after the Book of Mormon was revealed in 1829...  Why would you expect otherwise?
Click to expand...


Thats my point Joey boy, copied the KJV to suit himself. Self appointed prophet


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Thats my point Joey boy, copied the KJV to suit himself. Self appointed prophet



You point makes absolutely no sense. The Book of Mormon is not the KJV. Its a completely different volume of scripture. And the Holy Spirit disagrees with your assessment. So who should I listen to if I am trying to follow God? His Holy Spirit. Or you? 

It seems like a simple decision to me. Especially when no matter how hard you try, you dont create a single coherent argument and refuse to actually discuss anything. Why wont you answer any of the questions I asked you? How am I supposed to understand your position if you dont make sense?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my point Joey boy, copied the KJV to suit himself. Self appointed prophet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You point makes absolutely no sense. The Book of Mormon is not the KJV. Its a completely different volume of scripture. And the Holy Spirit disagrees with your assessment. So who should I listen to if I am trying to follow God? His Holy Spirit. Or you?
> 
> It seems like a simple decision to me. Especially when no matter how hard you try, you dont create a single coherent argument and refuse to actually discuss anything. Why wont you answer any of the questions I asked you? How am I supposed to understand your position if you dont make sense?
Click to expand...

my point is the book of mormon isn't real gospel, it was written by a con man named joe smith.
do you believe god was a mortal man before he was god.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my point Joey boy, copied the KJV to suit himself. Self appointed prophet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You point makes absolutely no sense. The Book of Mormon is not the KJV. Its a completely different volume of scripture. And the Holy Spirit disagrees with your assessment. So who should I listen to if I am trying to follow God? His Holy Spirit. Or you?
> 
> It seems like a simple decision to me. Especially when no matter how hard you try, you dont create a single coherent argument and refuse to actually discuss anything. Why wont you answer any of the questions I asked you? How am I supposed to understand your position if you dont make sense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my point is the book of mormon isn't real gospel, it was written by a con man named joe smith.
> do you believe god was a mortal man before he was god.
Click to expand...


Do YOU believe that God became a mortal man after he was God?

If so, then why could it not also work the other way?

Consider that an off-topic bump (or a partially off-topic bump) for this thread.


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You point makes absolutely no sense. The Book of Mormon is not the KJV. Its a completely different volume of scripture. And the Holy Spirit disagrees with your assessment. So who should I listen to if I am trying to follow God? His Holy Spirit. Or you?
> 
> It seems like a simple decision to me. Especially when no matter how hard you try, you dont create a single coherent argument and refuse to actually discuss anything. Why wont you answer any of the questions I asked you? How am I supposed to understand your position if you dont make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> my point is the book of mormon isn't real gospel, it was written by a con man named joe smith.
> do you believe god was a mortal man before he was god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do YOU believe that God became a mortal man after he was God?
> 
> If so, then why could it not also work the other way?
> 
> Consider that an off-topic bump (or a partially off-topic bump) for this thread.
Click to expand...


so many will be decieved


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> my point is the book of mormon isn't real gospel, it was written by a con man named joe smith.
> do you believe god was a mortal man before he was god.



You're conclusions just arent following your arguments. In fact, the arguments make little or no sense.

What do you disagree with in the Book of Mormon?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> my point is the book of mormon isn't real gospel, it was written by a con man named joe smith.
> do you believe god was a mortal man before he was god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU believe that God became a mortal man after he was God?
> 
> If so, then why could it not also work the other way?
> 
> Consider that an off-topic bump (or a partially off-topic bump) for this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so many will be decieved
Click to expand...


Why cant you just answer the question? Are you that ashamed of your viewpoints that you cant share them?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU believe that God became a mortal man after he was God?
> 
> If so, then why could it not also work the other way?
> 
> Consider that an off-topic bump (or a partially off-topic bump) for this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so many will be decieved
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why cant you just answer the question? Are you that ashamed of your viewpoints that you cant share them?
Click to expand...


Joey boy considered himself a god, that why he wrote that (god was a man first) in his book.Do you believe joes a god now?


----------



## froggy

Your poll shows mormon to be a bunch of crazy friendly bigots.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Joey boy considered himself a god, that why he wrote that (god was a man first) in his book.Do you believe joes a god now?



No. He didnt. He just realized mans ultimate potential as defined in the Bible when Jesus said to those that recieve the word: "Ye are gods". He realized what Paul meant when He said that we could become joint heirs with Christ. He realized what Peter meant when he said we could be partakers of the Divine Nature.

As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man can become.

This is the essence of what the New Testament teaches. that God was made flesh that we may become like God through His Atoning sacrifice. Why is this such a difficult concept to accept when its so clear in the scriptures?

I could cite dozens of Biblical scriptures to support the Doctrine of Diefication. I could quote the Early Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles teaching it. Hell, I can quote CS Lewis, one of the greatest Christian minds in the 20th century to support the concept that man will become gods if they follow the Word.

I am always amazed that this mystery is such a stumbling block to those who should be familiar enough with the Bible to see the Doctrine all over it.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Your poll shows mormon to be a bunch of crazy friendly bigots.



polls not exactly scientific and doesnt take into account reality, just some random peoples perceptions.

Still want to know why you wont answer the questions. What do you find so offensive in the Book of Mormon?


----------



## mudwhistle

froggy said:


> Your poll shows mormon to be a bunch of crazy friendly bigots.



Unfortunatly in some cases you may be correct but I don't think it's exactly Christian of you to be repeating that all of the time. I would think your faith would teach you not to point out the negative aspects of other religions on a regular basis. Try being a good neighbor instead of a bigot yourself.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey boy considered himself a god, that why he wrote that (god was a man first) in his book.Do you believe joes a god now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. He didnt. He just realized mans ultimate potential as defined in the Bible when Jesus said to those that recieve the word: "Ye are gods". He realized what Paul meant when He said that we could become joint heirs with Christ. He realized what Peter meant when he said we could be partakers of the Divine Nature.
> 
> As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man can become.
> 
> This is the essence of what the New Testament teaches. that God was made flesh that we may become like God through His Atoning sacrifice. Why is this such a difficult concept to accept when its so clear in the scriptures?
> 
> I could cite dozens of Biblical scriptures to support the Doctrine of Diefication. I could quote the Early Church Fathers who were taught by the Apostles teaching it. Hell, I can quote CS Lewis, one of the greatest Christian minds in the 20th century to support the concept that man will become gods if they follow the Word.
> 
> I am always amazed that this mystery is such a stumbling block to those who should be familiar enough with the Bible to see the Doctrine all over it.
Click to expand...


Jesus answered them, (Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods)?[things like this rewritten to suit joey deception


----------



## Liability

Yeah, but ...

Look.  This thread is not about the substance of Mormonism or the substance of Christianity.

It's about being a longer lasting and more thoroughly read and responded-to thread than any ugly, fugly, smuggly thread that any smuggly idiot tries to pollute the USMB universe with.
















Oh, and, it's about cannibals, too, I guess.


----------



## froggy

mudwhistle said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your poll shows mormon to be a bunch of crazy friendly bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunatly in some cases you may be correct but I don't think it's exactly Christian of you to be repeating that all of the time. I would think your faith would teach you not to point out the negative aspects of other religions on a regular basis. Try being a good neighbor instead of a bigot yourself.
Click to expand...


so i'm a bigot for quoting what the polls said. just like a mormon, so much better than others.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your poll shows mormon to be a bunch of crazy friendly bigots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunatly in some cases you may be correct but I don't think it's exactly Christian of you to be repeating that all of the time. I would think your faith would teach you not to point out the negative aspects of other religions on a regular basis. Try being a good neighbor instead of a bigot yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so i'm a bigot for quoting what the polls said just like a moirmon so much better than others.
Click to expand...




It COULD be about Mormon cannibal frogs.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Jesus answered them, (Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods)?[things like this rewritten to suit joey deception



How is that rewritten? You are quoting Christ specifically saying "Ye are gods" in regards to those who accept the Word. How is it at all deceptive or incorrect to accept what it says?


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> Oh, and, it's about cannibals, too, I guess.



Im not sure the doctrine on eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ found throughout Christianity is necessarily cannibalism


----------



## Liability

Cannibal Mormon Bump!


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> It COULD be about Mormon cannibal frogs.



I didnt know we started baptizing frogs. I guess there is always something new to learn.


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It COULD be about Mormon cannibal frogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt know we started baptizing frogs. I guess there is always something new to learn.
Click to expand...


Like a frog can't be a cannibal unless he's baptized first?

Come on.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It COULD be about Mormon cannibal frogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt know we started baptizing frogs. I guess there is always something new to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a frog can't be a cannibal unless he's baptized first?
> 
> Come on.
Click to expand...


No. he just cant be mormon till he's baptized


----------



## froggy

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9H4qsZK4o[/ame]


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt know we started baptizing frogs. I guess there is always something new to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a frog can't be a cannibal unless he's baptized first?
> 
> Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. he just cant be mormon till he's baptized
Click to expand...


But if he had gotten Baptized he COULD be a Mormon cannibal?

Check!


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9H4qsZK4o



The bumpdiddlyatious questions of the moment are:

Are you a Mormon froggy or a non-Mormon froggy?

If a Mormon froggy, were you actually Baptized?

Are you or are you not a Mormon cannibal frog, froggy?


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9H4qsZK4o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bumpdiddlyatious questions of the moment are:
> 
> Are you a Mormon froggy or a non-Mormon froggy?
> 
> If a Mormon froggy, were you actually Baptized?
> 
> Are you or are you not a Mormon cannibal frog, froggy?
Click to expand...


why would i follow false doctrines, as mormons do the answer is i'm not a mormon now, never was, nor will i ever be.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu9H4qsZK4o
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bumpdiddlyatious questions of the moment are:
> 
> Are you a Mormon froggy or a non-Mormon froggy?
> 
> If a Mormon froggy, were you actually Baptized?
> 
> Are you or are you not a Mormon cannibal frog, froggy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would i follow false doctrines, as mormons do the answer is i'm not a mormon now, never was, nor will i ever be.
Click to expand...



So you deny being a Mormon; but you do not deny being a cannibal frog, froggy?

INteresting.


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bumpdiddlyatious questions of the moment are:
> 
> Are you a Mormon froggy or a non-Mormon froggy?
> 
> If a Mormon froggy, were you actually Baptized?
> 
> Are you or are you not a Mormon cannibal frog, froggy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would i follow false doctrines, as mormons do the answer is i'm not a mormon now, never was, nor will i ever be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you deny being a Mormon; but you do not deny being a cannibal frog, froggy?
> 
> INteresting.
Click to expand...

no, the last mormon i chowed down gave me gas, so i'm no longer a cannibal.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would i follow false doctrines, as mormons do the answer is i'm not a mormon now, never was, nor will i ever be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you deny being a Mormon; but you do not deny being a cannibal frog, froggy?
> 
> INteresting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, the last mormon i chowed down gave me gas, so i'm no longer a cannibal.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I KNEW it!

Once a cannibal, always a cannibal.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> But if he had gotten Baptized he COULD be a Mormon cannibal?
> 
> Check!



I suppose, though I doubt we would keep it on the membership records of the Church. And i dont think Id have the patience to teach a frog to be a cannibal. But hey if you did, i suppose it would be.


----------



## Avatar4321

BTW Froggy. Id still like to know what parts of Book of Mormon you disagree with. What parts you do agree with. And what parts you find so offensive.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> BTW Froggy. Id still like to know what parts of Book of Mormon you disagree with. What parts you do agree with. And what parts you find so offensive.



i've been telling you its copied partly from the KJV by a false prophet. And apparently he has deceived many with it, but don't worry there's a special place for those like him in hell.


----------



## Intense

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt know we started baptizing frogs. I guess there is always something new to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like a frog can't be a cannibal unless he's baptized first?
> 
> Come on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. he just cant be mormon till he's baptized
Click to expand...


Hey!!! Last Week We had 3 African Frogs. Now We have 2. The Little one and the Big One ate the Middle one!!! It wasn't Pretty!!! Aggressive Little Reptilians!!! Cannibals!!! Froggy  is not like Them!!! I will not hear of it!!! La La La La I can't hear You!!!  


Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!!!


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Froggy. Id still like to know what parts of Book of Mormon you disagree with. What parts you do agree with. And what parts you find so offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've been telling you its copied partly from the KJV by a false prophet. And apparently he has deceived many with it, but don't worry there's a special place for those like him in hell.
Click to expand...


So you disagree with doctrine found in the KJV? What doctrine? what exactly is false about it? do you know? have you ever read the Book?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Froggy. Id still like to know what parts of Book of Mormon you disagree with. What parts you do agree with. And what parts you find so offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've been telling you its copied partly from the KJV by a false prophet. And apparently he has deceived many with it, but don't worry there's a special place for those like him in hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you disagree with doctrine found in the KJV? What doctrine? what exactly is false about it? do you know? have you ever read the Book?
Click to expand...

there you go, just like joe twisting what one said to suit you goal of misleading others i didn't say i disagreed with the kj bible.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> there you go, just like joe twisting what one said to suit you goal of misleading others i didn't say i disagreed with the kj bible.



I asked you what you disagreed with in the Book of Mormon. You keep talking about the KJV (which i might add isnt in the Book of Mormon) as your answer. How am I supposed to conclude anything else when thats the only answer you have for my question?

What in the Book of Mormon did Joseph lie about? This shouldnt be a tough question for you. I mean you wouldnt oppose something you have no knowledge of would you?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> there you go, just like joe twisting what one said to suit you goal of misleading others i didn't say i disagreed with the kj bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what you disagreed with in the Book of Mormon. You keep talking about the KJV (which i might add isnt in the Book of Mormon) as your answer. How am I supposed to conclude anything else when that's the only answer you have for my question?
> 
> What in the Book of Mormon did Joseph lie about? This shouldnt be a tough question for you. I mean you wouldn't oppose something you have no knowledge of would you?
Click to expand...


Are you in denial or what? Just reading Joey testimony, the things he talk about happen to him is so close in comparison with kj bible, there's no doubt it was reworded from the kj bible by him in order to deceive.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Are you in denial or what? Just reading Joey testimony, the things he talk about happen to him is so close in comparison with kj bible, there's no doubt it was reworded from the kj bible by him in order to deceive.



Ive read Josephs testimony many times. There is nothing in it at all comparable to the KJV. Except where it directly quotes or paraphrases verses. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. I can even post Joseph's testimony, or atleast a number of different ones he made:



> 5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, Lo, here! and others, Lo, there! Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
> 
> 6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensuedpriest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.
> 
> 7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My fathers family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.
> 
> 8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.
> 
> 9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
> 
> 10 In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?
> 
> 11 While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
> 
> 12 Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
> 
> 13 At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion, or else I must do as James directs, that is, ask of God. I at length came to the determination to ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally, and not upbraid, I might venture.
> 
> 14 So, in accordance with this, my determination to ask of God, I retired to the woods to make the attempt. It was on the morning of a beautiful, clear day, early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty. It was the first time in my life that I had made such an attempt, for amidst all my anxieties I had never as yet made the attempt to pray vocally.
> 
> 15 After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.
> 
> 16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destructionnot to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any beingjust at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
> 
> 17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherThis is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
> 
> 18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)and which I should join.
> 
> 19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.
> 
> 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. (Joseph Smith- Hist. 1: 5-20)



Could you tell me where in that the KJV is quoted besides the obvious references?

Or how about this testimony that Joseph and Sydney wrote of the vision they saw:



> 19 And while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about.
> 
> 20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;
> 
> 21 And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.
> 
> 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
> 
> 23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father
> 
> 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:19-24)



Again, where do you find the KJV in that testimony?

Funny thing is, neither of these testimonies are in the Book of Mormon. So you really havent even told me what you find so offensive that is taught in the Book of Mormon yet.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in denial or what? Just reading Joey testimony, the things he talk about happen to him is so close in comparison with kj bible, there's no doubt it was reworded from the kj bible by him in order to deceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive read Josephs testimony many times. There is nothing in it at all comparable to the KJV. Except where it directly quotes or paraphrases verses. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. I can even post Joseph's testimony, or atleast a number of different ones he made:
> 
> 
> 
> Or how about this testimony that Joseph and Sydney wrote of the vision they saw:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 19 And while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about.
> 
> 20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;
> 
> 21 And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.
> (Matthew 26:64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say ...Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God,)
> 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
> 
> 23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father&#8212;
> 
> 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:19-24)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (jonh 3:16)
> Again, where do you find the KJV in that testimony?
> 
> Funny thing is, neither of these testimonies are in the Book of Mormon. So you really havent even told me what you find so offensive that is taught in the Book of Mormon yet.
Click to expand...

The book is fiction, written by a false prophet for his own glory.
It must be bad for you, to have some false religion take away your sense of reasoning. I i put answers under what you wrote.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> The book is fiction, written by a false prophet for his own glory.
> It must be bad for you, to have some false religion take away your sense of reasoning. I i put answers under what you wrote.



If the book was fiction then why cant you tell me a single thing that is incorrect? It shouldnt be this difficult should it?

Oh, I have no clue why you quoted those verses. They didnt appear anywhere in the text I just quoted. I dont see how verses that dont even appear in paraphrase in my quotes proves that my quotes are just mere copies of the KJV.

And more to the point, if you think the Book of Mormon is nothing but KJV verses, how on earth can you believe its false if you believe the Bible to be true?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book is fiction, written by a false prophet for his own glory.
> It must be bad for you, to have some false religion take away your sense of reasoning. I i put answers under what you wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the book was fiction then why cant you tell me a single thing that is incorrect? It shouldnt be this difficult should it?
> 
> Oh, I have no clue why you quoted those verses. They didnt appear anywhere in the text I just quoted. I dont see how verses that dont even appear in paraphrase in my quotes proves that my quotes are just mere copies of the KJV.
> 
> And more to the point, if you think the Book of Mormon is nothing but KJV verses, how on earth can you believe its false if you believe the Bible to be true?
Click to expand...

Rewritten, thats when you take someone writings and change it around to make it your own. The things you quoted were taken from the bible by joey, if you can't see the similarity you really need help.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Rewritten, thats when you take someone writings and change it around to make it your own. The things you quoted were taken from the bible by joey, if you can't see the similarity you really need help.



You do to realize you are copying something just by teaching the same principles dont you? And Joseph didnt write the Book. 

Also, how can the Book of Mormon be false if its just the Bible written different?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rewritten, thats when you take someone writings and change it around to make it your own. The things you quoted were taken from the bible by joey, if you can't see the similarity you really need help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do to realize you are copying something just by teaching the same principles dont you? And Joseph didnt write the Book.
> 
> Also, how can the Book of Mormon be false if its just the Bible written different?
Click to expand...


Its rewritten to a lie. Its not true anymore when you take the truth and turn it into a lie, and yes joey did write it


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Its rewritten to a lie. Its not true anymore when you take the truth and turn it into a lie, and yes joey did write it



You know, trying to get you to answer a question is like pulling teeth. It's extremely painful.

Why cant you provide a single lie? Ive been asking nicely for three days. I'm not asking for much. Find me a lie you've found in the Book of Mormon and tell me what it is and why it's a lie. If the Book is such a fraud, it shouldnt be tough for you.

And so you know, simply repeating its a lie or you're being decieved is not answering the question. I don't care if you incorrectly presume its simply the KJV rewritten. Just give me a lie. Give me some sort of reference. One lie. That's all I want you to do.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its rewritten to a lie. Its not true anymore when you take the truth and turn it into a lie, and yes joey did write it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, trying to get you to answer a question is like pulling teeth. It's extremely painful.
> 
> Why cant you provide a single lie? Ive been asking nicely for three days. I'm not asking for much. Find me a lie you've found in the Book of Mormon and tell me what it is and why it's a lie. If the Book is such a fraud, it shouldnt be tough for you.
> 
> And so you know, simply repeating its a lie or you're being decieved is not answering the question. I don't care if you incorrectly presume its simply the KJV rewritten. Just give me a lie. Give me some sort of reference. One lie. That's all I want you to do.
Click to expand...

find me a truth in it that didn't originate from the bible. false witnesses will use the scripture to lure you from the truth.


----------



## Liability

Happy Thanksgiving 


to Mormons, cannibals, frogs and everyone else in America!

Consider this a Thanksgiving Cannibal Bump!


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> find me a truth in it that didn't originate from the bible. false witnesses will use the scripture to lure you from the truth.



Since you have only asked for one, ill give you only one: Christ visiting other disciples throughout the world after His ressurection. 

I cant help but notice you cant seem to produce a lie. In fact, your objections are simply those that make the Book of Mormon more credible. After all, why on earth would a new volume of scripture revealed by God teach another Gospel than the Bible teaches. Of course you are going to find many of the same principles there. If you found opposing principles, you could easily dismiss one the other.

I would ask you to stop falsely witnessing. I dont think you intend to. You do so out of ignorance, but if you want to have a discussion on this topic. Please read the Book of Mormon first, so we can have a good discussion on it.

Oh and I hope you have a fabulously happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> Happy Thanksgiving
> 
> 
> to Mormons, cannibals, frogs and everyone else in America!
> 
> Consider this a Thanksgiving Cannibal Bump!



Happy Thanksgiving to you too.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> find me a truth in it that didn't originate from the bible. false witnesses will use the scripture to lure you from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have only asked for one, ill give you only one: Christ visiting other disciples throughout the world after His resurrection.
> 
> I cant help but notice you cant seem to produce a lie. In fact, your objections are simply those that make the Book of Mormon more credible. After all, why on earth would a new volume of scripture revealed by God teach another Gospel than the Bible teaches. Of course you are going to find many of the same principles there. If you found opposing principles, you could easily dismiss one the other.
> 
> I would ask you to stop falsely witnessing. I dont think you intend to. You do so out of ignorance, but if you want to have a discussion on this topic. Please read the Book of Mormon first, so we can have a good discussion on it.
> 
> Oh and I hope you have a fabulously happy Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

Joey's word keeps the blinders on the mormons, your taught to hear only the book of mormon. So theres no record of jesus visiting anyone after his his ascending to heaven until joe, how strange.


----------



## Liability

I have been a little rude to my Mormon friends in this thread a few times. 

But, I am not actually hostile to them.

I do not share their religious beliefs. But there's no good reason to deride them for THEIR beliefs.

I post this to make this much clear.  I wish ALL of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a very happy Thanksgiving and a Happy Healthy and Prosperous  Holiday Season.  

I hope it's not too early to say

MERRY CHRISTMAS!


----------



## Modbert

This thread is the Old Yeller of the Religion Subforum.


----------



## Liability

Dogbert said:


> This thread is the Old Yeller of the Religion Subforum.



I feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the  need to BUMP that thought.


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> find me a truth in it that didn't originate from the bible. false witnesses will use the scripture to lure you from the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have only asked for one, ill give you only one: Christ visiting other disciples throughout the world after His resurrection.
> 
> I cant help but notice you cant seem to produce a lie. In fact, your objections are simply those that make the Book of Mormon more credible. After all, why on earth would a new volume of scripture revealed by God teach another Gospel than the Bible teaches. Of course you are going to find many of the same principles there. If you found opposing principles, you could easily dismiss one the other.
> 
> I would ask you to stop falsely witnessing. I dont think you intend to. You do so out of ignorance, but if you want to have a discussion on this topic. Please read the Book of Mormon first, so we can have a good discussion on it.
> 
> Oh and I hope you have a fabulously happy Thanksgiving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joey's word keeps the blinders on the mormons, your taught to hear only the book of mormon. So theres no record of jesus visiting anyone after his his ascending to heaven until joe, how strange.
Click to expand...


Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?  Those who think we do are the ones with blinders on.

Also, Mormons are not taught to only hear/read the Book of Mormon.  That is just false; I have never been taught that in thirty years plus of going to the Mormon church.


----------



## Christopher

Liability said:


> I have been a little rude to my Mormon friends in this thread a few times.
> 
> But, I am not actually hostile to them.
> 
> I do not share their religious beliefs. But there's no good reason to deride them for THEIR beliefs.
> 
> I post this to make this much clear.  I wish ALL of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a very happy Thanksgiving and a Happy Healthy and Prosperous  Holiday Season.
> 
> I hope it's not too early to say
> 
> MERRY CHRISTMAS!



A Merry Christmas to you too!  No, it is not too early.


----------



## Liability

Eat TURKEYS; not people!

A post Thanksgiving Mormon thread BUMP!


----------



## froggy

Christopher said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have only asked for one, ill give you only one: Christ visiting other disciples throughout the world after His resurrection.
> 
> I cant help but notice you cant seem to produce a lie. In fact, your objections are simply those that make the Book of Mormon more credible. After all, why on earth would a new volume of scripture revealed by God teach another Gospel than the Bible teaches. Of course you are going to find many of the same principles there. If you found opposing principles, you could easily dismiss one the other.
> 
> I would ask you to stop falsely witnessing. I dont think you intend to. You do so out of ignorance, but if you want to have a discussion on this topic. Please read the Book of Mormon first, so we can have a good discussion on it.
> 
> Oh and I hope you have a fabulously happy Thanksgiving.
> 
> 
> 
> Joey's word keeps the blinders on the mormons, your taught to hear only the book of mormon. So theres no record of jesus visiting anyone after his his ascending to heaven until joe, how strange.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?  Those who think we do are the ones with blinders on.
> 
> Also, Mormons are not taught to only hear/read the Book of Mormon.  That is just false; I have never been taught that in thirty years plus of going to the Mormon church.
Click to expand...


do you study from the bible or the book of mormon


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey's word keeps the blinders on the mormons, your taught to hear only the book of mormon. So theres no record of jesus visiting anyone after his his ascending to heaven until joe, how strange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?  Those who think we do are the ones with blinders on.
> 
> Also, Mormons are not taught to only hear/read the Book of Mormon.  That is just false; I have never been taught that in thirty years plus of going to the Mormon church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you study from the bible or the book of mormon
Click to expand...


Is there a reason you cannot comprehend that this ^ is just a false dichotomy?

The Mormons I have known study from both.


----------



## froggy

pick one or the other


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> pick one or the other



Nope.  That's the whole point of noting that your proposed dichtomy is a false one.

Mormons can study the Good Book (Old World) AND the Book of Mormon (New World) just like non-Mormon Christians may study both the Old Tetament and the New Testament.

And, as it turns out, your permission is not required -- nor even a valid concern!


----------



## Liability

I'll just BET that your "Jolene" crap makes sense in _some_ universe, frogster!

This ain't the one, however.


----------



## Dr.House

Every religion has walls and walls of study material...


----------



## Liability

Dr.House said:


> Every religion has walls and walls of study material...



Yep!


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> I'll just BET that your "Jolene" crap makes sense in _some_ universe, frogster!
> 
> This ain't the one, however.



oops! wrong site


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> pick one or the other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's the whole point of noting that your proposed dichtomy is a false one.
> 
> Mormons can study the Good Book (Old World) AND the Book of Mormon (New World) just like non-Mormon Christians may study both the Old Tetament and the New Testament.
> 
> And, as it turns out, your permission is not required -- nor even a valid concern!
Click to expand...


I need not say any more, your worshiping joe's religion.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> pick one or the other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's the whole point of noting that your proposed dichtomy is a false one.
> 
> Mormons can study the Good Book (Old World) AND the Book of Mormon (New World) just like non-Mormon Christians may study both the Old Tetament and the New Testament.
> 
> And, as it turns out, your permission is not required -- nor even a valid concern!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I need not say any more, your worshiping joe's religion.
Click to expand...


You never did need to say anything.  Who and what you are shines through pretty clearly already.  So sad for you.

But, no.  I am not worshipping _in_ ANYONE's religion.  I'm not all that religious.  To point out the massive error of your ignorant "thinking" does not require that I be a Mormon.


----------



## Dr.House

So why does froggy hate Mormons?


----------



## Liability

Dr.House said:


> So why does froggy hate Mormons?



I think it's because they refuse to "pick one."


----------



## Dr.House

lol


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey's word keeps the blinders on the mormons, your taught to hear only the book of mormon. So theres no record of jesus visiting anyone after his his ascending to heaven until joe, how strange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?  Those who think we do are the ones with blinders on.
> 
> Also, Mormons are not taught to only hear/read the Book of Mormon.  That is just false; I have never been taught that in thirty years plus of going to the Mormon church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you study from the bible or the book of mormon
Click to expand...


I study both.  Now I've answered your question, please answer mine.  Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?


----------



## froggy

Christopher said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?  Those who think we do are the ones with blinders on.
> 
> Also, Mormons are not taught to only hear/read the Book of Mormon.  That is just false; I have never been taught that in thirty years plus of going to the Mormon church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you study from the bible or the book of mormon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I study both.  Now I've answered your question, please answer mine.  Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?
Click to expand...


No,  and i don't believe jesus visited joe in the 1800 either.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you study from the bible or the book of mormon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I study both.  Now I've answered your question, please answer mine.  Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  and i don't believe jesus visited joe in the 1800 either.
Click to expand...


*Some* folks don't belive Jesus was born of a Virgin, turned water into wine, raised the dead, was raised FROM the dead or was the Son of God.

Go figure.


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> *Some* folks don't belive Jesus was born of a Virgin, turned water into wine, raised the dead, was raised FROM the dead or was the Son of God.
> 
> Go figure.



Do you?


----------



## Dr.House

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some* folks don't belive Jesus was born of a Virgin, turned water into wine, raised the dead, was raised FROM the dead or was the Son of God.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
Click to expand...


I think Liability already explained his thoughts on religion...  A couple of posts above...


----------



## Si modo

Dr.House said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some* folks don't belive Jesus was born of a Virgin, turned water into wine, raised the dead, was raised FROM the dead or was the Son of God.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Liability already explained his thoughts on religion...  A couple of posts above...
Click to expand...

Yes, he did.

And this is still an interesting thread.


----------



## froggy

Dr.House said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Some* folks don't belive Jesus was born of a Virgin, turned water into wine, raised the dead, was raised FROM the dead or was the Son of God.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Liability already explained his thoughts on religion...  A couple of posts above...
Click to expand...


and your his back up voice, well do you!


----------



## Dr.House

Si modo said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Liability already explained his thoughts on religion...  A couple of posts above...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, he did.
> 
> And this is still an interesting thread.
Click to expand...


Yes, it is...


----------



## froggy

False prophecies of Joseph Smith
History of the Church 
Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years - "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189). See context. 
Jesus did not return within fifty-six years when 1891 arrived. 
Doctrine and Covenants 
Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation - "Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion,i which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house... 31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed." (Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.)  See context. 
The Mormons were driven out of Jackson County in 1833.  They were not gathered there in accordance to this prophecy dealing with building the temple. 
The prophecy clearly states that the generation present when the prophecy was given would not pass away until the temple was built at the western boundaries of the state of Missouri which is in Independence.  This clearly failed. 
All Nations would be involved in the American Civil War - "Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. 3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations," (Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3).  See context 
This is clearly another false prophecy since all nations did not get involved in the American Civil War. 
Prophesy that the earth will tremble and the sun be hidden in "not many days": "For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree," (Doctrine and Covenants 88:87)  See context 
The sun hasn't yet been hidden nor has the moon hidden its face. 
This prophecy was given on 12/27/1832.  "Not many days hence"?  Since the writing of this article on 6/22/06, it has been 63,364 days or 173 years, 5 months, 26 days.  I think that 63,364 days is more than "not many days". 
For reference to January 1, 2000 it was 61,000 days (even), or 167 years, 5 days. 
Pearl of Great Price 
Prophecy that Isaiah 11 was about to be fulfilled - "In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when 'they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,' but soon would come," (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History, verse 40).  See context 
Isaiah 11:6-9 says, "And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. 7Also the cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. 9They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea." 
This has not yet been fulfilled.  The wolf is not dwelling with the lamb, the calf and the lion are not together, nor are the cow and bear grazing together.  The lion is not eating straw like an ox.  Nursing children are not playing in the dens of cobras.


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr.House said:


> Every religion has walls and walls of study material...



Yeah. very true. And its amazing how many people presume to be an authority on a religion without reading a single word of that material.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> I need not say any more, your worshiping joe's religion.



Well considering "Joe's religion" is the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, it would seem anyone who follows and believes it is in excellent company.

oh and people worship God, not religions.


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every religion has walls and walls of study material...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. very true. And its amazing how many people presume to be an authority on a religion without reading a single word of that material.
Click to expand...


I just want to see the Gold Plates!


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I need not say any more, your worshiping joe's religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well considering "Joe's religion" is the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, it would seem anyone who follows and believes it is in excellent company.
> 
> oh and people worship God, not religions.
Click to expand...


Ignoring the facts, false prophets do not restore the gospel. And following their teachings may cause you serving God in vain.


----------



## Si modo

Dr.House said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Liability already explained his thoughts on religion...  A couple of posts above...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he did.
> 
> And this is still an interesting thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it is...
Click to expand...

And it continues to be.


----------



## Avatar4321

First, if you are going to cut and paste stuff please do two things:

1) Cite your source
2) Spend about 2 seconds organizing them properly. You aren't exactly doing alot here. its not like its going to ruin your day to make sure what you are quoting is coherent.



froggy said:


> False prophecies of Joseph Smith



This should be entertaining:




> History of the Church
> Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years - "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189). See context.
> Jesus did not return within fifty-six years when 1891 arrived.



If you want the context i suggest you read Joseph's own words than a second hand source:




> 14 I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following:
> 
> 15 Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.
> 
> 16 I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.
> 
> 17 I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time. (D&C 130: 14-17)



So what do we learn here. 

1) if one can even consider this a prophecy, it's conditional. 
2) Joseph wasnt even sure what it meant. 
3) if it was a prophecy he is predicting that the Second Coming will not happen prior to 1891. Surprise, Joseph was right. The Second coming didnt happen before then.

And since you are insisting that this was a prophecy, I would have to chalk it up to one accurate prophecy to Joseph.



> Doctrine and Covenants
> Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation - "Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion,i which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house... 31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed." (Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.)  See context.
> The Mormons were driven out of Jackson County in 1833.  They were not gathered there in accordance to this prophecy dealing with building the temple.
> The prophecy clearly states that the generation present when the prophecy was given would not pass away until the temple was built at the western boundaries of the state of Missouri which is in Independence.  This clearly failed.



I agree. See context:



> Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, *at Kirtland, Ohio*, September 22 and 23, 1832. HC 1: 286&#8211;295. During the month of September, elders had begun to return from their missions in the eastern states and to make reports of their labors. It was while they were together in this season of joy that the following communication was received. The Prophet designates it a revelation on priesthood. (Preface of Section 84)



A Temple was built in Kirtland Ohio in 1836. And that's where the gathering begain.

So looks like Joseph 2 - Froggy 0




> All Nations would be involved in the American Civil War - "Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. 3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations," (Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3).  See context
> This is clearly another false prophecy since all nations did not get involved in the American Civil War.



Amazing how you can turn one of the most accurate prophecies of Joseph Smith and pretend as though it didnt happen. Let's go verse by verse:



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



First, off the bat we can note that Joseph is talking about more than one war here. Otherwise, why would he be talking about multiple wars in the first sentence? The First one was to start with a Rebellion of South Carlina and would end many lives.

South Carolina did rebel. The American Civil war is still the war that terminated the most American lives in the history of our nation. I can safely say this verse has clearly be fulfilled to the letter. I would also note that the Civil war was the first major post-industrialization war. It was through studying how the North used the Railroads to transport troops and the industrialization of weapontry that eventually united the German Republic in the late 1800s and lead to WW1.

Now verse 2 and 3:



> 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
> 3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. (D&C 87:2-3)



The South did call upon other nations for help, including Great Britain. And When Great Britain called upon other nations to defend themselves against other nations WW1 began. It was the defensive alliances that brought everyone into the war immediately. So again, the verse fits perfectly in with the history of what happened. 



> 4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
> 5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation. (D&C 87:4-5)



So there is a space of times. Slaves shall rise up against their masters. What do you think happened after WW2? Who do you think Gandhi was? He was a slave rising up agianst a militarily disciplined master. Almost all the colonized nations of the world rose up against their European masters.

And since then we have seen former slaves in this country mashal themselves. They've organized protested. and they cause problems for the "Gentiles" in the land. Look at the illegal immigration movement. Look at the black liberation movements. You think they havent been vexing the elites in charge for years? I think we are still seeing the fulfillment of those verses as we speak.

The last verses speak of the results and how to avoid them. However, I think Ive sufficiently shown the evidence that Joseph wasnt inaccurate. In fact, he described things remarkably precise.

Ill consider that Joseph 3 - Froggy 0




> Prophesy that the earth will tremble and the sun be hidden in "not many days": "For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree," (Doctrine and Covenants 88:87)  See context
> The sun hasn't yet been hidden nor has the moon hidden its face.
> This prophecy was given on 12/27/1832.  "Not many days hence"?  Since the writing of this article on 6/22/06, it has been 63,364 days or 173 years, 5 months, 26 days.  I think that 63,364 days is more than "not many days".
> For reference to January 1, 2000 it was 61,000 days (even), or 167 years, 5 days.
> Pearl of Great Price



You find this problematic? Have you read the Prophecies in the Bible? The people then expected the end times prophecies to be fullfilled immediately. They still havent been. And you are complaining about length of time? A day to God is 1000 years to us. and you think many days have passed? Seriously? We are talking about the end times. Obviously Christ hasnt come yet. But that means He isnt? And this isnt going to happen? It's impossible to judge how long we have to wait when God hasnt revealed a time table to anyone. 

Especially when the Lord has said this:



> 23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.
> 
> 24 For after today cometh the burning&#8212;this is speaking after the manner of the Lord&#8212;for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.
> 
> 25 Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today. (D&C 64:23-25)



So God considers it today until he comes. Well that really doesnt help your viewpoint that many days come by.

I would view this point as going to no one. It hasnt been fufilled so we dont know how accurate Joseph was. and it hasnt been unfulfilled because not specific timetable exists that delineates time limits.



> Prophecy that Isaiah 11 was about to be fulfilled - "In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when 'they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,' but soon would come," (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History, verse 40).
> 
> See context
> Isaiah 11:6-9 says, "And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. 7Also the cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. 9They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea."
> 
> This has not yet been fulfilled.  The wolf is not dwelling with the lamb, the calf and the lion are not together, nor are the cow and bear grazing together.  The lion is not eating straw like an ox.  Nursing children are not playing in the dens of cobras.



Isaiah 11 is about to be fulfilled. Parts of it already have. Those verses you have quoted are in reference to the Millinium of peace where Christ will reign on the earth that will occur after His Second Coming. Which is soon. Are you telling me you dont believe Christ will come? I mean that might explain alot.

As for the other parts, an Ensign was set up to the nations. The standard of truth has been erected. And as we speak it is gathering in the lost branches of the House of Israel together. And the Gathering will continue until Christ comes and all are One.

Id say thats no point either since the fulfillment still isnt complete.

So looks like Joseph 3 - Froggy 0: Undecided 2

Your list is pretty weak. None of them are actual false prophecies.


----------



## Liability

I have not much regard for Mormonism, but even I can see that froggy just got issued a royal beat down!

This THREAD is GREAT!


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Ignoring the facts, false prophets do not restore the gospel. And following their teachings may cause you serving God in vain.



But you concede that Christianity was in the midsts of Apostasy and needed to be restored. Ill take that as progress. 

So where are the Apostles? Why hasnt Christ sent them? He promised us we would have Apostles until all come to a unity of faith. Has that happened recently? Have all Christian denominations ceased and we all become one body?

Because until then we still need Apostles and Prophets. They are after all the foundation of the Church with Christ being the Chief cornerstone. If we dont have a foundation, we dont have a Church.


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> I have not much regard for Mormonism, but even I can see that froggy just got issued a royal beat down!
> 
> This THREAD is GREAT!


It sure is.


----------



## froggy

Jesus didn't return in 1891 joe gave an exact time,joe said temple in Missouri not Ohio in his lifetime, they didn't build there cause joe's rantings got them kicked out of Missouri. There was no world war in the confederate war. The only reason they established in Ohio, is they con-ed a baptist preacher into using his church.


----------



## Zona

Is beck still a mormon?  Something about magic underwear, tablets that no one can read, interesting feelings towards blacks until the 70's, and a religion started here in the states.  Oh yeah. this is good stuff.


----------



## froggy

All i'm saying if your gonna follow a re-edited version of the KJ bible, quit calling yourself a mormon and admit your a christian.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Understand, gang, the active LDS will only accept their interpretations that are considered authoritative today.  The _History of The Church _is considered authoritative until it is not considered authoritative.  That spin doctoring does the same thing to statements by LDS leaders from the past.

So here is some outstanding advice.  When the Mormon missionaries, LDS or any of the other sects of Mormonism, show up on your doorstep, give them cookies and milk, tell them that Jesus loves them, and send them on their way.


----------



## Avatar4321

Why on earth would we accept someone elses interpretations of our viewpoints as valid? Im fairly certain that we are the authority on what we believe. Why on earth would we let people misrepresent us without correcting them?


----------



## Intense

Without throwing a single stone, what I'm saying plainly, from Solomon's Prayer 1 Kings Chapter 8, Sincerity of Heart, seek God first in All Things, Ezekiel chapter 18, Individual Repentance and Reconciliation, Jeremiah Chapter 23, Be Real clear and Careful, on what We Proclaim, Roman's Chapter 8, Nothing will break a Genuine Bond. He will Defend Each One that is Sincere.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> Why on earth would we accept someone elses interpretations of our viewpoints as valid? Im fairly certain that we are the authority on what we believe. Why on earth would we let people misrepresent us without correcting them?



why would you want someone else to misrepresent you, your doing a fine job yourself.


----------



## Liability

It's gonna be a bumpdiddlyacious day!


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> It's gonna be a bumpdiddlyacious day!


That's a bodacious post.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gonna be a bumpdiddlyacious day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bodacious post.
Click to expand...


NAH!  I will *make* it come true (Allah willing!  ) and I'd appreciate some help!


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's gonna be a bumpdiddlyacious day!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bodacious post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NAH!  I will *make* it come true (Allah willing!  ) and I'd appreciate some help!
Click to expand...

That's an audacious plan.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a bodacious post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAH!  I will *make* it come true (Allah willing!  ) and I'd appreciate some help!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an audacious plan.
Click to expand...


Audacious and bodacious in the same plot, plan and conspiracy?

Some folks might find your assertions OUTRAGEOUS.  But not I!


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> NAH!  I will *make* it come true (Allah willing!  ) and I'd appreciate some help!
> 
> 
> 
> That's an audacious plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Audacious and bodacious in the same plot, plan and conspiracy?
> 
> Some folks might find your assertions OUTRAGEOUS.  But not I!
Click to expand...

But we are tenacious.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an audacious plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Audacious and bodacious in the same plot, plan and conspiracy?
> 
> Some folks might find your assertions OUTRAGEOUS.  But not I!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But we are tenacious.
Click to expand...


I never had such a great hold on that whole tenacious thing ...


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Audacious and bodacious in the same plot, plan and conspiracy?
> 
> Some folks might find your assertions OUTRAGEOUS.  But not I!
> 
> 
> 
> But we are tenacious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never had such a great hold on that whole tenacious thing ...
Click to expand...

Now, that's just fallacious.  You're fine.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we are tenacious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never had such a great hold on that whole tenacious thing ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, that's just fallacious.  You're fine.
Click to expand...


It's not a fallacy if the reasoning is valid!  I AM fine.  But my hold on tenacity is slipping.


----------



## Si modo

Liability said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never had such a great hold on that whole tenacious thing ...
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that's just fallacious.  You're fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a fallacy if the reasoning is valid!  I AM fine.  But my hold on tenacity is slipping.
Click to expand...

OK.  My error.  I can be gracious.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 Joe's not the roll model you need. He was just a wandering con. You need to follow someone who teaches the truth about god, not their truth. Hopefully you will. Love ya mean it.


----------



## Liability

Si modo said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, that's just fallacious.  You're fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a fallacy if the reasoning is valid!  I AM fine.  But my hold on tenacity is slipping.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK.  My error.  I can be gracious.
Click to expand...


AND serious.

Shit.  I hate it when I say stuff like that.

It sounds a bit obsequious.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you havent read a thing. You have no clue what youre talking about. And your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to whatever you think you know thats inaccurate. Did I miss anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read yo damn book.  It's just about a bunch of squabbling idiots that keep gettin thier dumb asses in slings and everybody hates thier dumb asses then they find some magic plates but no cups or bowls or silverware so they hide the plates hopin to get a complete sevice setting sometime down the road but it never happens.
Click to expand...


None of that is in the Book of Mormon. You really read it huh?


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you havent read a thing. You have no clue what youre talking about. And your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to whatever you think you know thats inaccurate. Did I miss anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read yo damn book.  It's just about a bunch of squabbling idiots that keep gettin thier dumb asses in slings and everybody hates thier dumb asses then they find some magic plates but no cups or bowls or silverware so they hide the plates hopin to get a complete sevice setting sometime down the road but it never happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that is in the Book of Mormon. You really read it huh?
Click to expand...


SMuggly isn't conversant with truth or honesty.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> mormons came about in the mid 1800s by joe smith, around the same time the gospels were being translated (fact) Why were there no records of mormons before then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an absolutely insane question. Hear now all who have a brain:
> It was in 1535 that the first English Bible was translated. Long before the 1611 printing of the King James version. Follow this simple timeline below and you will realize just how ridiculous froggy's abstract concept of knowledge is.
> http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/#timeline
> 
> Why weren't people with the nickname of "Mormons" spoken of before the Book of Mormon was printed? It is a self evident question. I'll let you do the math on that one.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr.House

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you havent read a thing. You have no clue what youre talking about. And your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to whatever you think you know thats inaccurate. Did I miss anything at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read yo damn book.  It's just about a bunch of squabbling idiots that keep gettin thier dumb asses in slings and everybody hates thier dumb asses then they find some magic plates but no cups or bowls or silverware so they hide the plates hopin to get a complete sevice setting sometime down the road but it never happens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that is in the Book of Mormon. You really read it huh?
Click to expand...


Nah, he didn't read it...  He's still trying hard to get through the Seuss series...  

For some reason he's stuck re-reading "Hop On Pop"...


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> mormons came about in the mid 1800s by joe smith, around the same time the gospels were being translated (fact) Why were there no records of mormons before then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism is considered the oldest religious belief in the world.
> 
> Why are there no holy books dedicated to Atheistic thought?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is, read the old and new testament, it speaks alot of the ungodly.
> So your comparing mormons to atheist. i would not have taken it that far.
Click to expand...


Did you JUST say the the Bible is dedicated to Atheistic thought?..... Wow. You really did.

What happened is that you guessed the definition of Atheistic thinking it was something Godly when it is the opposite.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Your poll shows mormon to be a bunch of crazy friendly bigots.



If you're going that route you can't cheat and leave out the Christian part.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW Froggy. Id still like to know what parts of Book of Mormon you disagree with. What parts you do agree with. And what parts you find so offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've been telling you its copied partly from the KJV by a false prophet. And apparently he has deceived many with it, but don't worry there's a special place for those like him in hell.
Click to expand...


Froggy, that part is not in the book. Further evidence you are playing God by judging souls to hell even though you have no clue what's actually IN the book.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book is fiction, written by a false prophet for his own glory.
> It must be bad for you, to have some false religion take away your sense of reasoning. I i put answers under what you wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the book was fiction then why cant you tell me a single thing that is incorrect? It shouldnt be this difficult should it?
> 
> Oh, I have no clue why you quoted those verses. They didnt appear anywhere in the text I just quoted. I dont see how verses that dont even appear in paraphrase in my quotes proves that my quotes are just mere copies of the KJV.
> 
> And more to the point, if you think the Book of Mormon is nothing but KJV verses, how on earth can you believe its false if you believe the Bible to be true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rewritten, thats when you take someone writings and change it around to make it your own. The things you quoted were taken from the bible by joey, if you can't see the similarity you really need help.
Click to expand...


Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black! Your whole argument has been plagiarized from 8-Ball who plagiarized his arguments from "Born Again" Christian websites!


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you study from the bible or the book of mormon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I study both.  Now I've answered your question, please answer mine.  Do you believe we have a record of everything Jesus did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  and i don't believe jesus visited joe in the 1800 either.
Click to expand...


Now that's all fine and dandy and no one is ever going to knock you for disbelieving that Joseph was a prophet. 

What has us all scratching our head about you is that you only oppose without giving any constructive criticism of Joseph. Only accusations. Just educate yourself so that you actually know what it is that you oppose. Capeesh?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> First, if you are going to cut and paste stuff please do two things:
> 
> 1) Cite your source
> 2) Spend about 2 seconds organizing them properly. You aren't exactly doing alot here. its not like its going to ruin your day to make sure what you are quoting is coherent.
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> False prophecies of Joseph Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should be entertaining:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History of the Church
> Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years - "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189). See context.
> Jesus did not return within fifty-six years when 1891 arrived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you want the context i suggest you read Joseph's own words than a second hand source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what do we learn here.
> 
> 1) if one can even consider this a prophecy, it's conditional.
> 2) Joseph wasnt even sure what it meant.
> 3) if it was a prophecy he is predicting that the Second Coming will not happen prior to 1891. Surprise, Joseph was right. The Second coming didnt happen before then.
> 
> And since you are insisting that this was a prophecy, I would have to chalk it up to one accurate prophecy to Joseph.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. See context:
> 
> 
> 
> A Temple was built in Kirtland Ohio in 1836. And that's where the gathering begain.
> 
> So looks like Joseph 2 - Froggy 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how you can turn one of the most accurate prophecies of Joseph Smith and pretend as though it didnt happen. Let's go verse by verse:
> 
> 
> 
> First, off the bat we can note that Joseph is talking about more than one war here. Otherwise, why would he be talking about multiple wars in the first sentence? The First one was to start with a Rebellion of South Carlina and would end many lives.
> 
> South Carolina did rebel. The American Civil war is still the war that terminated the most American lives in the history of our nation. I can safely say this verse has clearly be fulfilled to the letter. I would also note that the Civil war was the first major post-industrialization war. It was through studying how the North used the Railroads to transport troops and the industrialization of weapontry that eventually united the German Republic in the late 1800s and lead to WW1.
> 
> Now verse 2 and 3:
> 
> 
> 
> The South did call upon other nations for help, including Great Britain. And When Great Britain called upon other nations to defend themselves against other nations WW1 began. It was the defensive alliances that brought everyone into the war immediately. So again, the verse fits perfectly in with the history of what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> So there is a space of times. Slaves shall rise up against their masters. What do you think happened after WW2? Who do you think Gandhi was? He was a slave rising up agianst a militarily disciplined master. Almost all the colonized nations of the world rose up against their European masters.
> 
> And since then we have seen former slaves in this country mashal themselves. They've organized protested. and they cause problems for the "Gentiles" in the land. Look at the illegal immigration movement. Look at the black liberation movements. You think they havent been vexing the elites in charge for years? I think we are still seeing the fulfillment of those verses as we speak.
> 
> The last verses speak of the results and how to avoid them. However, I think Ive sufficiently shown the evidence that Joseph wasnt inaccurate. In fact, he described things remarkably precise.
> 
> Ill consider that Joseph 3 - Froggy 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You find this problematic? Have you read the Prophecies in the Bible? The people then expected the end times prophecies to be fullfilled immediately. They still havent been. And you are complaining about length of time? A day to God is 1000 years to us. and you think many days have passed? Seriously? We are talking about the end times. Obviously Christ hasnt come yet. But that means He isnt? And this isnt going to happen? It's impossible to judge how long we have to wait when God hasnt revealed a time table to anyone.
> 
> Especially when the Lord has said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 23 Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.
> 
> 24 For after today cometh the burningthis is speaking after the manner of the Lordfor verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.
> 
> 25 Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today. (D&C 64:23-25)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God considers it today until he comes. Well that really doesnt help your viewpoint that many days come by.
> 
> I would view this point as going to no one. It hasnt been fufilled so we dont know how accurate Joseph was. and it hasnt been unfulfilled because not specific timetable exists that delineates time limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prophecy that Isaiah 11 was about to be fulfilled - "In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament. He said that that prophet was Christ; but the day had not yet come when 'they who would not hear his voice should be cut off from among the people,' but soon would come," (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, History, verse 40).
> 
> See context
> Isaiah 11:6-9 says, "And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the kid, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. 7Also the cow and the bear will graze; Their young will lie down together; And the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. 9They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea."
> 
> This has not yet been fulfilled.  The wolf is not dwelling with the lamb, the calf and the lion are not together, nor are the cow and bear grazing together.  The lion is not eating straw like an ox.  Nursing children are not playing in the dens of cobras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isaiah 11 is about to be fulfilled. Parts of it already have. Those verses you have quoted are in reference to the Millinium of peace where Christ will reign on the earth that will occur after His Second Coming. Which is soon. Are you telling me you dont believe Christ will come? I mean that might explain alot.
> 
> As for the other parts, an Ensign was set up to the nations. The standard of truth has been erected. And as we speak it is gathering in the lost branches of the House of Israel together. And the Gathering will continue until Christ comes and all are One.
> 
> Id say thats no point either since the fulfillment still isnt complete.
> 
> So looks like Joseph 3 - Froggy 0: Undecided 2
> 
> Your list is pretty weak. None of them are actual false prophecies.
Click to expand...


Actually a slight correction for you Avatar. The slaves being marshalled and disciplined for war was literal and during the civil war towards the end of it. Many escaped slaves joined the north and were marshalled by white leaders and led into battle. Hollywood made a solid movie about it too. Didn't you ever see Glory? True story. Another strong stamp of authenticity on Joseph's Prophetic Calling.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Ignoring the facts, false prophets do not restore the gospel.



A very true statement. We don't follow false prophets.



> And following their teachings may cause you serving God in vain.


This statement of yours is just weird on two levels. If someone follows a false prophet's teachings they would NOT be serving God in the first place. It is also impossible to serve God in vain.


----------



## 2Parties

I've never meet a Mormon.  I think they are some smart, but misguided, people.  I also think they are nicer and more frugal than the average person.  My view comes from uninformed stereotypes.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Actually a slight correction for you Avatar. The slaves being marshalled and disciplined for war was literal and during the civil war towards the end of it. Many escaped slaves joined the north and were marshalled by white leaders and led into battle. Hollywood made a solid movie about it too. Didn't you ever see Glory? True story. Another strong stamp of authenticity on Joseph's Prophetic Calling.



Im not disputing that occured. But I think in the context of the revelation, it comes sometime after war is poured out upon all the world. So I think anti-colonial movement is much more appropriate as a fulfillment. 

Course, we are just minsing words here, the fact is it has been fulfilled.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> All i'm saying if your gonna follow a re-edited version of the KJ bible, quit calling yourself a mormon and admit your a christian.



 I shat a cat and split a gizzard when I heard that last statement. I admit it!!!
We're Christians! Halelujah!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Understand, gang, the active LDS will only accept their interpretations that are considered authoritative today.  The _History of The Church _is considered authoritative until it is not considered authoritative.  That spin doctoring does the same thing to statements by LDS leaders from the past.
> 
> So here is some outstanding advice.  When the Mormon missionaries, LDS or any of the other sects of Mormonism, show up on your doorstep, give them cookies and milk, tell them that Jesus loves them, and send them on their way.



be careful what you give us, cuz we'll be back for more! LDS Missionaries are the hungriest people on the planet.


----------



## froggy

When you read of king zedekiah history nephi is never recorded as being there. And lehi, his so called father, there is no record of at all. Reading nephi is like reading the bible with all the stories mixed together. and according to nephi he himself was a jehovah. And he doesn't mention nothing of the babylonians. Actually when you read the history of the time, these so called authors of the books of mormon are not mentioned.


----------



## froggy

do you believe the garden of eden was in missouri, and thats where it all began


----------



## froggy

sounds like nephi did the same thing joe did.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr.House said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read yo damn book.  It's just about a bunch of squabbling idiots that keep gettin thier dumb asses in slings and everybody hates thier dumb asses then they find some magic plates but no cups or bowls or silverware so they hide the plates hopin to get a complete sevice setting sometime down the road but it never happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is in the Book of Mormon. You really read it huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, he didn't read it...  He's still trying hard to get through the Seuss series...
> 
> For some reason he's stuck re-reading "Hop On Pop"...
Click to expand...


I am a Yop. All I do is Hop, I like to hop and hop and hop, from finger top to finger top, I like to hop all day and then, I hop and hop right back again. Why do I like to hop hop hop? I do not know go ask your Pop!

Truly intellectual reading is the genius that IS Dr. Seuss.


----------



## Truthspeaker

2Parties said:


> I've never meet a Mormon.  I think they are some smart, but misguided, people.  I also think they are nicer and more frugal than the average person.  My view comes from uninformed stereotypes.



Smart is a good stereotype to have. Misguided is relative to who is guiding you. Nice yes, and frugal is a nice way of putting it. Most of us are just plain cheap.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a slight correction for you Avatar. The slaves being marshalled and disciplined for war was literal and during the civil war towards the end of it. Many escaped slaves joined the north and were marshalled by white leaders and led into battle. Hollywood made a solid movie about it too. Didn't you ever see Glory? True story. Another strong stamp of authenticity on Joseph's Prophetic Calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not disputing that occured. But I think in the context of the revelation, it comes sometime after war is poured out upon all the world. So I think anti-colonial movement is much more appropriate as a fulfillment.
> 
> Course, we are just minsing words here, the fact is it has been fulfilled.
Click to expand...


no ava, you can't put in things to make it look like joe got it right, he didn't


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a slight correction for you Avatar. The slaves being marshalled and disciplined for war was literal and during the civil war towards the end of it. Many escaped slaves joined the north and were marshalled by white leaders and led into battle. Hollywood made a solid movie about it too. Didn't you ever see Glory? True story. Another strong stamp of authenticity on Joseph's Prophetic Calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not disputing that occured. But I think in the context of the revelation, it comes sometime after war is poured out upon all the world. So I think anti-colonial movement is much more appropriate as a fulfillment.
> 
> Course, we are just minsing words here, the fact is it has been fulfilled.
Click to expand...


I'm fully convinced that Smith was referring specifically to the slaves in our civil war. If you look at the growth of worlwide warfare on a timeline year by year from the 1860's, just about every country in the world was directly or indirectly involved in a war.
New Zealand, Great Britain, France, China, The US, Mexico, , Germany, Ottoman Empire, Italy, Japan to name a few.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a slight correction for you Avatar. The slaves being marshalled and disciplined for war was literal and during the civil war towards the end of it. Many escaped slaves joined the north and were marshalled by white leaders and led into battle. Hollywood made a solid movie about it too. Didn't you ever see Glory? True story. Another strong stamp of authenticity on Joseph's Prophetic Calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not disputing that occurred. But I think in the context of the revelation, it comes sometime after war is poured out upon all the world. So I think anti-colonial movement is much more appropriate as a fulfillment.
> 
> Course, we are just mincing words here, the fact is it has been fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm fully convinced that Smith was referring specifically to the slaves in our civil war. If you look at the growth of worldwide warfare on a timeline year by year from the 1860's, just about every country in the world was directly or indirectly involved in a war.
> New Zealand, Great Britain, France, China, The US, Mexico, , Germany, Ottoman Empire, Italy, Japan to name a few.
Click to expand...


he said nothing of slaves, are you putting words in his phony prediction


----------



## froggy

and what about them tablets nephi mentioned ( oh that was moses and the tablets) nephi made his version plates.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> When you read of king zedekiah history nephi is never recorded as being there. And lehi, his so called father, there is no record of at all. Reading nephi is like reading the bible with all the stories mixed together. and according to nephi he himself was a jehovah. And he doesn't mention nothing of the babylonians. Actually when you read the history of the time, these so called authors of the books of mormon are not mentioned.



The time in which Lehi and his sons lived was the period of Jeremiah's ministry. Also during the reign of Hezekiah as you apparently have begun reading. This is good. I'm glad you actually started reading it. Jeremiah specifically mentions that he was not the only prophet in those days. He intentionally states there were other prophets beside him. He does not name their names but Lehi was one of them. Nephi was also one of them. They don't have to be mentioned by name. 

Nephi never at any point called himself Jehovah. Where did you get that from?
In fact they mention a lot about the Babylonians in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Lehi warned his family to leave or they would be led away captive into Babylon. Shortly after they left, Babylon conquered Israel and took thousands away captive into Babylon. Especially the strong, skilled or females. Lehi and Nephi were both strong, skilled and wealthy and would not have been left in Jerusalem and his daughters would have been taken from him and done with as you could imagine. They would have become valuable slaves to the King of Babylon's army.  See Jeremiah for this fact.

Why do you think the authors of the Book of Mormon are not mentioned in the Bible? Because they sailed across the world to a remote continent unknown to the Israelites. How would they have known? they fled in secret.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> do you believe the garden of eden was in missouri, and thats where it all began



What makes you think you can ask questions before you have answered the multitude asked to you? It is irrelevant what I believe because that question is tied to whether Joseph was or was not a prophet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a slight correction for you Avatar. The slaves being marshalled and disciplined for war was literal and during the civil war towards the end of it. Many escaped slaves joined the north and were marshalled by white leaders and led into battle. Hollywood made a solid movie about it too. Didn't you ever see Glory? True story. Another strong stamp of authenticity on Joseph's Prophetic Calling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not disputing that occured. But I think in the context of the revelation, it comes sometime after war is poured out upon all the world. So I think anti-colonial movement is much more appropriate as a fulfillment.
> 
> Course, we are just minsing words here, the fact is it has been fulfilled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no ava, you can't put in things to make it look like joe got it right, he didn't
Click to expand...


Fact is toady, Joseph was so right that it's scary. The slaves actually being disciplined and marshalled for war by white leaders is even more acurate than what was said before. How does it feel in that pot? Is the water warm Froggy? Better be careful or you won't notice the bubbles rising and it'll be too late for you.


----------



## froggy

as far as jarom goes the book of mormon is the only place he's acknowledged


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not disputing that occurred. But I think in the context of the revelation, it comes sometime after war is poured out upon all the world. So I think anti-colonial movement is much more appropriate as a fulfillment.
> 
> Course, we are just mincing words here, the fact is it has been fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fully convinced that Smith was referring specifically to the slaves in our civil war. If you look at the growth of worldwide warfare on a timeline year by year from the 1860's, just about every country in the world was directly or indirectly involved in a war.
> New Zealand, Great Britain, France, China, The US, Mexico, , Germany, Ottoman Empire, Italy, Japan to name a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he said nothing of slaves, are you putting words in his phony prediction
Click to expand...


No I'm not. See official statement below:


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


For a man to prophesy such a thing 27 years in advance when the slaves showed no signs of independance is as legitimate and detailed a prophecy as can be given.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> and what about them tablets nephi mentioned ( oh that was moses and the tablets) nephi made his version plates.



What about them?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> as far as jarom goes the book of mormon is the only place he's acknowledged



Good knowledge. So what's your point?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im not disputing that occured. But I think in the context of the revelation, it comes sometime after war is poured out upon all the world. So I think anti-colonial movement is much more appropriate as a fulfillment.
> 
> Course, we are just minsing words here, the fact is it has been fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no ava, you can't put in things to make it look like joe got it right, he didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is toady, Joseph was so right that it's scary. The slaves actually being disciplined and marshalled for war by white leaders is even more acurate than what was said before. How does it feel in that pot? Is the water warm Froggy? Better be careful or you won't notice the bubbles rising and it'll be too late for you.
Click to expand...


There was already talk of going to war and freeing the slaves around the time of his prediction that was more of letting the cat out of the bag than a prophacy.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you read of king zedekiah history nephi is never recorded as being there. And lehi, his so called father, there is no record of at all. Reading nephi is like reading the bible with all the stories mixed together. and according to nephi he himself was a jehovah. And he doesn't mention nothing of the babylonians. Actually when you read the history of the time, these so called authors of the books of mormon are not mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The time in which Lehi and his sons lived was the period of Jeremiah's ministry. Also during the reign of Hezekiah as you apparently have begun reading. This is good. I'm glad you actually started reading it. Jeremiah specifically mentions that he was not the only prophet in those days. He intentionally states there were other prophets beside him. He does not name their names but Lehi was one of them. Nephi was also one of them. They don't have to be mentioned by name.
> 
> Nephi never at any point called himself Jehovah. Where did you get that from?
> In fact they mention a lot about the Babylonians in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Lehi warned his family to leave or they would be led away captive into Babylon. Shortly after they left, Babylon conquered Israel and took thousands away captive into Babylon. Especially the strong, skilled or females. Lehi and Nephi were both strong, skilled and wealthy and would not have been left in Jerusalem and his daughters would have been taken from him and done with as you could imagine. They would have become valuable slaves to the King of Babylon's army.  See Jeremiah for this fact.
> 
> Why do you think the authors of the Book of Mormon are not mentioned in the Bible? Because they sailed across the world to a remote continent unknown to the Israelites. How would they have known? they fled in secret.
Click to expand...

i just thought joe was the olny crazy but,i'm going to get my WADERS out now, because it really getting deep.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you read of king zedekiah history nephi is never recorded as being there. And lehi, his so called father, there is no record of at all. Reading nephi is like reading the bible with all the stories mixed together. and according to nephi he himself was a jehovah. And he doesn't mention nothing of the babylonians. Actually when you read the history of the time, these so called authors of the books of mormon are not mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The time in which Lehi and his sons lived was the period of Jeremiah's ministry. Also during the reign of Hezekiah as you apparently have begun reading. This is good. I'm glad you actually started reading it. Jeremiah specifically mentions that he was not the only prophet in those days. He intentionally states there were other prophets beside him. He does not name their names but Lehi was one of them. Nephi was also one of them. They don't have to be mentioned by name.
> 
> Nephi never at any point called himself Jehovah. Where did you get that from?
> In fact they mention a lot about the Babylonians in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Lehi warned his family to leave or they would be led away captive into Babylon. Shortly after they left, Babylon conquered Israel and took thousands away captive into Babylon. Especially the strong, skilled or females. Lehi and Nephi were both strong, skilled and wealthy and would not have been left in Jerusalem and his daughters would have been taken from him and done with as you could imagine. They would have become valuable slaves to the King of Babylon's army.  See Jeremiah for this fact.
> 
> Why do you think the authors of the Book of Mormon are not mentioned in the Bible? Because they sailed across the world to a remote continent unknown to the Israelites. How would they have known? they fled in secret.
Click to expand...


i though nephi said in his fairytale, that that someone took their gold silver and all their possessions.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> and what about them tablets nephi mentioned ( oh that was moses and the tablets) nephi made his version plates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about them?
Click to expand...


copied out of bible you know the story moses and the ten commands it's all copied from the scriptures.


----------



## froggy

"'People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes--made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having any thing to do with this business


----------



## froggy

if you look at the news stories of the time joe was to found the plates no news paper published about it  except the one Oliver Cowdery ran.hum


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> When you read of king zedekiah history nephi is never recorded as being there. And lehi, his so called father, there is no record of at all. Reading nephi is like reading the bible with all the stories mixed together. and according to nephi he himself was a jehovah. And he doesn't mention nothing of the babylonians. Actually when you read the history of the time, these so called authors of the books of mormon are not mentioned.



You act as if everyone in the world at the time is documented in that history. I think thats a rather unreachable standard.

Nephi never claimed to be Jehovah, so I have no clue where you got that. Perhaps you could cite a verse you're referring to?

And there is quite a good reason they werent mentioned in that history. They left. How on earth could history record people who were no longer there?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> do you believe the garden of eden was in missouri, and thats where it all began



Do you have a better position before it?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> no ava, you can't put in things to make it look like joe got it right, he didn't



Then how did i show otherwise?

Are you saying there wasnt a civil war that started when South Carolina rebelled? Are you saying that war didnt end up terminating many lives? Are you claiming that the Prussians didnt study the war and how to use industrialization for their own wars of conquest? Are you claiming the South didn't call on Great Britain for help? Are you claiming that War wasnt poured out upon all nations after Great Britain called on other nations for help? Are you claiming that slaves didnt rise up against their masters?

I mean which part of that was Joseph wrong about?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> "'People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes--made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having any thing to do with this business



You do realize that disorderly conduct is probably one of the least serious crimes in the world? And you do realize he was discharged because the witnesses contradicted each other so much that no honest or even dishonest judge could make a finding of guilt dont you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Awesome Character of Scripture of the day: Teancum(the silent assassin)

_ 35 And thus they did encamp for the night. For behold, the Nephites and the Lamanites also were weary because of the greatness of the march; therefore they did not resolve upon any stratagem in the night-time, save it were Teancum; for he was exceedingly angry with Ammoron, insomuch that he considered that Ammoron, and Amalickiah his brother, had been the cause of this great and lasting war between them and the Lamanites, which had been the cause of so much war and bloodshed, yea, and so much famine.
  36 And it came to pass that Teancum in his anger did go forth into the camp of the Lamanites, and did let himself down over the walls of the city. And he went forth with a cord, from place to place, insomuch that he did find the king; and he did cast a javelin at him, which did pierce him near the heart. But behold, the king did awaken his servants before he died, insomuch that they did pursue Teancum, and slew him.
  37 Now it came to pass that when Lehi and Moroni knew that Teancum was dead they were exceedingly sorrowful; for behold, he had been a man who had fought valiantly for his country, yea, a true friend to liberty; and he had suffered very many exceedingly sore afflictions. But behold, he was dead, and had gone the way of all the earth._


Teancum is one of the true heroes that Christian the world has ever known. Would have made one of the best movie characters ever as well. That was the last clip of his death. There was so much more that he did in his life. A true man's man.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Assassins (like Teancum or Nephi, for that matter) kill in cold blood.  Nothing more than 'heroes' like the LDS danite killers, Bill Hickman and Orrin Porter Rockwell among others, stone cold LDS killers and danites.  By truthspeakers' reasoning, the homicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan are true heroes.  Take a hike.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "'People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes--made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having any thing to do with this business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that disorderly conduct is probably one of the least serious crimes in the world? And you do realize he was discharged because the witnesses contradicted each other so much that no honest or even dishonest judge could make a finding of guilt dont you?
Click to expand...


he was charged with ripping off the guys money with false pretense or being a con.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you read of king zedekiah history nephi is never recorded as being there. And lehi, his so called father, there is no record of at all. Reading nephi is like reading the bible with all the stories mixed together. and according to nephi he himself was a jehovah. And he doesn't mention nothing of the babylonians. Actually when you read the history of the time, these so called authors of the books of mormon are not mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act as if everyone in the world at the time is documented in that history. I think thats a rather unreachable standard.
> 
> Nephi never claimed to be Jehovah, so I have no clue where you got that. Perhaps you could cite a verse you're referring to?
> 
> And there is quite a good reason they werent mentioned in that history. They left. How on earth could history record people who were no longer there?
Click to expand...


you can't search for truth in a book of lies you have to search in the history of the time, according to nephis tale, he lived in several different life times at once. theyclaim to be of the wealthy, if so they would have been noted for the time they were there, before they sailed the magic dragon.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you believe the garden of eden was in missouri, and thats where it all began
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better position before it?
Click to expand...


history quotes it as being iraq.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> no ava, you can't put in things to make it look like joe got it right, he didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how did i show otherwise?
> 
> Are you saying there wasn't a civil war that started when South Carolina rebelled? Are you saying that war didn't end up terminating many lives? Are you claiming that the Prussians didn't study the war and how to use industrialization for their own wars of conquest? Are you claiming the South didn't call on Great Britain for help? Are you claiming that War was poured out upon all nations after Great Britain called on other nations for help? Are you claiming that slaves didn't rise up against their masters?
> 
> I mean which part of that was Joseph wrong about?
Click to expand...


when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.


----------



## froggy

The librarys full of fairy tale books, check it out some times.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> The librarys full of fairy tale books, check it out some times.



There are all kinds of people who say the exact same thing about the Book you which value most highly.  Well, they might be a bit more literate in saying that kind of thing, but the ignorance is pretty much the same, either way.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Assassins (like Teancum or Nephi, for that matter) kill in cold blood.  Nothing more than 'heroes' like the LDS danite killers, Bill Hickman and Orrin Porter Rockwell among others, stone cold LDS killers and danites.  By truthspeakers' reasoning, the homicide bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan are true heroes.  Take a hike.



My my Jake,
for someone who claims to know so much about mormonism you sure need to put your foot in your mouth on that last dandy of yours. 

Teancum was first a christian, then he was an honorable general in the army. A commander of thousands. He had a great reputation.  I only called him the silent assassin because of his heroic deed in the middle of a war where Amalickiah had left the Nephites, joined the Lamanites, murdered their king, stole his wife, Murdered their cheif captain and placed himself as tyrant over the Lamanites. He spread lies about the Nephites and swore a blood oath to subject them to his kingship and make slaves out of the Nephites. Teancum was one of the generals who fought against the horde of Lamanites vastly outnumbering the Lamanites. 
To make a long story short, He successfully assassinated Amalickiah by climbing over the walls of the camp at night and threw a javelin straight into his heart so that he died without making a sound to alert his guards. He was able to escape in secret because of his good aim.
The assassination of his Brother Ammoron, who took over for Amalickiah was less successful because it ended in the trading of the two lives. That is the context. This was a wartime effort by a soldier on another soldier, far different from terrorists murdering civilians. Get your facts straight.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "'People of State of New York vs. Joseph Smith. Warrant issued upon oath of Peter G. Bridgman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought into court March 20 (1826). Prisoner examined. Says that he came from town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowell in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school; that he had a certain stone, which he had occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold-mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and informed him where he could find those treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them: that at Palmyra he pretended to tell, by looking at this stone, where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was, of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account its injuring his health, especially his eyes--made them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always rather declined having any thing to do with this business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that disorderly conduct is probably one of the least serious crimes in the world? And you do realize he was discharged because the witnesses contradicted each other so much that no honest or even dishonest judge could make a finding of guilt dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he was charged with ripping off the guys money with false pretense or being a con.
Click to expand...


Of course in your eyes being charged means guilty right? He was cleared of all accusations ever brought against him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you read of king zedekiah history nephi is never recorded as being there. And lehi, his so called father, there is no record of at all. Reading nephi is like reading the bible with all the stories mixed together. and according to nephi he himself was a jehovah. And he doesn't mention nothing of the babylonians. Actually when you read the history of the time, these so called authors of the books of mormon are not mentioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You act as if everyone in the world at the time is documented in that history. I think thats a rather unreachable standard.
> 
> Nephi never claimed to be Jehovah, so I have no clue where you got that. Perhaps you could cite a verse you're referring to?
> 
> And there is quite a good reason they werent mentioned in that history. They left. How on earth could history record people who were no longer there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can't search for truth in a book of lies you have to search in the history of the time, according to nephis tale, he lived in several different life times at once. theyclaim to be of the wealthy, if so they would have been noted for the time they were there, before they sailed the magic dragon.
Click to expand...


So now you are saying because they were wealthy, they should have been recorded in the Bible? What rubbish! What utter nonsensical poppycock! By jove you are amazing. Where is the logic? Where is the honesty? Magic Dragon? Please give me some more. You amuse me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you believe the garden of eden was in missouri, and thats where it all began
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a better position before it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> history quotes it as being iraq.
Click to expand...


Where in history? This is probably the most outlandish claim you have ever made. Just because the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are located there does not mean the garden of eden is there. There has been nothing but speculation on the matter. Otherwise the History Channel would undoubtedly have run a very profitable show on the matter. Well, actually they have but the show only had speculation as it's material and said so.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> no ava, you can't put in things to make it look like joe got it right, he didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then how did i show otherwise?
> 
> Are you saying there wasn't a civil war that started when South Carolina rebelled? Are you saying that war didn't end up terminating many lives? Are you claiming that the Prussians didn't study the war and how to use industrialization for their own wars of conquest? Are you claiming the South didn't call on Great Britain for help? Are you claiming that War was poured out upon all nations after Great Britain called on other nations for help? Are you claiming that slaves didn't rise up against their masters?
> 
> I mean which part of that was Joseph wrong about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.
Click to expand...


Pathetic try. You just don't guess that many things that accurately that far in advance. And then do it again and again on different issues.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> you can't search for truth in a book of lies you have to search in the history of the time, according to nephis tale, he lived in several different life times at once. theyclaim to be of the wealthy, if so they would have been noted for the time they were there, before they sailed the magic dragon.



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> history quotes it as being iraq.



Since when exactly? 

We know Noah and his sons ended up in the middle east from what we have. We have no indication that they started there.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.



Alright, so if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith accurately predicted the circumstances dealing with the start of the Civil war and world wars because he was involved in a conspiracy to start them. And the fact that he died decades prior to the Civil war doesnt matter. I suppose that was his way of covering up his involvement. After all, no one would suspect a dead man right?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> The librarys full of fairy tale books, check it out some times.



If you think the Book of Mormon is false, why are you so afraid to read it? At worst you might learn something about Mormon's. At best, you may see the power of God work in your life. I dont see how you have anything to lose by reading it with an open mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Of course in your eyes being charged means guilty right? He was cleared of all accusations ever brought against him.

=====================

Better check that statement, bright eyes.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course in your eyes being charged means guilty right? He was cleared of all accusations ever brought against him.
> 
> =====================
> 
> Better check that statement, bright eyes.



Oh Jeez, you're such a nittpicker. SLIGHT correction. He was acquitted in all trials that he LIVED to finish. Let me be accurate to the letter in stating he was never convicted of any crime. Only inhumanely imprisoned without conviction.

That good enough for you?

Part of the reason the mob slew him the night before his trial was because they knew they had NOTHING against him by way of justice and law. They tried and tried so many times to get him condemned in court, even with their own supplanted local judges, that they just went crazy knowing they couldn't get the job done legally. The only way they could get the verdict they desired was a trial by bullets. God rest his soul.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, so if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith accurately predicted the circumstances dealing with the start of the Civil war and world wars because he was involved in a conspiracy to start them. And the fact that he died decades prior to the Civil war doesnt matter. I suppose that was his way of covering up his involvement. After all, no one would suspect a dead man right?
Click to expand...


16 years is decades, and if he'd said some will be killed with a knife you would jumped for joy that he was right. what was he right about that you could not have guessed if you were predicting a war.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then how did i show otherwise?
> 
> Are you saying there wasn't a civil war that started when South Carolina rebelled? Are you saying that war didn't end up terminating many lives? Are you claiming that the Prussians didn't study the war and how to use industrialization for their own wars of conquest? Are you claiming the South didn't call on Great Britain for help? Are you claiming that War was poured out upon all nations after Great Britain called on other nations for help? Are you claiming that slaves didn't rise up against their masters?
> 
> I mean which part of that was Joseph wrong about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pathetic try. You just don't guess that many things that accurately that far in advance. And then do it again and again on different issues.
Click to expand...

wheres the again and agian.


----------



## froggy

The death of Joseph Smith, Jr. on June 27, 1844 marked a turning point for the Latter Day Saint movement, of which Smith was the founder and leader. When he was attacked and killed by a mob, Smith was serving as the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and running for President of the United States. He was killed while jailed in Carthage, Illinois on charges relating to his ordering the destruction of facilities producing the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper whose first and only edition claimed Smith was practicing polygamy and that he intended to set himself up as a theocratic king. While Smith was in jail awaiting trial, an armed mob of men with painted faces stormed the jail and shot him and his brother Hyrum to death.


----------



## froggy

Several of Smith's disaffected associates at Nauvoo and Hancock County, Illinois joined together to publish a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Its first and only issue was published June 7, 1844.[1] Some of these associates had alleged that Smith tried to marry their wives. About eight of Smith's wives were also married to other men (four were Mormon men in good standing, who in a few cases acted as a witness in Smith's marriage to his wife) at the time they married Smith. Typically, these women continued to live with their first husband, not Smith. Some accounts say Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his other wives, and one wife later in her life stated that he fathered children by one or two of his wives. Looks like a scammer to me. Always in trouble with the law. Career criminal


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, so if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith accurately predicted the circumstances dealing with the start of the Civil war and world wars because he was involved in a conspiracy to start them. And the fact that he died decades prior to the Civil war doesnt matter. I suppose that was his way of covering up his involvement. After all, no one would suspect a dead man right?
Click to expand...


James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom offers a summary of conditions prior to the Civil War that contributed to it and exacerbated tensions.( Even prior to Smith's prophecy, it would not have been difficult to foresee a war coming. McPherson notes that there were a number of expected dividing lines as the country grew in the period from 1800-1850 (rich/poor, Catholic/Protestant, rural/urban), but the "greatest danger to American survival" at this stage was the question of slavery. Why? Because slavery was associated with competing ideals that just happened to also have geographic associations.) The institution was so contrary to what he argued were desirable values that he predicted a conflict that would result in the destruction of slavery. And Mormons might consider that one reason why Joseph Smith and the Saints were driven out of their locales in Missouri, in 1838-9, was because they were suspected of being favorable to abolition of slavery. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. These were all facts that smith knew, do the math.


----------



## froggy

In sum, I find little here to suggest that Joseph Smith was gifted with any unusual prophetic insight here, although with much of this prophecy in the "yet fulfilled" category it is not possible to be categorically too harsh without compromising certain orthodox prophetic positions. The few points that are fulfilled with certainty would be easily drawn from the politics and society of the day.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, so if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith accurately predicted the circumstances dealing with the start of the Civil war and world wars because he was involved in a conspiracy to start them. And the fact that he died decades prior to the Civil war doesnt matter. I suppose that was his way of covering up his involvement. After all, no one would suspect a dead man right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 16 years is decades, and if he'd said some will be killed with a knife you would jumped for joy that he was right. what was he right about that you could not have guessed if you were predicting a war.
Click to expand...


The prophecy was given on christmas day in 1832, the war started on april 12th 1861. that's almost 29 years which happens 2 be real close to 30 and not 16 professor. 16 would still be impressive but double the years and double the amazment.

And how specific do you want him to be? He named the state the war would start in, that Great Britain would be called on specifically by the south for aid, that slaves would become soldiers for the north, even that Indians would partake heavily in the war and kill many europeans. This was proven to be true as 20,000 indians enlisted for the civil war and killed many white europeans. 
If he was such a good guesser, then he could have guessed that people were going to try and kill him for it.......Wait.....He did that too.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course in your eyes being charged means guilty right? He was cleared of all accusations ever brought against him.
> 
> =====================
> 
> Better check that statement, bright eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Jeez, you're such a nittpicker. SLIGHT correction. He was acquitted in all trials that he LIVED to finish. Let me be accurate to the letter in stating he was never convicted of any crime. Only inhumanely imprisoned without conviction.
> 
> That good enough for you?
> 
> Part of the reason the mob slew him the night before his trial was because they knew they had NOTHING against him by way of justice and law. They tried and tried so many times to get him condemned in court, even with their own supplanted local judges, that they just went crazy knowing they couldn't get the job done legally. The only way they could get the verdict they desired was a trial by bullets. God rest his soul.
Click to expand...


Just like today, career criminals are hard to get convicted.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> when you know things ahead of time your able guess the out come, joe being part of the slave smuggling movement, was privy to alot of inside info. if i war to predict war i would include things that i knew would happen like i know there would be blood shed and death, the first tactic of going to war is to ask someone to join you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic try. You just don't guess that many things that accurately that far in advance. And then do it again and again on different issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wheres the again and agian.
Click to expand...


Prophesied of his own death, prophesied of the settling of the Saints in the Rocky mountains, prophesied that Willard Richards would "be among his enemies, surrounded by bullets and would not be harmed." How many more prophecies do you want? 4? 5? 12?
How many correct prophecies must someone make before you will believe he was a prophet?

Answer me this question? do you believe John the Baptist was a prophet? I assume you do. But can you tell me even one of the prophecies he uttered? They aren't written down. Well Jesus said there was never a greater prophet among all the children of Adam than John but yet to you he is not a prophet because his prophecies are not in the Bible. Wouldn't you like to know more of what he prophesied about if you knew his writings were out there to be discovered?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, so if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith accurately predicted the circumstances dealing with the start of the Civil war and world wars because he was involved in a conspiracy to start them. And the fact that he died decades prior to the Civil war doesnt matter. I suppose that was his way of covering up his involvement. After all, no one would suspect a dead man right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years is decades, and if he'd said some will be killed with a knife you would jumped for joy that he was right. what was he right about that you could not have guessed if you were predicting a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prophecy was given on christmas day in 1832, the war started on april 12th 1861. that's almost 29 years which happens 2 be real close to 30 and not 16 professor. 16 would still be impressive but double the years and double the amazment.
> 
> And how specific do you want him to be? He named the state the war would start in, that Great Britain would be called on specifically by the south for aid, that slaves would become soldiers for the north, even that Indians would partake heavily in the war and kill many europeans. This was proven to be true as 20,000 indians enlisted for the civil war and killed many white europeans.
> If he was such a good guesser, then he could have guessed that people were going to try and kill him for it.......Wait.....He did that too.
Click to expand...

i think it was in response to, and i quote "And the fact that he died decades prior to the cival war doesnt matter"


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> The death of Joseph Smith, Jr. on June 27, 1844 marked a turning point for the Latter Day Saint movement, of which Smith was the founder and leader. When he was attacked and killed by a mob, Smith was serving as the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and running for President of the United States. He was killed while jailed in Carthage, Illinois on charges relating to his ordering the destruction of facilities producing the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper whose first and only edition claimed Smith was practicing polygamy and that he intended to set himself up as a theocratic king. While Smith was in jail awaiting trial, an armed mob of men with painted faces stormed the jail and shot him and his brother Hyrum to death.



The rag that was called the Nauvoo Expositor was full of lies and half truths, mingled with a few truths. They also were inciting violence by calling the people to arms to shoot smith in the paper. That is not freedom of speech, that is riot. He never planned to set himself up as a king of any kind. As mayor of the city it was his job to put down rioting and mob-mongering. The responsibility of a mayor is to remove any nuisances from the public and he did his responsibility. He was then tried for inhibiting freedom of speech. It is clear to any lawyer that he would have been acquitted.  The rest you printed is true.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The death of Joseph Smith, Jr. on June 27, 1844 marked a turning point for the Latter Day Saint movement, of which Smith was the founder and leader. When he was attacked and killed by a mob, Smith was serving as the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and running for President of the United States. He was killed while jailed in Carthage, Illinois on charges relating to his ordering the destruction of facilities producing the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper whose first and only edition claimed Smith was practicing polygamy and that he intended to set himself up as a theocratic king. While Smith was in jail awaiting trial, an armed mob of men with painted faces stormed the jail and shot him and his brother Hyrum to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rag that was called the Nauvoo Expositor was full of lies and half truths, mingled with a few truths. They also were inciting violence by calling the people to arms to shoot smith in the paper. That is not freedom of speech, that is riot. He never planned to set himself up as a king of any kind. As mayor of the city it was his job to put down rioting and mob-mongering. The responsibility of a mayor is to remove any nuisances from the public and he did his responsibility. He was then tried for inhibiting freedom of speech. It is clear to any lawyer that he would have been acquitted.  The rest you printed is true.
Click to expand...


sounds more to me he didnt want anyone printing the truth of him.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, so if I understand you correctly, Joseph Smith accurately predicted the circumstances dealing with the start of the Civil war and world wars because he was involved in a conspiracy to start them. And the fact that he died decades prior to the Civil war doesnt matter. I suppose that was his way of covering up his involvement. After all, no one would suspect a dead man right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years is decades, and if he'd said some will be killed with a knife you would jumped for joy that he was right. what was he right about that you could not have guessed if you were predicting a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The prophecy was given on christmas day in 1832, the war started on april 12th 1861. that's almost 29 years which happens 2 be real close to 30 and not 16 professor. 16 would still be impressive but double the years and double the amazment.
> 
> And how specific do you want him to be? He named the state the war would start in, that Great Britain would be called on specifically by the south for aid, that slaves would become soldiers for the north, even that Indians would partake heavily in the war and kill many europeans. This was proven to be true as 20,000 indians enlisted for the civil war and killed many white europeans.
> If he was such a good guesser, then he could have guessed that people were going to try and kill him for it.......Wait.....He did that too.
Click to expand...


talk of cival war started 60 years before the war itself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It is so plain to tell what is copied and pasted and what is actually written by you.



> Several of Smith's disaffected associates at Nauvoo and Hancock County, Illinois joined together to publish a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Its first and only issue was published June 7, 1844.[1] Some of these associates had alleged that Smith tried to marry their wives. About eight of Smith's wives were also married to other men (four were Mormon men in good standing, who in a few cases acted as a witness in Smith's marriage to his wife) at the time they married Smith. Typically, these women continued to live with their first husband, not Smith. Some accounts say Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his other wives, and one wife later in her life stated that he fathered children by one or two of his wives.


Plagiarized....How do I know? First because there are no spelling mistakes. Second because the vocabulary and diction are beyond your scope of capability. Third is just a hunch because I've heard this exact article published by 8-Ball who copied and pasted from an anti-mormon website. Either you plagiarized from him or you plagiarized from the author of the article on the website. Which is it? 

Just for your ejumacation. Plagiarism is when you cite someone elses words and claim them as your own. Lesson over.




> Looks like a scammer to me. Always in trouble with the law. Career criminal.


Clearly written by you. This short curt answer is in character with all the other "original" things you've written. I can almost hear the whiny tone in this last pearl of yours. Kinda like that black guy from Beverly Hills Cop who spoke like a white guy and said "Yeah....And we're not gonna fall for a banana in the tailpipe this time."


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> It is so plain to tell what is copied and pasted and what is actually written by you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several of Smith's disaffected associates at Nauvoo and Hancock County, Illinois joined together to publish a newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor. Its first and only issue was published June 7, 1844.[1] Some of these associates had alleged that Smith tried to marry their wives. About eight of Smith's wives were also married to other men (four were Mormon men in good standing, who in a few cases acted as a witness in Smith's marriage to his wife) at the time they married Smith. Typically, these women continued to live with their first husband, not Smith. Some accounts say Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his other wives, and one wife later in her life stated that he fathered children by one or two of his wives.
> 
> 
> 
> Plagiarized....How do I know? First because there are no spelling mistakes. Second because the vocabulary and diction are beyond your scope of capability. Third is just a hunch because I've heard this exact article published by 8-Ball who copied and pasted from an anti-mormon website. Either you plagiarized from him or you plagiarized from the author of the article on the website. Which is it.
> 
> Just for your ejumacation. Plagiarism is when you cite someone elses words and claim them as your own. Lesson over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like a scammer to me. Always in trouble with the law. Career criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clearly written to you. This short curt answer is in character with all the other "original" things you've written. I can almost hear the whiny tone in this last pearl of yours. Kinda like that black guy from Beverly Hills Cop who spoke like a white guy and said "Yeah....And we're not gonna fall for a banana in the tailpipe this time."
Click to expand...


Oh, i must of hit a nerve there.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years is decades, and if he'd said some will be killed with a knife you would jumped for joy that he was right. what was he right about that you could not have guessed if you were predicting a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prophecy was given on christmas day in 1832, the war started on april 12th 1861. that's almost 29 years which happens 2 be real close to 30 and not 16 professor. 16 would still be impressive but double the years and double the amazment.
> 
> And how specific do you want him to be? He named the state the war would start in, that Great Britain would be called on specifically by the south for aid, that slaves would become soldiers for the north, even that Indians would partake heavily in the war and kill many europeans. This was proven to be true as 20,000 indians enlisted for the civil war and killed many white europeans.
> If he was such a good guesser, then he could have guessed that people were going to try and kill him for it.......Wait.....He did that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think it was in response to, and i quote "And the fact that he died decades prior to the cival war doesnt matter"
Click to expand...


ok even mormons aren't perfect. Yer got me on that one partner. I didn't read Avatar's post correctly.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course in your eyes being charged means guilty right? He was cleared of all accusations ever brought against him.
> 
> =====================
> 
> Better check that statement, bright eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Jeez, you're such a nittpicker. SLIGHT correction. He was acquitted in all trials that he LIVED to finish. Let me be accurate to the letter in stating he was never convicted of any crime. Only inhumanely imprisoned without conviction.
> 
> That good enough for you?
> 
> Part of the reason the mob slew him the night before his trial was because they knew they had NOTHING against him by way of justice and law. They tried and tried so many times to get him condemned in court, even with their own supplanted local judges, that they just went crazy knowing they couldn't get the job done legally. The only way they could get the verdict they desired was a trial by bullets. God rest his soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like today, career criminals are hard to get convicted.
Click to expand...


In the US. people are innocent until proven guilty. Some people we have our hunches about but Smith was SO far away from what they accused him of that it was ridiculous.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The death of Joseph Smith, Jr. on June 27, 1844 marked a turning point for the Latter Day Saint movement, of which Smith was the founder and leader. When he was attacked and killed by a mob, Smith was serving as the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and running for President of the United States. He was killed while jailed in Carthage, Illinois on charges relating to his ordering the destruction of facilities producing the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper whose first and only edition claimed Smith was practicing polygamy and that he intended to set himself up as a theocratic king. While Smith was in jail awaiting trial, an armed mob of men with painted faces stormed the jail and shot him and his brother Hyrum to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rag that was called the Nauvoo Expositor was full of lies and half truths, mingled with a few truths. They also were inciting violence by calling the people to arms to shoot smith in the paper. That is not freedom of speech, that is riot. He never planned to set himself up as a king of any kind. As mayor of the city it was his job to put down rioting and mob-mongering. The responsibility of a mayor is to remove any nuisances from the public and he did his responsibility. He was then tried for inhibiting freedom of speech. It is clear to any lawyer that he would have been acquitted.  The rest you printed is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds more to me he didnt want anyone printing the truth of him.
Click to expand...


How so?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 16 years is decades, and if he'd said some will be killed with a knife you would jumped for joy that he was right. what was he right about that you could not have guessed if you were predicting a war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The prophecy was given on christmas day in 1832, the war started on april 12th 1861. that's almost 29 years which happens 2 be real close to 30 and not 16 professor. 16 would still be impressive but double the years and double the amazment.
> 
> And how specific do you want him to be? He named the state the war would start in, that Great Britain would be called on specifically by the south for aid, that slaves would become soldiers for the north, even that Indians would partake heavily in the war and kill many europeans. This was proven to be true as 20,000 indians enlisted for the civil war and killed many white europeans.
> If he was such a good guesser, then he could have guessed that people were going to try and kill him for it.......Wait.....He did that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> talk of cival war started 60 years before the war itself.
Click to expand...


So what?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rag that was called the Nauvoo Expositor was full of lies and half truths, mingled with a few truths. They also were inciting violence by calling the people to arms to shoot smith in the paper. That is not freedom of speech, that is riot. He never planned to set himself up as a king of any kind. As mayor of the city it was his job to put down rioting and mob-mongering. The responsibility of a mayor is to remove any nuisances from the public and he did his responsibility. He was then tried for inhibiting freedom of speech. It is clear to any lawyer that he would have been acquitted.  The rest you printed is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds more to me he didnt want anyone printing the truth of him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...


The newspaper print something bad about you, and then you go and blow up the press stamping them out for good.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> In sum, I find little here to suggest that Joseph Smith was gifted with any unusual prophetic insight here, although with much of this prophecy in the "yet fulfilled" category it is not possible to be categorically too harsh without compromising certain orthodox prophetic positions. The few points that are fulfilled with certainty would be easily drawn from the politics and society of the day.



Course you dont.  Accurately predicting future events is hardly evidence of a prophetic calling. I suppose healing the sick isnt either. Teaching legitimate Christian doctrine lost for centuries probably doesnt count in your book either.

But since you think that Josephs predictions didnt take much insight, perhaps you could tell me where the next major global war will begin and what the consequences of that war will be. After all, it shouldnt be tough. In fact, since you claim to be so close to God, you should ask Him and do even better than Joseph. Im eagerly waiting.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In sum, I find little here to suggest that Joseph Smith was gifted with any unusual prophetic insight here, although with much of this prophecy in the "yet fulfilled" category it is not possible to be categorically too harsh without compromising certain orthodox prophetic positions. The few points that are fulfilled with certainty would be easily drawn from the politics and society of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course you dont.  Accurately predicting future events is hardly evidence of a prophetic calling. I suppose healing the sick isnt either. Teaching legitimate Christian doctrine lost for centuries probably doesnt count in your book either.
> 
> But since you think that Josephs predictions didnt take much insight, perhaps you could tell me where the next major global war will begin and what the consequences of that war will be. After all, it shouldnt be tough. In fact, since you claim to be so close to God, you should ask Him and do even better than Joseph. Im eagerly waiting.
Click to expand...

If i had lived my life as a con, like joe i'd tell you.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> The newspaper print something bad about you, and then you go and blow up the press stamping them out for good.



hardly. Your view of history is rather jaded.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The newspaper print something bad about you, and then you go and blow up the press stamping them out for good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hardly. Your view of history is rather jaded.
Click to expand...


And yours, only comes from the book of mormon.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> sounds more to me he didnt want anyone printing the truth of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The newspaper print something bad about you, and then you go and blow up the press stamping them out for good.
Click to expand...


It wasn't about what they printed about him as much as the mob violence they were calling for. First it is illegal to print lies about people. It's called libel. Second it is illegal to incite violence by calling for the murder of an individual or group. Both of these the "Expositor" did.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newspaper print something bad about you, and then you go and blow up the press stamping them out for good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn't about what they printed about him as much as the mob violence they were calling for. First it is illegal to print lies about people. It's called libel. Second it is illegal to incite violence by calling for the murder of an individual or group. Both of these the "Expositor" did.
Click to expand...


the ones printing it use to be his buddy i think they might have knew his secrets well.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Froggy, your illiteracy is amazing. English can't possibly by your first language can it? I'll give you a little bit of a break if that's true.


----------



## froggy

wow, three put downs in one night, how very kind of you.


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The newspaper print something bad about you, and then you go and blow up the press stamping them out for good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about what they printed about him as much as the mob violence they were calling for. First it is illegal to print lies about people. It's called libel. Second it is illegal to incite violence by calling for the murder of an individual or group. Both of these the "Expositor" did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the ones printing it use to be his buddy i think they might have knew his secrets well.
Click to expand...


Similar to Jesus' apostle Judas, right?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In sum, I find little here to suggest that Joseph Smith was gifted with any unusual prophetic insight here, although with much of this prophecy in the "yet fulfilled" category it is not possible to be categorically too harsh without compromising certain orthodox prophetic positions. The few points that are fulfilled with certainty would be easily drawn from the politics and society of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course you dont.  Accurately predicting future events is hardly evidence of a prophetic calling. I suppose healing the sick isnt either. Teaching legitimate Christian doctrine lost for centuries probably doesnt count in your book either.
> 
> But since you think that Josephs predictions didnt take much insight, perhaps you could tell me where the next major global war will begin and what the consequences of that war will be. After all, it shouldnt be tough. In fact, since you claim to be so close to God, you should ask Him and do even better than Joseph. Im eagerly waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If i had lived my life as a con, like joe i'd tell you.
Click to expand...


In other words, you cant.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> wow, three put downs in one night, how very kind of you.



Well I don't know that I'm really TRYING to put you down as much as I'm trying to help you understand your weaknesses. You are just stubborn on top of ignorant. You need to help yourself out by learning knowledge. Similar to what Solomon said in his proverbs.


----------



## froggy

Christopher said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't about what they printed about him as much as the mob violence they were calling for. First it is illegal to print lies about people. It's called libel. Second it is illegal to incite violence by calling for the murder of an individual or group. Both of these the "Expositor" did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the ones printing it use to be his buddy i think they might have knew his secrets well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Similar to Jesus' apostle Judas, right?
Click to expand...


so you saying judas was telling the TRUTH?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, three put downs in one night, how very kind of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't know that I'm really TRYING to put you down as much as I'm trying to help you understand your weaknesses. You are just stubborn on top of ignorant. You need to help yourself out by learning knowledge. Similar to what Solomon said in his proverbs.
Click to expand...


Sound like joes lies sunk in you and ava deep. And what they say about mormons thinking their so much more superior than non mormon is true, much like white SUPREMUS are.Well that attitude just shows your not living gods way. Sort of like the devil in an angel uniform. Your quote under you name should read "I wish i were that guy".


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course you dont.  Accurately predicting future events is hardly evidence of a prophetic calling. I suppose healing the sick isnt either. Teaching legitimate Christian doctrine lost for centuries probably doesnt count in your book either.
> 
> But since you think that Josephs predictions didnt take much insight, perhaps you could tell me where the next major global war will begin and what the consequences of that war will be. After all, it shouldnt be tough. In fact, since you claim to be so close to God, you should ask Him and do even better than Joseph. Im eagerly waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> If i had lived my life as a con, like joe i'd tell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you cant.
Click to expand...

I'm not the only one that knew ioe was a wacko. If you were allow to look at recorded history you'd find the truth. oh, but wait you only allowed to search in the fairytale book of joe, how shallow.


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the ones printing it use to be his buddy i think they might have knew his secrets well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to Jesus' apostle Judas, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you saying judas was telling the TRUTH?
Click to expand...


My only point was that innocent people can have their friends turn to enemies, through no fault of their own.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> I'm not the only one that knew ioe was a wacko. If you were allow to look at recorded history you'd find the truth. oh, but wait you only allowed to search in the fairytale book of joe, how shallow.



Wacko huh? What did he do or say that was wacko?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, three put downs in one night, how very kind of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I don't know that I'm really TRYING to put you down as much as I'm trying to help you understand your weaknesses. You are just stubborn on top of ignorant. You need to help yourself out by learning knowledge. Similar to what Solomon said in his proverbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound like joes lies sunk in you and ava deep. And what they say about mormons thinking their so much more superior than non mormon is true, much like white SUPREMUS are.Well that attitude just shows your not living gods way. Sort of like the devil in an angel uniform. Your quote under you name should read "I wish i were that guy".
Click to expand...


You continue to amaze me. But I'd like to change gears a little. I'm just going to ask you questions from now on.

First: Who or what is God to you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If i had lived my life as a con, like joe i'd tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you cant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not the only one that knew ioe was a wacko. If you were allow to look at recorded history you'd find the truth. oh, but wait you only allowed to search in the fairytale book of joe, how shallow.
Click to expand...


How do you really KNOW Joseph Smith was "wacko"? What proof do you have aside from your accusations and opinions?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you cant.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one that knew ioe was a wacko. If you were allow to look at recorded history you'd find the truth. oh, but wait you only allowed to search in the fairytale book of joe, how shallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you really KNOW Joseph Smith was "wacko"? What proof do you have aside from your accusations and opinions?
Click to expand...


I've showed you stories from history. read them.just to show how he was, he got a bunch to go west with him to the land of milk and honey, so he said, but the truth was misery and starvation. Then he took their money, went back east and left them there to starve.


----------



## froggy

Christopher said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similar to Jesus' apostle Judas, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you saying judas was telling the TRUTH?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My only point was that innocent people can have their friends turn to enemies, through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...


Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In sum, I find little here to suggest that Joseph Smith was gifted with any unusual prophetic insight here, although with much of this prophecy in the "yet fulfilled" category it is not possible to be categorically too harsh without compromising certain orthodox prophetic positions. The few points that are fulfilled with certainty would be easily drawn from the politics and society of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course you dont.  Accurately predicting future events is hardly evidence of a prophetic calling. I suppose healing the sick isnt either. Teaching legitimate Christian doctrine lost for centuries probably doesnt count in your book either.
> 
> But since you think that Josephs predictions didnt take much insight, perhaps you could tell me where the next major global war will begin and what the consequences of that war will be. After all, it shouldnt be tough. In fact, since you claim to be so close to God, you should ask Him and do even better than Joseph. Im eagerly waiting.
Click to expand...


James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom offers a summary of conditions prior to the Civil War that contributed to it and exacerbated tensions.( Even prior to Smith's prophecy, it would not have been difficult to foresee a war coming. McPherson notes that there were a number of expected dividing lines as the country grew in the period from 1800-1850 (rich/poor, Catholic/Protestant, rural/urban), but the "greatest danger to American survival" at this stage was the question of slavery. Why? Because slavery was associated with competing ideals that just happened to also have geographic associations.) The institution was so contrary to what he argued were desirable values that he predicted a conflict that would result in the destruction of slavery. And Mormons might consider that one reason why Joseph Smith and the Saints were driven out of their locales in Missouri, in 1838-9, was because they were suspected of being favorable to abolition of slavery. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. These were all facts that smith knew, do the math. Read this this is where he got his idea for his so called prophacy.any one could have predictedsomething close knowing all of this.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one that knew ioe was a wacko. If you were allow to look at recorded history you'd find the truth. oh, but wait you only allowed to search in the fairytale book of joe, how shallow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you really KNOW Joseph Smith was "wacko"? What proof do you have aside from your accusations and opinions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've showed you stories from history. read them.just to show how he was he got a bunch to go west with him to the land of milk and honey, so he said but the truth was misery and starvation. Then he took their money, went back east and left them there to starve.
Click to expand...


Did you really show me stories from history or did you just fail to realize that Joseph Smith never went west with the group and therefore never went back east with any money and in fact died before the trip happened?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you saying judas was telling the TRUTH?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only point was that innocent people can have their friends turn to enemies, through no fault of their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.
Click to expand...


So you consider Paul one of the worst criminals of all time then? Perhaps Daniel should have deserved to be eaten by Lions? All the apostles? All the christian gladiators deserved their fate as well I suppose according to you?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act as if everyone in the world at the time is documented in that history. I think thats a rather unreachable standard.
> 
> Nephi never claimed to be Jehovah, so I have no clue where you got that. Perhaps you could cite a verse you're referring to?
> 
> And there is quite a good reason they werent mentioned in that history. They left. How on earth could history record people who were no longer there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't search for truth in a book of lies you have to search in the history of the time, according to nephis tale, he lived in several different life times at once. theyclaim to be of the wealthy, if so they would have been noted for the time they were there, before they sailed the magic dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now you are saying because they were wealthy, they should have been recorded in the Bible? What rubbish! What utter nonsensical poppycock! By jove you are amazing. Where is the logic? Where is the honesty? Magic Dragon? Please give me some more. You amuse me.
Click to expand...

I said the history of the time they live, i never said bible, am i talking to brainwashed robots or people?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one that knew ioe was a wacko. If you were allow to look at recorded history you'd find the truth. oh, but wait you only allowed to search in the fairytale book of joe, how shallow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacko huh? What did he do or say that was wacko?
Click to expand...


He quoted himself that he could tell if he was living in a dream or reality


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you really KNOW Joseph Smith was "wacko"? What proof do you have aside from your accusations and opinions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've showed you stories from history. read them.just to show how he was he got a bunch to go west with him to the land of milk and honey, so he said but the truth was misery and starvation. Then he took their money, went back east and left them there to starve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you really show me stories from history or did you just fail to realize that Joseph Smith never went west with the group and therefore never went back east with any money and in fact died before the trip happened?
Click to expand...


so your saying he was dead in 1834


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> My only point was that innocent people can have their friends turn to enemies, through no fault of their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you consider Paul one of the worst criminals of all time then? Perhaps Daniel should have deserved to be eaten by Lions? All the apostles? All the christian gladiators deserved their fate as well I suppose according to you?
Click to expand...


they were in jail for preaching not conning and adultry


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> In sum, I find little here to suggest that Joseph Smith was gifted with any unusual prophetic insight here, although with much of this prophecy in the "yet fulfilled" category it is not possible to be categorically too harsh without compromising certain orthodox prophetic positions. The few points that are fulfilled with certainty would be easily drawn from the politics and society of the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course you dont.  Accurately predicting future events is hardly evidence of a prophetic calling. I suppose healing the sick isnt either. Teaching legitimate Christian doctrine lost for centuries probably doesnt count in your book either.
> 
> But since you think that Josephs predictions didnt take much insight, perhaps you could tell me where the next major global war will begin and what the consequences of that war will be. After all, it shouldnt be tough. In fact, since you claim to be so close to God, you should ask Him and do even better than Joseph. Im eagerly waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom offers a summary of conditions prior to the Civil War that contributed to it and exacerbated tensions.( Even prior to Smith's prophecy, it would not have been difficult to foresee a war coming. McPherson notes that there were a number of expected dividing lines as the country grew in the period from 1800-1850 (rich/poor, Catholic/Protestant, rural/urban), but the "greatest danger to American survival" at this stage was the question of slavery. Why? Because slavery was associated with competing ideals that just happened to also have geographic associations.) The institution was so contrary to what he argued were desirable values that he predicted a conflict that would result in the destruction of slavery. And Mormons might consider that one reason why Joseph Smith and the Saints were driven out of their locales in Missouri, in 1838-9, was because they were suspected of being favorable to abolition of slavery. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. These were all facts that smith knew, do the math. Read this this is where he got his idea for his so called prophacy.any one could have predictedsomething close knowing all of this.
Click to expand...


Why do you try to argue away the correct prophecies of Joseph?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Course you dont.  Accurately predicting future events is hardly evidence of a prophetic calling. I suppose healing the sick isnt either. Teaching legitimate Christian doctrine lost for centuries probably doesnt count in your book either.
> 
> But since you think that Josephs predictions didnt take much insight, perhaps you could tell me where the next major global war will begin and what the consequences of that war will be. After all, it shouldnt be tough. In fact, since you claim to be so close to God, you should ask Him and do even better than Joseph. Im eagerly waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom offers a summary of conditions prior to the Civil War that contributed to it and exacerbated tensions.( Even prior to Smith's prophecy, it would not have been difficult to foresee a war coming. McPherson notes that there were a number of expected dividing lines as the country grew in the period from 1800-1850 (rich/poor, Catholic/Protestant, rural/urban), but the "greatest danger to American survival" at this stage was the question of slavery. Why? Because slavery was associated with competing ideals that just happened to also have geographic associations.) The institution was so contrary to what he argued were desirable values that he predicted a conflict that would result in the destruction of slavery. And Mormons might consider that one reason why Joseph Smith and the Saints were driven out of their locales in Missouri, in 1838-9, was because they were suspected of being favorable to abolition of slavery. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. These were all facts that smith knew, do the math. Read this this is where he got his idea for his so called prophacy.any one could have predictedsomething close knowing all of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you try to argue away the correct prophecies of Joseph?
Click to expand...

He just told want any 9 year old could have guessed, living in it as he was.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't search for truth in a book of lies you have to search in the history of the time, according to nephis tale, he lived in several different life times at once. theyclaim to be of the wealthy, if so they would have been noted for the time they were there, before they sailed the magic dragon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are saying because they were wealthy, they should have been recorded in the Bible? What rubbish! What utter nonsensical poppycock! By jove you are amazing. Where is the logic? Where is the honesty? Magic Dragon? Please give me some more. You amuse me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said the history of the time they live, i never said bible, am i talking to brainwashed robots or people?
Click to expand...


Are you saying then that anyone wealthy living in 600AD would have likely been written down in history somewhere? What makes you say such and absurd thing?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one that knew ioe was a wacko. If you were allow to look at recorded history you'd find the truth. oh, but wait you only allowed to search in the fairytale book of joe, how shallow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wacko huh? What did he do or say that was wacko?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He quoted himself that he could tell if he was living in a dream or reality
Click to expand...


Can you please repeat that so we can understand in English?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've showed you stories from history. read them.just to show how he was he got a bunch to go west with him to the land of milk and honey, so he said but the truth was misery and starvation. Then he took their money, went back east and left them there to starve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really show me stories from history or did you just fail to realize that Joseph Smith never went west with the group and therefore never went back east with any money and in fact died before the trip happened?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so your saying he was dead in 1834
Click to expand...


Didn't you know he died in 1844?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you consider Paul one of the worst criminals of all time then? Perhaps Daniel should have deserved to be eaten by Lions? All the apostles? All the christian gladiators deserved their fate as well I suppose according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they were in jail for preaching not conning and adultry
Click to expand...


Didn't you know that Joseph was jailed for the same reasons?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are saying because they were wealthy, they should have been recorded in the Bible? What rubbish! What utter nonsensical poppycock! By jove you are amazing. Where is the logic? Where is the honesty? Magic Dragon? Please give me some more. You amuse me.
> 
> 
> 
> I said the history of the time they live, i never said bible, am i talking to brainwashed robots or people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying then that anyone wealthy living in 600AD would have likely been written down in history somewhere? What makes you say such and absurd thing?
Click to expand...


Your saying someone wealthy in that small settlement, causing up the big a commotion, would not have been.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> James McPherson in Battle Cry of Freedom offers a summary of conditions prior to the Civil War that contributed to it and exacerbated tensions.( Even prior to Smith's prophecy, it would not have been difficult to foresee a war coming. McPherson notes that there were a number of expected dividing lines as the country grew in the period from 1800-1850 (rich/poor, Catholic/Protestant, rural/urban), but the "greatest danger to American survival" at this stage was the question of slavery. Why? Because slavery was associated with competing ideals that just happened to also have geographic associations.) The institution was so contrary to what he argued were desirable values that he predicted a conflict that would result in the destruction of slavery. And Mormons might consider that one reason why Joseph Smith and the Saints were driven out of their locales in Missouri, in 1838-9, was because they were suspected of being favorable to abolition of slavery. South Carolina had advocated the doctrine of "nullification," arguing that a state could nullify federal laws or taxes that they ruled to be unconstitutional. If there was federal resistance, then South Carolina said they could leave the Union. These were all facts that smith knew, do the math. Read this this is where he got his idea for his so called prophacy.any one could have predictedsomething close knowing all of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you try to argue away the correct prophecies of Joseph?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He just told want any 9 year old could have guessed, living in it as he was.
Click to expand...


Can you please interpret your last statement?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you consider Paul one of the worst criminals of all time then? Perhaps Daniel should have deserved to be eaten by Lions? All the apostles? All the christian gladiators deserved their fate as well I suppose according to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they were in jail for preaching not conning and adultry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you know that Joseph was jailed for the same reasons?
Click to expand...


Wasn't in any history i read.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said the history of the time they live, i never said bible, am i talking to brainwashed robots or people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying then that anyone wealthy living in 600AD would have likely been written down in history somewhere? What makes you say such and absurd thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your saying someone wealthy in that small settlement, causing up the big a commotion, would not have been.
Click to expand...


Do you think you would draw attention to yourself if you were trying to escape with your life or would you alert the guards who are trying to catch you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said the history of the time they live, i never said bible, am i talking to brainwashed robots or people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying then that anyone wealthy living in 600AD would have likely been written down in history somewhere? What makes you say such and absurd thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your saying someone wealthy in that small settlement, causing up the big a commotion, would not have been.
Click to expand...


Do you think Jerusalem was a small settlement? And do you also think that all rich people are famous?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wacko huh? What did he do or say that was wacko?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He quoted himself that he could tell if he was living in a dream or reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you please repeat that so we can understand in English?
Click to expand...


joe said from his own mouth that he (meaning joe) could not tell if he (meaning joe)was living in a dream or reality.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really show me stories from history or did you just fail to realize that Joseph Smith never went west with the group and therefore never went back east with any money and in fact died before the trip happened?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so your saying he was dead in 1834
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you know he died in 1844?
Click to expand...


what a difference ten years make.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you try to argue away the correct prophecies of Joseph?
> 
> 
> 
> He just told want any 9 year old could have guessed, living in it as he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you please interpret your last statement?
Click to expand...


Any one living at that time, could have guessed what joe said, just by look at what was happening


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your saying he was dead in 1834
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you know he died in 1844?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what a difference ten years make.
Click to expand...


What in the world is your point?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying then that anyone wealthy living in 600AD would have likely been written down in history somewhere? What makes you say such and absurd thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your saying someone wealthy in that small settlement, causing up the big a commotion, would not have been.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Jerusalem was a small settlement? And do you also think that all rich people are famous?
Click to expand...


so your sayiny there was a lot of wealthy people then


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He quoted himself that he could tell if he was living in a dream or reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please repeat that so we can understand in English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> joe said from his own mouth that he (meaning joe) could not tell if he (meaning joe)was living in a dream or reality.
Click to expand...


Did you realize that Joseph was speaking of a vision he had where he saw God and could not tell whether he was "in the body or out."? Did you know that Paul said the exact same thing about his vision in nearly the exact same words? Do you think Paul is a wacko as well?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't you know he died in 1844?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a difference ten years make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the world is your point?
Click to expand...


whats yours, you think because he died in 1844 he couldn't have been somewhere else in 1834


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please repeat that so we can understand in English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joe said from his own mouth that he (meaning joe) could not tell if he (meaning joe)was living in a dream or reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you realize that Joseph was speaking of a vision he had where he saw God and could not tell whether he was "in the body or out."? Did you know that Paul said the exact same thing about his vision in nearly the exact same words? Do you think Paul is a wacko as well?
Click to expand...


that wasn't in the history i read.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your saying someone wealthy in that small settlement, causing up the big a commotion, would not have been.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Jerusalem was a small settlement? And do you also think that all rich people are famous?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so your sayiny there was a lot of wealthy people then
Click to expand...


Do you know how many wealthy people there were in Jerusalem in 600AD? Do you think there was just a handful in one of the worlds largest cities?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a difference ten years make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whats yours, you think because he died in 1844 he couldn't have been somewhere else in 1834
Click to expand...


What do you mean?


----------



## froggy

Just face it you all have been scamed, get over it and back to reality.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the world is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whats yours, you think because he died in 1844 he couldn't have been somewhere else in 1834
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...


whats yours, you think because he died in 1844 he couldn't have been somewhere else in 1834 Read this over and over till you get it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> joe said from his own mouth that he (meaning joe) could not tell if he (meaning joe)was living in a dream or reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you realize that Joseph was speaking of a vision he had where he saw God and could not tell whether he was "in the body or out."? Did you know that Paul said the exact same thing about his vision in nearly the exact same words? Do you think Paul is a wacko as well?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that wasn't in the history i read.
Click to expand...


Are you saying then that you have never read the Bible all the way through? Is it at least fair to say you haven't read this quote by Paul?

2 Cor. 12: 2-3
  2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third dheaven. 
  3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Just face it you all have been scamed, get over it and back to reality.



What makes you think I have been scammed?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just face it you all have been scamed, get over it and back to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have been scammed?
Click to expand...


your praising joe the con.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Just face it you all have been scamed, get over it and back to reality.



I might also ask what your response would be to a non-christian who says the same thing to you about your belief in Jesus? How do you respond when they say you are brainwashed into believing that Jesus can save you from your sins? Can you please answer those questions?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just face it you all have been scamed, get over it and back to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have been scammed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your praising joe the con.
Click to expand...


What do you say to people who say you have been scammed for praising Jesus? What makes you call Joseph a con?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> whats yours, you think because he died in 1844 he couldn't have been somewhere else in 1834
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whats yours, you think because he died in 1844 he couldn't have been somewhere else in 1834 Read this over and over till you get it.
Click to expand...


Where was he supposed to be according to you in 1834?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have been scammed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your praising joe the con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you say to people who say you have been scammed for praising Jesus? What makes you call Joseph a con?
Click to expand...


i give up, your to far gone to return.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> your praising joe the con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you say to people who say you have been scammed for praising Jesus? What makes you call Joseph a con?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i give up, your to far gone to return.
Click to expand...


How much am I going to miss you?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you say to people who say you have been scammed for praising Jesus? What makes you call Joseph a con?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i give up, your to far gone to return.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much am I going to miss you?
Click to expand...


Alot, more than you've missed anything.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> I've showed you stories from history. read them.just to show how he was, he got a bunch to go west with him to the land of milk and honey, so he said, but the truth was misery and starvation. Then he took their money, went back east and left them there to starve.



What on earth are you talking about? Joseph was almost always with the saints in the western frontier. The one exception was when he went to Washington DC to petition the President and Congress to restore the Saints to the land that was stolen from them in Missouri. He preached in a few eastern cities while out there and then went back west.

So please, enlighten me. What are you talking about?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.



Christ went to jail. According to your standard, He is guilty. But thankfully, we know you are wrong there.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Just face it you all have been scamed, get over it and back to reality.



Dont worry about us getting scammed Froggy. We dont believe you.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just face it you all have been scamed, get over it and back to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont worry about us getting scammed Froggy. We dont believe you.
Click to expand...


I know, when you lose touch with reality you become, like joey, you can no longer see the truth.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've showed you stories from history. read them.just to show how he was, he got a bunch to go west with him to the land of milk and honey, so he said, but the truth was misery and starvation. Then he took their money, went back east and left them there to starve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth are you talking about? Joseph was almost always with the saints in the western frontier. The one exception was when he went to Washington DC to petition the President and Congress to restore the Saints to the land that was stolen from them in Missouri. He preached in a few eastern cities while out there and then went back west.
> 
> So please, enlighten me. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...


You and Truthy need to compare notes, one says he was never out west and the other says he was. Its all documented in history. A "starving flock of theives" i think is what they called them.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ went to jail. According to your standard, He is guilty. But thankfully, we know you are wrong there.
Click to expand...


What, you can't distinguish the difference, jesus jailed for doing good, and joe jailed for being career criminal.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ went to jail. According to your standard, He is guilty. But thankfully, we know you are wrong there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, you can't distinguish the difference, jesus jailed for doing good, and joe jailed for being career criminal.
Click to expand...


So basically, yolu have a double standard. Jesus is arrested and determined to be guilty and is put to death. Therefore He was doing good. Joseph was arrested found to be not guilty time and time again and was therefore clearly a career criminal simply because you said so.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> You and Truthy need to compare notes, one says he was never out west and the other says he was. Its all documented in history. A "starving flock of theives" i think is what they called them.



No we really dont. We were just making assumptions based on the lack of information you gave us. West is pretty ambiguous. After all, Europe is west to much of the world. But its east to the United States. So until you are more specific, i stand by what I said.

Oh, and "A starving flock of thieves" turned up exactly zero hits. And there are exactly zero books called that.

Again as i Said, Joseph was with the Saints almost his entire life. He never left them alone like you claim. So where the heck are you getting your info?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some one being in jail as much as joe was, cant be innocent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ went to jail. According to your standard, He is guilty. But thankfully, we know you are wrong there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What, you can't distinguish the difference, jesus jailed for doing good, and joe jailed for being career criminal.
Click to expand...


Jesus was not arrested for doing good didn't you know? The Pharisees had to have a case against him and "doing good" wouldn't get Pontius Pilate to execute him didn't you know?
Do you not know that he was arrested for blasphemy among the Pharisees? Did you know that that charge meant nothing to Pilate because he didn't believe in the Jewish God? Don't you realize that he was brought on charges of insurrection to set himself up as a King over the people in opposition to Caesar? Don't you also remember that Pilate acquitted him of all charges? Do you realize the only reason Pilate allowed the execution was because he feared the riot of the people? Do you really think that the charges brought against the apostles and Jesus were for "doing good"? Don't you realize that in order to get an innocent man executed by law you must convince the judge/jury that he is guilty of a falsehood? Don't you remember the statement by Jesus saying, "blessed are ye when men persecute you and speak all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker, you don't really know who Jesus is, so go light when speaking for Him, huh?


----------



## Intense

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ went to jail. According to your standard, He is guilty. But thankfully, we know you are wrong there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you can't distinguish the difference, jesus jailed for doing good, and joe jailed for being career criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus was not arrested for doing good didn't you know? The Pharisees had to have a case against him and "doing good" wouldn't get Pontius Pilate to execute him didn't you know?
> Do you not know that he was arrested for blasphemy among the Pharisees? Did you know that that charge meant nothing to Pilate because he didn't believe in the Jewish God? Don't you realize that he was brought on charges of insurrection to set himself up as a King over the people in opposition to Caesar? Don't you also remember that Pilate acquitted him of all charges? Do you realize the only reason Pilate allowed the execution was because he feared the riot of the people? Do you really think that the charges brought against the apostles and Jesus were for "doing good"? Don't you realize that in order to get an innocent man executed by law you must convince the judge/jury that he is guilty of a falsehood? Don't you remember the statement by Jesus saying, "blessed are ye when men persecute you and speak all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake?"
Click to expand...


You are No Mel Gibson!!!


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker, you don't really know who Jesus is, so go light when speaking for Him, huh?



So who is Jesus, really? And how do you determine who really knows Him or not?


----------



## Samson

You know, I've only just joined this board, having visited several others, and thought I'd give it a go here.

On every one there is a "Bibletruth," or "Biblestudy," or here, "Truthspeaker," and they all are devoted to posting about one topic: Jehovah Witness Doctrine.

I'm not complaining, but only making the observation.

I wonder if all these members are the same? If they're different people are their efforts being coordinated? If so, its brilliant.

I may see if I can organize a Pagan Equivalent.


----------



## Avatar4321

What the heck do the JWs have to do with anything?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker, you don't really know who Jesus is, so go light when speaking for Him, huh?



Thank you for your opinion Jake. Since you are playing God now by claiming I don't know someone, perhaps you could tell me how you know better?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Intense said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, you can't distinguish the difference, jesus jailed for doing good, and joe jailed for being career criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was not arrested for doing good didn't you know? The Pharisees had to have a case against him and "doing good" wouldn't get Pontius Pilate to execute him didn't you know?
> Do you not know that he was arrested for blasphemy among the Pharisees? Did you know that that charge meant nothing to Pilate because he didn't believe in the Jewish God? Don't you realize that he was brought on charges of insurrection to set himself up as a King over the people in opposition to Caesar? Don't you also remember that Pilate acquitted him of all charges? Do you realize the only reason Pilate allowed the execution was because he feared the riot of the people? Do you really think that the charges brought against the apostles and Jesus were for "doing good"? Don't you realize that in order to get an innocent man executed by law you must convince the judge/jury that he is guilty of a falsehood? Don't you remember the statement by Jesus saying, "blessed are ye when men persecute you and speak all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are No Mel Gibson!!!
Click to expand...


You are right. I am not Mel Gibson. Thank you for that.


----------



## Samson

Avatar4321 said:


> What the heck do the JWs have to do with anything?



JW, Mormon, whatever.......my point isn't to count angels on the head of a pin so we can distinguish Mormons from JW.

My point is that there is a prevalence of these characters appearing on all the message boards I've sampled. If this is an organized effort....like say......dressing up in a nice pressed shirt, tie and riding bicycles in pairs from one house to another, then its brilliant!

Most of the responders (including myself) to this thread wouldn't spend 2 minutes talking about the subject if Biblestudy, or Bibletruth, or Truthteller showed up at our doorsteps.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Samson said:


> You know, I've only just joined this board, having visited several others, and thought I'd give it a go here.
> 
> On every one there is a "Bibletruth," or "Biblestudy," or here, "Truthspeaker," and they all are devoted to posting about one topic: Jehovah Witness Doctrine.
> 
> I'm not complaining, but only making the observation.
> 
> I wonder if all these members are the same? If they're different people are their efforts being coordinated? If so, its brilliant.
> 
> I may see if I can organize a Pagan Equivalent.



Ok Samson. Welcome to the forum. FYI I am not a "Jehovah's Witness" movement member. Since I am the OP of a thread called "the truth about Mormons" that would make me a "Mormon". I still don't understand why we should have to abide by this nickname since it never was the name of our church. I'm a christian who strives to live by Christ's words the best I can. There is no coordinated effort but the brilliance of my effort is in the eye of the beholder. I don't care if someone thinks it's great or not. I'm simply telling the truth about our story. As you can see I'm not a rep whore because it is unimportant to me. Welcome to the forum. Do you have any questions for me?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Truthy need to compare notes, one says he was never out west and the other says he was. Its all documented in history. A "starving flock of theives" i think is what they called them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we really dont. We were just making assumptions based on the lack of information you gave us. West is pretty ambiguous. After all, Europe is west to much of the world. But its east to the United States. So until you are more specific, i stand by what I said.
> 
> Oh, and "A starving flock of thieves" turned up exactly zero hits. And there are exactly zero books called that.
> 
> Again as i Said, Joseph was with the Saints almost his entire life. He never left them alone like you claim. So where the heck are you getting your info?
Click to expand...


look elsewhere, other than the book joe and his co-horts wrote. you do know they wrote all of it. There was no Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mormon, Mosiah, Alma,Helaman all made up.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ went to jail. According to your standard, He is guilty. But thankfully, we know you are wrong there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you can't distinguish the difference, jesus jailed for doing good, and joe jailed for being career criminal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, yolu have a double standard. Jesus is arrested and determined to be guilty and is put to death. Therefore He was doing good. Joseph was arrested found to be not guilty time and time again and was therefore clearly a career criminal simply because you said so.
Click to expand...


history said so.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Samson said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck do the JWs have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JW, Mormon, whatever.......my point isn't to count angels on the head of a pin so we can distinguish Mormons from JW.
> 
> My point is that there is a prevalence of these characters appearing on all the message boards I've sampled. If this is an organized effort....like say......dressing up in a nice pressed shirt, tie and riding bicycles in pairs from one house to another, then its brilliant!
> 
> Most of the responders (including myself) to this thread wouldn't spend 2 minutes talking about the subject if Biblestudy, or Bibletruth, or Truthteller showed up at our doorsteps.
Click to expand...


If I showed up you'd want me to hang around, because I would do free yardwork and clean out your raingutters. In this economy, you wouldn't turn me away and might even offer me a plate of cookies


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Truthy need to compare notes, one says he was never out west and the other says he was. Its all documented in history. A "starving flock of theives" i think is what they called them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we really dont. We were just making assumptions based on the lack of information you gave us. West is pretty ambiguous. After all, Europe is west to much of the world. But its east to the United States. So until you are more specific, i stand by what I said.
> 
> Oh, and "A starving flock of thieves" turned up exactly zero hits. And there are exactly zero books called that.
> 
> Again as i Said, Joseph was with the Saints almost his entire life. He never left them alone like you claim. So where the heck are you getting your info?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> look elsewhere, other than the book joe and his co-horts wrote. you do know they wrote all of it. There was no Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mormon, Mosiah, Alma,Helaman all made up.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep interjecting your opinion in such a manner? Do you think you are having any positive effect?


----------



## Samson

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't care if someone thinks it's great or not. I'm simply telling the truth about our story. As you can see I'm not a rep whore because it is unimportant to me. Welcome to the forum. Do you have any questions for me?



Regardless, The whole concept about posting on discussion boards is brilliant. You can reach out with your message to many more people without having to pedal around from one house to another.

Anyway, I wonder if you coordinate this effort with others within your church? Do you know BibleTruth? BibleStudy? Truthteller? all of your breatheren on different boards?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we really dont. We were just making assumptions based on the lack of information you gave us. West is pretty ambiguous. After all, Europe is west to much of the world. But its east to the United States. So until you are more specific, i stand by what I said.
> 
> Oh, and "A starving flock of thieves" turned up exactly zero hits. And there are exactly zero books called that.
> 
> Again as i Said, Joseph was with the Saints almost his entire life. He never left them alone like you claim. So where the heck are you getting your info?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> look elsewhere, other than the book joe and his co-horts wrote. you do know they wrote all of it. There was no Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mormon, Mosiah, Alma,Helaman all made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep interjecting your opinion in such a manner? Do you think you are having any positive effect?
Click to expand...


Yes a great deal. I've already got you calling yourself a christian, that your first step back to reality


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, you can't distinguish the difference, jesus jailed for doing good, and joe jailed for being career criminal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, yolu have a double standard. Jesus is arrested and determined to be guilty and is put to death. Therefore He was doing good. Joseph was arrested found to be not guilty time and time again and was therefore clearly a career criminal simply because you said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> history said so.
Click to expand...


How old are you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Samson said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if someone thinks it's great or not. I'm simply telling the truth about our story. As you can see I'm not a rep whore because it is unimportant to me. Welcome to the forum. Do you have any questions for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, The whole concept about posting on discussion boards is brilliant. You can reach out with your message to many more people without having to pedal around from one house to another.
> 
> Anyway, I wonder if you coordinate this effort with others within your church? Do you know BibleTruth? BibleStudy? Truthteller? all of your breatheren on different boards?
Click to expand...


Don't know 'em. Probably fine fellows. I'm doin ma own thang.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, yolu have a double standard. Jesus is arrested and determined to be guilty and is put to death. Therefore He was doing good. Joseph was arrested found to be not guilty time and time again and was therefore clearly a career criminal simply because you said so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> history said so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old are you?
Click to expand...


Old enough to be your grandpappy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> look elsewhere, other than the book joe and his co-horts wrote. you do know they wrote all of it. There was no Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mormon, Mosiah, Alma,Helaman all made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep interjecting your opinion in such a manner? Do you think you are having any positive effect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes a great deal. I've already got you calling yourself a christian, that your first step back to reality
Click to expand...


Didn't you know we've been calling ourselves Christians for almost 200 years? Do you really think you can take credit for that?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> history said so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old enough to be your grandpappy.
Click to expand...


How cute?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep interjecting your opinion in such a manner? Do you think you are having any positive effect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes a great deal. I've already got you calling yourself a christian, that your first step back to reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't you know we've been calling ourselves Christians for almost 200 years? Do you really think you can take credit for that?
Click to expand...


Mormons are not christians


----------



## Samson

Truthspeaker said:


> If I showed up you'd want me to hang around, because I would do free yardwork and clean out your raingutters. In this economy, you wouldn't turn me away and might even offer me a plate of cookies



What about putting up Christmas Lights?

You can come over this weekend. I'll let the beer chill on the 10 F front porch and afterwards you can eat cookies while I kick back a cold one and ask you questions like "Is Omega or Alpha the beginning of the End?" or, "If I'm created in God's image, does God poop?"


----------



## Avatar4321

Samson said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck do the JWs have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JW, Mormon, whatever.......my point isn't to count angels on the head of a pin so we can distinguish Mormons from JW.
> 
> My point is that there is a prevalence of these characters appearing on all the message boards I've sampled. If this is an organized effort....like say......dressing up in a nice pressed shirt, tie and riding bicycles in pairs from one house to another, then its brilliant!
> 
> Most of the responders (including myself) to this thread wouldn't spend 2 minutes talking about the subject if Biblestudy, or Bibletruth, or Truthteller showed up at our doorsteps.
Click to expand...


And thats quite a shame because the message is a good one.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> look elsewhere, other than the book joe and his co-horts wrote. you do know they wrote all of it. There was no Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mormon, Mosiah, Alma,Helaman all made up.



What you're telling me there is that if you actually read the Book of Mormon you would have to come to the conclusion that they didn't write that.

You still arent answering any questions which is a shame.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Mormons are not christians



Just two seconds ago you said it was a good thing we were calling ourselves Christians. Now its not true. Make up your mind.

We seek to follow Christ and use His atonement in our lives to repent of our sins. Alright, you got us. We must be buddhist. its the only thing that makes sense.


----------



## Andrew2382

It was a mormon woman who wrote the shitty abomination known as Twilight...so I blame them for everything now


----------



## Avatar4321

Andrew2382 said:


> It was a mormon woman who wrote the shitty abomination known as Twilight...so I blame them for everything now



Hey. we arent perfect.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Samson said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I showed up you'd want me to hang around, because I would do free yardwork and clean out your raingutters. In this economy, you wouldn't turn me away and might even offer me a plate of cookies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about putting up Christmas Lights?
> 
> You can come over this weekend. I'll let the beer chill on the 10 F front porch and afterwards you can eat cookies while I kick back a cold one and ask you questions like "Is Omega or Alpha the beginning of the End?" or, "If I'm created in God's image, does God poop?"
Click to expand...


Sweet! Send me a pm with your address and if it's anywhere close I promise I will. Otherwise I'll send the missionaries to do exactly what you requested verbatim. Just make sure you're not wearing that abominable speedo


----------



## Truthspeaker

Andrew2382 said:


> It was a mormon woman who wrote the shitty abomination known as Twilight...so I blame them for everything now



It's true, but I wonder what the story is even about. All I know is it's this girl who has a crush on a vampire. That's about it.


----------



## Avatar4321

btw, in case no one noticed we have officially hit 200 pages


----------



## Samson

Truthspeaker said:


> Sweet! Send me a pm with your address and if it's anywhere close I promise I will. Otherwise I'll send the missionaries to do exactly what you requested verbatim. Just make sure you're not wearing that abominable speedo



Yeah I'll be sure to wear sweats over the speedo.

It would be a long bike ride from San Francisco to Denver. Do you guys send out female missionaries? I recently visited Salt Lake City's Tabernacle and met some very friendly English Mormon Chicks who were doing duty as guides. Sweet, Clear-eyed, Intelligent, Well-bred girls. I'd be thrilled to death if either of my sons married one. In fact, I'm sorta impressed with all of Salt Lake City.....Mormons take the saying, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" seriously.

You PM the address of the nearest Mormon Missionaries, and I'll try to hook them up to stringing lights to the roof of my house.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are not christians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just two seconds ago you said it was a good thing we were calling ourselves Christians. Now its not true. Make up your mind.
> 
> We seek to follow Christ and use His atonement in our lives to repent of our sins. Alright, you got us. We must be buddhist. its the only thing that makes sense.
Click to expand...

will you be going to middle school next year, or still in grade school?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> look elsewhere, other than the book joe and his co-horts wrote. you do know they wrote all of it. There was no Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mormon, Mosiah, Alma,Helaman all made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you're telling me there is that if you actually read the Book of Mormon you would have to come to the conclusion that they didn't write that.
> 
> You still arent answering any questions which is a shame.
Click to expand...


Fairytale books aren't the place to find history, just fairytales.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The atonement works with the crucifixtion and the resurrection.  Each are the work of God in the life of the Christ.  Each are equal, none more important or any less imporant than the other two.  We, creations of God, as we go through life, can ponder and pray about the significance of each in our lives, and the overwhelming majesty of Jesus Christ in our lives to transform men and women into His sons and daughters.

Avatar, focus on the Christ and you will be fine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Samson said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet! Send me a pm with your address and if it's anywhere close I promise I will. Otherwise I'll send the missionaries to do exactly what you requested verbatim. Just make sure you're not wearing that abominable speedo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I'll be sure to wear sweats over the speedo.
> 
> It would be a long bike ride from San Francisco to Denver. Do you guys send out female missionaries? I recently visited Salt Lake City's Tabernacle and met some very friendly English Mormon Chicks who were doing duty as guides. Sweet, Clear-eyed, Intelligent, Well-bred girls. I'd be thrilled to death if either of my sons married one. In fact, I'm sorta impressed with all of Salt Lake City.....Mormons take the saying, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" seriously.
> 
> You PM the address of the nearest Mormon Missionaries, and I'll try to hook them up to stringing lights to the roof of my house.
Click to expand...


Here is the number for each of the missions in denver, North and south. I don't know which area is closer to you but call either number it'll be like pizza delivery. I'm dead serious. You ask them to come over and put up your christmas lights and they will gladly do just that. You'll be surprised how unpushy they will be. They will also wear casual clothes for yardwork instead of the white shirts and ties. You'll see:

Colorado Denver South | Mission Info

http://www.mission.net/colorado/denver/north/missioninfo.php


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are not christians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just two seconds ago you said it was a good thing we were calling ourselves Christians. Now its not true. Make up your mind.
> 
> We seek to follow Christ and use His atonement in our lives to repent of our sins. Alright, you got us. We must be buddhist. its the only thing that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> will you be going to middle school next year, or still in grade school?
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The atonement works with the crucifixtion and the resurrection.  Each are the work of God in the life of the Christ.  Each are equal, none more important or any less imporant than the other two.  We, creations of God, as we go through life, can ponder and pray about the significance of each in our lives, and the overwhelming majesty of Jesus Christ in our lives to transform men and women into His sons and daughters.
> 
> Avatar, focus on the Christ and you will be fine.



Glad to see you give an honest opinion instead of some grim mystical warning. I like everything you posted.


----------



## Skeptik

Samson said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the heck do the JWs have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JW, Mormon, whatever.......my point isn't to count angels on the head of a pin so we can distinguish Mormons from JW.
> 
> My point is that there is a prevalence of these characters appearing on all the message boards I've sampled. If this is an organized effort....like say......dressing up in a nice pressed shirt, tie and riding bicycles in pairs from one house to another, then its brilliant!
> 
> Most of the responders (including myself) to this thread wouldn't spend 2 minutes talking about the subject if Biblestudy, or Bibletruth, or Truthteller showed up at our doorsteps.
Click to expand...


I've been on four message boards, and have wasted a great deal of time posting and reading others' posts.  This is the first in depth discussion of any particular religion I've ever encountered.


----------



## froggy

skeptik said:


> samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what the heck do the jws have to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jw, mormon, whatever.......my point isn't to count angels on the head of a pin so we can distinguish mormons from jw.
> 
> My point is that there is a prevalence of these characters appearing on all the message boards i've sampled. If this is an organized effort....like say......dressing up in a nice pressed shirt, tie and riding bicycles in pairs from one house to another, then its brilliant!
> 
> Most of the responders (including myself) to this thread wouldn't spend 2 minutes talking about the subject if biblestudy, or bibletruth, or truthteller showed up at our doorsteps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i've been on four message boards, and have wasted a great deal of time posting and reading others' posts.  This is the first in depth discussion of any particular religion i've ever encountered.
Click to expand...

beware


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are not christians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just two seconds ago you said it was a good thing we were calling ourselves Christians. Now its not true. Make up your mind.
> 
> We seek to follow Christ and use His atonement in our lives to repent of our sins. Alright, you got us. We must be buddhist. its the only thing that makes sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> will you be going to middle school next year, or still in grade school?
Click to expand...


So what your saying is that a child can see the flaws in your arguments and make yo ulook ridiculous?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> The atonement works with the crucifixtion and the resurrection.  Each are the work of God in the life of the Christ.  Each are equal, none more important or any less imporant than the other two.  We, creations of God, as we go through life, can ponder and pray about the significance of each in our lives, and the overwhelming majesty of Jesus Christ in our lives to transform men and women into His sons and daughters.
> 
> Avatar, focus on the Christ and you will be fine.



You didnt answer either of my questions. How do you determine who knows Christ and who doesnt?

How can you determine that someone who preaches the Redemption of Christ to not know Him?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've been on four message boards, and have wasted a great deal of time posting and reading others' posts.  This is the first in depth discussion of any particular religion i've ever encountered.
> 
> 
> 
> beware
Click to expand...


Is there something bad about an in depth discussions on faith that is dangerous? Worst thing that can happen is you might learn something. May not change your viewpoint. but you can learn about others.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Grim, mystical warnings?  Truthspeaker, go and read some of the discourses and conference reports of the 1850s and 1860s and 1870s by your church's prophets and leaders.  Your church had a history of that, like many churches.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar, your questions are irrelevant.  Your sole duty is to focus on the Christ.  There you will find your path.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've been on four message boards, and have wasted a great deal of time posting and reading others' posts.  This is the first in depth discussion of any particular religion i've ever encountered.
> 
> 
> 
> beware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something bad about an in depth discussions on faith that is dangerous? Worst thing that can happen is you might learn something. May not change your viewpoint. but you can learn about others.
Click to expand...


Will you discard the book of mormon?


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> i've been on four message boards, and have wasted a great deal of time posting and reading others' posts.  This is the first in depth discussion of any particular religion i've ever encountered.
> 
> 
> 
> beware
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there something bad about an in depth discussions on faith that is dangerous? Worst thing that can happen is you might learn something. May not change your viewpoint. but you can learn about others.
Click to expand...


Might learn something?  Now, that is downright scary.  Who would want to learn something?  

If there were an in depth discussion of any topic, the reader could learn something, and who would want to do that?

Remember, ignorance is strength!


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just two seconds ago you said it was a good thing we were calling ourselves Christians. Now its not true. Make up your mind.
> 
> We seek to follow Christ and use His atonement in our lives to repent of our sins. Alright, you got us. We must be buddhist. its the only thing that makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> will you be going to middle school next year, or still in grade school?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what your saying is that a child can see the flaws in your arguments and make yo ulook ridiculous?
Click to expand...


no, i'm saying you have the mind of a child and cannot understand anything.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar, your questions are irrelevant.  Your sole duty is to focus on the Christ.  There you will find your path.



Forget it Jake, she can't hear you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, your questions are irrelevant.  Your sole duty is to focus on the Christ.  There you will find your path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget it Jake, she can't hear you.
Click to expand...


Avatar may not hear me, but the spirit of Jesus cries out to her heart continually.  Who knows?  The day may come when she will open her ears to hear.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, your questions are irrelevant.  Your sole duty is to focus on the Christ.  There you will find your path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget it Jake, she can't hear you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Avatar may not hear me, but the spirit of Jesus cries out to her heart continually.  Who knows?  The day may come when she will open her ears to hear.
Click to expand...


Is it your opinion that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints are not Christians despite their core belief that Christ is the savior of mankind?  

That opinion would be difficult to support, IMO.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> no, i'm saying you have the mind of a child and cannot understand anything.



What because i dont believe your unsupported claims? Yeah that's incredibly stupid. We should just agree with you for absolutely no reason just because you say so. We should ignore all historical and physical evidence. We shouldnt bother to read anything that you dont like. And moreover, we should ignore the Holy Spirit, simply because you dont like what He has to say.

That makes a whole lot of sense. Who should I believe, froggy or God. You've made a persuasive argument, but I think Im going to go with my Lord and Savior.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar, your questions are irrelevant.  Your sole duty is to focus on the Christ.  There you will find your path.



I am focused on Christ. That's why i joined His Church. That's why I read _all_ of His scriptures and expect to hear much more from Him in the future. That is why I teach His word. That's why I testify of Christ. And constantly seek knowledge through His Holy Spirit. You think Im doing it because I don't focus on Christ?

If you are so focused on Christ, why are you so opposed to His work of Redemption and Gathering in the latter days as all the Holy Prophets prophecied?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, your questions are irrelevant.  Your sole duty is to focus on the Christ.  There you will find your path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget it Jake, she can't hear you.
Click to expand...


Fabulous. You guys can't even tell the difference between men and women and you are going to teach me the things of God. I think the words of the Immortal Puck sum this up nicely "Lord, what fools these mortals be."

And for the record, just because your arguments, facts, and literacy suck, does not mean that I'm not listening to you. You see in order to have a discussion both sides need to pay attention. You haven't been. You havent backed your statements up. You haven't even made coherent statements. You think that somehow someone is going to trip over themselves to accept your viewpoints when you cant write clear enough to get them across and refuse to answer any questions about them? 

Repeating the same thing over and over with absolutely no attempt at discussion or to support your position is not persuasive. Try to put in even alittle effort here.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake Starkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, your questions are irrelevant.  Your sole duty is to focus on the Christ.  There you will find your path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget it Jake, she can't hear you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fabulous. You guys can't even tell the difference between men and women and you are going to teach me the things of God. I think the words of the Immortal Puck sum this up nicely "Lord, what fools these mortals be."
> 
> And for the record, just because your arguments, facts, and literacy suck, does not mean that I'm not listening to you. You see in order to have a discussion both sides need to pay attention. You haven't been. You haven't backed your statements up. You haven't even made coherent statements. You think that somehow someone is going to trip over themselves to accept your viewpoints when you cant write clear enough to get them across and refuse to answer any questions about them?
> 
> Repeating the same thing over and over with absolutely no attempt at discussion or to support your position is not persuasive. Try to put in even a little effort here.
Click to expand...


I've shown you facts, but your like joey, out of touch with reality. joe was a con and the book of mormon is nothing more than a tool used to deceive.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> I've shown you facts, but your like joey, out of touch with reality. joe was a con and the book of mormon is nothing more than a tool used to deceive.



repeating yourself over and over again is not a fact. Posting prophecies that were fulfilled and claiming they arent are no facts. linking to text written and refuted over 100 years ago isnt a fact.

You dont have a clue what the Book of Mormon says and you expect anyone to accept that you are a credible source about it?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown you facts, but your like joey, out of touch with reality. joe was a con and the book of mormon is nothing more than a tool used to deceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> repeating yourself over and over again is not a fact. Posting prophecies that were fulfilled and claiming they arent are no facts. linking to text written and refuted over 100 years ago isnt a fact.
> 
> You dont have a clue what the Book of Mormon says and you expect anyone to accept that you are a credible source about it?
Click to expand...


Just read the book, it all made up. None of the so called authors existed.


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown you facts, but your like joey, out of touch with reality. joe was a con and the book of mormon is nothing more than a tool used to deceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> repeating yourself over and over again is not a fact. Posting prophecies that were fulfilled and claiming they arent are no facts. linking to text written and refuted over 100 years ago isnt a fact.
> 
> You dont have a clue what the Book of Mormon says and you expect anyone to accept that you are a credible source about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just read the book, it all made up. None of the so called authors existed.
Click to expand...


Can you post the "facts" again, as well as the credible sources where you received these "facts"?  I must have missed them.  Just provide the post numbers in this thread.  I'm talking about the facts (and not the speculation) which conclusively supports your statements about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

avatar simply cannot respond to reason.  Truthspeak agreed with my post to avatar.  She floats in la la land.  That's OK.  As long as she is living her life correctly so she can answer her recommend interviews honestly, she at least has a chance for her eternal future.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> avatar simply cannot respond to reason.  Truthspeak agreed with my post to avatar.  She floats in la la land.  That's OK.  As long as she is living her life correctly so she can answer her recommend interviews honestly, she at least has a chance for her eternal future.



Again, you guys cant even tell the difference between men and women and expect me to listen to you about spiritual things? You seriously need to work on your credibility.

You refuse to answer any questions. You are the one asserting that somehow we are not following Christ despite all the things Ive cited that we do because of our faith in Him. I asked how you determine that. You still refuse to answer.

I doubt I should be surprised. You can't support yourself, so you have to do anything you can to avoid actually answering questions and distract people from the actual discussion. It's a typical tactic for people who know their position is unsustainable. But it's not one I am going to fall for. You've made claims. Back them up. I don't expect you to be honest, I do expect you to actually have a discussion. If you want to lie about others at least support your claims.

Sadly, I am not expecting you to ever answer any questions. Christ is apparently a stumbling block for you. It's really a shame, because I can guarentee that if you really did accept Him, you'd be alot happier.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar, you are dithering again.  Speak to the subject, please, if you want anyone to listen to you.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar, you are dithering again.  Speak to the subject, please, if you want anyone to listen to you.



The subject was Christ as your viewpoint that you can determine who knows Christ and not. It was also your refusal to answer any questions posed to you and your attempts divert the subject in an effort not to answer questeions.

Obviously, you dont want to support your viewpoints. So there isnt much to say.


----------



## froggy

Christopher said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> repeating yourself over and over again is not a fact. Posting prophecies that were fulfilled and claiming they arent are no facts. linking to text written and refuted over 100 years ago isnt a fact.
> 
> You dont have a clue what the Book of Mormon says and you expect anyone to accept that you are a credible source about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the book, it all made up. None of the so called authors existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you post the "facts" again, as well as the credible sources where you received these "facts"?  I must have missed them.  Just provide the post numbers in this thread.  I'm talking about the facts (and not the speculation) which conclusively supports your statements about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...

Read my post, Long Read but Worth it. Try and find any of them in their time, nothing


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, i'm saying you have the mind of a child and cannot understand anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What because i dont believe your unsupported claims? Yeah that's incredibly stupid. We should just agree with you for absolutely no reason just because you say so. We should ignore all historical and physical evidence. We shouldnt bother to read anything that you dont like. And moreover, we should ignore the Holy Spirit, simply because you dont like what He has to say.
> 
> That makes a whole lot of sense. Who should I believe, froggy or God. You've made a persuasive argument, but I think Im going to go with my Lord and Savior.
Click to expand...


Wheres the historical and physical evidence?


----------



## JakeStarkey

If you do not understand that everything belongs to and begins with the Christ, then you are truly lost, Avatar4321.

Stop projecting your own inadequacy onto me.  Work on your relationship with Christ, instead.  Truthspeaker, I suspect, will give you that advice as well if you ask him.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> If you do not understand that everything belongs to and begins with the Christ, then you are truly lost, Avatar4321.
> 
> Stop projecting your own inadequacy onto me.  Work on your relationship with Christ, instead.  Truthspeaker, I suspect, will give you that advice as well if you ask him.



Im sorry to see that you are going to resort to projection now. I understand you dont want to answer questions, but you dont have to be a jerk about it.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Wheres the historical and physical evidence?



What specifically do you want it for? You've already ignored basic facts about Joseph Smith's life. You've ignored what's actually written in the Book of Mormon? What evidence would actually cause you to have an actual discussion rather than just pretend as though your accusations are all true without evidence?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not understand that everything belongs to and begins with the Christ, then you are truly lost, Avatar4321.
> 
> Stop projecting your own inadequacy onto me.  Work on your relationship with Christ, instead.  Truthspeaker, I suspect, will give you that advice as well if you ask him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im sorry to see that you are going to resort to projection now. I understand you dont want to answer questions, but you dont have to be a jerk about it.
Click to expand...


See, no one want to answer your fairtale questions.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> See, no one want to answer your fairtale questions.



Fairytale questions? Christ is a fairy tale now? I'm asking questions about Christ. Ill even show you them

Jake made accusations that TS (and since then me) didn't know Christ. So I am sincerely trying to understand where you and him are coming from and I ask this:



> So who is Jesus, really? And how do you determine who really knows Him or not?



I was hoping that by asking such questions I would be able to dialogue a bit with Jake and falsely assumed you might chime in as well. After all we are having a discussion on a religious discussion board.

I don't know how those questions are inappropriate or why neither of you wishes to answer them. I especially dont know why Jake continues to act as though I dont know Christ is the center of it all, especially after I posted the following:



> I am focused on Christ. That's why i joined His Church. That's why I read all of His scriptures and expect to hear much more from Him in the future. That is why I teach His word. That's why I testify of Christ. And constantly seek knowledge through His Holy Spirit.



Again, expected some sort of reasonable discussion. I've never claimed that you need to accept every thing I say just because I said it. In fact, the beauty about my faith in God is no one has to accept what I say, they can go to the Lord and learn the exact same principles directly from the well of Eternal Life.  Because God is not going to teach anything to me that He wont gladly teach to anyone else, and vice versa.

What you learn from God, what the status of your relationship with Him is between you and Him. However, we are supposedly all mature adults here trying to have a dicussion. If you make claims I expect you to be willing to explain your reasoning or back yourself up if asked. That way we can all come to a better understanding and be edified.

I must admit, I am starting to get very frustrated by your refusal to actually discuss matters. Accusation isnt discussion. Insults arent discussion. You want to persuade people to accept your position, put some work into it. If you want to troll around, find someplace else. I mean heck we have an entire forum on this board dedicated to stupid things in the flame zone. 

Im I expecting too much? I assume you enjoy discussing this or you wouldnt still be here. Why can't you answer questions and explain yourself clearly? I am confident God loves you just as He loves me. Does He want us to be mean to each other and avoid discussion? I dont think He does. I dont think anyone here does. I think God would be very happy if we tried to learn more about each other and our positions and who knows maybe we might actually care about each other's actual welfare. One of these days maybe we will.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wheres the historical and physical evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically do you want it for? You've already ignored basic facts about Joseph Smith's life. You've ignored what's actually written in the Book of Mormon? What evidence would actually cause you to have an actual discussion rather than just pretend as though your accusations are all true without evidence?
Click to expand...


i told you historic facts, not joes fairytale


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Grim, mystical warnings?  Truthspeaker, go and read some of the discourses and conference reports of the 1850s and 1860s and 1870s by your church's prophets and leaders.  Your church had a history of that, like many churches.



Been there. Read that. I actually liked your post before last, minus the shot you took at Avatar.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Good, Truth, then we can agree on some things.  Avatar, however, took the shot, I merely deflected it.  And I do agree with you that "[G]rim mystical warnings" serve absolutely nothing of worth.

On a lighter note, I have been to your Temple Square in SLC at this time of the year.  It may be the most magnificient holiday spectacle of the season ~ absolutely awesome ~ in all of the United States.

Merry Christmas to you and all of yours, and a happy holiday season to all.


----------



## Eightball

This is the founder of the LDS religion/church folks.

Compare him to any Apostle in the bible, and he comes closest to one of them...............Judas.........A money hungry, deceitful fellow.  We know what happened to Judas..............He lost everything. 



> *Palmyra, New York*
> Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805 in Sharon, Vermont. When he was ten years old his parents moved to Palmyra, New York. Joseph Smith, in his "testimony," claims that in 1820 there was a great deal of "revival" preaching being done by area Methodists and Baptists. Actually, the revival did not start till 1823. Smith was wrong about the date, just like he was about so many other things.
> 
> Joseph Smith claimed that one day in 1820, when he was just 15 years old, he was in the woods praying to God. Mormons refer to this place in the woods as "the Sacred Grove."
> 
> "...I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me ... When the light rested upon me I saw two personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other 'This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!' My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right -- and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight..." (Joseph Smith, The Prophet Joseph Smith's Testimony, pp. 4-5).
> 
> "There in that secluded place, in the most dramatic revelation since biblical times, God and his Son, Jesus Christ, appeared to the boy and gave him instructions. He was commanded to join none of the existing churches and was told that God would restore to earth the Church originally organized by Jesus Christ, with all of its truths and priesthood authority." ("History," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
> 
> If Smith had really received such a vision, we would expect that he would have nothing to do with other churches after this. And yet, Volume 2 of the "Session Records" for the Western Presbyterian church in Palmyra shows that the Smiths were still active members in 1828 -- eight years after "First Vision." They were suspended as members of the Presbyterian Church in 1830 because they had neglected "public worship and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." There is also evidence that Smith attempted to join the Methodist church in June 1828, but was dropped by the local circuit rider because of Smith's low moral character and occupation as a necromancer and dealer of enchantments.
> 
> All of this raises the question, "Did anyone take the story of the first vision seriously?" The answer is no, not even his family. Smith also claimed that on September 21, 1823, the angel Moroni appeared to him and disclosed the location of a partially buried box containing golden plates in the "reformed Egyptian tongue" together with two stones used for translating the plates. "He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it; as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants." (The Prophet Joseph Smith's Testimony, p. 10).
> 
> Four years later Smith claimed to have removed the plates from Hill Cumorah, and after three years of translating through a curtain, Smith published The Book of Mormon in 1830. He claimed at an angel recovered plates and they no longer exist on earth. The book claims to contain the religious writings of civilizations in Ancient America between 2200 B.C. and A.D. 421. It claims to give an eyewitness account of the ministry of Jesus Christ on the American continent following His resurrection in Jerusalem.
> 
> "Latter-day Saints also consider the Book of Mormon to be a record of great Ancient-American civilizations. According to the record, one of these civilizations stemmed from a man named Lehi who left Jerusalem with his family around 600 B.C. They traveled to the sea, built a boat and continued over sea to the Americas. Following the party's arrival in the New World, growing disharmony caused family groups to fragment into clans that evolved eventually into two opposing nations. Conflicts ensued during the recorded 1,000 years, leading to the eventual demise of one of these nations. Within the context of this story ... stands a series of prophecies and testimonies about Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, including, strikingly, a visit by the risen, resurrected Jesus to the people in the New World... One of the last record-keepers was an ancient American prophet named Mormon who abridged the centuries of records into a concise account on gold plates... This abridged record was passed from Mormon to his son Moroni, the last known survivor of his nation, who, near the end of his life, buried the plates in a hillside located in what centuries later became upstate New York." ("The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
> 
> *"State Of New York v. Joseph Smith"*
> State court records prove the Smith was arrested in New York in 1826 for being a con artist. "Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an impostor. Prisoner brought before the Court March 20, 1826. Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra ... that he had a certain stone which he occasionally looked at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground ... he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania, and while at Palmyra he frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds..." (Court records of New York).
> 
> While the Mormons claimed this never happened, Jerald and Sandra Tanner published the microfilm copies of the court records in 1971, under the title, Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial. There can be no middle ground about Joseph Smith!
> 
> Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
> 
> On April 6, 1830 the Mormon Church was organized -- at the time it was called "The Church of Christ" (this group has no connection with the church established by Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2). In 1834, thru the influence of Sidney Rigdon, the name was changed to "The Church Of The Latter-day Saints," dropping out Christ's name. Later, Thomas B. Marsh, one of the original 12 Mormon Apostles, decreed in 1838 that the name should be changed to "The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints."
> 
> *Kirkland, Ohio*
> Persecution caused Smith and his followers to leave New York and move to Kirkland, Ohio on Lake Erie. Kirkland served as their headquarters from 1831 to 1837. In 1836 they finished construction of a large temple.
> 
> They now have 114 temples (not to be confused with church buildings or meetinghouses). It has been reported that 98% of the ceremonies performed in Mormon temples are for the dead, and only 2% for the living. The temple in Kirkland is now owned by the Reorganized branch.
> 
> *Independence, Missouri*
> Independence, Missouri is approximately 1,000 miles away from Kirkland. After arriving in Independence, Missouri, Smith dedicated a plot of ground upon which the Mormons believed a great temple would one day be built (Doctrine and Covenants, 84:3-5). The Mormons were soon driven out of the county by gunpoint. The Reorganized branch of the LDS church dedicated their temple in Independence in 1994.
> 
> *Nauvoo, Illinois*
> Mormons moved here, 45 miles north of Quincy, Illinois, to build a "Mormon City" which became the largest city in the state. Nauvoo had a population of around 20,000 people, about one quarter of which were Mormons. Joseph Smith reached the zenith of his influence here -- he was mayor of the town! Church membership rose to 100,000 members nationwide. As the mayor, Smith raised his own militia. His political power was equaled to that of the state government.
> 
> It was in Nauvoo that the Mormon doctrine of "Plural Marriage" (polygamy) caused a great deal of trouble. In June 1844 a newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor published affidavits of 16 respectable women stating that Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders tried to seduce them into polygamy. Smith's answer was to send a mob, the Legion of Nauvoo, to destroy the printing press and compel the publishers to flee for their lives. Illinois Governor Ford learned of the act, and ordered Smith to surrender himself to the constable at Carthage for trial. Joseph Smith fled, but later returned and was arrested and placed in jail at Carthage, Illinois.
> 
> The governor ordered Smith's militia to surrender their weapons. A riot developed outside the jail and a mob broke into the jail killing Joseph Smith's brother, Hyrum. On that afternoon of June 27, 1844 Joseph Smith was shot and killed as he tried to escape from the jail window. He was murdered -- not by a group of "anti-Mormons," but by men whose wives and daughters he had tried to ruin! When the jail was stormed, Joseph Smith used a handgun to kill two men and wound another. He might have killed more if his gun had not jammed!
> 
> Mormons claim that Smith was a "martyr." The dictionary defines "martyr" as "one who suffers death as a penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce his religion." Smith was in jail for breaking the law, and even in jail he tried to defend himself with a six-shooter, and wounded three men.
> 
> Mormons compare Joseph Smith with Jesus Christ: I've had Mormon elders tell me, "Christ sealed His testimony with His blood at Calvary Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood at Carthage, Illinois." Smith's birthplace in Vermont has been called the "Bethlehem of Mormonism." During the riot the million dollar temple was destroyed by fire.
> 
> *Salt Lake City, Utah*
> Two years after the death of Smith, Mormon forces rallied and began a pioneer trek into the far West. "As the senior of the Twelve Apostles, Brigham Young succeeded Joseph Smith as the leader of the Church. In February of 1846, he led the Latter-day Saints across the frozen Mississippi River into unsettled Iowa territory. They struggled across Iowa, eventually establishing a settlement called Winter Quarters near modern-day Omaha, Nebraska... Brigham Young prepared his people-perhaps 17,000 of them by that time-for a historic trek across the vast wilderness to the Rocky Mountains, 1,300 miles to the west. The first pioneer party departed from Winter Quarters early the next spring and arrived in the valley of the Great Salt Lake on 24 July 1847. During the next few years, thousands of other Latter-day Saints struggled across the American Great Plains to the newly found refuge. Some of the pioneers crossed the plains in wagons. Others were equipped with small, lightweight handcarts. Ten handcart companies crossed the American plains in the next four years. Eight made the journey with relative success, but two endured tragedy and saw hundreds perish of hunger, fatigue and exposure." ("History," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
> 
> *The Reorganized Group*
> On April 6, 1860, a group of Mormons formed the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" at Amboy, Illinois. The Reorganized group selected the son of Joseph Smith Junior to be their leader and prophet. They reject plural marriage and deny that Joseph Smith ever taught or practiced polygamy, but admit there is a "huge body of circumstantial evidence from sermons" that he did. Since 1920 the official corporate headquarters of the church has been at Independence, Missouri. This group still believes that the "gathering to Zion," before Christ's return, will take place in Missouri, where their headquarters are located at Independence. They do not baptize or marry by proxy their ancestors. They reject the "Eternal Progression" theory of the LDS group, and do not use the word "Mormon" to refer to their group. On April 6, 2001, the official name of the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" was changed to "Community of Christ" (Community of Christ Official Homepage). They have about 250,000 members in 40 countries worldwide.


----------



## froggy

Ava Is this why you don.t hear what people say about joey? Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).


----------



## JakeStarkey

Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.



you can't serve two masters,LDS do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't serve two masters,LDS do.
Click to expand...


Not all LDS.  I read a poll earlier in the year that stated that only 59% of active LDS now consider their church the onlly right church.  And you and I both know that certain Church of Christers or Pentacostals or whatever can be every bit as silly as certain of the LDS when it comes to the "one true church" koolaide.  There is only one true Jesus Christ, and that is Who the seekers will meet on their own roads to Emmaeus.  Luke 24:13-35.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't serve two masters,LDS do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all LDS.  I read a poll earlier in the year that stated that only 59% of active LDS now consider their church the onlly right church.  And you and I both know that certain Church of Christers or Pentacostals or whatever can be every bit as silly as certain of the LDS when it comes to the "one true church" koolaide.  There is only one true Jesus Christ, and that is Who the seekers will meet on their own roads to Emmaeus.  Luke 24:13-35.
Click to expand...


they need to deny the book of mormon to start.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> they need to deny the book of mormon to start.



So which part of the Book of Mormon is wrong?


----------



## Avatar4321

It's really a shame you guys arent even bothering to read anything you are responding to before you respond. One of these days maybe you will. I hope I will see that day when it happens.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Not all LDS.  I read a poll earlier in the year that stated that only 59% of active LDS now consider their church the onlly right church.  And you and I both know that certain Church of Christers or Pentacostals or whatever can be every bit as silly as certain of the LDS when it comes to the "one true church" koolaide.  There is only one true Jesus Christ, and that is Who the seekers will meet on their own roads to Emmaeus.  Luke 24:13-35.



Are you claiming that Christ established many different churches teaching contrary doctrine? Are you claiming He didn't estbalish any Churches?

There is only supposed to be one body of Christ. The idea that there are many bodies of Christ is a foreign concept to the scriptures. How can all be Christ's if they dont follow the Doctrine of Christ or even know of it? How can they be Christ's if they dont teach Baptism by water and the laying on of hands? If they deny the resurrection?

Is God the author of Order or Confussion? Will you answer or will you continue to deflect?


----------



## Arawyn

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't serve two masters,LDS do.
Click to expand...


We do? Please, enlighten me.


----------



## Arawyn

JakeStarkey said:


> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.



Her? One who cannot discern/or intentionally misrepresents gender counsels others?


----------



## Arawyn

JakeStarkey said:


> Grim, mystical warnings?  Truthspeaker, go and read some of the discourses and conference reports of the 1850s and 1860s and 1870s by your church's prophets and leaders.  Your church had a history of that, like many churches.



Please, I know of the Christian Scientists and JW's "predictions" but I would appreciate an illustration of other churches that did the same (of the Christian persuasion).......and yes, there is a trap to my question.


----------



## froggy

Arawyn said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't serve two masters,LDS do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? Please, enlighten me.
Click to expand...


joe and LDS


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't serve two masters,LDS do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do? Please, enlighten me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> joe and LDS
Click to expand...


The Frogmeister is speaking out of his boundless ignorance again.

I know some Mormons.  I may not BE a Mormon, but I know enough about their religious beliefs to tell you this much:

The religion does nothing to make Joseph Smith a "master" of anything.

Quick Quiz:  Is it the _Church of Jospeh Smith of Latter Day Saints_?  No?

It is *The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints*.  Ah.  I bet ya that serves to make it clear to MOST folks that Jesus Christ is the acknowledged Master, along with God the Father.


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do? Please, enlighten me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joe and LDS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Frogmeister is speaking out of his boundless ignorance again.
> 
> I know some Mormons.  I may not BE a Mormon, but I know enough about their religious beliefs to tell you this much:
> 
> The religion does nothing to make Joseph Smith a "master" of anything.
> 
> Quick Quiz:  Is it the _Church of Jospeh Smith of Latter Day Saints_?  No?
> 
> It is *The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints*.  Ah.  I bet ya that serves to make it clear to MOST folks that Jesus Christ is the acknowledged Master, along with God the Father.
Click to expand...

but they serve joe and his fairytale book


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> joe and LDS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Frogmeister is speaking out of his boundless ignorance again.
> 
> I know some Mormons.  I may not BE a Mormon, but I know enough about their religious beliefs to tell you this much:
> 
> The religion does nothing to make Joseph Smith a "master" of anything.
> 
> Quick Quiz:  Is it the _Church of Jospeh Smith of Latter Day Saints_?  No?
> 
> It is *The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints*.  Ah.  I bet ya that serves to make it clear to MOST folks that Jesus Christ is the acknowledged Master, along with God the Father.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they serve joe and his fairytale book
Click to expand...


Bump because the frogmeister's petty animosity should never be the only thing bumping this thread!


----------



## Avatar4321

Arawyn said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't serve two masters,LDS do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do? Please, enlighten me.
Click to expand...


Im curious if he will. It be nice for a change. You wouldnt think it would be pulling teeth to have people explain and support what they are trying to argue.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> but they serve joe and his fairytale book



Do you serve Paul, or Christ whom He preached?

Why do you presume we serve our fellow servants and not Christ whom is taught by them?

You still havent told me what is incorrect in the Book of Mormon.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't serve two masters,LDS do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do? Please, enlighten me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im curious if he will. It be nice for a change. You wouldnt think it would be pulling teeth to have people explain and support what they are trying to argue.
Click to expand...


but it's so much easier just to spew nonsense.  It happens all of the time on these forums (not just on this one)


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> but it's so much easier just to spew nonsense.  It happens all of the time on these forums (not just on this one)



I know. It's sad. Imagine how much more we could accomplish and learn if people would just take responsibility for their positions and support them?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Arawyn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Froggy, that is why I counsel Avatar to work on her relationship with Jesus.  That is where the meaning of humanity all begins and ends.  The LDS say the same thing, so all of her other ramblings and mutterings are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her? One who cannot discern/or intentionally misrepresents gender counsels others?
Click to expand...


An irrelevant comment by you, Arawyn, a red herring that does not inform the discussion at all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Arawyn said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grim, mystical warnings?  Truthspeaker, go and read some of the discourses and conference reports of the 1850s and 1860s and 1870s by your church's prophets and leaders.  Your church had a history of that, like many churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, I know of the Christian Scientists and JW's "predictions" but I would appreciate an illustration of other churches that did the same (of the Christian persuasion).......and yes, there is a trap to my question.
Click to expand...


Thank you for springing the "trap" in the first half  of your sentence before giving the warning.  If you don't know your early Second Great Awakening history, particularly in the Case Western Reserve, and its impact of millenialism, then I suggest you go read.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they serve joe and his fairytale book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you serve Paul, or Christ whom He preached?
> 
> Why do you presume we serve our fellow servants and not Christ whom is taught by them?
> 
> You still havent told me what is incorrect in the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...


If you compare joe to paul, you are serving joe.


----------



## froggy

Answer the question is this true?  Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they serve joe and his fairytale book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you serve Paul, or Christ whom He preached?
> 
> Why do you presume we serve our fellow servants and not Christ whom is taught by them?
> 
> You still havent told me what is incorrect in the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you compare joe to paul, you are serving joe.
Click to expand...


Paul preached Jesus Christ. Joseph preached Jesus Christ. Both wrote new scripture. 

How are the comparisons at all invalid?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Answer the question is this true?  Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).



Other than the "true Gospel" part, Id say is fair. The truth is he restored the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, The Church of Jesus Christ, the keys, gifts, powers, authority to act in the name of christ.

I would invite you to learn for yourself. If you are confident in your beliefs you have nothing to fear from reading the Book of Mormon and asking God whether it's true or not.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question is this true?  Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the "true Gospel" part, Id say is fair. The truth is he restored the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, The Church of Jesus Christ, the keys, gifts, powers, authority to act in the name of christ.
> 
> I would invite you to learn for yourself. If you are confident in your beliefs you have nothing to fear from reading the Book of Mormon and asking God whether it's true or not.
Click to expand...

So i've told the truth in all i've posted.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have read the Book of Mormon, and I think Joseph Smith is underappreciated in relationship to it.  The normal ways of evaluating him are the following: either (1) God revealed it, so JS doesn't matter at all -- God could have revealed it to the fellow in the mail room who thinks comic book characters are real persons; or (2) Smith was a fraud who created it, and we look at him as a creep rather than an artist.  I believe the BoM to be a wonderful narrative, an original piece of American religious literature, but not God's revelation of timeless truths brought to the world again by a boy prophet.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question is this true?  Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the "true Gospel" part, Id say is fair. The truth is he restored the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, The Church of Jesus Christ, the keys, gifts, powers, authority to act in the name of christ.
> 
> I would invite you to learn for yourself. If you are confident in your beliefs you have nothing to fear from reading the Book of Mormon and asking God whether it's true or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
Click to expand...


Obviously not.  But you may have been partly correct in a number of your posts.


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the "true Gospel" part, Id say is fair. The truth is he restored the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, The Church of Jesus Christ, the keys, gifts, powers, authority to act in the name of christ.
> 
> I would invite you to learn for yourself. If you are confident in your beliefs you have nothing to fear from reading the Book of Mormon and asking God whether it's true or not.
> 
> 
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously not.  But you may have been partly correct in a number of your posts.
Click to expand...


I've told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not.  But you may have been partly correct in a number of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Click to expand...


Another damn lie.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.



How on earth do you take one post where your quote is _mostly_ accurate and conclude that somehow because it's _mostly_ accurate that you've told the truth in everything youve posted???


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you take one post where your quote is _mostly_ accurate and conclude that somehow because it's _mostly_ accurate that you've told the truth in everything youve posted???
Click to expand...


Well, you see, frogmeister here ain't all that bright ...


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you take one post where your quote is _mostly_ accurate and conclude that somehow because it's _mostly_ accurate that you've told the truth in everything youve posted???
Click to expand...


Because everything i've posted relates to mormons praising that con joe, what i posted was all truth.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you take one post where your quote is _mostly_ accurate and conclude that somehow because it's _mostly_ accurate that you've told the truth in everything youve posted???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because everything i've posted relates to mormons praising that con joe, what i posted was all truth.
Click to expand...


That doesnt make any sense. How does acknowledging an Apostle or Prophet somehow take away from Christ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you take one post where your quote is _mostly_ accurate and conclude that somehow because it's _mostly_ accurate that you've told the truth in everything youve posted???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because everything i've posted relates to mormons praising that con joe, what i posted was all truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt make any sense. How does acknowledging an Apostle or Prophet somehow take away from Christ?
Click to expand...


Because JS was not an apostle or prophet like Peter or Paul or the others of the New Testament?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you take one post where your quote is _mostly_ accurate and conclude that somehow because it's _mostly_ accurate that you've told the truth in everything youve posted???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because everything i've posted relates to mormons praising that con joe, what i posted was all truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesnt make any sense. How does acknowledging an Apostle or Prophet somehow take away from Christ?
Click to expand...

Nothing makes sense to you, unless it comes from the book of JOE.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because everything i've posted relates to mormons praising that con joe, what i posted was all truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt make any sense. How does acknowledging an Apostle or Prophet somehow take away from Christ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing makes sense to you, unless it comes from the book of JOE.
Click to expand...


*You* make no sense even when blathering on ABOUT the Book of Mormon.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Nothing makes sense to you, unless it comes from the book of JOE.



Are you ever going to answer a question or are you going to just keep up with the very unChristlike insults?


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the book, it all made up. None of the so called authors existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post the "facts" again, as well as the credible sources where you received these "facts"?  I must have missed them.  Just provide the post numbers in this thread.  I'm talking about the facts (and not the speculation) which conclusively supports your statements about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read my post, Long Read but Worth it. Try and find any of them in their time, nothing
Click to expand...


I finally read all of it, however, nothing in the link you provided conclusively supports your statements.  I agree with Avatar's first response to it in that thread, which you never fully responded to.


----------



## froggy

Is it true you cant be alone when talking to someone about mormonism? I mean you have to have another mormon with you.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Is it true you cant be alone when talking to someone about mormonism? I mean you have to have another mormon with you.



Yes it's true you cant be alone when you talk to someone about mormonism. By definition you cant be alone when you talk to someone about anything. Because if you were you'd be talking to yourself. I can promise you that I've never been alone when I've talked to anyone about anything. It's just not possible.

However, no you dont have to have another mormon with you to talk about mormonism. I can talk to non-mormons as well. For example, Ive been trying to talk to you about it for a while and you certainly arent mormon.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> If you do not understand that everything belongs to and begins with the Christ, then you are truly lost, Avatar4321.
> 
> Stop projecting your own inadequacy onto me.  Work on your relationship with Christ, instead.  Truthspeaker, I suspect, will give you that advice as well if you ask him.



That advice goes to everyone, especially you. I did not agree with your attack on Avi. I think he's doing just fine. You however have yet to pose yourself as anything other than a more articulate Froggy; constantly making assertions without discussing them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Good, Truth, then we can agree on some things.  Avatar, however, took the shot, I merely deflected it.  And I do agree with you that "[G]rim mystical warnings" serve absolutely nothing of worth.
> 
> On a lighter note, I have been to your Temple Square in SLC at this time of the year.  It may be the most magnificient holiday spectacle of the season ~ absolutely awesome ~ in all of the United States.
> 
> Merry Christmas to you and all of yours, and a happy holiday season to all.



Happy Christmas to you and yours as well. I now assume you must live in Utah. I wish I could get out there to temple square. If you are ever out in the San Francisco area, you really should visit the Oakland Temple Square during the Christmas season. Also easily the most magnificent Christmas display in the Bay area.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Arawyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grim, mystical warnings?  Truthspeaker, go and read some of the discourses and conference reports of the 1850s and 1860s and 1870s by your church's prophets and leaders.  Your church had a history of that, like many churches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, I know of the Christian Scientists and JW's "predictions" but I would appreciate an illustration of other churches that did the same (of the Christian persuasion).......and yes, there is a trap to my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for springing the "trap" in the first half  of your sentence before giving the warning.  If you don't know your early Second Great Awakening history, particularly in the Case Western Reserve, and its impact of millenialism, then I suggest you go read.
Click to expand...


Again the mystical sage imparts of but a fraction of his hidden "wisdom" to us. Please Mr. Miyagi, can you please tell us what in said history will be so relevatory to us? And cut the crap as if you know so much about it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> but they serve joe and his fairytale book
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you serve Paul, or Christ whom He preached?
> 
> Why do you presume we serve our fellow servants and not Christ whom is taught by them?
> 
> You still havent told me what is incorrect in the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you compare joe to paul, you are serving joe.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Answer the question is this true?  Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).



Notice how I answer your question right away. Yes we believe all of that!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I have read the Book of Mormon, and I think Joseph Smith is underappreciated in relationship to it.  The normal ways of evaluating him are the following: either (1) God revealed it, so JS doesn't matter at all -- God could have revealed it to the fellow in the mail room who thinks comic book characters are real persons; or (2) Smith was a fraud who created it, and we look at him as a creep rather than an artist.  I believe the BoM to be a wonderful narrative, an original piece of American religious literature, but not God's revelation of timeless truths brought to the world again by a boy prophet.



Fair enough. But I do believe it. See now how nice we can be to each other?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question is this true?  Mormons must believe that Joseph Smith was the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator -- the means through which the "true Gospel" was restored to the earth. You cannot become a Mormon and doubt the words of Smith! "Latter-day Saints revere Joseph Smith as a prophet in the tradition of biblical prophets like Moses and Isaiah. Church members believe that his doctrinal teachings and instructions concerning the Church's organization resulted from divine revelation, not his own learning." ("From Farm Boy to Prophet," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the "true Gospel" part, Id say is fair. The truth is he restored the Fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God, The Church of Jesus Christ, the keys, gifts, powers, authority to act in the name of christ.
> 
> I would invite you to learn for yourself. If you are confident in your beliefs you have nothing to fear from reading the Book of Mormon and asking God whether it's true or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
Click to expand...


I see your thinly veiled attempt at being witty. 
We actually do believe Joseph had the true gospel revealed to him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So i've told the truth in all i've posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously not.  But you may have been partly correct in a number of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Click to expand...


Hey that's my line!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because everything i've posted relates to mormons praising that con joe, what i posted was all truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt make any sense. How does acknowledging an Apostle or Prophet somehow take away from Christ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because JS was not an apostle or prophet like Peter or Paul or the others of the New Testament?
Click to expand...


What makes an apostle to you? Why do the ancient apostles qualify but not Smith?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Is it true you cant be alone when talking to someone about mormonism? I mean you have to have another mormon with you.



I think what you are referring to here is the rule that missionaries have when on their mission. We are sent two by two and the missionaries are not to be alone ever because of supervision and safety.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesnt make any sense. How does acknowledging an Apostle or Prophet somehow take away from Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because JS was not an apostle or prophet like Peter or Paul or the others of the New Testament?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes an apostle to you? Why do the ancient apostles qualify but not Smith?
Click to expand...


Is as obvious as your proboscis between your eyes.

Smith absolutely fullfills the required statistics of a "false prophet".

These visions he had in N.Y. as a young man are just his own mental gymnastics.

Nowadays, he'd be committed to a mental hospital.  

The bible provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God, through giving one's life to Christ as Savior and Lord.  

The Book of Mormon is filled with plagarism from the King James of Smith's day, plus his wild, mentally touched and manipulative imagination.

The Christian world does not need Mormonism to enjoy a true relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  In fact the world doesn't need Mormonism at all, as it is a false religion, that leads many true Christians into uneffective lives that no longer glorify Christ and God Almighty.

Thank God, that Salvation is a secure and sealed relationship promised by God to all true regenerated believers, but Mormonism preys on the Christian that doesn't follow Roman's Chapter 12 admonishments to fill one's mind with the scriptures, in order to wash away the old ways of the fallen, and Adamic life.

Truthspeaker projects this handsome well dressed well poised image via his avatar.  No doubt he's very popular.  That doesn't mean anything in God's economy.  Smooth speech, good looks, persuasive personalities, don't make a Christian.  A Christian is who they are because God, has established the permanent, binding relationship between the person and Him,  via the avenue of His grace through the person's belief that Christ is the one and only Son of God, and He/Christ is the Alpha-Omega, Beginning and End, and is equal to, and is God in the Flesh.

The bible does not teach that there are progressions of God, nor that us earthlings are entitled to Godhood.  That is blasphemous, and brings God down from His majestic position of omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.

Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Scientologists, Bahai', Moonies, appostles of Christ Church, Unitarianism, Unity Missouri, Hinduism, Islam, and on and on, are all manmade, and Satan instigated belief systems that attempt to counterfeit, true biblical Christianity.  It was ongoing when the early church of Acts was in it's infancy, and it is going strong now.  Why?  Cause the enemey of God, the Prince of this World, Lucifer, is alive and well, working overtime, with great brilliance to lead all whom he may from receiving Christ and joining God's kingdom.

Some manmade religions are subtle, and take a little here and there from the holy bible, to make themselves appear to be legitimate, others blantantly reject the bible, and the Christ as revealed there-in.

Mormonism has grown by leaps and bounds as it initially introduces potential converts to it's religion, by convincing Christians and those raised or knowledgeable of Christianity to some extent, and even those totally unknowledgeable about Christianity, by pushing the "family, love, community spirit, "we will come to your aid in hard times"" approach.  Who can resist that kind of approach; especially in these hard economic times?  

Throughout the bible, it is emphasized that living here on earth is not an easy task, as man's fall in the Garden precipitated and resulted in a fallen world, that growns with labor pains for the coming of Christ to make this right again.  

Mormonis offers Smith's humanistic answer to understanding and believing in God.  His teaching brings God down to a sinful, and fallen level, that stips God of His holiness, and omnipotent power to be the One and only answer to mankind's folly and woe.

White shirts and neckties does not make a true Christian, nor riding bicycles miles and miles facing one rejection after another from door to door, attempting to provide the answers to life to strangers at their doorsteps.  Those are all termed "dead works" in the bible.  Though Mormons try to reject this being pinned on them, they indeed are working hard at the task of being accepted by God through their deeds of community service, door to door proselytizing, clean living, clean clothes and clean cut haircuts.  God doesn't want the exterior of man cleaned-up, but wants to clean up the inner man, or man's soul.

Since the Fall of man, man's soul has been devoid of a spiritual relationship with God.  God knew that man would fall in the Garden and that this race starting from the loins of Adam would continue to multiply, continue to look for a reason for life and existence, but would fail miserably doing-so.  God had planned before even the creation of man to send His one and only Son, through immaculate conception of a young Godly virgin woman on earth as the "Perfect Man/human", devoid of the sin of the Fall, as He/Jesus bears no fleshly inheritance of Adam's ancestry.  

Jesus is termed, the "new Adam" in the bible, and rightly so.  He is sinless, and His flesh is not fallen as it is not of Adam's heritage, but of God's as He/Jesus is God..........It is believed that the Priest, Melkisidek was an early incarnate appearance of Jesus in Abraham's presence as interestinglly, the bible gives no geneology for Melkisidek the priest.

The Mormon church has grabbed onto the Melkisidek priesthood, and used it as part of their rituals of attaining a greater step towards ultimate Godhood.  This is all again blasphemous, yet predictable, as it feeds into the inherent fallen nature of man to ascertain or attempt to achieve godliness via his own pititful design.

The Mormons church ultimately teaches that "works" are the only way to achieve godhood or be in the good graces of their god.  On the other hand, the bible teaches that Godhood is not man's need, as he/man is but made from dust, is finite in lifespan, and is not eternal except when God intervenes and places His eternal life into that finite human soul.

Mormons on the contrary, work their darndest to impress their Smith Jr. engendered god, lacking the true biblical knowlege of what God is, and what brings humanity into a lasting, eternal relationship with Him.  

Simply put, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.".  Christ is uniquely, and clearly revealed as to His nature and purpose in the 1st chapter of the book written by John the Apostle, who outlived all the other Apostles.

The 1st chapter says:



> *
> *
> The Word Became Flesh
> 
> 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> 2He was with God in the beginning.
> 
> 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
> 
> 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men(Jesus).
> 
> 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
> 
> 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. (John the Baptist)
> 
> 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light(Jesus), so that through him all men might believe.
> 
> 8He(John the Baptist) himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light(Jesus).
> 
> 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.*
> 
> 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him(Sadly there's where Mormons and other manmade religions/peoples are in respect to God).
> 
> 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
> 
> 12Yet to all who received him(Receive Him, not pound down hundreds/thousands of doors winning souls to the church to impress and work one up the ladder to salvation and ultimate godhood.), to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
> 
> 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
> 
> 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
> 
> 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
> 
> 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
> 
> 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
> 
> *


*

It is written all over the bible...............Receive Him............Receive Him...............God abhor's most of man's works to impress Him as they are feeble attempts to assuage their god's fickle, and demanding personna.  That is the the bible God.  

Remember Mormons, that Jesus is the representation of God, whom no man has seen.  God extended Himself to the ultimate to reveal His nature to this fallen race, whom He had originally created in His image.  By the way, "in His image" doesn't mean "in His Godhood".  It means that He/God created a race of beings that could respond to Him, and could reveal in their lives His life, as vessels of His.  Man was created to with a need for God, but not a need to be God.  That is blasphemous again, as God is endless, never being created, and pre-existing all creation.  Man is one of God's great creative works, as man was intended to bring glory to the un-Created One or the Creator of man.  God didn't make man because He was lonely, but created man to bring glory to Himself.  God deserves all glory, as all of creation exists because of Him, not despite Him, as cynics would spout.

Mormons are without excuse when introduced to the Truth of the bible; anymore than man in any part of the world, involved or non-involved in any religion.  

God has made Himself very apparent even to the natives living in the Stone Age cultures of remote Islands and remote areas of continents.

Trees, mountains, stars, animals, the birth of a child..........all reveals a greater Power than ouirselves.  Romans chapter one says that we are without excuse as God has made if very, very, plain to all throught His creative genius that there is One greater than man.

Smith Jr. has attempted, and done so quite successfully, to bring God, down to a level of fleshly, fallen, Adamic man's level.  Smith Jr. cannot, and has not coped with the God of the bible.  

Smith's con-life and sorry track record of life, has immediately disqualified him from the position of an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Yet, Smith has gone further and made his disqualification more concrete through his blasphemous teachings and sermons that have recreated God into a mere fallible human that became a god through progressive good works as prescribed by the leaders of their religion.

There is no way that one can refute, clearly the Mormon's stance, as they have created a circular path of doctrine that attempts to avoid biblical mandates.   All things Mormon start with mere self-appointed apostle's teachings and come full-circle around to these false apostles for confirmation.

Secondly, the Mormon is taught that manifestations that confirm Mormonism as truth on the personal psychic level such as visions, dreams, etc.., are valid.  This again protects the average Mormon from questioning these experiential happenings in light of what the bible says.   God has nothing against the visions or dreams, but throughout the bible, these dreams/visions must be taken to the bible to make sure they are of God, and not of just manmade-manifested origin.

Avatar and Truthspeaker defend their visions and happenings that confirm that they are Christians, yet refuse to confirm these with the bible.  That is both deflection, and outright refusal to "test" their belief system against the Word Of GOD.  Bereans tested even Apostle Paul's letters and teachings their their early church by going to their scripture.  PAUL COMMENDED THEM!  Will a Mormon elder commend you, a Mormon church member, if you go to the bible to ultimately confirm yeah or nay, the teachings of Smith Jr., Young, or even one's visions, dreams or burning bosom experiences?

Satan is a wise and wylie character, and He has a multitude of fallen angels that 24/7 work overtime keeping the human race in bondage from seeking the truth of God.  Mormons don't see it that way.  Satan was merely a disenfranchised brother of Jesus, that lost out on being picked by their progressive god the father once a man from Lucifer to be the next savior of planet earth.

Folks when you take Mormon teaching from Smith and Young in total, it is so bazaar, and crazy, in  it's teacing.  How do perfectly rational, intelligent folks like Truthspeaker and Avatar etc... buy into this stuff?  It all goes back to the ultimate fall of man.  Just as man decided that he would ascertain or reach God through building the Tower of Babel, so the Mormon doctrine follows similarly, in building a false unbiblical road map for fallen man to ascertain, and even become a god.

Why do I lower case the "g" in the Mormon god?  Because the bible reserves the name "God" for "God" alone.; not a glorified man........nor a hard working sinner, who got granted godhood.
*************


----------



## Liability

Do you all realize what has froggy in such a pissy mood as regards this thread?

He was initially all excited!

He had misread the title of the thread.  He thought it said, "The Truth about *Morons*."

He thought it was a thread about HIM!

Now, he's just lashing out.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because JS was not an apostle or prophet like Peter or Paul or the others of the New Testament?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes an apostle to you? Why do the ancient apostles qualify but not Smith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is as obvious as your proboscis between your eyes.
> 
> Smith absolutely fullfills the required statistics of a "false prophet".
> 
> These visions he had in N.Y. as a young man are just his own mental gymnastics.
> 
> Nowadays, he'd be committed to a mental hospital.
> 
> The bible provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God, through giving one's life to Christ as Savior and Lord.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is filled with plagarism from the King James of Smith's day, plus his wild, mentally touched and manipulative imagination.
> 
> The Christian world does not need Mormonism to enjoy a true relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  In fact the world doesn't need Mormonism at all, as it is a false religion, that leads many true Christians into uneffective lives that no longer glorify Christ and God Almighty.
> 
> Thank God, that Salvation is a secure and sealed relationship promised by God to all true regenerated believers, but Mormonism preys on the Christian that doesn't follow Roman's Chapter 12 admonishments to fill one's mind with the scriptures, in order to wash away the old ways of the fallen, and Adamic life.
> 
> Truthspeaker projects this handsome well dressed well poised image via his avatar.  No doubt he's very popular.  That doesn't mean anything in God's economy.  Smooth speech, good looks, persuasive personalities, don't make a Christian.  A Christian is who they are because God, has established the permanent, binding relationship between the person and Him,  via the avenue of His grace through the person's belief that Christ is the one and only Son of God, and He/Christ is the Alpha-Omega, Beginning and End, and is equal to, and is God in the Flesh.
> 
> The bible does not teach that there are progressions of God, nor that us earthlings are entitled to Godhood.  That is blasphemous, and brings God down from His majestic position of omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.
> 
> Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Scientologists, Bahai', Moonies, appostles of Christ Church, Unitarianism, Unity Missouri, Hinduism, Islam, and on and on, are all manmade, and Satan instigated belief systems that attempt to counterfeit, true biblical Christianity.  It was ongoing when the early church of Acts was in it's infancy, and it is going strong now.  Why?  Cause the enemey of God, the Prince of this World, Lucifer, is alive and well, working overtime, with great brilliance to lead all whom he may from receiving Christ and joining God's kingdom.
> 
> Some manmade religions are subtle, and take a little here and there from the holy bible, to make themselves appear to be legitimate, others blantantly reject the bible, and the Christ as revealed there-in.
> 
> Mormonism has grown by leaps and bounds as it initially introduces potential converts to it's religion, by convincing Christians and those raised or knowledgeable of Christianity to some extent, and even those totally unknowledgeable about Christianity, by pushing the "family, love, community spirit, "we will come to your aid in hard times"" approach.  Who can resist that kind of approach; especially in these hard economic times?
> 
> Throughout the bible, it is emphasized that living here on earth is not an easy task, as man's fall in the Garden precipitated and resulted in a fallen world, that growns with labor pains for the coming of Christ to make this right again.
> 
> Mormonis offers Smith's humanistic answer to understanding and believing in God.  His teaching brings God down to a sinful, and fallen level, that stips God of His holiness, and omnipotent power to be the One and only answer to mankind's folly and woe.
> 
> White shirts and neckties does not make a true Christian, nor riding bicycles miles and miles facing one rejection after another from door to door, attempting to provide the answers to life to strangers at their doorsteps.  Those are all termed "dead works" in the bible.  Though Mormons try to reject this being pinned on them, they indeed are working hard at the task of being accepted by God through their deeds of community service, door to door proselytizing, clean living, clean clothes and clean cut haircuts.  God doesn't want the exterior of man cleaned-up, but wants to clean up the inner man, or man's soul.
> 
> Since the Fall of man, man's soul has been devoid of a spiritual relationship with God.  God knew that man would fall in the Garden and that this race starting from the loins of Adam would continue to multiply, continue to look for a reason for life and existence, but would fail miserably doing-so.  God had planned before even the creation of man to send His one and only Son, through immaculate conception of a young Godly virgin woman on earth as the "Perfect Man/human", devoid of the sin of the Fall, as He/Jesus bears no fleshly inheritance of Adam's ancestry.
> 
> Jesus is termed, the "new Adam" in the bible, and rightly so.  He is sinless, and His flesh is not fallen as it is not of Adam's heritage, but of God's as He/Jesus is God..........It is believed that the Priest, Melkisidek was an early incarnate appearance of Jesus in Abraham's presence as interestinglly, the bible gives no geneology for Melkisidek the priest.
> 
> The Mormon church has grabbed onto the Melkisidek priesthood, and used it as part of their rituals of attaining a greater step towards ultimate Godhood.  This is all again blasphemous, yet predictable, as it feeds into the inherent fallen nature of man to ascertain or attempt to achieve godliness via his own pititful design.
> 
> The Mormons church ultimately teaches that "works" are the only way to achieve godhood or be in the good graces of their god.  On the other hand, the bible teaches that Godhood is not man's need, as he/man is but made from dust, is finite in lifespan, and is not eternal except when God intervenes and places His eternal life into that finite human soul.
> 
> Mormons on the contrary, work their darndest to impress their Smith Jr. engendered god, lacking the true biblical knowlege of what God is, and what brings humanity into a lasting, eternal relationship with Him.
> 
> Simply put, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.".  Christ is uniquely, and clearly revealed as to His nature and purpose in the 1st chapter of the book written by John the Apostle, who outlived all the other Apostles.
> 
> The 1st chapter says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> The Word Became Flesh
> 
> 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> 2He was with God in the beginning.
> 
> 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
> 
> 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men(Jesus).
> 
> 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
> 
> 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. (John the Baptist)
> 
> 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light(Jesus), so that through him all men might believe.
> 
> 8He(John the Baptist) himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light(Jesus).
> 
> 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.*
> 
> 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him(Sadly there's where Mormons and other manmade religions/peoples are in respect to God).
> 
> 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
> 
> 12Yet to all who received him(Receive Him, not pound down hundreds/thousands of doors winning souls to the church to impress and work one up the ladder to salvation and ultimate godhood.), to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
> 
> 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
> 
> 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
> 
> 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
> 
> 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
> 
> 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> It is written all over the bible...............Receive Him............Receive Him...............God abhor's most of man's works to impress Him as they are feeble attempts to assuage their god's fickle, and demanding personna.  That is the the bible God.
> 
> Remember Mormons, that Jesus is the representation of God, whom no man has seen.  God extended Himself to the ultimate to reveal His nature to this fallen race, whom He had originally created in His image.  By the way, "in His image" doesn't mean "in His Godhood".  It means that He/God created a race of beings that could respond to Him, and could reveal in their lives His life, as vessels of His.  Man was created to with a need for God, but not a need to be God.  That is blasphemous again, as God is endless, never being created, and pre-existing all creation.  Man is one of God's great creative works, as man was intended to bring glory to the un-Created One or the Creator of man.  God didn't make man because He was lonely, but created man to bring glory to Himself.  God deserves all glory, as all of creation exists because of Him, not despite Him, as cynics would spout.
> 
> Mormons are without excuse when introduced to the Truth of the bible; anymore than man in any part of the world, involved or non-involved in any religion.
> 
> God has made Himself very apparent even to the natives living in the Stone Age cultures of remote Islands and remote areas of continents.
> 
> Trees, mountains, stars, animals, the birth of a child..........all reveals a greater Power than ouirselves.  Romans chapter one says that we are without excuse as God has made if very, very, plain to all throught His creative genius that there is One greater than man.
> 
> Smith Jr. has attempted, and done so quite successfully, to bring God, down to a level of fleshly, fallen, Adamic man's level.  Smith Jr. cannot, and has not coped with the God of the bible.
> 
> Smith's con-life and sorry track record of life, has immediately disqualified him from the position of an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Yet, Smith has gone further and made his disqualification more concrete through his blasphemous teachings and sermons that have recreated God into a mere fallible human that became a god through progressive good works as prescribed by the leaders of their religion.
> 
> There is no way that one can refute, clearly the Mormon's stance, as they have created a circular path of doctrine that attempts to avoid biblical mandates.   All things Mormon start with mere self-appointed apostle's teachings and come full-circle around to these false apostles for confirmation.
> 
> Secondly, the Mormon is taught that manifestations that confirm Mormonism as truth on the personal psychic level such as visions, dreams, etc.., are valid.  This again protects the average Mormon from questioning these experiential happenings in light of what the bible says.   God has nothing against the visions or dreams, but throughout the bible, these dreams/visions must be taken to the bible to make sure they are of God, and not of just manmade-manifested origin.
> 
> Avatar and Truthspeaker defend their visions and happenings that confirm that they are Christians, yet refuse to confirm these with the bible.  That is both deflection, and outright refusal to "test" their belief system against the Word Of GOD.  Bereans tested even Apostle Paul's letters and teachings their their early church by going to their scripture.  PAUL COMMENDED THEM!  Will a Mormon elder commend you, a Mormon church member, if you go to the bible to ultimately confirm yeah or nay, the teachings of Smith Jr., Young, or even one's visions, dreams or burning bosom experiences?
> 
> Satan is a wise and wylie character, and He has a multitude of fallen angels that 24/7 work overtime keeping the human race in bondage from seeking the truth of God.  Mormons don't see it that way.  Satan was merely a disenfranchised brother of Jesus, that lost out on being picked by their progressive god the father once a man from Lucifer to be the next savior of planet earth.
> 
> Folks when you take Mormon teaching from Smith and Young in total, it is so bazaar, and crazy, in  it's teacing.  How do perfectly rational, intelligent folks like Truthspeaker and Avatar etc... buy into this stuff?  It all goes back to the ultimate fall of man.  Just as man decided that he would ascertain or reach God through building the Tower of Babel, so the Mormon doctrine follows similarly, in building a false unbiblical road map for fallen man to ascertain, and even become a god.
> 
> Why do I lower case the "g" in the Mormon god?  Because the bible reserves the name "God" for "God" alone.; not a glorified man........nor a hard working sinner, who got granted godhood.
> *************
Click to expand...

*

Welcome back 8-Ballsy. You are true to form in your repetition. You just couldn't stay aways could you. I knew you missed me. I've responded to every one of those things already and will simply copy and paste the articles of faith for all who care about what we really believe in.
Articles of Faith 1*


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Do you all realize what has froggy in such a pissy mood as regards this thread?
> 
> He was initially all excited!
> 
> He had misread the title of the thread.  He thought it said, "The Truth about *Morons*."
> 
> He thought it was a thread about HIM!
> 
> Now, he's just lashing out.



Poor poor dear Froggy.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you all realize what has froggy in such a pissy mood as regards this thread?
> 
> He was initially all excited!
> 
> He had misread the title of the thread.  He thought it said, "The Truth about *Morons*."
> 
> He thought it was a thread about HIM!
> 
> Now, he's just lashing out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor poor dear Froggy.
Click to expand...


I see your showing that JOEYISM, aren't you.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Is as obvious as your proboscis between your eyes.
> 
> Smith absolutely fullfills the required statistics of a "false prophet".
> 
> These visions he had in N.Y. as a young man are just his own mental gymnastics.
> 
> Nowadays, he'd be committed to a mental hospital.



So you admit that he had real visions. I feel that is some progress. According to your standard anyone who has visions would be committed to a mental hospital nowadays. So you've already invalidated the Visions of Enoch, Noah, Moses, Joseph of Egypt, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul, Peter, John the Beloved. According to your current standard, they would all be committed to a mental hospital.

After all, How dare someone say that God has actually communicated with man. We have enough already. We dont have anything else to learn from God. Ignore the fact that mankind is under a shadow of wickedness. God has said everything He will say. There are no more miracles.



> The bible provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God, through giving one's life to Christ as Savior and Lord.



No. Christ provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God. It is through Christ we are saved. Not through the Bible. The Bible points to and testifies of Christ. It's a tool to bring mankind to Christ and to teach them of Christ. It exists to demonstrate that our forefather had knowledge of our days and the means to our Redemption. Much like the Law of Moses was designed to point to Christ, so do all of scriptures. We are not saved through the Bible. Nor are we saved by the Law of Moses. 

It would be nice if you realized that, however useful, The Bible is not nor does it claim to be the end all of God's relationship with mankind. Nor do we need perfect scriptures to lead us to follow our perfect Lord. We do not need eloquence of words to teach us correct doctrines.



> The Book of Mormon is filled with plagarism from the King James of Smith's day, plus his wild, mentally touched and manipulative imagination.



That is blatantly false. there is no plagarism from the King James version. The Book of Mormon contains a record of a people who saw Christ and have added their witness to the many others that: He Lives! It's a history of a people that is designed to bring people to Christ and to remind the world that God remembers His covenants and will remember in Mercy His people in the last days.



> The Christian world does not need Mormonism to enjoy a true relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  In fact the world doesn't need Mormonism at all, as it is a false religion, that leads many true Christians into uneffective lives that no longer glorify Christ and God Almighty.



You don't? Well, fine, you dont have to join Christ's Church. You dont have to recieve of all the blessings Christ has available for you. If you are happy where you are, you will recieve what you willing to recieve. But God has more for you, when you are ready to listen. He has prepared those that serve Him to recieve all He has: Power, Might, Dominion, Knowledge, Nature, etc. But He doesnt force anyone to accept it. It's your right to decline. He doesn't love you any less. And He will always have His arms wide open for when you are ready to recieve more.




> Thank God, that Salvation is a secure and sealed relationship promised by God to all true regenerated believers, but Mormonism preys on the Christian that doesn't follow Roman's Chapter 12 admonishments to fill one's mind with the scriptures, in order to wash away the old ways of the fallen, and Adamic life.



Mormonism doesnt prey on anyone. We actively teach and preach the covenants and commandments the Lord has given us. We invite people to come unto Christ of their own free will and serve Him will all their heart. And if they do this we promise that they will recieve the fulness of the blessings He has instore for man. and that someday he/she will be able to enter into the presence of God and learn directly from HIm.



> Truthspeaker projects this handsome well dressed well poised image via his avatar.  No doubt he's very popular.  That doesn't mean anything in God's economy.  Smooth speech, good looks, persuasive personalities, don't make a Christian.  A Christian is who they are because God, has established the permanent, binding relationship between the person and Him,  via the avenue of His grace through the person's belief that Christ is the one and only Son of God, and He/Christ is the Alpha-Omega, Beginning and End, and is equal to, and is God in the Flesh.



Well, that's nice for TS. Im not very attractive. Im very average. I am not a good speaker. I freely admit it. I write far better than I speak and I am far below the standards to which I aspire. But neither he nor I have ever claimed that looking good is important to God. What we are teaching is that making and making covenants are important. And we invite all everywhere to exercise faith in Christ, to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remision of sins, so that they can recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. This is our invitation. And we don't expect anyone to do so just because we say so or because we might look good or say something nicely. We invite everyone to investigate for themself. To study the scriptures and to go before God in humble and sincere pray to know for themselves whether what we teach is true.

You dont seem to think making and keeping covenants is important for a binding relationship. The relationship between man and God has often been related to the relationship between a man and his wife. The man and woman may have some sort of relationship before they are married. But they cannot recieve the fulness of the relationship until after they have made covenants and humble work with each other for their relationship to grow. The relationship between man and God is no different. God and the man may have a relationship. They may communicate. But until those covenants are made and kept their is no power in the relationship. The relationship is no more binding than any other relationship.



> The bible does not teach that there are progressions of God, nor that us earthlings are entitled to Godhood.  That is blasphemous, and brings God down from His majestic position of omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.


]

I can't imagine why you continue to claim this despite the fact that I, personally, have shown you otherwise on _multiple occasions_.



> 22 ¶ And the Lord God said, Behold, *the man is become as one of us*, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever (Genesis 3:22)





> 6 I have said, *Ye are gods*; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalms 82:6)





> 34 Jesus answered them,* Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods*?
> 
> 35 If he called them gods, *unto whom the word of God came*, and the scripture cannot be broken;
> 
> 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:34-36)






> 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that *we are the children of God*:
> 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and *joint-heirs with Christ;* if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8:16-17)





> 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
> 
> 6 Who, *being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God*:
> 
> 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Phil. 2:5-7)






> 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: *but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; *for we shall see him as he is.
> 
> 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (1 John 3:2-3)





> 4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these* ye might be partakers of the divine nature,* having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1:4)



So, once again, I completely dispute that the Bible says nothing about the Eternal destiny of man. I think the Bible is quite clear that the entire reason that God became flesh was so that men can be as God is. We are the children of God. We are destined to grow up with the power of the Atonement.




> Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Scientologists, Bahai', Moonies, appostles of Christ Church, Unitarianism, Unity Missouri, Hinduism, Islam, and on and on, are all manmade, and Satan instigated belief systems that attempt to counterfeit, true biblical Christianity.  It was ongoing when the early church of Acts was in it's infancy, and it is going strong now.  Why?  Cause the enemey of God, the Prince of this World, Lucifer, is alive and well, working overtime, with great brilliance to lead all whom he may from receiving Christ and joining God's kingdom.




You can assert all you want. Repeating it again and again doesnt make it true. Repeating it again and again does not change the testimony of the Spirit which has touched many and will continue to touch man. 

I find it interesting that you never bother to stop and ask yourself whether you might be the one falling for the counterfiet system.



> Some manmade religions are subtle, and take a little here and there from the holy bible, to make themselves appear to be legitimate, others blantantly reject the bible, and the Christ as revealed there-in.



And some declare the Bible to be all they follow and reject anything God has to say to them while ignoring what the Bible actually teaches.




> Mormonism has grown by leaps and bounds as it initially introduces potential converts to it's religion, by convincing Christians and those raised or knowledgeable of Christianity to some extent, and even those totally unknowledgeable about Christianity, by pushing the "family, love, community spirit, "we will come to your aid in hard times"" approach.  Who can resist that kind of approach; especially in these hard economic times?



We teach the doctrine of Christ. I know, ive taught it before and i am sure I will continue to again and again. The fact that you think family, love, community spirit, aid for one another is somehow contrary to the Order of heaven makes me question the validity of your beliefs. Are you suggesting that Christ doesnt want us to have strong families? He doesnt want us to love one another? He doesnt want us to build each other up? Or aid one another in hard times?

We teach the doctrines and those are the fruits of our doctrines. And the fruits are good because the doctrine is good.




> Throughout the bible, it is emphasized that living here on earth is not an easy task, as man's fall in the Garden precipitated and resulted in a fallen world, that growns with labor pains for the coming of Christ to make this right again.



Well, living here on earth isnt easy. Im surprised you are acting as though anyone thinks it is. Ive never met a single person in the history of my life that thinks life is easy. There are some that despute the fall. But those are usually those without a JudeoChristian background. Obviously Mormons would agree that man is fallen and that we are saved through the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You seem to think that we teach something contnrary.



> Mormonis offers Smith's humanistic answer to understanding and believing in God.  His teaching brings God down to a sinful, and fallen level, that stips God of His holiness, and omnipotent power to be the One and only answer to mankind's folly and woe.



The Pharisees also complained that the Lord spent time with sinners. But then since we are all sinners, how many options does God really have if He wants to lift us up? None of this takes away from His Holiness. Because even we as imperfect people can become Holy. Christ was Holy all of His life. Being friends with sinners didnt change that. Nor dying for them did that. 

You like to pretend Mormons dont believe that Christ is the only and only answer to mankinds folly and woe. You are incorrect. If I was pushing it, I think i could say you are lying because I know you've specifically been told what we correctly believe multiple times. But you refuse to listen. You've made up your mind, the facts be damned.



> White shirts and neckties does not make a true Christian, nor riding bicycles miles and miles facing one rejection after another from door to door, attempting to provide the answers to life to strangers at their doorsteps.  Those are all termed "dead works" in the bible.  Though Mormons try to reject this being pinned on them, they indeed are working hard at the task of being accepted by God through their deeds of community service, door to door proselytizing, clean living, clean clothes and clean cut haircuts.  God doesn't want the exterior of man cleaned-up, but wants to clean up the inner man, or man's soul.



Did anyone say white shirts and neckties makes a true Christian? Did anyone say riding bicycles did? Your straw men aside. No work done out of faith and love of God is a dead work. You think that the inner man is clean when he refuses to help his fellow man? Do you think the inner man is free when fears telling people of Christ? Do you think the inner man is clean because you refuse to obey Christ? God asks so little of us. He just wants us to love Him. And If we love Him, we follow Him. We dont make excuses not to. We dont try to pretend we are made holiness without repenting just because we said so. We live it.



> Since the Fall of man, man's soul has been devoid of a spiritual relationship with God.  God knew that man would fall in the Garden and that this race starting from the loins of Adam would continue to multiply, continue to look for a reason for life and existence, but would fail miserably doing-so.  God had planned before even the creation of man to send His one and only Son, through immaculate conception of a young Godly virgin woman on earth as the "Perfect Man/human", devoid of the sin of the Fall, as He/Jesus bears no fleshly inheritance of Adam's ancestry.



So Mary wasnt a descendant of Adam? That's a new one for me. 

I dont think we have any disagreement that God had a plan to send Christ to atone for our sins before the creation of the world. Im interested to see if you could explain why He chose this plan.

I also completely disagree that man's soul has been devoid of a spiritual relationship with God. Men have been calling on God since the days of Adam and been speaking with them. Seems to be a spiritual relationship to me. 

I would also think that no man's soul has had a spiritual relationship with God since the fall of Adam, then the Atonement has failed and you have no relationship with God. Since i cant believe either of these, I cannot accept your position.



> Jesus is termed, the "new Adam" in the bible, and rightly so.  He is sinless, and His flesh is not fallen as it is not of Adam's heritage, but of God's as He/Jesus is God..........It is believed that the Priest, Melkisidek was an early incarnate appearance of Jesus in Abraham's presence as interestinglly, the bible gives no geneology for Melkisidek the priest.



I dont think the fact that he is sinless has anything to do with the reason Christ is claled the new adam. I think it has everything to do with the fact that He is the first person who rise in the resurrection. He is Adam, the first man who rose in immortal glory.

I've never heard anyone claim that Melchesidek was Christ incarnate. In fact, im fairly certain that the Scriptures state Christ was not made flesh until He was born in the Meridian of Time. Melchesidek through tradition is believed to be Shem or one of Shem's sons. He was a type for Christ, not Christ Himself. All the Holy Prophets were types of Christ. And it's the goal of any disciple to live a life that points men to Christ.




> The Mormon church has grabbed onto the Melkisidek priesthood, and used it as part of their rituals of attaining a greater step towards ultimate Godhood.  This is all again blasphemous, yet predictable, as it feeds into the inherent fallen nature of man to ascertain or attempt to achieve godliness via his own pititful design.



Grabbed onto the Melchesidek Priesthood? The Priesthood was restored through the direction of Peter, James, and John. nothing was grabbed. It was given of God. Without said priesthood, no one can give the Gift of the Holy Ghost.



> The Mormons church ultimately teaches that "works" are the only way to achieve godhood or be in the good graces of their god.  On the other hand, the bible teaches that Godhood is not man's need, as he/man is but made from dust, is finite in lifespan, and is not eternal except when God intervenes and places His eternal life into that finite human soul.



Again false. We believe we will be judged by our works as the scriptures say. But we've always made it clear that we are saved through Christ. We can only recieve Eternal Life through Christ. If any of us reach our full potential it will not be because of our own actions. It will be because Christ has given us a gift and we accepted it.

You are right about one thing. Without Christ we would be nothing but dust. We would not rise in glory. We would not recieve all the Father has.



> Mormons on the contrary, work their darndest to impress their Smith Jr. engendered god, lacking the true biblical knowlege of what God is, and what brings humanity into a lasting, eternal relationship with Him.



I've never in my life worked to impress Joseph Smith. I dont even work to impress God. I just understand what He asks of me and seek to do it because I know that He blesses me when I do it and because I love Him. I serve the Lord because He has paid the ultimate price for my life. I may not be perfect. But the Lord knows that. He loves me anyway. And Ill still try because I love Him.

Simply because you dont feel it necessary to follow the Lord doesnt mean it isnt. The Lords commandments are given because they are counsel to save us from hardship in this life and the life to come.



> Simply put, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.".  Christ is uniquely, and clearly revealed as to His nature and purpose in the 1st chapter of the book written by John the Apostle, who outlived all the other Apostles.
> 
> The 1st chapter says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> The Word Became Flesh
> 
> 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> 2He was with God in the beginning.
> 
> 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
> 
> 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men(Jesus).
> 
> 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
> 
> 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. (John the Baptist)
> 
> 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light(Jesus), so that through him all men might believe.
> 
> 8He(John the Baptist) himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light(Jesus).
> 
> 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.*
> 
> 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him(Sadly there's where Mormons and other manmade religions/peoples are in respect to God).
> 
> 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
> 
> 12Yet to all who received him(Receive Him, not pound down hundreds/thousands of doors winning souls to the church to impress and work one up the ladder to salvation and ultimate godhood.), to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
> 
> 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
> 
> 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
> 
> 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
> 
> 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
> 
> 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It is written all over the bible...............Receive Him............Receive Him...............God abhor's most of man's works to impress Him as they are feeble attempts to assuage their god's fickle, and demanding personna.  That is the the bible God. *
Click to expand...

* 

You really have to make up your mind. Either God became a man or that is blasphemy. You can't have it both ways.

How do you recieve Him without acting? Is recieving Him another dead work just because you have to do something? or do you finally admit the Lord does require action from us and your previous position is false and you understand the scriptures incorrectly?





			Remember Mormons, that Jesus is the representation of God, whom no man has seen.  God extended Himself to the ultimate to reveal His nature to this fallen race, whom He had originally created in His image.  By the way, "in His image" doesn't mean "in His Godhood".  It means that He/God created a race of beings that could respond to Him, and could reveal in their lives His life, as vessels of His.  Man was created to with a need for God, but not a need to be God.  That is blasphemous again, as God is endless, never being created, and pre-existing all creation.  Man is one of God's great creative works, as man was intended to bring glory to the un-Created One or the Creator of man.  God didn't make man because He was lonely, but created man to bring glory to Himself.  God deserves all glory, as all of creation exists because of Him, not despite Him, as cynics would spout.
		
Click to expand...


Moses didnt see God? Isaiah didnt see God? Stephen didnt see God? The Pure in heart dont see God? The scriptures are full of accounts of men seeing God. How on earth do you ignore such clear accounts?

Has anyone argued that God doesnt deserve the Glory? Your strawmen are all over the place today.

Oh and we are Eternal beings as well. If we had a beginning, we would have an end. We dont.




			Mormons are without excuse when introduced to the Truth of the bible; anymore than man in any part of the world, involved or non-involved in any religion.
		
Click to expand...


You dont know the truth of the Bible. You refuse to see what the Bible clearly teaches because you've already decided it doesnt teach it. You ignore that God is clearly a God of miracles and clearly speaks to His people when He has had a people on the earth. If God is silent and the heavens closed its because of wickedness and unbelief and not because of anything God has done because God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He has not changed His methods of communication. You just refuse to listen.

You want to learn the truth? Ask God. Plead with Him for the truth. Humble yourself and show Him a willingness to follow His will for you and He will show you things you've never considered. He will lift you higher than you ever imagined youd go.




			God has made Himself very apparent even to the natives living in the Stone Age cultures of remote Islands and remote areas of continents.
		
Click to expand...


And yet any knowledge of God we recieve from these people you would reject simply because that knowledge was unavailable or delibrately left out when men compiled what is now the Bible. If angels from heaven appeared to you and handed you record upon record of God's dealing with any primitive man, you wouldnt listen because it's not part of the Bible.

Does that make sense to any rational person? Does that make sense to anyone who knows God's love? Why on earth, if you love God, do you refuse to listen when He has more to say?




			Trees, mountains, stars, animals, the birth of a child..........all reveals a greater Power than ouirselves.  Romans chapter one says that we are without excuse as God has made if very, very, plain to all throught His creative genius that there is One greater than man.
		
Click to expand...


Has anyone currently disputed that there is a God or that He is greater than us?




			Smith Jr. has attempted, and done so quite successfully, to bring God, down to a level of fleshly, fallen, Adamic man's level.  Smith Jr. cannot, and has not coped with the God of the bible.
		
Click to expand...


Did you even bother reading what you just posted. You just posted the very scriptures that show that God became flesh. And now its somehow wrong to think He has been made flesh? The scriptures are clear that God became flesh and walked among sinful man. The scriptures are also clear that because of Him we can become He is.

How was Joseph wrong?




			Smith's con-life and sorry track record of life, has immediately disqualified him from the position of an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Yet, Smith has gone further and made his disqualification more concrete through his blasphemous teachings and sermons that have recreated God into a mere fallible human that became a god through progressive good works as prescribed by the leaders of their religion.
		
Click to expand...


So what your saying is Judas was an Apostle and can betray our Savior, Peter can deny Jesus Christ three times and be an Apostle, Paul helped in the persecution and murder of Christians and can be an Apostle and yet Joseph can be found innocent of any crime every alleged against him and that immediately disqualifies him from being an Apostle. You're argument makes no sense. Joseph never made God falliable. Quite the opposite. Are you suggesting that God doesnt do good works? Your argument makes no sense and is totally contrary to the scriptures.

Even Christ was found guilty of a crime and put to death. He was Holy and Perfect and found guilty of a crime. Joseph never claimed to be holy per perfect. He was not found guilty of any crime. He was beaten for His faith. He was murdered for His faith after He saw His Brother murdered before His eyes. They spoke evil concerning the Master when He was perfect and Holy. How much more can they say against someone imperfect and unholy?

But who else does God have to work with? there was only only Holy and perfect man to walk the earth. The rest of us are imperfect. But we are all God has to work with. If you have found a Church with perfect people in it, please direct me to it.





			There is no way that one can refute, clearly the Mormon's stance, as they have created a circular path of doctrine that attempts to avoid biblical mandates.   All things Mormon start with mere self-appointed apostle's teachings and come full-circle around to these false apostles for confirmation.
		
Click to expand...


Incorrect. There is no way that one can refuse our stance because we tell all people to go to the Lord and learn from Him and Lean on His understanding. A person is converted through personal experiences with the Lord. We don't Bible bash to prove our point. Though as you can clearly see through this thread, when we do, we win.




			Secondly, the Mormon is taught that manifestations that confirm Mormonism as truth on the personal psychic level such as visions, dreams, etc.., are valid.  This again protects the average Mormon from questioning these experiential happenings in light of what the bible says.   God has nothing against the visions or dreams, but throughout the bible, these dreams/visions must be taken to the bible to make sure they are of God, and not of just manmade-manifested origin.
		
Click to expand...


Prevents questioning? Are you insane? How on earth do you think we have experiences with God if we dont ask Him questions concerning various things? How are you supposed to learn anything if you dont question? Why are you so afraid to answer God? Who should we trust, God or your understanding of the Bible? No offense, but Id much rather go to the source then go through you.

Did Peter take His vision to take the Gospel to the Gentiles to the Bible to make sure it was from God? No. How did He know it was from God and what it meant?




			44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (Acts 10:44)
		
Click to expand...


What a surprise. The Holy Ghost showed them it was correct. The Holy Ghost will teach you the truth of all things. Why are you so against learning from the Holy Ghost? It's the Holy Ghost that interprets the scriptures not vice versa. The Holy Ghost is what shows us all things we need to do. It's the Holy Ghost that shows us whether a vision is from God and what it means. 

Did anyone else take their visions to the Bible? Did Paul? Did John the Revelator? Did Daniel? Did Ezekial? Did Joseph of Egypt?

No. None of them did. They knew it was from God because they had experiences with God. God revealed it to them.





			Avatar and Truthspeaker defend their visions and happenings that confirm that they are Christians, yet refuse to confirm these with the bible.  That is both deflection, and outright refusal to "test" their belief system against the Word Of GOD.  Bereans tested even Apostle Paul's letters and teachings their their early church by going to their scripture.  PAUL COMMENDED THEM!  Will a Mormon elder commend you, a Mormon church member, if you go to the bible to ultimately confirm yeah or nay, the teachings of Smith Jr., Young, or even one's visions, dreams or burning bosom experiences?
		
Click to expand...


The test is not the Bible. The Test is the Holy Spirit. We learn by going to God and learning from Him and not trying to reason it out with our own understanding. However, you seem to be of the opinion that there is anything that Joseph taught that is contrary to the Bible. This is false. As youve been shown multiple times. Nor is there any evidence that the Bible is and was intended to be the end all be all of revelation to mankind.

As for your question: Yes. We encourage people to search the scriptures and learn for themselves by going to God. Stop exalting the tool above the Lord who created it.





			Satan is a wise and wylie character, and He has a multitude of fallen angels that 24/7 work overtime keeping the human race in bondage from seeking the truth of God.  Mormons don't see it that way.  Satan was merely a disenfranchised brother of Jesus, that lost out on being picked by their progressive god the father once a man from Lucifer to be the next savior of planet earth.
		
Click to expand...


Do you know how Satan keeps people from seeking the truth of God? He tells them not to ask God. He convinces people that they can never know the truth or that they can figure it out own their own through their own great reasoning and intellect. He teaches men not to seek the Lord for what He thinks but to ignore the Spirit. It's not hard to figure out which one of the two of us is following that pattern.

Also, your blatantly lies are duly noted. You know we dont disagree that Satan is a wise and wylie character. Nor do we disagree that he is trying to keep the human race in bondage. To assert otherwise when you know better is a lie. And I would encourage you to stop doing so. Because God has commanded us not to bear false witness.




			Folks when you take Mormon teaching from Smith and Young in total, it is so bazaar, and crazy, in  it's teacing.  How do perfectly rational, intelligent folks like Truthspeaker and Avatar etc... buy into this stuff?  It all goes back to the ultimate fall of man.  Just as man decided that he would ascertain or reach God through building the Tower of Babel, so the Mormon doctrine follows similarly, in building a false unbiblical road map for fallen man to ascertain, and even become a god.
		
Click to expand...


There is absolutely nothing crazy about it if you study the scriptures and seek to know the will of God through Humble prayer. It isnt crazy if you realize what the Bible really is and how we are supposed to have an actual relationship with God and not just an indirect one through the scriptures. It isnt crazy at all if you actually admit what our positions are instead of pretending that we believe things we dont believe. It isnt crazy at all if you've ever experienced the power of the Holy Ghost and felt the love of God in your life.

Stop pretending your caricatures of my faith in Christ is accurate and then you wont have a difficult time understanding why I put my faith in His word.




			Why do I lower case the "g" in the Mormon god?  Because the bible reserves the name "God" for "God" alone.; not a glorified man........nor a hard working sinner, who got granted godhood.
************
		
Click to expand...


I don't really care what you capitalize and dont. I dont care if you call your cat god. You arent accurately portraying the Church of Jesus Christ and I am going to continue pointing that out until you stop and actually try to dialogue.

I have never demanded that you agree with what we teach. That is between you and God. I simply ask that if you are going to disagree, that you disagree with actual teachings rather than what you pretend are our teachings. I ask that you stop ignoring when youve been responded to and stop making claims you arent true. I also invite you to repent and exercise faith in Christ. And ask God to learn the truth. I invite you to be baptized and recieve the Holy Ghost. And all things will be made clear to you.*


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> I see your showing that JOEYISM, aren't you.



Once agian, Froggy makes no sense.

Ill keep you in my prayers.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes an apostle to you? Why do the ancient apostles qualify but not Smith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is as obvious as your proboscis between your eyes.
> 
> Smith absolutely fullfills the required statistics of a "false prophet".
> 
> These visions he had in N.Y. as a young man are just his own mental gymnastics.
> 
> Nowadays, he'd be committed to a mental hospital.
> 
> The bible provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God, through giving one's life to Christ as Savior and Lord.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is filled with plagarism from the King James of Smith's day, plus his wild, mentally touched and manipulative imagination.
> 
> The Christian world does not need Mormonism to enjoy a true relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  In fact the world doesn't need Mormonism at all, as it is a false religion, that leads many true Christians into uneffective lives that no longer glorify Christ and God Almighty.
> 
> Thank God, that Salvation is a secure and sealed relationship promised by God to all true regenerated believers, but Mormonism preys on the Christian that doesn't follow Roman's Chapter 12 admonishments to fill one's mind with the scriptures, in order to wash away the old ways of the fallen, and Adamic life.
> 
> Truthspeaker projects this handsome well dressed well poised image via his avatar.  No doubt he's very popular.  That doesn't mean anything in God's economy.  Smooth speech, good looks, persuasive personalities, don't make a Christian.  A Christian is who they are because God, has established the permanent, binding relationship between the person and Him,  via the avenue of His grace through the person's belief that Christ is the one and only Son of God, and He/Christ is the Alpha-Omega, Beginning and End, and is equal to, and is God in the Flesh.
> 
> The bible does not teach that there are progressions of God, nor that us earthlings are entitled to Godhood.  That is blasphemous, and brings God down from His majestic position of omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.
> 
> Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Scientologists, Bahai', Moonies, appostles of Christ Church, Unitarianism, Unity Missouri, Hinduism, Islam, and on and on, are all manmade, and Satan instigated belief systems that attempt to counterfeit, true biblical Christianity.  It was ongoing when the early church of Acts was in it's infancy, and it is going strong now.  Why?  Cause the enemey of God, the Prince of this World, Lucifer, is alive and well, working overtime, with great brilliance to lead all whom he may from receiving Christ and joining God's kingdom.
> 
> Some manmade religions are subtle, and take a little here and there from the holy bible, to make themselves appear to be legitimate, others blantantly reject the bible, and the Christ as revealed there-in.
> 
> Mormonism has grown by leaps and bounds as it initially introduces potential converts to it's religion, by convincing Christians and those raised or knowledgeable of Christianity to some extent, and even those totally unknowledgeable about Christianity, by pushing the "family, love, community spirit, "we will come to your aid in hard times"" approach.  Who can resist that kind of approach; especially in these hard economic times?
> 
> Throughout the bible, it is emphasized that living here on earth is not an easy task, as man's fall in the Garden precipitated and resulted in a fallen world, that growns with labor pains for the coming of Christ to make this right again.
> 
> Mormonis offers Smith's humanistic answer to understanding and believing in God.  His teaching brings God down to a sinful, and fallen level, that stips God of His holiness, and omnipotent power to be the One and only answer to mankind's folly and woe.
> 
> White shirts and neckties does not make a true Christian, nor riding bicycles miles and miles facing one rejection after another from door to door, attempting to provide the answers to life to strangers at their doorsteps.  Those are all termed "dead works" in the bible.  Though Mormons try to reject this being pinned on them, they indeed are working hard at the task of being accepted by God through their deeds of community service, door to door proselytizing, clean living, clean clothes and clean cut haircuts.  God doesn't want the exterior of man cleaned-up, but wants to clean up the inner man, or man's soul.
> 
> Since the Fall of man, man's soul has been devoid of a spiritual relationship with God.  God knew that man would fall in the Garden and that this race starting from the loins of Adam would continue to multiply, continue to look for a reason for life and existence, but would fail miserably doing-so.  God had planned before even the creation of man to send His one and only Son, through immaculate conception of a young Godly virgin woman on earth as the "Perfect Man/human", devoid of the sin of the Fall, as He/Jesus bears no fleshly inheritance of Adam's ancestry.
> 
> Jesus is termed, the "new Adam" in the bible, and rightly so.  He is sinless, and His flesh is not fallen as it is not of Adam's heritage, but of God's as He/Jesus is God..........It is believed that the Priest, Melkisidek was an early incarnate appearance of Jesus in Abraham's presence as interestinglly, the bible gives no geneology for Melkisidek the priest.
> 
> The Mormon church has grabbed onto the Melkisidek priesthood, and used it as part of their rituals of attaining a greater step towards ultimate Godhood.  This is all again blasphemous, yet predictable, as it feeds into the inherent fallen nature of man to ascertain or attempt to achieve godliness via his own pititful design.
> 
> The Mormons church ultimately teaches that "works" are the only way to achieve godhood or be in the good graces of their god.  On the other hand, the bible teaches that Godhood is not man's need, as he/man is but made from dust, is finite in lifespan, and is not eternal except when God intervenes and places His eternal life into that finite human soul.
> 
> Mormons on the contrary, work their darndest to impress their Smith Jr. engendered god, lacking the true biblical knowlege of what God is, and what brings humanity into a lasting, eternal relationship with Him.
> 
> Simply put, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.".  Christ is uniquely, and clearly revealed as to His nature and purpose in the 1st chapter of the book written by John the Apostle, who outlived all the other Apostles.
> 
> The 1st chapter says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> The Word Became Flesh
> 
> 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
> 
> 2He was with God in the beginning.
> 
> 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
> 
> 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men(Jesus).
> 
> 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
> 
> 6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. (John the Baptist)
> 
> 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light(Jesus), so that through him all men might believe.
> 
> 8He(John the Baptist) himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light(Jesus).
> 
> 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.*
> 
> 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him(Sadly there's where Mormons and other manmade religions/peoples are in respect to God).
> 
> 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
> 
> 12Yet to all who received him(Receive Him, not pound down hundreds/thousands of doors winning souls to the church to impress and work one up the ladder to salvation and ultimate godhood.), to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God
> 
> 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
> 
> 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
> 
> 15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "
> 
> 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.
> 
> 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
> 
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> It is written all over the bible...............Receive Him............Receive Him...............God abhor's most of man's works to impress Him as they are feeble attempts to assuage their god's fickle, and demanding personna.  That is the the bible God.
> 
> Remember Mormons, that Jesus is the representation of God, whom no man has seen.  God extended Himself to the ultimate to reveal His nature to this fallen race, whom He had originally created in His image.  By the way, "in His image" doesn't mean "in His Godhood".  It means that He/God created a race of beings that could respond to Him, and could reveal in their lives His life, as vessels of His.  Man was created to with a need for God, but not a need to be God.  That is blasphemous again, as God is endless, never being created, and pre-existing all creation.  Man is one of God's great creative works, as man was intended to bring glory to the un-Created One or the Creator of man.  God didn't make man because He was lonely, but created man to bring glory to Himself.  God deserves all glory, as all of creation exists because of Him, not despite Him, as cynics would spout.
> 
> Mormons are without excuse when introduced to the Truth of the bible; anymore than man in any part of the world, involved or non-involved in any religion.
> 
> God has made Himself very apparent even to the natives living in the Stone Age cultures of remote Islands and remote areas of continents.
> 
> Trees, mountains, stars, animals, the birth of a child..........all reveals a greater Power than ouirselves.  Romans chapter one says that we are without excuse as God has made if very, very, plain to all throught His creative genius that there is One greater than man.
> 
> Smith Jr. has attempted, and done so quite successfully, to bring God, down to a level of fleshly, fallen, Adamic man's level.  Smith Jr. cannot, and has not coped with the God of the bible.
> 
> Smith's con-life and sorry track record of life, has immediately disqualified him from the position of an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Yet, Smith has gone further and made his disqualification more concrete through his blasphemous teachings and sermons that have recreated God into a mere fallible human that became a god through progressive good works as prescribed by the leaders of their religion.
> 
> There is no way that one can refute, clearly the Mormon's stance, as they have created a circular path of doctrine that attempts to avoid biblical mandates.   All things Mormon start with mere self-appointed apostle's teachings and come full-circle around to these false apostles for confirmation.
> 
> Secondly, the Mormon is taught that manifestations that confirm Mormonism as truth on the personal psychic level such as visions, dreams, etc.., are valid.  This again protects the average Mormon from questioning these experiential happenings in light of what the bible says.   God has nothing against the visions or dreams, but throughout the bible, these dreams/visions must be taken to the bible to make sure they are of God, and not of just manmade-manifested origin.
> 
> Avatar and Truthspeaker defend their visions and happenings that confirm that they are Christians, yet refuse to confirm these with the bible.  That is both deflection, and outright refusal to "test" their belief system against the Word Of GOD.  Bereans tested even Apostle Paul's letters and teachings their their early church by going to their scripture.  PAUL COMMENDED THEM!  Will a Mormon elder commend you, a Mormon church member, if you go to the bible to ultimately confirm yeah or nay, the teachings of Smith Jr., Young, or even one's visions, dreams or burning bosom experiences?
> 
> Satan is a wise and wylie character, and He has a multitude of fallen angels that 24/7 work overtime keeping the human race in bondage from seeking the truth of God.  Mormons don't see it that way.  Satan was merely a disenfranchised brother of Jesus, that lost out on being picked by their progressive god the father once a man from Lucifer to be the next savior of planet earth.
> 
> Folks when you take Mormon teaching from Smith and Young in total, it is so bazaar, and crazy, in  it's teacing.  How do perfectly rational, intelligent folks like Truthspeaker and Avatar etc... buy into this stuff?  It all goes back to the ultimate fall of man.  Just as man decided that he would ascertain or reach God through building the Tower of Babel, so the Mormon doctrine follows similarly, in building a false unbiblical road map for fallen man to ascertain, and even become a god.
> 
> Why do I lower case the "g" in the Mormon god?  Because the bible reserves the name "God" for "God" alone.; not a glorified man........nor a hard working sinner, who got granted godhood.
> *************
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> Welcome back 8-Ballsy. You are true to form in your repetition. You just couldn't stay aways could you. I knew you missed me. I've responded to every one of those things already and will simply copy and paste the articles of faith for all who care about what we really believe in.
> Articles of Faith 1*
Click to expand...

*

You haven't adequately answered any of my question past or present, and you know it to.   You are the king of deflection.  What I'd call a "good" Mormon.*


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321  
Registered User
Member #854   Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 13,142 
Thanks: 10
Thanked 361 Times in 265 Posts 
Rep Power: 67 



Quote: Originally Posted by Eightball  

Is as obvious as your proboscis between your eyes.

Smith absolutely fullfills the required statistics of a "false prophet".

These visions he had in N.Y. as a young man are just his own mental gymnastics.

Nowadays, he'd be committed to a mental hospital. quote originally posted by avatar1234
So you admit that he had real visions. I feel that is some progress. According to your standard anyone who has visions would be committed to a mental hospital nowadays. So you've already invalidated the Visions of Enoch, Noah, Moses, Joseph of Egypt, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul, Peter, John the Beloved. According to your current standard, they would all be committed to a mental hospital.quote.

No he said joe was delusional, crazy, you know when your crazy in the head.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is as obvious as your proboscis between your eyes.
> 
> Smith absolutely fullfills the required statistics of a "false prophet".
> 
> These visions he had in N.Y. as a young man are just his own mental gymnastics.
> 
> Nowadays, he'd be committed to a mental hospital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that he had real visions. I feel that is some progress. According to your standard anyone who has visions would be committed to a mental hospital nowadays. So you've already invalidated the Visions of Enoch, Noah, Moses, Joseph of Egypt, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul, Peter, John the Beloved. According to your current standard, they would all be committed to a mental hospital.
> 
> After all, How dare someone say that God has actually communicated with man. We have enough already. We dont have anything else to learn from God. Ignore the fact that mankind is under a shadow of wickedness. God has said everything He will say. There are no more miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bible provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God, through giving one's life to Christ as Savior and Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Christ provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God. It is through Christ we are saved. Not through the Bible. The Bible points to and testifies of Christ. It's a tool to bring mankind to Christ and to teach them of Christ. It exists to demonstrate that our forefather had knowledge of our days and the means to our Redemption. Much like the Law of Moses was designed to point to Christ, so do all of scriptures. We are not saved through the Bible. Nor are we saved by the Law of Moses.
> 
> It would be nice if you realized that, however useful, The Bible is not nor does it claim to be the end all of God's relationship with mankind. Nor do we need perfect scriptures to lead us to follow our perfect Lord. We do not need eloquence of words to teach us correct doctrines.
> 
> 
> 
> That is blatantly false. there is no plagarism from the King James version. The Book of Mormon contains a record of a people who saw Christ and have added their witness to the many others that: He Lives! It's a history of a people that is designed to bring people to Christ and to remind the world that God remembers His covenants and will remember in Mercy His people in the last days.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't? Well, fine, you dont have to join Christ's Church. You dont have to recieve of all the blessings Christ has available for you. If you are happy where you are, you will recieve what you willing to recieve. But God has more for you, when you are ready to listen. He has prepared those that serve Him to recieve all He has: Power, Might, Dominion, Knowledge, Nature, etc. But He doesnt force anyone to accept it. It's your right to decline. He doesn't love you any less. And He will always have His arms wide open for when you are ready to recieve more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism doesnt prey on anyone. We actively teach and preach the covenants and commandments the Lord has given us. We invite people to come unto Christ of their own free will and serve Him will all their heart. And if they do this we promise that they will recieve the fulness of the blessings He has instore for man. and that someday he/she will be able to enter into the presence of God and learn directly from HIm.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's nice for TS. Im not very attractive. Im very average. I am not a good speaker. I freely admit it. I write far better than I speak and I am far below the standards to which I aspire. But neither he nor I have ever claimed that looking good is important to God. What we are teaching is that making and making covenants are important. And we invite all everywhere to exercise faith in Christ, to repent of their sins and be baptized for the remision of sins, so that they can recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. This is our invitation. And we don't expect anyone to do so just because we say so or because we might look good or say something nicely. We invite everyone to investigate for themself. To study the scriptures and to go before God in humble and sincere pray to know for themselves whether what we teach is true.
> 
> You dont seem to think making and keeping covenants is important for a binding relationship. The relationship between man and God has often been related to the relationship between a man and his wife. The man and woman may have some sort of relationship before they are married. But they cannot recieve the fulness of the relationship until after they have made covenants and humble work with each other for their relationship to grow. The relationship between man and God is no different. God and the man may have a relationship. They may communicate. But until those covenants are made and kept their is no power in the relationship. The relationship is no more binding than any other relationship.
> 
> ]
> 
> I can't imagine why you continue to claim this despite the fact that I, personally, have shown you otherwise on _multiple occasions_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, once again, I completely dispute that the Bible says nothing about the Eternal destiny of man. I think the Bible is quite clear that the entire reason that God became flesh was so that men can be as God is. We are the children of God. We are destined to grow up with the power of the Atonement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can assert all you want. Repeating it again and again doesnt make it true. Repeating it again and again does not change the testimony of the Spirit which has touched many and will continue to touch man.
> 
> I find it interesting that you never bother to stop and ask yourself whether you might be the one falling for the counterfiet system.
> 
> 
> 
> And some declare the Bible to be all they follow and reject anything God has to say to them while ignoring what the Bible actually teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We teach the doctrine of Christ. I know, ive taught it before and i am sure I will continue to again and again. The fact that you think family, love, community spirit, aid for one another is somehow contrary to the Order of heaven makes me question the validity of your beliefs. Are you suggesting that Christ doesnt want us to have strong families? He doesnt want us to love one another? He doesnt want us to build each other up? Or aid one another in hard times?
> 
> We teach the doctrines and those are the fruits of our doctrines. And the fruits are good because the doctrine is good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, living here on earth isnt easy. Im surprised you are acting as though anyone thinks it is. Ive never met a single person in the history of my life that thinks life is easy. There are some that despute the fall. But those are usually those without a JudeoChristian background. Obviously Mormons would agree that man is fallen and that we are saved through the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You seem to think that we teach something contnrary.
> 
> 
> 
> The Pharisees also complained that the Lord spent time with sinners. But then since we are all sinners, how many options does God really have if He wants to lift us up? None of this takes away from His Holiness. Because even we as imperfect people can become Holy. Christ was Holy all of His life. Being friends with sinners didnt change that. Nor dying for them did that.
> 
> You like to pretend Mormons dont believe that Christ is the only and only answer to mankinds folly and woe. You are incorrect. If I was pushing it, I think i could say you are lying because I know you've specifically been told what we correctly believe multiple times. But you refuse to listen. You've made up your mind, the facts be damned.
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone say white shirts and neckties makes a true Christian? Did anyone say riding bicycles did? Your straw men aside. No work done out of faith and love of God is a dead work. You think that the inner man is clean when he refuses to help his fellow man? Do you think the inner man is free when fears telling people of Christ? Do you think the inner man is clean because you refuse to obey Christ? God asks so little of us. He just wants us to love Him. And If we love Him, we follow Him. We dont make excuses not to. We dont try to pretend we are made holiness without repenting just because we said so. We live it.
> 
> 
> 
> So Mary wasnt a descendant of Adam? That's a new one for me.
> 
> I dont think we have any disagreement that God had a plan to send Christ to atone for our sins before the creation of the world. Im interested to see if you could explain why He chose this plan.
> 
> I also completely disagree that man's soul has been devoid of a spiritual relationship with God. Men have been calling on God since the days of Adam and been speaking with them. Seems to be a spiritual relationship to me.
> 
> I would also think that no man's soul has had a spiritual relationship with God since the fall of Adam, then the Atonement has failed and you have no relationship with God. Since i cant believe either of these, I cannot accept your position.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think the fact that he is sinless has anything to do with the reason Christ is claled the new adam. I think it has everything to do with the fact that He is the first person who rise in the resurrection. He is Adam, the first man who rose in immortal glory.
> 
> I've never heard anyone claim that Melchesidek was Christ incarnate. In fact, im fairly certain that the Scriptures state Christ was not made flesh until He was born in the Meridian of Time. Melchesidek through tradition is believed to be Shem or one of Shem's sons. He was a type for Christ, not Christ Himself. All the Holy Prophets were types of Christ. And it's the goal of any disciple to live a life that points men to Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grabbed onto the Melchesidek Priesthood? The Priesthood was restored through the direction of Peter, James, and John. nothing was grabbed. It was given of God. Without said priesthood, no one can give the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 
> 
> Again false. We believe we will be judged by our works as the scriptures say. But we've always made it clear that we are saved through Christ. We can only recieve Eternal Life through Christ. If any of us reach our full potential it will not be because of our own actions. It will be because Christ has given us a gift and we accepted it.
> 
> You are right about one thing. Without Christ we would be nothing but dust. We would not rise in glory. We would not recieve all the Father has.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never in my life worked to impress Joseph Smith. I dont even work to impress God. I just understand what He asks of me and seek to do it because I know that He blesses me when I do it and because I love Him. I serve the Lord because He has paid the ultimate price for my life. I may not be perfect. But the Lord knows that. He loves me anyway. And Ill still try because I love Him.
> 
> Simply because you dont feel it necessary to follow the Lord doesnt mean it isnt. The Lords commandments are given because they are counsel to save us from hardship in this life and the life to come.
> 
> 
> 
> You really have to make up your mind. Either God became a man or that is blasphemy. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> How do you recieve Him without acting? Is recieving Him another dead work just because you have to do something? or do you finally admit the Lord does require action from us and your previous position is false and you understand the scriptures incorrectly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moses didnt see God? Isaiah didnt see God? Stephen didnt see God? The Pure in heart dont see God? The scriptures are full of accounts of men seeing God. How on earth do you ignore such clear accounts?
> 
> Has anyone argued that God doesnt deserve the Glory? Your strawmen are all over the place today.
> 
> Oh and we are Eternal beings as well. If we had a beginning, we would have an end. We dont.
> 
> 
> 
> You dont know the truth of the Bible. You refuse to see what the Bible clearly teaches because you've already decided it doesnt teach it. You ignore that God is clearly a God of miracles and clearly speaks to His people when He has had a people on the earth. If God is silent and the heavens closed its because of wickedness and unbelief and not because of anything God has done because God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He has not changed His methods of communication. You just refuse to listen.
> 
> You want to learn the truth? Ask God. Plead with Him for the truth. Humble yourself and show Him a willingness to follow His will for you and He will show you things you've never considered. He will lift you higher than you ever imagined youd go.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet any knowledge of God we recieve from these people you would reject simply because that knowledge was unavailable or delibrately left out when men compiled what is now the Bible. If angels from heaven appeared to you and handed you record upon record of God's dealing with any primitive man, you wouldnt listen because it's not part of the Bible.
> 
> Does that make sense to any rational person? Does that make sense to anyone who knows God's love? Why on earth, if you love God, do you refuse to listen when He has more to say?
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone currently disputed that there is a God or that He is greater than us?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother reading what you just posted. You just posted the very scriptures that show that God became flesh. And now its somehow wrong to think He has been made flesh? The scriptures are clear that God became flesh and walked among sinful man. The scriptures are also clear that because of Him we can become He is.
> 
> How was Joseph wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> So what your saying is Judas was an Apostle and can betray our Savior, Peter can deny Jesus Christ three times and be an Apostle, Paul helped in the persecution and murder of Christians and can be an Apostle and yet Joseph can be found innocent of any crime every alleged against him and that immediately disqualifies him from being an Apostle. You're argument makes no sense. Joseph never made God falliable. Quite the opposite. Are you suggesting that God doesnt do good works? Your argument makes no sense and is totally contrary to the scriptures.
> 
> Even Christ was found guilty of a crime and put to death. He was Holy and Perfect and found guilty of a crime. Joseph never claimed to be holy per perfect. He was not found guilty of any crime. He was beaten for His faith. He was murdered for His faith after He saw His Brother murdered before His eyes. They spoke evil concerning the Master when He was perfect and Holy. How much more can they say against someone imperfect and unholy?
> 
> But who else does God have to work with? there was only only Holy and perfect man to walk the earth. The rest of us are imperfect. But we are all God has to work with. If you have found a Church with perfect people in it, please direct me to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. There is no way that one can refuse our stance because we tell all people to go to the Lord and learn from Him and Lean on His understanding. A person is converted through personal experiences with the Lord. We don't Bible bash to prove our point. Though as you can clearly see through this thread, when we do, we win.
> 
> 
> 
> Prevents questioning? Are you insane? How on earth do you think we have experiences with God if we dont ask Him questions concerning various things? How are you supposed to learn anything if you dont question? Why are you so afraid to answer God? Who should we trust, God or your understanding of the Bible? No offense, but Id much rather go to the source then go through you.
> 
> Did Peter take His vision to take the Gospel to the Gentiles to the Bible to make sure it was from God? No. How did He know it was from God and what it meant?
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise. The Holy Ghost showed them it was correct. The Holy Ghost will teach you the truth of all things. Why are you so against learning from the Holy Ghost? It's the Holy Ghost that interprets the scriptures not vice versa. The Holy Ghost is what shows us all things we need to do. It's the Holy Ghost that shows us whether a vision is from God and what it means.
> 
> Did anyone else take their visions to the Bible? Did Paul? Did John the Revelator? Did Daniel? Did Ezekial? Did Joseph of Egypt?
> 
> No. None of them did. They knew it was from God because they had experiences with God. God revealed it to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The test is not the Bible. The Test is the Holy Spirit. We learn by going to God and learning from Him and not trying to reason it out with our own understanding. However, you seem to be of the opinion that there is anything that Joseph taught that is contrary to the Bible. This is false. As youve been shown multiple times. Nor is there any evidence that the Bible is and was intended to be the end all be all of revelation to mankind.
> 
> As for your question: Yes. We *encourage* people to search the scriptures and learn for themselves by going to God. Stop exalting the tool above the Lord who created it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know how Satan keeps people from seeking the truth of God? He tells them not to ask God. He convinces people that they can never know the truth or that they can figure it out own their own through their own great reasoning and intellect. He teaches men not to seek the Lord for what He thinks but to ignore the Spirit. It's not hard to figure out which one of the two of us is following that pattern.
> 
> Also, your blatantly lies are duly noted. You know we dont disagree that Satan is a wise and wylie character. Nor do we disagree that he is trying to keep the human race in bondage. To assert otherwise when you know better is a lie. And I would encourage you to stop doing so. Because God has commanded us not to bear false witness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks when you take Mormon teaching from Smith and Young in total, it is so bazaar, and crazy, in  it's teacing.  How do perfectly rational, intelligent folks like Truthspeaker and Avatar etc... buy into this stuff?  It all goes back to the ultimate fall of man.  Just as man decided that he would ascertain or reach God through building the Tower of Babel, so the Mormon doctrine follows similarly, in building a false unbiblical road map for fallen man to ascertain, and even become a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is absolutely nothing crazy about it if you study the scriptures and seek to know the will of God through Humble prayer. It isnt crazy if you realize what the Bible really is and how we are supposed to have an actual relationship with God and not just an indirect one through the scriptures. It isnt crazy at all if you actually admit what our positions are instead of pretending that we believe things we dont believe. It isnt crazy at all if you've ever experienced the power of the Holy Ghost and felt the love of God in your life.
> 
> Stop pretending your caricatures of my faith in Christ is accurate and then you wont have a difficult time understanding why I put my faith in His word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I lower case the "g" in the Mormon god?  Because the bible reserves the name "God" for "God" alone.; not a glorified man........nor a hard working sinner, who got granted godhood.
> ************
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really care what you capitalize and dont. I dont care if you call your cat god. You arent accurately portraying the Church of Jesus Christ and I am going to continue pointing that out until you stop and actually try to dialogue.
> 
> I have never demanded that you agree with what we teach. That is between you and God. I simply ask that if you are going to disagree, that you disagree with actual teachings rather than what you pretend are our teachings. I ask that you stop ignoring when youve been responded to and stop making claims you arent true. I also invite you to repent and exercise faith in Christ. And ask God to learn the truth. I invite you to be baptized and recieve the Holy Ghost. And all things will be made clear to you.
Click to expand...


You are so sadly brainwashed..........Judas was a false Apostle.......That's why Paul was the 12th in his place..

You and tag-team Mormon Truthspeaker deflect, or just plain have a total non-spiritual understanding of the bible.  

You both need true biblical salvation.  Even Nicodemus was a literalist like you.............He had the knowledge but lacked the spiritual understanding of scripture...........When one is not sanctified by God in true salvation, you will end up believing all kinds of crazy heretical teachings...........Satan has you and your buddy, locked tight in a blasphemous zip lok bag of puffy, prideful, deceit, and lies which you both propagate on this forum.  You know deep down that your grasping for lame straws in an endless haystack of hopelessness.

Feeling good, doctrine only goes as far as your emotions can carry you, then you have "What?" to carry you through?

Does your founding prophet turn the other cheek?  By no means.  He shoots dead his enemy with a single action revolver.  All of Jesus' disciples went to their deaths as lambs to the slaughter knowing that a better life awaited them.  Smith fought for his worldly life as though it was the only one he had.............And in truth it was.

He now is gnashing his teeth with regret in hell, along with Young and many other of your false leaders.

You folks have to spend so much extra time patching holes in the Mormon dike to hold back the weight of documented truth that indicts your founders of fraud, criminal activities ranging all the way up to cold blooded murder.

Just because you present the old family image, with the American flag, and apple pie nowadays to the unsuspecting public doesn't change where your foundational doctrine lies.............And Lies it does.

You teach your members to take any and all anti-Mormonism as a sign of being in the truth, and don't bother to even check out the substance of the critiques.

Your a classic example of a cultist.  Cultists walk in lock step with their elders.  They fear castigation if they leave the fold, and in the case of Mormons, boy oh boy do they get castigated in communities where the majority populous is Mormon.

Your religion is a mish mash of occult, Christian, polytheistic, Masonic, mumbo jumbo..........

God is not a God of confusion nor complexity when it comes to communicating His will for His followers or those in whom He desires in His fold.  Mormonism has made a mess of the Christian message, polluting it with works-based salvation, denial of a hell for unbelievers that is biblical, teaching that marriage is perpetuated in heaven when Jesus flatly said there isn't, promoted the fleshly human pursuits to achieve godhood, when true Godhood is not achievable accept by God Himself.

Smith's teachings fed into the worldly, lost, fallen Adamic nature of man, to ascend to godhood.  It has worked quite well indeed.  Satan is happy, God is grieved.

Mormonism is an anathema to God, and every true Christian.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> You are so sadly brainwashed..........Judas was a false Apostle.......That's why Paul was the 12th in his place..



Are you somehow suggesting tha Judas wasnt an Apostle? He was ordained by Christ Himself. Was any of the preaching or baptisms he preformed invalid because at the final hour he betrayed the Lord? Was Peter less of an Apostle for his weakness? 

Paul didnt replace Judas as an Apostle. Read the first chapter of Acts sometime.



> You and tag-team Mormon Truthspeaker deflect, or just plain have a total non-spiritual understanding of the bible.



Im not tag teaming with anyone. I am my own person. And Im not deflecting anything, quite the opposite im directly quoting the scriptures as I always do and you are pretending that despite my direct quotes supporting my positiont hat im evil.



> You both need true biblical salvation.  Even Nicodemus was a literalist like you.............He had the knowledge but lacked the spiritual understanding of scripture...........When one is not sanctified by God in true salvation, you will end up believing all kinds of crazy heretical teachings...........Satan has you and your buddy, locked tight in a blasphemous zip lok bag of puffy, prideful, deceit, and lies which you both propagate on this forum.  You know deep down that your grasping for lame straws in an endless haystack of hopelessness.



So you are the only one who knows what the scriptures say because you say so and anyone who disagrees with you is friends with satan.

I havent lied once here. Ive simply spoken out in favor of Christ and you are upset with me over it. grasping for lame straws? You can claim that all you want. But you still arent actually discussing anything with me. You pretend i havent said anything and rant and rave and then go back to what you are originally say.



> Feeling good, doctrine only goes as far as your emotions can carry you, then you have "What?" to carry you through?



What the heck are you talking about?




> Does your founding prophet turn the other cheek?  By no means.  He shoots dead his enemy with a single action revolver.  All of Jesus' disciples went to their deaths as lambs to the slaughter knowing that a better life awaited them.  Smith fought for his worldly life as though it was the only one he had.............And in truth it was.
> 
> He now is gnashing his teeth with regret in hell, along with Young and many other of your false leaders.



He voluntarily went to his death knowing he would be killed. He jumped out a window into a mob to save his friends. Try as you may, you cannot change that. His testimony is sealed in blood. And it's in full force.




> You folks have to spend so much extra time patching holes in the Mormon dike to hold back the weight of documented truth that indicts your founders of fraud, criminal activities ranging all the way up to cold blooded murder.



We are holding nothing back. We are telling people to investigate. And Joseph never killed a single man and you know it. If you could prove otherwise you could tell me the man's name.



> Just because you present the old family image, with the American flag, and apple pie nowadays to the unsuspecting public doesn't change where your foundational doctrine lies.............And Lies it does.



Im sure the American flag is what coverts people in Korea, Hong Kong, Africa, Peru, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Canada. 

And our foundational doctrine lies in the Testimony of the Apostles and Prophets that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was born of Mary in Bethlehem, preached in palestined for three years, called Apostles to teach the people organized a Church, and the was crucified for the sins of the world and rose on thie third day. Everything else is an appendage to that.



> You teach your members to take any and all anti-Mormonism as a sign of being in the truth, and don't bother to even check out the substance of the critiques.



Which, of course, is why you get floored every time you recite the same nonsense that has been refuted for decades. Because we dont even bother to check out the substance of the critiques. Do you know how I learned that the Gospel was true? It was because anti mormon arguments were so pathetic and wrong that I had to ask myself one question: "If they are correct, why do they have to lie to prove their points?" Needless to say that lead to more questions and those questions brought me before the Lord to learn from Him. Im grateful I did.



> Your a classic example of a cultist.  Cultists walk in lock step with their elders.  They fear castigation if they leave the fold, and in the case of Mormons, boy oh boy do they get castigated in communities where the majority populous is Mormon.



Yeah, that castigation is just so darn horrible. Im sure that's why starbucks does well in utah. Because those damn mormons just treat anyone who isnt lock step so badly.



> Your religion is a mish mash of occult, Christian, polytheistic, Masonic, mumbo jumbo..........



Accusastions are useless without substantiation. I dont know why this is so difficult.



> God is not a God of confusion nor complexity when it comes to communicating His will for His followers or those in whom He desires in His fold.  Mormonism has made a mess of the Christian message, polluting it with works-based salvation, denial of a hell for unbelievers that is biblical, teaching that marriage is perpetuated in heaven when Jesus flatly said there isn't, promoted the fleshly human pursuits to achieve godhood, when true Godhood is not achievable accept by God Himself.



No, you're right about one thing here. God is not a God of confusion. He didnt create 10000 different denominations all proclaiming Christ while disagreeing with doctrine and practice. As Paul stated:



> 2With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
> 
> 3 *Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit* in the bond of peace.
> 
> 4 There is *one* body, and *one* Spirit, even as ye are called in *one* hope of your calling;
> 
> 5 *One *Lord, *one *faith, *one* baptism,
> 
> 6 *One *God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
> 
> 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
> 
> 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
> 
> 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
> 
> 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
> 
> 11 And *he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; *
> 
> 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
> 
> 13 *Till we all come in the unity of the faith*, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
> 
> 14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
> 
> 15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Eph 4:2-15)



The Lord has given us Apostles and Prophets to unify the Saints. To keep them from being decieved. Where are your Apostles? Why do you reject the Apostles who the Lord sends?

As for the rest of your paragraph, youve been repeatedly corrected on the subject. It would be nice if you stop pretending that I am not saying anything.




> Smith's teachings fed into the worldly, lost, fallen Adamic nature of man, to ascend to godhood.  It has worked quite well indeed.  Satan is happy, God is grieved.
> 
> Mormonism is an anathema to God, and every true Christian.



Ive just demonstrated one post ago throughtou the scriptures that you claim to believe the clear teaching that we to become partakers of the Divine nature, we are to be joint heirs with Christ. We who recieve the word are gods and the scriptures _cannot be broken_.

If it's anathema to God to believe God and His Son whom He sent, then I dont think I want to be anything else.


----------



## Liability

BUMPING this thread because this thread just needs to be bumped every once in a while.


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> BUMPING this thread because this thread just needs to be bumped every once in a while.



Just like me telling you the truth, cause you need to hear it every once in a while.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUMPING this thread because this thread just needs to be bumped every once in a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like me telling you the truth, cause you need to hear it every once in a while.
Click to expand...


It *might* be "just like" that -- if only you would, for once, start telling the truth -- or even being marginally coherent.

Thanks for the bump.

This thread is great (despite your silly contributions to it) and it deserves repeated bumpage!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is as obvious as your proboscis between your eyes.
> 
> Smith absolutely fullfills the required statistics of a "false prophet".
> 
> These visions he had in N.Y. as a young man are just his own mental gymnastics.
> 
> Nowadays, he'd be committed to a mental hospital.
> 
> The bible provides all that mankind needs to have a relationship with God, through giving one's life to Christ as Savior and Lord.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is filled with plagarism from the King James of Smith's day, plus his wild, mentally touched and manipulative imagination.
> 
> The Christian world does not need Mormonism to enjoy a true relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  In fact the world doesn't need Mormonism at all, as it is a false religion, that leads many true Christians into uneffective lives that no longer glorify Christ and God Almighty.
> 
> Thank God, that Salvation is a secure and sealed relationship promised by God to all true regenerated believers, but Mormonism preys on the Christian that doesn't follow Roman's Chapter 12 admonishments to fill one's mind with the scriptures, in order to wash away the old ways of the fallen, and Adamic life.
> 
> Truthspeaker projects this handsome well dressed well poised image via his avatar.  No doubt he's very popular.  That doesn't mean anything in God's economy.  Smooth speech, good looks, persuasive personalities, don't make a Christian.  A Christian is who they are because God, has established the permanent, binding relationship between the person and Him,  via the avenue of His grace through the person's belief that Christ is the one and only Son of God, and He/Christ is the Alpha-Omega, Beginning and End, and is equal to, and is God in the Flesh.
> 
> The bible does not teach that there are progressions of God, nor that us earthlings are entitled to Godhood.  That is blasphemous, and brings God down from His majestic position of omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence.
> 
> Mormonism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Scientologists, Bahai', Moonies, appostles of Christ Church, Unitarianism, Unity Missouri, Hinduism, Islam, and on and on, are all manmade, and Satan instigated belief systems that attempt to counterfeit, true biblical Christianity.  It was ongoing when the early church of Acts was in it's infancy, and it is going strong now.  Why?  Cause the enemey of God, the Prince of this World, Lucifer, is alive and well, working overtime, with great brilliance to lead all whom he may from receiving Christ and joining God's kingdom.
> 
> Some manmade religions are subtle, and take a little here and there from the holy bible, to make themselves appear to be legitimate, others blantantly reject the bible, and the Christ as revealed there-in.
> 
> Mormonism has grown by leaps and bounds as it initially introduces potential converts to it's religion, by convincing Christians and those raised or knowledgeable of Christianity to some extent, and even those totally unknowledgeable about Christianity, by pushing the "family, love, community spirit, "we will come to your aid in hard times"" approach.  Who can resist that kind of approach; especially in these hard economic times?
> 
> Throughout the bible, it is emphasized that living here on earth is not an easy task, as man's fall in the Garden precipitated and resulted in a fallen world, that growns with labor pains for the coming of Christ to make this right again.
> 
> Mormonis offers Smith's humanistic answer to understanding and believing in God.  His teaching brings God down to a sinful, and fallen level, that stips God of His holiness, and omnipotent power to be the One and only answer to mankind's folly and woe.
> 
> White shirts and neckties does not make a true Christian, nor riding bicycles miles and miles facing one rejection after another from door to door, attempting to provide the answers to life to strangers at their doorsteps.  Those are all termed "dead works" in the bible.  Though Mormons try to reject this being pinned on them, they indeed are working hard at the task of being accepted by God through their deeds of community service, door to door proselytizing, clean living, clean clothes and clean cut haircuts.  God doesn't want the exterior of man cleaned-up, but wants to clean up the inner man, or man's soul.
> 
> Since the Fall of man, man's soul has been devoid of a spiritual relationship with God.  God knew that man would fall in the Garden and that this race starting from the loins of Adam would continue to multiply, continue to look for a reason for life and existence, but would fail miserably doing-so.  God had planned before even the creation of man to send His one and only Son, through immaculate conception of a young Godly virgin woman on earth as the "Perfect Man/human", devoid of the sin of the Fall, as He/Jesus bears no fleshly inheritance of Adam's ancestry.
> 
> Jesus is termed, the "new Adam" in the bible, and rightly so.  He is sinless, and His flesh is not fallen as it is not of Adam's heritage, but of God's as He/Jesus is God..........It is believed that the Priest, Melkisidek was an early incarnate appearance of Jesus in Abraham's presence as interestinglly, the bible gives no geneology for Melkisidek the priest.
> 
> The Mormon church has grabbed onto the Melkisidek priesthood, and used it as part of their rituals of attaining a greater step towards ultimate Godhood.  This is all again blasphemous, yet predictable, as it feeds into the inherent fallen nature of man to ascertain or attempt to achieve godliness via his own pititful design.
> 
> The Mormons church ultimately teaches that "works" are the only way to achieve godhood or be in the good graces of their god.  On the other hand, the bible teaches that Godhood is not man's need, as he/man is but made from dust, is finite in lifespan, and is not eternal except when God intervenes and places His eternal life into that finite human soul.
> 
> Mormons on the contrary, work their darndest to impress their Smith Jr. engendered god, lacking the true biblical knowlege of what God is, and what brings humanity into a lasting, eternal relationship with Him.
> 
> Simply put, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.".  Christ is uniquely, and clearly revealed as to His nature and purpose in the 1st chapter of the book written by John the Apostle, who outlived all the other Apostles.
> 
> The 1st chapter says:
> 
> 
> 
> It is written all over the bible...............Receive Him............Receive Him...............God abhor's most of man's works to impress Him as they are feeble attempts to assuage their god's fickle, and demanding personna.  That is the the bible God.
> 
> Remember Mormons, that Jesus is the representation of God, whom no man has seen.  God extended Himself to the ultimate to reveal His nature to this fallen race, whom He had originally created in His image.  By the way, "in His image" doesn't mean "in His Godhood".  It means that He/God created a race of beings that could respond to Him, and could reveal in their lives His life, as vessels of His.  Man was created to with a need for God, but not a need to be God.  That is blasphemous again, as God is endless, never being created, and pre-existing all creation.  Man is one of God's great creative works, as man was intended to bring glory to the un-Created One or the Creator of man.  God didn't make man because He was lonely, but created man to bring glory to Himself.  God deserves all glory, as all of creation exists because of Him, not despite Him, as cynics would spout.
> 
> Mormons are without excuse when introduced to the Truth of the bible; anymore than man in any part of the world, involved or non-involved in any religion.
> 
> God has made Himself very apparent even to the natives living in the Stone Age cultures of remote Islands and remote areas of continents.
> 
> Trees, mountains, stars, animals, the birth of a child..........all reveals a greater Power than ouirselves.  Romans chapter one says that we are without excuse as God has made if very, very, plain to all throught His creative genius that there is One greater than man.
> 
> Smith Jr. has attempted, and done so quite successfully, to bring God, down to a level of fleshly, fallen, Adamic man's level.  Smith Jr. cannot, and has not coped with the God of the bible.
> 
> Smith's con-life and sorry track record of life, has immediately disqualified him from the position of an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  Yet, Smith has gone further and made his disqualification more concrete through his blasphemous teachings and sermons that have recreated God into a mere fallible human that became a god through progressive good works as prescribed by the leaders of their religion.
> 
> There is no way that one can refute, clearly the Mormon's stance, as they have created a circular path of doctrine that attempts to avoid biblical mandates.   All things Mormon start with mere self-appointed apostle's teachings and come full-circle around to these false apostles for confirmation.
> 
> Secondly, the Mormon is taught that manifestations that confirm Mormonism as truth on the personal psychic level such as visions, dreams, etc.., are valid.  This again protects the average Mormon from questioning these experiential happenings in light of what the bible says.   God has nothing against the visions or dreams, but throughout the bible, these dreams/visions must be taken to the bible to make sure they are of God, and not of just manmade-manifested origin.
> 
> Avatar and Truthspeaker defend their visions and happenings that confirm that they are Christians, yet refuse to confirm these with the bible.  That is both deflection, and outright refusal to "test" their belief system against the Word Of GOD.  Bereans tested even Apostle Paul's letters and teachings their their early church by going to their scripture.  PAUL COMMENDED THEM!  Will a Mormon elder commend you, a Mormon church member, if you go to the bible to ultimately confirm yeah or nay, the teachings of Smith Jr., Young, or even one's visions, dreams or burning bosom experiences?
> 
> Satan is a wise and wylie character, and He has a multitude of fallen angels that 24/7 work overtime keeping the human race in bondage from seeking the truth of God.  Mormons don't see it that way.  Satan was merely a disenfranchised brother of Jesus, that lost out on being picked by their progressive god the father once a man from Lucifer to be the next savior of planet earth.
> 
> Folks when you take Mormon teaching from Smith and Young in total, it is so bazaar, and crazy, in  it's teacing.  How do perfectly rational, intelligent folks like Truthspeaker and Avatar etc... buy into this stuff?  It all goes back to the ultimate fall of man.  Just as man decided that he would ascertain or reach God through building the Tower of Babel, so the Mormon doctrine follows similarly, in building a false unbiblical road map for fallen man to ascertain, and even become a god.
> 
> Why do I lower case the "g" in the Mormon god?  Because the bible reserves the name "God" for "God" alone.; not a glorified man........nor a hard working sinner, who got granted godhood.
> ************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back 8-Ballsy. You are true to form in your repetition. You just couldn't stay aways could you. I knew you missed me. I've responded to every one of those things already and will simply copy and paste the articles of faith for all who care about what we really believe in.
> Articles of Faith 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't adequately answered any of my question past or present, and you know it to.   You are the king of deflection.  What I'd call a "good" Mormon.
Click to expand...


Round and round we go. Which questions, pray tell, have I dodged in 200 plus pages? I think all intelligent observers know that I've been all over every question


----------



## Skeptik

Explaining what Mormons believe is something that can be done on a forum quite easily.  Truthspeaker and Avatar have done a good job of that.

Trying to convert someone to those beliefs is quite another, and is most likely not possible on such a forum.

Now, the discussion has gone from the former to the latter.  Almost all of the counters to Truthspeaker's posts have, in fact, been of the "I don't believe it" type.

There are a ton of misconceptions about Mormons and what they believe.  A thread like this one should help to correct some of those misconceptions, but isn't going to convince anyone to accept LDS beliefs.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Explaining what Mormons believe is something that can be done on a forum quite easily.  Truthspeaker and Avatar have done a good job of that.
> 
> Trying to convert someone to those beliefs is quite another, and is most likely not possible on such a forum.
> 
> Now, the discussion has gone from the former to the latter.  Almost all of the counters to Truthspeaker's posts have, in fact, been of the "I don't believe it" type.
> 
> There are a ton of misconceptions about Mormons and what they believe.  A thread like this one should help to correct some of those misconceptions, but isn't going to convince anyone to accept LDS beliefs.



I'll second that......I don't know of anywhere where I actually told someone they need to join our church or where I said my church is better than others but if I did, then I'd like to know because that is off topic. I find it necessary to continue responding to 8-balls and Froggy's posts repetitively because they each keep claiming we believe something we don't believe. 
It is tempting sometimes to try and find the holes in their religion but I realize that is not conducive to the Spirit. I will not further the cause of ransacking someone elses religion. I will however tear down false perceptions of "Mormonism".


----------



## Liability

LONG overdue BUMPAGE!


----------



## froggy

Quit praising Joey and give god the glory. Joey led you astray god will bring you back. Attend a real church this sunday and get back on the road to glory.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Quit praising Joey and give god the glory. Joey led you astray god will bring you back. Attend a real church this sunday and get back on the road to glory.



You do realize that simply because you dont disagree with a Church or it's doctrines doesn't make it any less real. It's still there. You can still walk in the building. You can still meet with the congregation. It's not going away simply because you making the ridiculous claim that it's not real.

Acknowledging God's servants does not take any glory away from God. "Joey" as you call him has testified and preached Jesus Christ. He has taught the redemption of the Son of God. The great Plan of Happiness designed with Christ as it's very center. Are you suggesting that I shouldnt serve Christ, I shouldnt testify of Christ, I shouldnt speak of Christ, teach of Christ, Pattern my life after Christ, etc, simply because Joseph Smith taught that I should?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit praising Joey and give god the glory. Joey led you astray god will bring you back. Attend a real church this sunday and get back on the road to glory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that simply because you dont disagree with a Church or it's doctrines doesn't make it any less real. It's still there. You can still walk in the building. You can still meet with the congregation. It's not going away simply because you making the ridiculous claim that it's not real.
> 
> Acknowledging God's servants does not take any glory away from God. "Joey" as you call him has testified and preached Jesus Christ. He has taught the redemption of the Son of God. The great Plan of Happiness designed with Christ as it's very center. Are you suggesting that I shouldnt serve Christ, I shouldnt testify of Christ, I shouldnt speak of Christ, teach of Christ, Pattern my life after Christ, etc, simply because Joseph Smith taught that I should?
Click to expand...


if you really want to you'll find it.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> if you really want to you'll find it.



Find what? what on earth are you talking about? How does that even pretend to answer the question I just asked?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Joseph Smith led a life of sinful indulgence with the female sex.  He broke his wife's heart.  He paid for his behavior at Carthage jail.  Choices have consequences, and Smith paid his.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you really want to you'll find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find what? what on earth are you talking about? How does that even pretend to answer the question I just asked?
Click to expand...


Joey did it for his own glory not for god an that make him a false prophet why cant you understand that. it will go away when people like you quit supporting false prophets.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you really want to you'll find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Find what? what on earth are you talking about? How does that even pretend to answer the question I just asked?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joey did it for his own glory not for god an that make him a false prophet why cant you understand that. it will go away when people like you quit supporting false prophets.
Click to expand...


You really dont have a clue what anyone is saying do you?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Find what? what on earth are you talking about? How does that even pretend to answer the question I just asked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joey did it for his own glory not for god an that make him a false prophet why cant you understand that. it will go away when people like you quit supporting false prophets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really dont have a clue what anyone is saying do you?
Click to expand...


it's true you've been brainwashed, poor you.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Joseph Smith led a life of sinful indulgence with the female sex.  He broke his wife's heart.  He paid for his behavior at Carthage jail.  Choices have consequences, and Smith paid his.



Claim it all you want, cant prove it at all.

And please cite references to any mobs killing people who lead life of sinful indulgences. The consequences of such a lifestyle are illegitimate children, disease, inability to have lasting relationships etc. Joseph has none of those. He was murdered by a mob because he had the audacity to say that He saw God and that God speaks to men. You apparently think he got what he deserved.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith led a life of sinful indulgence with the female sex.  He broke his wife's heart.  He paid for his behavior at Carthage jail.  Choices have consequences, and Smith paid his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim it all you want, cant prove it at all.
> 
> And please cite references to any mobs killing people who lead life of sinful indulgences. The consequences of such a lifestyle are illegitimate children, disease, inability to have lasting relationships etc. Joseph has none of those. He was murdered by a mob because he had the audacity to say that He saw God and that God speaks to men. You apparently think he got what he deserved.
Click to expand...


just open your eyes, its plain to see. he didn't see god it was all a LIE, HE LIED about it all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith led a life of sinful indulgence with the female sex.  He broke his wife's heart.  He paid for his behavior at Carthage jail.  Choices have consequences, and Smith paid his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim it all you want, cant prove it at all.
> 
> And please cite references to any mobs killing people who lead life of sinful indulgences. The consequences of such a lifestyle are illegitimate children, disease, inability to have lasting relationships etc. Joseph has none of those. He was murdered by a mob because he had the audacity to say that He saw God and that God speaks to men. You apparently think he got what he deserved.
Click to expand...


Foolish, foolish Avatar.  Yes, JS's immoral and self-indulgent lifestyle has been documented clearly and convincingly many, many times, not only by non-LDS but also by LDS temple-going historians.  You better read Bushman and Compton.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Joseph Smith did not lead an indulgent lifestyle. It is merely the opinion of anyone who "documented" so. It will always be a fruitless argument.
It is also irrelevant if he sinned, which we all know he did. Does that make us better than him? No. God has always had sinners as prophets. He has chastened them whenever they have sinned and called them to repentance which they all did. The sins of a prophet cannot denunciate the good he has done and taught. That's what it means to be "imperfect". Imperfect means that there is at least one thing that EVERYONE does that is repulsive in the sight of God? Why should Joseph be any different?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Foolish, foolish Avatar.  Yes, JS's immoral and self-indulgent lifestyle has been documented clearly and convincingly many, many times, not only by non-LDS but also by LDS temple-going historians.  You better read Bushman and Compton.



We clearly have very different definitions of immoral and self-indulgent. And you should know by now that just because you make a claim doesnt mean you can support your position or that i am obligated to accept it because you claim it.

I also cant help but noticed that you didnt deny the fact that you think it was quite reasonable for the mob to murder him. Immoral and self indulgent people dont get murdered by mobs. They get reality shows.


----------



## froggy

I think avatar1234 and truthspeaker are descendants of old joey. Brain dead to reality


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith led a life of sinful indulgence with the female sex.  He broke his wife's heart.  He paid for his behavior at Carthage jail.  Choices have consequences, and Smith paid his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claim it all you want, cant prove it at all.
> 
> And please cite references to any mobs killing people who lead life of sinful indulgences. The consequences of such a lifestyle are illegitimate children, disease, inability to have lasting relationships etc. Joseph has none of those. He was murdered by a mob because he had the audacity to say that He saw God and that God speaks to men. You apparently think he got what he deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foolish, foolish Avatar.  Yes, JS's immoral and self-indulgent lifestyle has been documented clearly and convincingly many, many times, not only by non-LDS but also by LDS temple-going historians.  You better read Bushman and Compton.
Click to expand...


Excellent example of one of  the myths I mentioned earlier.  There are way too many, and some people actually believe them.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Joseph Smith did not lead an indulgent lifestyle. It is merely the opinion of anyone who "documented" so. It will always be a fruitless argument.
> It is also irrelevant if he sinned, which we all know he did. Does that make us better than him? No. God has always had sinners as prophets. He has chastened them whenever they have sinned and called them to repentance which they all did. The sins of a prophet cannot denunciate the good he has done and taught. That's what it means to be "imperfect". Imperfect means that there is at least one thing that EVERYONE does that is repulsive in the sight of God? Why should Joseph be any different?



Did a vision from God tell you that Joseph Smith Jr. was not indulgent?  What authority revealed to you that J.S. jr. was an upstanding individual?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Did a vision from God tell you that Joseph Smith Jr. was not indulgent?  What authority revealed to you that J.S. jr. was an upstanding individual?



Actual Eye witness accounts. The continuous fact that he was always found innocent of any accusation made in a court of law. The fact that your side needs to fabricate evidence in order to support your position. 

Nothing important.

And for the record, Id rather have an imperfect sinner as a prophet than have no prophet at all. After all, its not like Christ has lots of perfect individuals to work with.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Did a vision from God tell you that Joseph Smith Jr. was not indulgent?


It was not a vision that informed me.



> What authority revealed to you that J.S. jr. was an upstanding individual?



It was through the Holy Ghost that I obtained a knowledge of the calling of Joseph. Here's how I got my answer:
1. I decided that I _*WANTED*_ to know if he was a true prophet or a false one.

2. I decided to act on my desire and study the man's life in great and minuscule detail. Including the negative stories about him from all sources. 

3. I weighed the information in my mind and considered the pro's and con's of his life.

4. After studying it all out in my mind I leant heavily towards the impression that he was a great man of action and words; But I still didn't know for sure that he was a prophet.

5. I decided to fast and pray to my Maker on the subject and during this fast I was answered with a voice that entered my head which was clearly not my own. This voice told me in plain English. "Joseph Smith is a prophet of the Most High."

That is my personal experience and I'm glad you asked it.

My life has been so much simpler since that day. I was 17 years old.


----------



## GEORGE ORWELL

*A puzzling question is, what would American Foreign Policy be if  USA had become totally Mormonized? Would Jewish lobby groups be able to twist the arms as easily as they have done with the Evangelical-Pentecostals who were the main Christian groups supporting Junior Bush and his Mass Destructive Weapons? Would ''Israel'' as a nation be? If so, would it had swiftly died as perhaps no American huge aid would be given it? Furthermore, would it not have brought the glory of Jews in Palestine and its geographic sanctity to a low level, now when the American continent would become something much more interesting to consider? Would USA's language have been English? Why not Hebrew, or German, or some Scandinavian language? The language was already decided upon, but it could have been changed. The Mormons are without a doubt in my opinion the most fantastic and interesting religious group to study. They seem to have everything. And they asked questions that boggled the minds of European theologians as they did missionary work in Europe. There were thousands of articles written against the ''menace of Mormonism'' and for those who can read Danish, Norwegian, Finish, Swedish, and German, they are a real eye-opener. They simply gave the traditional Lutheran Church a KO and may have contributed to their authoritarian decline.*


----------



## Avatar4321

What would America Foreign policy look like? good question. I dont have a clue. I am sure Israel would still be a nation. In what form? What kind of support? Dont have a clue.

Im not sure we have everything. Not even sure what you mean by that.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I know several Mormons, some very well.  Lovely people to a person.  That's all I need to know.


----------



## Liability

Soggy, for the love of humanity, please give some thought to changing that avie.

That said, thank you for your thread bump.

The Mormon thread deserves regular bumpage.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LDS historians document that JS led a sexually indulgent life.  What Avatar or Truth think it about is whatever they think about it, and unimportant.  Smith was a womanizer, an indulger in female flesh, some of it very young.  No way around the truth.  Did that disqualify him as a prophet?  Only God knows.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> LDS historians document that JS led a sexually indulgent life.  What Avatar or Truth think it about is whatever they think about it, and unimportant.  Smith was a womanizer, an indulger in female flesh, some of it very young.  No way around the truth.  Did that disqualify him as a prophet?  Only God knows.



Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.                                                                                                                   Thou shalt not commit adultry.


----------



## Liability

As you Judge, so shall you BE Judged.

Anyway, good day to the posters of good will!


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Did a vision from God tell you that Joseph Smith Jr. was not indulgent?
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a vision that informed me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What authority revealed to you that J.S. jr. was an upstanding individual?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was through the Holy Ghost that I obtained a knowledge of the calling of Joseph. Here's how I got my answer:
> 1. I decided that I _*WANTED*_ to know if he was a true prophet or a false one.
> 
> 2. I decided to act on my desire and study the man's life in great and minuscule detail. Including the negative stories about him from all sources.
> 
> 3. I weighed the information in my mind and considered the pro's and con's of his life.
> 
> 4. After studying it all out in my mind I leant heavily towards the impression that he was a great man of action and words; But I still didn't know for sure that he was a prophet.
> 
> 5. I decided to fast and pray to my Maker on the subject and during this fast I was answered with a voice that entered my head which was clearly not my own. This voice told me in plain English. "Joseph Smith is a prophet of the Most High."
> 
> That is my personal experience and I'm glad you asked it.
> 
> My life has been so much simpler since that day. I was 17 years old.
Click to expand...




> It was through the Holy Ghost that I obtained a knowledge of the calling of Joseph. Here's how I got my answer:



Above is your weak link, and your downfalling.

You don't know if it was the Holy Spirit, you just think or hope it's the Holy Spirit that revealed to you that J.S. Jr. is a "sound","godly" person.

Paul explicitly says, as well as the other biblical Apostles, that scripture is the "Final" judge.  Human beings have been receiving messages, visions, dreams since their creation, but the Word of God is the final Source to determine the validity and source of these messages.

So, let's go to the bible scriptures and put J.S. Jr.'s life in total under the magnifying glass of God's Word.  He/ Joseph Smith fails miserably.  Therefore, your alleged Holy Spirit confirmation is false, as the Word of God has revealed.  

The Mormon church stands and falls on biblically unconfirmed messages to it's individual members.  They refuse to go to the Word of God/bible to "judge" with finality their alleged messages from their god.

Start with a false premise; build a religion upon it, and what do you have.......................?  A few Mormons have the courage to face this crossroad, and are able to break away, and find true salvation, peace that is based on God's written Word.


----------



## Christopher

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did a vision from God tell you that Joseph Smith Jr. was not indulgent?
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a vision that informed me.
> 
> 
> 
> It was through the Holy Ghost that I obtained a knowledge of the calling of Joseph. Here's how I got my answer:
> 1. I decided that I _*WANTED*_ to know if he was a true prophet or a false one.
> 
> 2. I decided to act on my desire and study the man's life in great and minuscule detail. Including the negative stories about him from all sources.
> 
> 3. I weighed the information in my mind and considered the pro's and con's of his life.
> 
> 4. After studying it all out in my mind I leant heavily towards the impression that he was a great man of action and words; But I still didn't know for sure that he was a prophet.
> 
> 5. I decided to fast and pray to my Maker on the subject and during this fast I was answered with a voice that entered my head which was clearly not my own. This voice told me in plain English. "Joseph Smith is a prophet of the Most High."
> 
> That is my personal experience and I'm glad you asked it.
> 
> My life has been so much simpler since that day. I was 17 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was through the Holy Ghost that I obtained a knowledge of the calling of Joseph. Here's how I got my answer:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Above is your weak link, and your downfalling.
> 
> You don't know if it was the Holy Spirit, you just think or hope it's the Holy Spirit that revealed to you that J.S. Jr. is a "sound","godly" person.
> 
> Paul explicitly says, as well as the other biblical Apostles, that scripture is the "Final" judge.  Human beings have been receiving messages, visions, dreams since their creation, but the Word of God is the final Source to determine the validity and source of these messages.
> 
> So, let's go to the bible scriptures and put J.S. Jr.'s life in total under the magnifying glass of God's Word.  He/ Joseph Smith fails miserably.  Therefore, your alleged Holy Spirit confirmation is false, as the Word of God has revealed.
> 
> The Mormon church stands and falls on biblically unconfirmed messages to it's individual members.  They refuse to go to the Word of God/bible to "judge" with finality their alleged messages from their god.
> 
> Start with a false premise; build a religion upon it, and what do you have.......................?  A few Mormons have the courage to face this crossroad, and are able to break away, and find true salvation, peace that is based on God's written Word.
Click to expand...


Here is what the Word of God has revealed from 1 Corinthians Chapter 2:



> 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
> 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.



How is it that you have come to know the things of God, if you do not believe the Bible when it says that the Holy Spirit is the only way to know the things of God?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> LDS historians document that JS led a sexually indulgent life.  What Avatar or Truth think it about is whatever they think about it, and unimportant.  Smith was a womanizer, an indulger in female flesh, some of it very young.  No way around the truth.  Did that disqualify him as a prophet?  Only God knows.



Official Lds source please? Or even whatever source you care to share?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> LDS historians document that JS led a sexually indulgent life.  What Avatar or Truth think it about is whatever they think about it, and unimportant.  Smith was a womanizer, an indulger in female flesh, some of it very young.  No way around the truth.  Did that disqualify him as a prophet?  Only God knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.                                                                                                                   Thou shalt not commit adultry.
Click to expand...


I promise I do not covet ANY man's ass.


----------



## Truthspeaker

GEORGE ORWELL said:


> *A puzzling question is, what would American Foreign Policy be if  USA had become totally Mormonized? Would Jewish lobby groups be able to twist the arms as easily as they have done with the Evangelical-Pentecostals who were the main Christian groups supporting Junior Bush and his Mass Destructive Weapons? Would ''Israel'' as a nation be? If so, would it had swiftly died as perhaps no American huge aid would be given it? Furthermore, would it not have brought the glory of Jews in Palestine and its geographic sanctity to a low level, now when the American continent would become something much more interesting to consider? Would USA's language have been English? Why not Hebrew, or German, or some Scandinavian language? The language was already decided upon, but it could have been changed. The Mormons are without a doubt in my opinion the most fantastic and interesting religious group to study. They seem to have everything. And they asked questions that boggled the minds of European theologians as they did missionary work in Europe. There were thousands of articles written against the ''menace of Mormonism'' and for those who can read Danish, Norwegian, Finish, Swedish, and German, they are a real eye-opener. They simply gave the traditional Lutheran Church a KO and may have contributed to their authoritarian decline.*



Thanks for the compliment I guess. But I'm afraid you don't realize how fond we are of the Jews. We are far and away their best friends on this planet. They'd be in pretty fine shape if we were in power. We feel inseparably connected to them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Soggy, for the love of humanity, please give some thought to changing that avie.
> 
> That said, thank you for your thread bump.
> 
> The Mormon thread deserves regular bumpage.



It is pretty heinous.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Thank you for your opinion. I'm not interested in trying to prove to you what I know in my heart. I really don't care if you believe me or not. We've debated enough and you have your conclusions and I have mine. It is pointless to argue with you. Would you like to contribute by asking some questions you don't have answers to yet?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Thank you for your opinion. I'm not interested in trying to prove to you what I know in my heart. I really don't care if you believe me or not. We've debated enough and you have your conclusions and I have mine. It is pointless to argue with you. Would you like to contribute by asking some questions you don't have answers to yet?



What was joey first occupation?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your opinion. I'm not interested in trying to prove to you what I know in my heart. I really don't care if you believe me or not. We've debated enough and you have your conclusions and I have mine. It is pointless to argue with you. Would you like to contribute by asking some questions you don't have answers to yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was joey first occupation?
Click to expand...


Farming


----------



## JakeStarkey

Come on, guys, let's be open here.

What froggy wants to talk about is treasure digging, magic spirits, amulets of power, seer stones, etc.

What both of you are missing is that Americans overwhelmingly believed in folk magic during the 2nd Great Awakening.  Shoot, we have palm readers and fortune tellers and power preachers in my home town today.

None of this is new, guys.  Come out front with what you have to say about JS and folk magic.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Come on, guys, let's be open here.
> 
> What froggy wants to talk about is treasure digging, magic spirits, amulets of power, seer stones, etc.
> 
> What both of you are missing is that Americans overwhelmingly believed in folk magic during the 2nd Great Awakening.  Shoot, we have palm readers and fortune tellers and power preachers in my home town today.
> 
> None of this is new, guys.  Come out front with what you have to say about JS and folk magic.



If that's what froggy wants to talk about, he needs to be more specific. As i doubt froggy really wants to talk about anything, I will try to answer his questions. But im not expecting alot of discussion. So I dont really see a point putting tons of effort into a response when one word will accurately sum everything up.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your opinion. I'm not interested in trying to prove to you what I know in my heart. I really don't care if you believe me or not. We've debated enough and you have your conclusions and I have mine. It is pointless to argue with you. Would you like to contribute by asking some questions you don't have answers to yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was joey first occupation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Farming
Click to expand...


Thats what he did as a chore for his sharecropper daddy. What was his paid job?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321, you know I don't care about Mormonism one way or another until someone makes the statement, "The one true gospel" and blah and blah.  But if it makes you happy and makes you a better human being, may God's blessings show down on you and yours.  Having said that, I do find the theme of American folk magic and folk religion before the Civil War to be a fascinating subject.  Mormonism certainly had its influences from it, and that means, then, it was no different than other American denominations and sectarian groups in terms of such influences.

I do have a question, and there is no trap in it all, I promise you.  What do _you _think about seer stones and treasure digging and Joseph Smith?  I am not going to jump one way or another.  I am simply curious about what you think.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Thank you for your opinion. I'm not interested in trying to prove to you what I know in my heart. I really don't care if you believe me or not. We've debated enough and you have your conclusions and I have mine. It is pointless to argue with you. Would you like to contribute by asking some questions you don't have answers to yet?



Problem is; your arguments or disagreements/differences, are in reality not with individuals on this forum but with the Word of God, the bible. 

This "In my heart" stuff is exactly what gets people into trouble.  First of all you have a set fleshly agenda within you that comes from the Adamic fall in the Garden, secondly, you apply that Fleshly mind condition towards formulating how you "want" God to be.  J.S. jr. was not a born again person as Jesus described/explained in the Word of God/bible.  Instead, J.S. Jr. created his own gospel, that best suited his worldly, sinful condition.  

Mormonism is Satan's "soft ball", replacement for God's "hard ball" truth found in His Word.  Mormonism has to deride the Word of God, and say it's not good enough without............thus and thus  or they have no belief system at all.

Truth/Avatar.... your fight is not with individual bible Christians but with God.  You have bought into the manmade gospel of a surely character named J.S. jr..  

You base your personal beliefs not on the finality of God's Word, but on experiential type encounters, that totally go against the Word of God.  Your verification used is elders or fellow church members rather than the inspired Word of God.


----------



## Liability

Weekend Mormon thread BUMPAGE!


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Problem is; your arguments or disagreements/differences, are in reality not with individuals on this forum but with the Word of God, the bible.



Which, of course, is an absolute lie because we believe the Bible. We just reject your incorrect interpretations of it. That is why we accept the very clear doctrines of the premortal life, Condescension of God, Deification of man, and the work on behalf of the dead.



> This "In my heart" stuff is exactly what gets people into trouble.  First of all you have a set fleshly agenda within you that comes from the Adamic fall in the Garden, secondly, you apply that Fleshly mind condition towards formulating how you "want" God to be.  J.S. jr. was not a born again person as Jesus described/explained in the Word of God/bible.  Instead, J.S. Jr. created his own gospel, that best suited his worldly, sinful condition.



The whole point of the Atonement is so we can become like God. So we can be joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has. The Bible is clear in this and you still continue to pretend as if its foreign to the scriptures.




> Mormonism is Satan's "soft ball", replacement for God's "hard ball" truth found in His Word.  Mormonism has to deride the Word of God, and say it's not good enough without............thus and thus  or they have no belief system at all.



Satan wants people to believe in Christ? now that's a shocker to me. Satan is going to provide more evidence that Jesus Christ is the Savior? Satan is encouraging people to repent and come to Christ? Seriously, Satan must be pretty stupid according to you.



> Truth/Avatar.... your fight is not with individual bible Christians but with God.  You have bought into the manmade gospel of a surely character named J.S. jr..



I have no problem with God. I talk with Him frequently. But according to you I have to ignore what He says if its not in line with your personal interpretation of the Bible. That's where we have a problem. Because who should I believe, you or the Holy Spirit?

You dont understand the Holy Spirit. And that's alright. Not everyone does. But you wont learn from Him to find out because what if He teaches you that something youve incorrectly understood is wrong! Rather then let go of the pride, and accept more of the Word of God, you would rather cling onto your own understanding.



> You base your personal beliefs not on the finality of God's Word, but on experiential type encounters, that totally go against the Word of God.  Your verification used is elders or fellow church members rather than the inspired Word of God.



No, I base my personal beliefs on the Holy Spirit. Like all disciples of Christ have done in every age of man. The same source that inspired the Scriptures you claim to follow. The same source teaches men what the scriptures mean.

Christ didnt tell the Apostles to wait until they had the scriptures before they preached after his Ascension. He told them to wait for the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost would teach them all things. It's the Holy Ghost that gives us the ability to preach with power. It's the Holy Ghost that sanctifies us.  

Why are you so determined to ignore Him?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is; your arguments or disagreements/differences, are in reality not with individuals on this forum but with the Word of God, the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is an absolute lie because we believe the Bible. We just reject your incorrect interpretations of it. That is why we accept the very clear doctrines of the premortal life, Condescension of God, Deification of man, and the work on behalf of the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This "In my heart" stuff is exactly what gets people into trouble.  First of all you have a set fleshly agenda within you that comes from the Adamic fall in the Garden, secondly, you apply that Fleshly mind condition towards formulating how you "want" God to be.  J.S. jr. was not a born again person as Jesus described/explained in the Word of God/bible.  Instead, J.S. Jr. created his own gospel, that best suited his worldly, sinful condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Atonement is so we can become like God. So we can be joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has. The Bible is clear in this and you still continue to pretend as if its foreign to the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan wants people to believe in Christ? now that's a shocker to me. Satan is going to provide more evidence that Jesus Christ is the Savior? Satan is encouraging people to repent and come to Christ? Seriously, Satan must be pretty stupid according to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth/Avatar.... your fight is not with individual bible Christians but with God.  You have bought into the manmade gospel of a surely character named J.S. jr..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with God. I talk with Him frequently. But according to you I have to ignore what He says if its not in line with your personal interpretation of the Bible. That's where we have a problem. Because who should I believe, you or the Holy Spirit?
> 
> You dont understand the Holy Spirit. And that's alright. Not everyone does. But you wont learn from Him to find out because what if He teaches you that something youve incorrectly understood is wrong! Rather then let go of the pride, and accept more of the Word of God, you would rather cling onto your own understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You base your personal beliefs not on the finality of God's Word, but on experiential type encounters, that totally go against the Word of God.  Your verification used is elders or fellow church members rather than the inspired Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I base my personal beliefs on the Holy Spirit. Like all disciples of Christ have done in every age of man. The same source that inspired the Scriptures you claim to follow. The same source teaches men what the scriptures mean.
> 
> Christ didnt tell the Apostles to wait until they had the scriptures before they preached after his Ascension. He told them to wait for the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost would teach them all things. It's the Holy Ghost that gives us the ability to preach with power. It's the Holy Ghost that sanctifies us.
> 
> Why are you so determined to ignore Him?
Click to expand...


Do you believe the lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay your sins debt?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Do you believe the lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay your sins debt?



Yeah. If you read the Book of Mormon, you'd know this.


----------



## Skeptik

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is; your arguments or disagreements/differences, are in reality not with individuals on this forum but with the Word of God, the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is an absolute lie because we believe the Bible. We just reject your incorrect interpretations of it. That is why we accept the very clear doctrines of the premortal life, Condescension of God, Deification of man, and the work on behalf of the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Atonement is so we can become like God. So we can be joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has. The Bible is clear in this and you still continue to pretend as if its foreign to the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan wants people to believe in Christ? now that's a shocker to me. Satan is going to provide more evidence that Jesus Christ is the Savior? Satan is encouraging people to repent and come to Christ? Seriously, Satan must be pretty stupid according to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with God. I talk with Him frequently. But according to you I have to ignore what He says if its not in line with your personal interpretation of the Bible. That's where we have a problem. Because who should I believe, you or the Holy Spirit?
> 
> You dont understand the Holy Spirit. And that's alright. Not everyone does. But you wont learn from Him to find out because what if He teaches you that something youve incorrectly understood is wrong! Rather then let go of the pride, and accept more of the Word of God, you would rather cling onto your own understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You base your personal beliefs not on the finality of God's Word, but on experiential type encounters, that totally go against the Word of God.  Your verification used is elders or fellow church members rather than the inspired Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I base my personal beliefs on the Holy Spirit. Like all disciples of Christ have done in every age of man. The same source that inspired the Scriptures you claim to follow. The same source teaches men what the scriptures mean.
> 
> Christ didnt tell the Apostles to wait until they had the scriptures before they preached after his Ascension. He told them to wait for the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost would teach them all things. It's the Holy Ghost that gives us the ability to preach with power. It's the Holy Ghost that sanctifies us.
> 
> Why are you so determined to ignore Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe the lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay your sins debt?
Click to expand...


It actually takes very little research to confirm that Mormons believe this:

Third Article of Faith:



> We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is; your arguments or disagreements/differences, are in reality not with individuals on this forum but with the Word of God, the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is an absolute lie because we believe the Bible. We just reject your incorrect interpretations of it. That is why we accept the very clear doctrines of the premortal life, Condescension of God, Deification of man, and the work on behalf of the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This "In my heart" stuff is exactly what gets people into trouble.  First of all you have a set fleshly agenda within you that comes from the Adamic fall in the Garden, secondly, you apply that Fleshly mind condition towards formulating how you "want" God to be.  J.S. jr. was not a born again person as Jesus described/explained in the Word of God/bible.  Instead, J.S. Jr. created his own gospel, that best suited his worldly, sinful condition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Atonement is so we can become like God. So we can be joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has. The Bible is clear in this and you still continue to pretend as if its foreign to the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan wants people to believe in Christ? now that's a shocker to me. Satan is going to provide more evidence that Jesus Christ is the Savior? Satan is encouraging people to repent and come to Christ? Seriously, Satan must be pretty stupid according to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth/Avatar.... your fight is not with individual bible Christians but with God.  You have bought into the manmade gospel of a surely character named J.S. jr..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with God. I talk with Him frequently. But according to you I have to ignore what He says if its not in line with your personal interpretation of the Bible. That's where we have a problem. Because who should I believe, you or the Holy Spirit?
> 
> You dont understand the Holy Spirit. And that's alright. Not everyone does. But you wont learn from Him to find out because what if He teaches you that something youve incorrectly understood is wrong! Rather then let go of the pride, and accept more of the Word of God, you would rather cling onto your own understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You base your personal beliefs not on the finality of God's Word, but on experiential type encounters, that totally go against the Word of God.  Your verification used is elders or fellow church members rather than the inspired Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I base my personal beliefs on the Holy Spirit. Like all disciples of Christ have done in every age of man. The same source that inspired the Scriptures you claim to follow. The same source teaches men what the scriptures mean.
> 
> Christ didnt tell the Apostles to wait until they had the scriptures before they preached after his Ascension. He told them to wait for the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost would teach them all things. It's the Holy Ghost that gives us the ability to preach with power. It's the Holy Ghost that sanctifies us.
> 
> Why are you so determined to ignore Him?
Click to expand...


Again you've backed yourself into a perverbial corner.  First of all, your Mormon jesus, is only biblical to the extent that your prophets say that the bible is correct.  You know that for a fact.

This is where you take a right turn from the biblical Jesus, and turn Him into mere man who became glorified like any of you good Mormons may also become.  I.E........You believe in a progression of gods, saviors, Adams and Eves for a myriad of never ending new planets, Earth just being one of those myriads.  I.E.  your Mormon jesus is not unique, as in God, Creator, one with God the Father, in purpose, character, and the "only" Son of God.  No where in the bible does it teach that Jesus had a bro, named Lucifer.  That is a big fat, bold faced lie, spoken by your prophets.  In the bible/Word of God, Lucifer is an angel, who created, where Jesus is not created, but took on human flesh  within Mary's womb.  He once sat at the right hand of God, and committed Himself to the Father's plan of salvation, and allowed Himself to be incarnated in the flesh, starting out as a baby, then growing up to the ripe age of 33, and letting Adamic man crucify Him for Adamic man's sins.

You Mormons do not accept Jesus as the one and only Son of God, who is the Word, and the Word became flesh, and the Word was with God, and is God.(John Chapter one).  Instead your jesus is again just a good man that lived a good god-obedient life, and was given godhood because of that.  Instead God says in the bible, "My ways are not your ways"  Also He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  That means "pre-existent"..........I.E.  No beginning to His life, and no end.  Not the Mormon Jesus/god.........He was a created being, and reached godhood through works.  

The biblical God says that we reach salvation through faith in Jesus' atoning work, that replaced us on the cross.  Not only did He die for the sins of those who would believe in Him and receive eternal life in total communion with God Almight, but He died for the whole world.  Sadly not the whole world will bend a knee and cry out "You are Lord of everything, and that includes my life, Jesus!".

Instead your religion or belief system builds it's foundation of "truth" upon fuzziness or subjective experiential, visions, burning bosoms, dreams, etc...  

Mormons at the door are always telling potential converts, to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the "way" or "truth".  Right there the red flag goes up.  All knowledgeable bible Christians know that the Truth of God is not by prayer confirmation, but through the written, protected Word, that has not changed for the thousands of years that it has been passed on or translated/copied myriads of times till nowadays.  God is omnipotent, and that is an anathema to the Mormon doctrine.  Why?  Cause if God is all omnipotent, then that means when He inspired both O.T. and N.T. authors, He/God in His almight omnipotence could and did protect the accuracy of His gospel throughout the ages down to now.  The Mormon doctrine stands upon non bible authenticated communique's hopefully from God, but they/Mormon refuse to question the source, *cause their heart confirms it.*  God says that the human heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful.......I.E.  it can't be trusted.  That's why He/God omnipotently protected through eons of time His inspired Word so that we can believe, and receive the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Jesus, and total communion with God.  We are  restored back to that Eden era where we and God have a Spiritual tie, that can't be broken.

The Mormon god, Mormon Jesus, and Mormon holy spirit, are not biblical.  

The Holy Spirit was promised to us by the soon ascending Christ to His disciples and all who would believe in Him/Christ as Lord and Savior in the future.  It was referred to the Might Counselor, that would lead men/women ways that would allow them to discern the scriptures, that were Spiritual in origin.

This is why unsaved man cannot discern the power, and presence of God in the bible.  Without the Holy Spirit indwelling and having control over that person's soul, the bible is just a story book of history in the Middle East.

The BOM cannot be Spiritually discerned, nor does it feed the true Christian, as it has come from the fleshly imagination and plagarism of a very lost man.

So many cults have popped up over the years because an individual attending a church got treated badly, or felt neglected in some way, and decided that they would find God their way.  This is when they become "fresh meat" for Satan's deceptions.  There is but one Gospel, and doesn't need renewing, nor does it have gaps in it that need filling-in.  That is all the signs of a cultic, and Satanic counterfeit.
********
True Christians ultimately must test all things with God's Word.  That goes for visions, audible messages, teachings, sermons, dreams, and any phenomena that claims to be of divine origin.  If those phenomena fail the test of God's Word, then they must be refused by that believer.  Otherwise that Christian will end up mislead, and gradually drift away from God's will.  

Mormons test their visions by sharing them with another Mormon who in turn has also had confirmation via some subjective way, who in turn confirms it with another Mormon.  It is all man-confirmed and not God-confirmed.
*********


----------



## froggy

Skeptik said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is an absolute lie because we believe the Bible. We just reject your incorrect interpretations of it. That is why we accept the very clear doctrines of the premortal life, Condescension of God, Deification of man, and the work on behalf of the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Atonement is so we can become like God. So we can be joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has. The Bible is clear in this and you still continue to pretend as if its foreign to the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan wants people to believe in Christ? now that's a shocker to me. Satan is going to provide more evidence that Jesus Christ is the Savior? Satan is encouraging people to repent and come to Christ? Seriously, Satan must be pretty stupid according to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with God. I talk with Him frequently. But according to you I have to ignore what He says if its not in line with your personal interpretation of the Bible. That's where we have a problem. Because who should I believe, you or the Holy Spirit?
> 
> You dont understand the Holy Spirit. And that's alright. Not everyone does. But you wont learn from Him to find out because what if He teaches you that something youve incorrectly understood is wrong! Rather then let go of the pride, and accept more of the Word of God, you would rather cling onto your own understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I base my personal beliefs on the Holy Spirit. Like all disciples of Christ have done in every age of man. The same source that inspired the Scriptures you claim to follow. The same source teaches men what the scriptures mean.
> 
> Christ didnt tell the Apostles to wait until they had the scriptures before they preached after his Ascension. He told them to wait for the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost would teach them all things. It's the Holy Ghost that gives us the ability to preach with power. It's the Holy Ghost that sanctifies us.
> 
> Why are you so determined to ignore Him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay your sins debt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It actually takes very little research to confirm that Mormons believe this:
> 
> Third Article of Faith:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Dodsging the questions again, direct answer yes you do, or no you don,t, no in betweens.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Again you've backed yourself into a perverbial corner.  First of all, your Mormon jesus, is only biblical to the extent that your prophets say that the bible is correct.  You know that for a fact.



There is no corner. You know that we believe the Bible to be the word of God. We simply disagree with the very unbiblical idea that the Bible is all that God has ever and will ever say.



> This is where you take a right turn from the biblical Jesus, and turn Him into mere man who became glorified like any of you good Mormons may also become.  I.E........You believe in a progression of gods, saviors, Adams and Eves for a myriad of never ending new planets, Earth just being one of those myriads.  I.E.  your Mormon jesus is not unique, as in God, Creator, one with God the Father, in purpose, character, and the "only" Son of God.  No where in the bible does it teach that Jesus had a bro, named Lucifer.  That is a big fat, bold faced lie, spoken by your prophets.  In the bible/Word of God, Lucifer is an angel, who created, where Jesus is not created, but took on human flesh  within Mary's womb.  He once sat at the right hand of God, and committed Himself to the Father's plan of salvation, and allowed Himself to be incarnated in the flesh, starting out as a baby, then growing up to the ripe age of 33, and letting Adamic man crucify Him for Adamic man's sins.



Christ was a man. He descended below all things to lift us above all things. He chose to be born in the manger so He could give us a second birth. Are you saying Christ didnt atone for the sins of the world? Where on earth did you get that idea from the NT?






> You Mormons do not accept Jesus as the one and only Son of God, who is the Word, and the Word became flesh, and the Word was with God, and is God.(John Chapter one).



YEah, we do. Simply lying about our doctrine doesnt really help your position. Besides you just denied that Christ became flesh. You just complained that it was unbiblical in the previous paragraph.



> Instead your jesus is again just a good man that lived a good god-obedient life, and was given godhood because of that.  Instead God says in the bible, "My ways are not your ways"  Also He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  That means "pre-existent"..........I.E.  No beginning to His life, and no end.  Not the Mormon Jesus/god.........He was a created being, and reached godhood through works.



You clearly either don't know mormon doctrine or refuse to honestly characterize it. Ill give you a very clear picture of who Christ is.

The Living Christ

Now will you please stop misrepresenting Mormon doctrine? If you disagree with us fine. But stop telling us we believe things when you very much know we dont. Or tell us we dont believe things we very much do.



> The biblical God says that we reach salvation through faith in Jesus' atoning work, that replaced us on the cross.  Not only did He die for the sins of those who would believe in Him and receive eternal life in total communion with God Almight, but He died for the whole world.  Sadly not the whole world will bend a knee and cry out "You are Lord of everything, and that includes my life, Jesus!".



We are in complete agreement that we are saved through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. You know this. Stop pretending otherwise.

Oh and Froggy disagrees that the Bible says we are saved by Christ's work.



> Instead your religion or belief system builds it's foundation of "truth" upon fuzziness or subjective experiential, visions, burning bosoms, dreams, etc...



The foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ is the Testimony of the Apostles that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who suffered and atoned for the sins of the world, then rose on the Third day. It is built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets with Christ being the Chief Cornerstone.

The Holy Ghost is not subjective. He is real. I can promise you that because Ive learned from the Holy Spirit. Visions happen. The Spirit pricks the heart and God can communicate through dreams. Or do you disbelieve the Bible?

You know, you've never answered my question despite asking it multiple times. Have miracles ceased?





> Mormons at the door are always telling potential converts, to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the "way" or "truth".  Right there the red flag goes up.  All knowledgeable bible Christians know that the Truth of God is not by prayer confirmation, but through the written, protected Word, that has not changed for the thousands of years that it has been passed on or translated/copied myriads of times till nowadays.  God is omnipotent, and that is an anathema to the Mormon doctrine.  Why?  Cause if God is all omnipotent, then that means when He inspired both O.T. and N.T. authors, He/God in His almight omnipotence could and did protect the accuracy of His gospel throughout the ages down to now.  The Mormon doctrine stands upon non bible authenticated communique's hopefully from God, but they/Mormon refuse to question the source, *cause their heart confirms it.*  God says that the human heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful.......I.E.  it can't be trusted.  That's why He/God omnipotently protected through eons of time His inspired Word so that we can believe, and receive the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Jesus, and total communion with God.  We are  restored back to that Eden era where we and God have a Spiritual tie, that can't be broken.



What on earth are you talking about? Are you honestly going to tell me that God doesnt want us to pray to Him and trust in His Holy Spirit? Are you honestly going to tell me that He wants you to interpret the scriptures according to your own reasoning? How well has that worked out? There are thousands of different denominations all believing the Bible yet believing contradictory doctrines. Belief in the false doctrine of the Bible alone has divided and weakened Christianity nearly to a breaking point. There is only one source of Authority and that is *God*. There is only one way to learn and that is through the Spirit. The scriptures are given to us as tools to learn through the Spirit. 

Why are you so resistant to prayer? God wants us to pray. He wants us to ask and to seek answers. And He said He will answer us if we do so, that we will find answers. And you would rather trust in your own mind rather than simply asking God? Who do you think is telling you not to pray? I can guarentee you that it isnt God doing that.

We are not to rely solely on the instruction of the past, we are supposed to get instruction for our own lives. The Revelations to Adam couldnt save Enoch. He had to recieve His own. The Revelations to Enoch couldnt save Noah. Noah had to recieve His own revelation which taught Him to build the Ark. The Revelation to Noah couldnt have saved Abraham. What do you think it would profit to trust in Noah's revelation and build and Ark and gather the animals together when the Flood was long past???

Moses recieved the Law of Moses through revelation. It was through Peter's visions and His revelation that the Lord revealed the Law fulfilled in Christ so that it's practice should cease. It was through Pauls revelations that He became converted and became the missionary machine to the Gentiles. He couldnt rely on Moses or Elijah's writings. 

Yet you would have us believe that simply because you have erroneously declared the heavens closed and the Bible as all there ever is and ever will be, that we are somehow supposed to rely solely on their experiences rather than have our own. How are you supposed to have a relationship with a God you dont believe will teach you? How do you have a relationship with God if all you do is read a book and have no experience with Him? Your positions just dont make any sense.



> The Mormon god, Mormon Jesus, and Mormon holy spirit, are not biblical.



Ive seen no evidence that your god is Biblical. In fact, your god appears to be the Bible rather than our Father who inspired the Bible. You care more about understanding it than listening to Him.



> The Holy Spirit was promised to us by the soon ascending Christ to His disciples and all who would believe in Him/Christ as Lord and Savior in the future.  It was referred to the Might Counselor, that would lead men/women ways that would allow them to discern the scriptures, that were Spiritual in origin.



The scriptures werent even written at the time. And it continued to reveal scriptures to them. Which is superior? The scriptures or the God who reveals them?




> This is why unsaved man cannot discern the power, and presence of God in the bible.  Without the Holy Spirit indwelling and having control over that person's soul, the bible is just a story book of history in the Middle East.



Are you trying to tell us that you arent saved because you refuse and reject simple doctrines spoken clearly of in the Bible? Tell me, How have you recieved the Holy Ghost?



> The BOM cannot be Spiritually discerned, nor does it feed the true Christian, as it has come from the fleshly imagination and plagarism of a very lost man.



Seems to me that the Book of Mormon is not discernable to you for the same reason the Bible's secrets are not discernable. You've admitted it.

And the Book of Mormon wasnt and cannot be plagarized. If so who plagarized it?



> So many cults have popped up over the years because an individual attending a church got treated badly, or felt neglected in some way, and decided that they would find God their way.  This is when they become "fresh meat" for Satan's deceptions.  There is but one Gospel, and doesn't need renewing, nor does it have gaps in it that need filling-in.  That is all the signs of a cultic, and Satanic counterfeit.



Has anyone but you claimed there was another Gospel? Are you saying that Jesus Christ isnt the Son of God who atoned for our sins? Because I dont know any other good news.

And if you are correct and you believe in a gospel other than that, why exactly is your gospel the correct one when the Bible teaches the one I believe in?



> True Christians ultimately must test all things with God's Word.  That goes for visions, audible messages, teachings, sermons, dreams, and any phenomena that claims to be of divine origin.  If those phenomena fail the test of God's Word, then they must be refused by that believer.  Otherwise that Christian will end up mislead, and gradually drift away from God's will.



Again, you put the tool above the Creator. You miss the entire point of what the Bible is teaching you. The Bible is teaching you how to know God. And rather than use the information it teaches and praying and learning from the Spirit, you obsess over the tool. That attitude makes no sense. It's like a child given a present and playing with the box it comes in rather than enjoying thet gift inside. Sure the box is useful and can be fun, but you are missing it's point.




> Mormons test their visions by sharing them with another Mormon who in turn has also had confirmation via some subjective way, who in turn confirms it with another Mormon.  It is all man-confirmed and not God-confirmed.
> *********



We test our visions and revelations with the Holy Ghost. You see the scriptures have taught us how to discern the Spirit and we do the best we can to have faith in God and not trust ourselves. Denying that isnt going to make what you say accurate.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay your sins debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually takes very little research to confirm that Mormons believe this:
> 
> Third Article of Faith:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodsging the questions again, direct answer yes you do, or no you don,t, no in betweens.
Click to expand...


Holy shit.  No pun intended.  What was unclear to froggy about "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay your sins debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually takes very little research to confirm that Mormons believe this:
> 
> Third Article of Faith:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodsging the questions again, direct answer yes you do, or no you don,t, no in betweens.
Click to expand...


How on earth is clearly stating yes we believe that Christ paid for our sins and here is the verse to show you dodging your question?


----------



## Skeptik

froggy said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe the lord Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay your sins debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It actually takes very little research to confirm that Mormons believe this:
> 
> Third Article of Faith:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dodsging the questions again, direct answer yes you do, or no you don,t, no in betweens.
Click to expand...


You asked whether Mormons believe that Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins.  I showed you that they do.  

I don't think you really are seriously asking questions.  You seem to be to be engaged in some kind of juvenile game of "gotcha."


----------



## Christopher

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is; your arguments or disagreements/differences, are in reality not with individuals on this forum but with the Word of God, the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is an absolute lie because we believe the Bible. We just reject your incorrect interpretations of it. That is why we accept the very clear doctrines of the premortal life, Condescension of God, Deification of man, and the work on behalf of the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of the Atonement is so we can become like God. So we can be joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has. The Bible is clear in this and you still continue to pretend as if its foreign to the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan wants people to believe in Christ? now that's a shocker to me. Satan is going to provide more evidence that Jesus Christ is the Savior? Satan is encouraging people to repent and come to Christ? Seriously, Satan must be pretty stupid according to you.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with God. I talk with Him frequently. But according to you I have to ignore what He says if its not in line with your personal interpretation of the Bible. That's where we have a problem. Because who should I believe, you or the Holy Spirit?
> 
> You dont understand the Holy Spirit. And that's alright. Not everyone does. But you wont learn from Him to find out because what if He teaches you that something youve incorrectly understood is wrong! Rather then let go of the pride, and accept more of the Word of God, you would rather cling onto your own understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You base your personal beliefs not on the finality of God's Word, but on experiential type encounters, that totally go against the Word of God.  Your verification used is elders or fellow church members rather than the inspired Word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I base my personal beliefs on the Holy Spirit. Like all disciples of Christ have done in every age of man. The same source that inspired the Scriptures you claim to follow. The same source teaches men what the scriptures mean.
> 
> Christ didnt tell the Apostles to wait until they had the scriptures before they preached after his Ascension. He told them to wait for the Holy Ghost. And the Holy Ghost would teach them all things. It's the Holy Ghost that gives us the ability to preach with power. It's the Holy Ghost that sanctifies us.
> 
> Why are you so determined to ignore Him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you've backed yourself into a perverbial corner.  First of all, your Mormon jesus, is only biblical to the extent that your prophets say that the bible is correct.  You know that for a fact.
> 
> This is where you take a right turn from the biblical Jesus, and turn Him into mere man who became glorified like any of you good Mormons may also become.  I.E........You believe in a progression of gods, saviors, Adams and Eves for a myriad of never ending new planets, Earth just being one of those myriads.  I.E.  your Mormon jesus is not unique, as in God, Creator, one with God the Father, in purpose, character, and the "only" Son of God.  No where in the bible does it teach that Jesus had a bro, named Lucifer.  That is a big fat, bold faced lie, spoken by your prophets.  In the bible/Word of God, Lucifer is an angel, who created, where Jesus is not created, but took on human flesh  within Mary's womb.  He once sat at the right hand of God, and committed Himself to the Father's plan of salvation, and allowed Himself to be incarnated in the flesh, starting out as a baby, then growing up to the ripe age of 33, and letting Adamic man crucify Him for Adamic man's sins.
> 
> You Mormons do not accept Jesus as the one and only Son of God, who is the Word, and the Word became flesh, and the Word was with God, and is God.(John Chapter one).  Instead your jesus is again just a good man that lived a good god-obedient life, and was given godhood because of that.  Instead God says in the bible, "My ways are not your ways"  Also He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  That means "pre-existent"..........I.E.  No beginning to His life, and no end.  Not the Mormon Jesus/god.........He was a created being, and reached godhood through works.
> 
> The biblical God says that we reach salvation through faith in Jesus' atoning work, that replaced us on the cross.  Not only did He die for the sins of those who would believe in Him and receive eternal life in total communion with God Almight, but He died for the whole world.  Sadly not the whole world will bend a knee and cry out "You are Lord of everything, and that includes my life, Jesus!".
> 
> Instead your religion or belief system builds it's foundation of "truth" upon fuzziness or subjective experiential, visions, burning bosoms, dreams, etc...
> 
> Mormons at the door are always telling potential converts, to "pray" and ask God if Mormonism is the "way" or "truth".  Right there the red flag goes up.  All knowledgeable bible Christians know that the Truth of God is not by prayer confirmation, but through the written, protected Word, that has not changed for the thousands of years that it has been passed on or translated/copied myriads of times till nowadays.  God is omnipotent, and that is an anathema to the Mormon doctrine.  Why?  Cause if God is all omnipotent, then that means when He inspired both O.T. and N.T. authors, He/God in His almight omnipotence could and did protect the accuracy of His gospel throughout the ages down to now.  The Mormon doctrine stands upon non bible authenticated communique's hopefully from God, but they/Mormon refuse to question the source, *cause their heart confirms it.*  God says that the human heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful.......I.E.  it can't be trusted.  That's why He/God omnipotently protected through eons of time His inspired Word so that we can believe, and receive the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Jesus, and total communion with God.  We are  restored back to that Eden era where we and God have a Spiritual tie, that can't be broken.
> 
> The Mormon god, Mormon Jesus, and Mormon holy spirit, are not biblical.
> 
> The Holy Spirit was promised to us by the soon ascending Christ to His disciples and all who would believe in Him/Christ as Lord and Savior in the future.  It was referred to the Might Counselor, that would lead men/women ways that would allow them to discern the scriptures, that were Spiritual in origin.
> 
> This is why unsaved man cannot discern the power, and presence of God in the bible.  Without the Holy Spirit indwelling and having control over that person's soul, the bible is just a story book of history in the Middle East.
> 
> The BOM cannot be Spiritually discerned, nor does it feed the true Christian, as it has come from the fleshly imagination and plagarism of a very lost man.
> 
> So many cults have popped up over the years because an individual attending a church got treated badly, or felt neglected in some way, and decided that they would find God their way.  This is when they become "fresh meat" for Satan's deceptions.  There is but one Gospel, and doesn't need renewing, nor does it have gaps in it that need filling-in.  That is all the signs of a cultic, and Satanic counterfeit.
> ********
> True Christians ultimately must test all things with God's Word.  That goes for visions, audible messages, teachings, sermons, dreams, and any phenomena that claims to be of divine origin.  If those phenomena fail the test of God's Word, then they must be refused by that believer.  Otherwise that Christian will end up mislead, and gradually drift away from God's will.
> 
> Mormons test their visions by sharing them with another Mormon who in turn has also had confirmation via some subjective way, who in turn confirms it with another Mormon.  It is all man-confirmed and not God-confirmed.
> *********
Click to expand...


First of all, all Mormons do not have visions, just prophets/seers.  Second, we stick to the Bible when it says that things of God are only spiritually discerned.  I have already quoted 1 Corinthians chapter 2, verses 10-11 in response to you earlier (which you ignored) where it says that we can only know the things of God through His Spirit.  I also believe in Galatians 5:22 where it says the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc.

I believe that God communicates to us through these good emotions as we attempt to communicate with Him in prayer.  Love is the universal language, so it makes sense He could communicate with everyone that way.  Our heart has to be open and ready for an answer and that is typically the problem with us.

Please answer a few of my questions, so that I can better understand your position on how we know whether something is from God or not.  Here goes:  First, if you have not prayed and asked God that what you have read in the Bible is true, what method have you used to actually know that everything contained in the Bible is the Word of God?  Second, is the method you used to know this any more or less subjective than through the way I described?


----------



## Liability

The discussion just got elevated!  Worthy of a bump!


----------



## froggy

the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.



What part of the Book of Mormon differs from the testimony of the Apostles?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Book of Mormon differs from the testimony of the Apostles?
Click to expand...


Do you believe the entire king james bible?


----------



## Liability

With froggoids re-entry into the discussion, the thread just took another downturn.

Nevertheless, I bump this thread because it might prove useful to disabuse froggy of his narrow-minded preconceived notions.


----------



## Eightball

> *First of all, all Mormons do not have visions*, just prophets/seers.  Second, we stick to the Bible when it says that things of God are only spiritually discerned.  I have already quoted 1 Corinthians chapter 2, verses 10-11 in response to you earlier (which you ignored) where it says that we can only know the things of God through His Spirit.  I also believe in Galatians 5:22 where it says the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc.
> 
> I believe that God communicates to us through these good emotions as we attempt to communicate with Him in prayer.  Love is the universal language, so it makes sense He could communicate with everyone that way.  Our heart has to be open and ready for an answer and that is typically the problem with us.
> 
> Please answer a few of my questions, so that I can better understand your position on how we know whether something is from God or not.  Here goes:  First, if you have not prayed and asked God that what you have read in the Bible is true, what method have you used to actually know that everything contained in the Bible is the Word of God?  Second, is the method you used to know this any more or less subjective than through the way I described?


[/QUOTE]

There's your first bold faced lie.  We don't have visions.  Countless Mormons give testimony of dreams and visions that tell them that "Mormonism is the truth".

"Burning Bosum" experience?  How is this not a type of vision?

I guess you folks might call it a strong "feeling" that Mormonism is the truth.

Sadly, "feelings/emotions" are the greatest betrayers of human kind.  They are a blessed part of humanity, but they are not the "test" of the truth.

Feelings/emotions are so often used as a gauge by human beings involved in religion to determine if God is near or faraway.  

For instance, the tongues movements in many Pentacostal/charismatic churches can get so out-of-control, that all objective scriptural truth becomes second-rate to experiencing physical/emotional phenomena in worship situations.

Much of the tongues phenomena is not from God, but is Satan's major "tickle" to get Christians off-track and looking for the experienctial in order to validate the strength and closeness of their faith in God.

Sadly, there are so many "drop outs" from Charismatic churches where gifts are and especially tongues are given greater emphasis than God desires according to His Word, the bible.

Likewise, the Mormons, have taken a similar root.  They ask folks to pray and ask God if Mormonis is the true church.  This opens up the realm of the "invisible spiritual demonic realm".  It's like a on off switch.  God had wired us to have total communion with Him, because we are spiritual creatures.  Sadly, the spiritual counterfeits of Satan are ready to fill the gaps in a Christians or non-Christian/Mormon's seeking, when they use unscriptural means to seek God.  

Remember that Satan and 1/3 of the angels in heaven followed him in turning away from their Maker/God.  They were all cast to earth, and now Satan is called the Prince of this world.  He is deluded to the point of thinking that he can defeat God, Christ, and the great plan of salvation that is clearly laid-out in the bible.  

He is no dummy.  He can fool the intellectual, the artist, the whole gamut of human personalities, and intelligence.  He has created many religions that are substitutes or counterfeits of true Christianity as laid-out in the bible.  

First of all, in order for Satan to make inroads in humanity and win souls to his delusional bent, he must "attack the bible"; the very foundation of Christianity.  This is done in many ways:

1. Take away the divinity of Christ as the I AM or God Almighty as Christ and His apostles described Him over and over in the N.T..
2. Create a scenario where mere sinful, Adamic man can attain the level of God, through works.
3. Create a false martyrdom of the his/Satan's counterfeit belief system in order to give members or potential converts the idea that they are of a type of exclusivity that is always under danger because of their faith.
4. Confirm in the unseen spiritual realm of the human soul validity his/Satan's false belief system.  In fact this is the easy one for him.  As Americans or the Western world becomes more and more enamored with spiritual phenoma...ghosts, occult, witch craft, ......which founder J.S. Jr. found intriguing in the use of seers stones, and crystals, the stage is set for massive deception.
5.God has His ways, and man has his ways.  One is Spiritual, the other is worldly or of the flesh.  Satan plays on the fleshly side of mankind; feeding the sexual desires, that J.S. Jr. propogates with polygamy. 
6. Satan also hates "woman" as she was the means which brought the incarnate Christ to earth.  Also she was the link to deceiving mankind in the garden, though Adam was just as guilty as he believed Eve over God's commands.  
For a Mormon wife to reach that celestial kingdom, her husband must raise her up to life after death.  This is blasphemous, as it places the male human above the female human in importance.

Some how a womans or wifes call to submission to her husband as the bible states has been convoluted into a male dominance within the LDS church that is both flatly unscriptural, and sad.
7. Moroni brought false messages to J.S. Jr.., if indeed Moroni actually existed and wasn't a figment of a very disturbed mind in need of Lithium treatments.  J.S. Jr.'s life reflects one that can easily fall into the category of "disturbed".  There is or was a "granduer" complex with him, that lacked humility, humbleness, contrite, and repentant of heart, etc. that typified the bible-Jesus' disciples, excluding the false one Judas.
8. To this day, I've not witnessed or read any posts by the most vocal Mormons on this thread that show or emit the tiny'est ounce of the humility, contriteness of heart, that typifies, true Holy Spirit filled biblical Christians.  Those that bring up legitimate points are blown off  or considered "enemies" of the LDS church.  

Paul on the other hand loved to debate, and get right in their with Jews, gentiles alike.  In fact he had a wonderful time on Mars Hill with many greek philosophers, and won many  over to Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit working through Him.

Paul was an extremely educated Jew, who at one time persecuted Christ's followers, but later was met with an encounter with the ascended Christ that changed his life, and turned the whole world upside down................Paul the most prolific author of the N.T. heartily stood by and cheered on folks as they stoned to death Steven the Godly man of the early Jerusalem Church.  Paul would later-on become a fire-brand of Holy Spirit filled power as he endured stonings, lashings, imprisonments, and being cut-off from fellowship in the Jerusalam temple, because he chose Jesus, yes Jesus, the One who was and is so clearly described in the Word of God.
******
So what does the LDS church give us?  Well, they give us a veiled polytheism..........or progression of godhood.  Basically it's just good old polytheism, as there is "no" one God, but a myriad of gods.

Secondly, it teaches that God was once just an guy like you and me.  Then this average guy, through good earthly works or whatever planet he performed his good works-on, was elevated by an earlier elevated god to godhood too.

Folks, most realize that Hubbard's Scientology is a real "crock" but folks, the LDS church isn't far off from Scientoloty in their many planets, doctrine or belief.

Mormons on this forum and elsewhere just say that we just have to pray and believe.....................The first mistake is praying.  Why?  Cause when you pray, your suppose to pray in a way that says that you are seeking the true God's intimacy or relationship.  Now this is where the crap shoot happens.  You may or may not get the true answer to your prayer.  This is why the bible will confirm whether burning bosums, visions, dreams, any kind of messages are trully "of God", and not counterfeits.

Again, emotions are God given, but they are not the final proof of what is right and what is wrong/false.  Secondly emotions are a beautiful addition to "true" believe.  The human mind must always be "in gear" or "drive".  When the potential Mormon prospect just prays and asks if Mormonis is the truth, this is when this person has placed their mind in "Neutral".  I.E. they have allowed their mind to be subjected to any and all things spiritual..............That includes not only God, but Satan, and his demonic principalities, that are practically numberless.  Demons or false spirits can place thoughts in the human mind, while awake, asleep, at any time.  They also insert feelings and emotions to acompany the false thoughts that they inject into the human soul/mind.

What in the world can we do to stop or thwart this?  Romans Chapter 12 says, "renew your mind with God's word/scripture".  

This means that Satan and his demonic host have to go against the imbedded Word of God, or if the potential proselytite does so they can "flee" to the Word of God, after experiencing the vision, burning bosum, dream, that confirms Mormonism, and "TEST" the spirits.  

I can attest that when false, ungodly thoughts come into the mind, that the Word of God will make them null and void.  The Truth is the Light, and darkness flees from the light.  The Light/Truth illuminates every part of the human soul.  The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword dividing the Word of God from false doctrine, even if possible to the very bone marrow of the individual(metaphor-but biblical).
********
You Mormons need to be brave and stand up and question your doctrine, and test it against the Word of God in totality.
********


----------



## Liability

According to those enlightened Muslims, all Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity are polytheists.

So what?


----------



## Christopher

> here's your first bold faced lie.  We don't have visions.  Countless Mormons give testimony of dreams and visions that tell them that "Mormonism is the truth".
> 
> "Burning Bosum" experience?  How is this not a type of vision?
> 
> I guess you folks might call it a strong "feeling" that Mormonism is the truth.
> 
> Sadly, "feelings/emotions" are the greatest betrayers of human kind.  They are a blessed part of humanity, but they are not the "test" of the truth.
> 
> Feelings/emotions are so often used as a gauge by human beings involved in religion to determine if God is near or faraway.
> 
> For instance, the tongues movements in many Pentacostal/charismatic churches can get so out-of-control, that all objective scriptural truth becomes second-rate to experiencing physical/emotional phenomena in worship situations.
> 
> Much of the tongues phenomena is not from God, but is Satan's major "tickle" to get Christians off-track and looking for the experienctial in order to validate the strength and closeness of their faith in God.
> 
> Sadly, there are so many "drop outs" from Charismatic churches where gifts are and especially tongues are given greater emphasis than God desires according to His Word, the bible.
> 
> Likewise, the Mormons, have taken a similar root.  They ask folks to pray and ask God if Mormonis is the true church.  This opens up the realm of the "invisible spiritual demonic realm".  It's like a on off switch.  God had wired us to have total communion with Him, because we are spiritual creatures.  Sadly, the spiritual counterfeits of Satan are ready to fill the gaps in a Christians or non-Christian/Mormon's seeking, when they use unscriptural means to seek God.
> 
> Remember that Satan and 1/3 of the angels in heaven followed him in turning away from their Maker/God.  They were all cast to earth, and now Satan is called the Prince of this world.  He is deluded to the point of thinking that he can defeat God, Christ, and the great plan of salvation that is clearly laid-out in the bible.
> 
> He is no dummy.  He can fool the intellectual, the artist, the whole gamut of human personalities, and intelligence.  He has created many religions that are substitutes or counterfeits of true Christianity as laid-out in the bible.
> 
> First of all, in order for Satan to make inroads in humanity and win souls to his delusional bent, he must "attack the bible"; the very foundation of Christianity.  This is done in many ways:
> 
> 1. Take away the divinity of Christ as the I AM or God Almighty as Christ and His apostles described Him over and over in the N.T..
> 2. Create a scenario where mere sinful, Adamic man can attain the level of God, through works.
> 3. Create a false martyrdom of the his/Satan's counterfeit belief system in order to give members or potential converts the idea that they are of a type of exclusivity that is always under danger because of their faith.
> 4. Confirm in the unseen spiritual realm of the human soul validity his/Satan's false belief system.  In fact this is the easy one for him.  As Americans or the Western world becomes more and more enamored with spiritual phenoma...ghosts, occult, witch craft, ......which founder J.S. Jr. found intriguing in the use of seers stones, and crystals, the stage is set for massive deception.
> 5.God has His ways, and man has his ways.  One is Spiritual, the other is worldly or of the flesh.  Satan plays on the fleshly side of mankind; feeding the sexual desires, that J.S. Jr. propogates with polygamy.
> 6. Satan also hates "woman" as she was the means which brought the incarnate Christ to earth.  Also she was the link to deceiving mankind in the garden, though Adam was just as guilty as he believed Eve over God's commands.
> For a Mormon wife to reach that celestial kingdom, her husband must raise her up to life after death.  This is blasphemous, as it places the male human above the female human in importance.
> 
> Some how a womans or wifes call to submission to her husband as the bible states has been convoluted into a male dominance within the LDS church that is both flatly unscriptural, and sad.
> 7. Moroni brought false messages to J.S. Jr.., if indeed Moroni actually existed and wasn't a figment of a very disturbed mind in need of Lithium treatments.  J.S. Jr.'s life reflects one that can easily fall into the category of "disturbed".  There is or was a "granduer" complex with him, that lacked humility, humbleness, contrite, and repentant of heart, etc. that typified the bible-Jesus' disciples, excluding the false one Judas.
> 8. To this day, I've not witnessed or read any posts by the most vocal Mormons on this thread that show or emit the tiny'est ounce of the humility, contriteness of heart, that typifies, true Holy Spirit filled biblical Christians.  Those that bring up legitimate points are blown off  or considered "enemies" of the LDS church.
> 
> Paul on the other hand loved to debate, and get right in their with Jews, gentiles alike.  In fact he had a wonderful time on Mars Hill with many greek philosophers, and won many  over to Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit working through Him.
> 
> Paul was an extremely educated Jew, who at one time persecuted Christ's followers, but later was met with an encounter with the ascended Christ that changed his life, and turned the whole world upside down................Paul the most prolific author of the N.T. heartily stood by and cheered on folks as they stoned to death Steven the Godly man of the early Jerusalem Church.  Paul would later-on become a fire-brand of Holy Spirit filled power as he endured stonings, lashings, imprisonments, and being cut-off from fellowship in the Jerusalam temple, because he chose Jesus, yes Jesus, the One who was and is so clearly described in the Word of God.
> ******
> So what does the LDS church give us?  Well, they give us a veiled polytheism..........or progression of godhood.  Basically it's just good old polytheism, as there is "no" one God, but a myriad of gods.
> 
> Secondly, it teaches that God was once just an guy like you and me.  Then this average guy, through good earthly works or whatever planet he performed his good works-on, was elevated by an earlier elevated god to godhood too.
> 
> Folks, most realize that Hubbard's Scientology is a real "crock" but folks, the LDS church isn't far off from Scientoloty in their many planets, doctrine or belief.
> 
> Mormons on this forum and elsewhere just say that we just have to pray and believe.....................The first mistake is praying.  Why?  Cause when you pray, your suppose to pray in a way that says that you are seeking the true God's intimacy or relationship.  Now this is where the crap shoot happens.  You may or may not get the true answer to your prayer.  This is why the bible will confirm whether burning bosums, visions, dreams, any kind of messages are trully "of God", and not counterfeits.
> 
> Again, emotions are God given, but they are not the final proof of what is right and what is wrong/false.  Secondly emotions are a beautiful addition to "true" believe.  The human mind must always be "in gear" or "drive".  When the potential Mormon prospect just prays and asks if Mormonis is the truth, this is when this person has placed their mind in "Neutral".  I.E. they have allowed their mind to be subjected to any and all things spiritual..............That includes not only God, but Satan, and his demonic principalities, that are practically numberless.  Demons or false spirits can place thoughts in the human mind, while awake, asleep, at any time.  They also insert feelings and emotions to acompany the false thoughts that they inject into the human soul/mind.
> 
> What in the world can we do to stop or thwart this?  Romans Chapter 12 says, "renew your mind with God's word/scripture".
> 
> This means that Satan and his demonic host have to go against the imbedded Word of God, or if the potential proselytite does so they can "flee" to the Word of God, after experiencing the vision, burning bosum, dream, that confirms Mormonism, and "TEST" the spirits.
> 
> I can attest that when false, ungodly thoughts come into the mind, that the Word of God will make them null and void.  The Truth is the Light, and darkness flees from the light.  The Light/Truth illuminates every part of the human soul.  The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword dividing the Word of God from false doctrine, even if possible to the very bone marrow of the individual(metaphor-but biblical).
> ********
> You Mormons need to be brave and stand up and question your doctrine, and test it against the Word of God in totality.
> ********


Sorry, but I did not see much of an answer to either question I asked in your reply here.  Please address the questions I asked more specifically.  You seemed to work around them, yet I still do not know your answers.

No, it is not a lie to say all Mormons have not had visions.  You are trying to stretch the definition of &#8220;vision&#8221; to mean something more than it is.  Many do have personal experiences through prayer, but not really &#8220;visions&#8221;.

You say that emotions can be &#8220;betrayers&#8221; and I agree, but they can also be the greatest evidence for the individual.  Such as how a man can feel towards his wife or children.  He knows that he loves her or them through an understanding of his feelings.  If the scripture is true that &#8220;God is love&#8221;, why would you deny that God would not communicate through that love, through emotion?  If it is such a "bad" thing, to use our emotions, why would God be described as "love"?  Why would He tell us to have compassion and "love one another"?

Again, what is your method of &#8220;testing the truth&#8221;?  Are you going to answer this or not?

I have questioned my religion and put it to the test, the test God tells us to do in the Bible.  In James, &#8220;if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God&#8221;.  Prayer is the method I use.   Is your method of determining truth from God less subjective than mine?

I have stood up and questioned our doctrine.  What makes you so certain that I have not?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Book of Mormon differs from the testimony of the Apostles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe the entire king james bible?
Click to expand...


As far as it's correctly translated.


----------



## Avatar4321

One of these days 8ball, id like to see you actually interact with people instead of talking past them. Maybe listen to what we say sometime too. You are still trying to claim we deny the Divinity of Christ. It's such a ridiculous argument and complete easy to prove wrong as has been done. But you still claim it as if no one corrected you.

And you wonder why you have no credibility with us.


----------



## kyzr

This is a very verbose / high-end discussion.  I'd like to do a fly-by and get the "Mormanism for Dummies" version.

1. What would the Mormon theologians at BYU differ with the theologians at Notre Dame and SMU on?  (main bullet points)

2. What would the dems use in 2012 against Mitt Romney?  (Any controversial or politically incorrect issues, "special panties" being one obvious one)

3. Do Mormons believe in the "Rapture"?


----------



## JakeStarkey

1.  Yes.

2.  Dems will attack him, not because he is Mormon, but because he is Republican.  That Mitt is a Mormon is all that many evangelicals need to know about him to not vote for him, and cost him a chance at the nomination.  I would vote for him if I had the chance.

3.  No.


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the Book of Mormon differs from the testimony of the Apostles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe the entire king james bible?
Click to expand...


I remember you admitted to me that we do not have all the accounts of Jesus contained in the Bible (or something like this).   With that in mind, you should be more open to the Book of Mormon which claims to contain another account of Jesus.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> 1.  Yes.
> 
> 2.  Dems will attack him, not because he is Mormon, but because he is Republican.  That Mitt is a Mormon is all that many evangelicals need to know about him to not vote for him, and cost him a chance at the nomination.  I would vote for him if I had the chance.
> 
> 3.  No.



I am glad to hear you would not let a person's religion prevent you from voting for them.  That is something we can agree on.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> 1.  Yes.
> 
> 2.  Dems will attack him, not because he is Mormon, but because he is Republican.  That Mitt is a Mormon is all that many evangelicals need to know about him to not vote for him, and cost him a chance at the nomination.  *I would vote for him if I had the chance.*
> 
> 3.  No.



" *I would vote for him if I had the chance.* "


But you will never have that chance because you can't vote in a GOP Primary -- you being a liberoidal Democratic and all.


----------



## Christopher

kyzr said:


> This is a very verbose / high-end discussion.  I'd like to do a fly-by and get the "Mormanism for Dummies" version.
> 
> 1. What would the Mormon theologians at BYU differ with the theologians at Notre Dame and SMU on?  (main bullet points)
> 
> 2. What would the dems use in 2012 against Mitt Romney?  (Any controversial or politically incorrect issues, "special panties" being one obvious one)
> 
> 3. Do Mormons believe in the "Rapture"?



1. There are probably many and I do not have time right now to go through it, however, here is a link which shows some of the major differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormons:Comparison Chart of Mormonism vs. Mainstream Christianity - ReligionFacts  This seems to cover some of the main differences.

There is actually a Mormonism for Dummies book, which I was surprised to find on Amazon, although like the link above I do not know how accurate it is on everything.

2.  I think they will bring up abortion and gay marriage for sure. Other "controversial" topics could include many of the same things the evangelicals went after him for in the GOP race regarding his religion.

3.  We do not believe in the "Rapture" as many Christians do.  We do believe that when Christ will come that the righteous alive at the time will change to an immortal state and there will be a First Resurrection.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Yes.
> 
> 2.  Dems will attack him, not because he is Mormon, but because he is Republican.  That Mitt is a Mormon is all that many evangelicals need to know about him to not vote for him, and cost him a chance at the nomination.  *I would vote for him if I had the chance.*
> 
> 3.  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " *I would vote for him if I had the chance.* "
> 
> 
> But you will never have that chance because you can't vote in a GOP Primary -- you being a liberoidal Democratic and all.
Click to expand...


I have voted in every GOP primary available the last twenty plus years.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Yes.
> 
> 2.  Dems will attack him, not because he is Mormon, but because he is Republican.  That Mitt is a Mormon is all that many evangelicals need to know about him to not vote for him, and cost him a chance at the nomination.  *I would vote for him if I had the chance.*
> 
> 3.  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " *I would vote for him if I had the chance.* "
> 
> 
> But you will never have that chance because you can't vote in a GOP Primary -- you being a liberoidal Democratic and all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have voted in every GOP primary available the last twenty plus years.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, unless you live in a state that has open primaries.

You are a liberal Democrat and that much is quite clear.  Your fraudulent cover story is too frayed to ever convince anybody that you are a Republican.


----------



## kyzr

Christopher said:


> 1. There are probably many and I do not have time right now to go through it, however, here is a link which shows some of the major differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormons:Comparison Chart of Mormonism vs. Mainstream Christianity - ReligionFacts  This seems to cover some of the main differences.
> 
> There is actually a Mormonism for Dummies book, which I was surprised to find on Amazon, although like the link above I do not know how accurate it is on everything.
> 
> 2.  I think they will bring up abortion and gay marriage for sure. Other "controversial" topics could include many of the same things the evangelicals went after him for in the GOP race regarding his religion.
> 
> 3.  We do not believe in the "Rapture" as many Christians do.  We do believe that when Christ will come that the righteous alive at the time will change to an immortal state and there will be a First Resurrection.



1. Good start, thanks for the link.  Summarizes some major belief differences.  I don't see anything serious, no more than between athiests, Jews, muslims, hindiis, or any other personal belief system in the US. Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Please elaborate.  It sounds like Mormons approve of abortion and gay marriage??  What are/were the main issues that the evangelicals attacked him on?  All I remember was that in MA as governor he was too liberal.  After the Obama win, I don't think the evangelicals will be throwing stones.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability said:


> You are a liberal Democrat and that much is quite clear.  Your fraudulent cover story is too frayed to ever convince anybody that you are a Republican.



You are a contoid bozo, L-boy.  Many Republicans believe as I do, fiscal responsibility, less intrusive government, more soft less hard projection internationally of American power, American exceptionalism.  My state does not have open primaries, which I wish it did.  You want to see a "rigged" party state, go to Utah or New Jersey.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liberal Democrat and that much is quite clear.  Your fraudulent cover story is too frayed to ever convince anybody that you are a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a contoid bozo, L-boy.  Many Republicans believe as I do, fiscal responsibility, less intrusive government, more soft less hard projection internationally of American power, American exceptionalism.  My state does not have open primaries, which I wish it did.  You want to see a "rigged" party state, go to Utah or New Jersey.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Republicans do often believe in fiscal responsibility.  Mouthing the phrase doesn't mean that YOU do, lib.

Republicans tend to believe in less intrusive government, lib.  That doesn't mean YOU do.

Your pet phrase of uber-babble "more soft less hard projection internationally of American power" still doesn't mean dick, lib.

Many very reasonable Republicans DO believe in the oft-mocked phrase "American exceptionalism," but that doesn't mean YOU do, lib.

If your state does not have open primaries then you, being a liberal democratic have not voted in any GOP primaries (barring outright voter fraud, I suppose).  Your claim is not credible because YOU have no credibility.

You are a lib.  Libs often lie.

BTW:  "contoid?"  Man are you weak.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can't contradict what I have said, Liability.  Thus you use the _ad homs_.  That's what Dude does because he cannot logically offer a counter argument on anything.  You are a far right reactionary, L, and your kind is not wanted in our party anymore.  Two words: step off.


----------



## Skeptik

kyzr said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There are probably many and I do not have time right now to go through it, however, here is a link which shows some of the major differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormons:Comparison Chart of Mormonism vs. Mainstream Christianity - ReligionFacts  This seems to cover some of the main differences.
> 
> There is actually a Mormonism for Dummies book, which I was surprised to find on Amazon, although like the link above I do not know how accurate it is on everything.
> 
> 2.  I think they will bring up abortion and gay marriage for sure. Other "controversial" topics could include many of the same things the evangelicals went after him for in the GOP race regarding his religion.
> 
> 3.  We do not believe in the "Rapture" as many Christians do.  We do believe that when Christ will come that the righteous alive at the time will change to an immortal state and there will be a First Resurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Good start, thanks for the link.  Summarizes some major belief differences.  I don't see anything serious, no more than between athiests, Jews, muslims, hindiis, or any other personal belief system in the US. Religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 2. Please elaborate.  It sounds like Mormons approve of abortion and gay marriage??  What are/were the main issues that the evangelicals attacked him on?  All I remember was that in MA as governor he was too liberal.  After the Obama win, I don't think the evangelicals will be throwing stones.
Click to expand...


Mormons most definitely don't approve of gay marriage or abortion. If the Evangelicals would take an objective look at where Mormon's stand politically, they'd see that they're in the same exact place.  There are theological differences, to  be sure, but the political views of most faithful Mormons, particularly when it comes to "social" issues, mirror perfectly those of the Evangelicals.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> You can't contradict what I have said, Liability.  Thus you use the _ad homs_.  That's what Dude does because he cannot logically offer a counter argument on anything.  You are a far right reactionary, L, and your kind is not wanted in our party anymore.  Two words: step off.



Wrong again, you silly bombastic moron.

I am a conservative.  Unlike you, I grasp the notion of a LIMITED government and why it is very important.

I will not be stepping off anywhere, ya fraudulent twerp.

I am here to stay in the FACE of assmunchers like you who are royally fucking up this Republic.

Get your ass over to the Democrat Underbelly for remedial  education on how to pretend to be a Republican.  Up to this point, you suck at it and need further instruction.

Two words:  fuck off.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Get real, Liability, the reactionaries are finished in the GOP.  Sarah cooked her goose when she caused the defeat of a safe Republican seat in New York, one we held for more than 150 years.  You guys are truly political fools, and you will get what political fools that cause defeats always get, political death, exclusion from the party's decision-m.  You all will lose your access to decision-making.  The 25% of you who make up the party will no longer dictate to the rest of us.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Get real, Liability, the reactionaries are finished in the GOP.  Sarah cooked her goose when she caused the defeat of a safe Republican seat in New York, one we held for more than 150 years.  You guys are truly political fools, and you will get what political fools that cause defeats always get, political death, exclusion from the party's decision-m.  You all will lose your access to decision-making.  The 25% of you who make up the party will no longer dictate to the rest of us.



Jokey, I decline to take comments about getting real from a fraud like you.  The term "reactionary" is not just outdated, but rather meaningless.  

Conservatism is the ONLY road to saving the Republic from the imbeciles ruining the U.S. at this time and from the weak-knee'd pale imitations of the libereal Democrats presently infesting the Repbulican Party -- i.e., jokes like you IF you are even a member of the GOP which remains unlikely.

You are the fools.

But keep yapping.  I like it when you continuously (albeit inadvertently) tip your hand.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability, you are not a Republican but a reactionary fool, your types cost us the election, and you won't get another chance to dictate to the party.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability, you are not a Republican but a reactionary fool, your types cost us the election, and you won't get another chance to dictate to the party.



Jokey, you are just miffed because I saw through your obvious fraud.  I noted that you aren't a Republican so now YOU have to say "oh yeah?  Well you aren't a Republican either!"



In any event, asshole, I already SAID I'm not a Republican.

Try to follow along, schmuck.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You know as little about politics, Liability, as you do about Mormonism.  Now run along.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> You know as little about politics, Liability, as you do about Mormonism.  Now run along.



I know you are a pontificating wrong-headed gasbag with the inclinations needed to fuck up whatever chance the GOP might have of staging an urgently needed come-back.

SO, in case I haven't made it clear to you before, your opinion if of no value.

Now, go fuck off.   That's a good little fraud.


----------



## JakeStarkey

When you, L, can answer affirmatively to these questions then you may consider yourself my equal in party matters.  

Ever served as a delegate to your state's GOP convention?

Ever net your GOP candidates nearly $50,000 in one campaign's fund raisiing efforts?

Ever been asked to run for the state legislature on the GOP ticket?

Ever served on a central committee of your local GOP?

Ever served as the state's College Young Republicans president?

Since you can't, I am not really worried about your blah blah.  You are nothing for the party in the future unless you truly change.  That remains to be seen.  In the meantime, those like me in the party are making sure that those like you are excluded from decision-making.

Just watch what happens to Sarah between now and April 1, fool's day.  Appropriate day for her and you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.



At what point will you learn knowledge? At what point will you learn to comprehend what someone says back to you. We answer a question directly as directly could be and you look at the sun at noonday and say it's not shining.

Why do you have to


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point will you learn knowledge? At what point will you learn to comprehend what someone says back to you. We answer a question directly as directly could be and you look at the sun at noonday and say it's not shining.
> 
> Why do you have to
Click to expand...


As I said earlier, he is just playing a juvenile "gotcha" game, and isn't really interested in what anyone else has to say. 

He should simply be ignored, if at all possible.


----------



## froggy

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point will you learn knowledge? At what point will you learn to comprehend what someone says back to you. We answer a question directly as directly could be and you look at the sun at noonday and say it's not shining.
> 
> Why do you have to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, he is just playing a juvenile "gotcha" game, and isn't really interested in what anyone else has to say.
> 
> He should simply be ignored, if at all possible.
Click to expand...


Disregard the book of joe, and praise god not joe.


----------



## froggy

Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity


----------



## Zona

In case you all forgot, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.


----------



## Liability

Zona said:


> In case you all forgot, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.



You are a fucking tool.

NOW there's 'nuff said.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You, L-wierdo, are the tool of the loony right.  And is not GB a Mormon?


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> You, L-wierdo, are the tool of the loony right.  And is not GB a Mormon?



Not at all.  _*You*_ are just a complete loser incapable of distinguishing reality from your stupid POV.

Who is GB and why would I care if he/she is a Mormon?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity



And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> In case you all forgot, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.



Yeah, and it's made him all the better for it.


----------



## Zona

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> In case you all forgot, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and it's made him all the better for it.
Click to expand...


Get off my phone!  (This was done after becoming a mormon of course, so your post makes no sense.)  

Pinhead.


----------



## Dr.House

"I post drunk."_ - Autozona_


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Get off my phone!  (This was done after becoming a mormon of course, so your post makes no sense.)
> 
> Pinhead.



I was unaware that being mormon means you have to let annoying people on speak on your talkshow.


----------



## Dr.House

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get off my phone!  (This was done after becoming a mormon of course, so your post makes no sense.)
> 
> Pinhead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that being mormon means you have to let annoying people on speak on your talkshow.
Click to expand...


You must forgive Autozona...

He runs daily searches on the following keywords:  Beck, Hannity, Palin, FOXNews

Then he drinks a fifth of cheap vodka and proceeds to post...


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
Click to expand...


how about the age of them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
Click to expand...


You forgot to tell him Joseph Smith did have witnesses to the plates and that even though some of them eventually left the church NONE of them ever countered their original claim the plates existed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
Click to expand...


How would they know the age of them in the early 1800's?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
Click to expand...


Can you do that with metal?


----------



## Zona

Dr.House said:


> "I post drunk."_ - Autozona_



"I like little boys" - _Dr. House_


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you do that with metal?
Click to expand...


The way the age of a metal artifact is determined is by carefully excavating it and then determining at what level it was buried.  The age of the other artifacts, bones, and so on at the same level would then determine the age of the metal artifact.  

Were there any other items found with the plates?  If any of them still exist, if they were made of any carbon compound, then it would be possible to date the plates.  If  the plates were found all by themselves,  then it would lead a researcher to wonder why that is.  Usually, a find is not just one object.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do that with metal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way the age of a metal artifact is determined is by carefully excavating it and then determining at what level it was buried.  The age of the other artifacts, bones, and so on at the same level would then determine the age of the metal artifact.
> 
> Were there any other items found with the plates?  If any of them still exist, if they were made of any carbon compound, then it would be possible to date the plates.  If  the plates were found all by themselves,  then it would lead a researcher to wonder why that is.  Usually, a find is not just one object.
Click to expand...


The plates were "found" in the 1820's as I recall. I seriously doubt carbon dating was available back then. Joseph Smith was Given the plates by an Angel of God. The existence of the plates is verified by witness that Joseph Smith showed the plates to. Some of these witnesses later left the Church, yet not a single one ever recanted their witness of the plates.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> This is a very verbose / high-end discussion.  I'd like to do a fly-by and get the "Mormanism for Dummies" version.


Thank you for dropping in. As long as you don't leave droppings with you.



> 1. What would the Mormon theologians at BYU differ with the theologians at Notre Dame and SMU on?  (main bullet points)


You're basically asking what the difference is between Mormonism and Catholicism. I will sum up. 

1.We believe in a physical God as compared to a spirit without body parts or passions.
2. We also believe that Jesus, His Father and the Holy Ghost are three individuals, the latter not having a body, whereas Catholics believe they are all the same person.
3. We believe in questioning everything whereas Catholicism discourages too many questions.
4. We believe the authority of the priesthood was removed for a time with the death of the apostles and other priests ordained by Jesus, therefore there was a need for a complete restoration of the order Jesus instituted. Catholicism claims the authority was never lost and claim it on the grounds that Peter gave authority to the Catholic Church somehow.
5. We believe in a literal physical resurrection like Jesus had, where Catholicism claims there will be no resurrection of the body.
6. We believe the body is a gift from God and one of the greatest of all gifts God can give. Catholics believe it is a sinful prison that we should look forward to escaping in the next life.
7. We believe all children who die before the age of accountability or who die innocently are automatically saved in the kingdom of God. Catholics believe that infants who die without baptism are doomed to burn in a lake of fire for eternity.
8. We believe that man will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.
9. We believe it was a literal fruit from a tree that Adam and Eve partook of, whereas Catholics believe the "fruit" was sexual intercourse.
10. We believe our Bishops and Priesthood should get married and have families with children of their own, while Catholicism teaches their priests to be celibate and single.
11. We believe in a masculine and strong Jesus, while Catholics portray him as VERY feminine.

These are a few off the top of my head. There are many others but these are of the most importance.


> 2. What would the dems use in 2012 against Mitt Romney?  (Any controversial or politically incorrect issues, "special panties" being one obvious one)


If the dems try to attack Romney on religious grounds they will be shooting themselves down in 2012. It will make them look very silly because people will get to the bottom of the issue and Mitt will destroy Obama in a debate.



> 3. Do Mormons believe in the "Rapture"?



Although the word "Rapture" is not used in the Bible to describe the coming of Christ, we do believe the righteous will be caught up in air to meet him and avoid the fire and destruction that He will bring down on the wicked remainder. The "righteous" will be chosen based upon the purity of their heart and not their church affiliation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the trouble with mormons are they believe everything joe wrote in the book of mormon, but believe only parts of what the apostals who were with jesus wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point will you learn knowledge? At what point will you learn to comprehend what someone says back to you. We answer a question directly as directly could be and you look at the sun at noonday and say it's not shining.
> 
> Why do you have to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, he is just playing a juvenile "gotcha" game, and isn't really interested in what anyone else has to say.
> 
> He should simply be ignored, if at all possible.
Click to expand...


If I weren't the OP I would ignore many people who have posted nonsense in this arena. However it is my responsibility to respond to everything.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what point will you learn knowledge? At what point will you learn to comprehend what someone says back to you. We answer a question directly as directly could be and you look at the sun at noonday and say it's not shining.
> 
> Why do you have to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, he is just playing a juvenile "gotcha" game, and isn't really interested in what anyone else has to say.
> 
> He should simply be ignored, if at all possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disregard the book of joe, and praise god not joe.
Click to expand...


There is no  book of Joe. We praise God, the father of Jesus and all of us. And there are no other gods before them. Joseph Smith taught us to praise them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity



Good question. The plates WERE made available to 13 different people, all who swore to holding them.

Although the plates themselves were purposefully hidden from the "professors" of the day, a sample of the charactors found on the plates were submitted to two professors of ancient scholarship who pronounced the charactors to be authentic.

Why weren't the plates themselves presented. There are several reasons why:

1. This was to be a trial of faith. God has always worked this way. He always wants us to excercise faith before he proves anything to us. 
2. It was a different time in Joseph's day and far less governed. Many people were trying to steal the plates from Joseph. The would be _thieves_ knew he had them. They were thought to be made of pure gold which would have made them worth a fortune. If they were stolen, they would have been lost forever, probably melted down and traded in for the value.
3. God would not allow this priceless treasure of information to pass into the hands of corrupt men.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> In case you all forgot, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.



Good for him!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
Click to expand...


To that point as a side note, the methods of carbon dating and other scientific authenticating methods used today were not known in 1830.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
Click to expand...


The plates could be carbon dated if God decided to make them available again. And he will. We will all get to see them eventually. They would be carbon dated between 2600 and 1700 years old.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do that with metal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way the age of a metal artifact is determined is by carefully excavating it and then determining at what level it was buried.  The age of the other artifacts, bones, and so on at the same level would then determine the age of the metal artifact.
> 
> Were there any other items found with the plates?  If any of them still exist, if they were made of any carbon compound, then it would be possible to date the plates.  If  the plates were found all by themselves,  then it would lead a researcher to wonder why that is.  Usually, a find is not just one object.
Click to expand...


That's a great point. Joseph described the find thus:
1. The artifacts were contained in a box of "some kind of cement." This box was covered by a large stone with rounded edges which were partially buried by earth and leaves. The stone had to be pried off the box with a large fallen tree branch by wedging it under.

2. Inside the "cement" box there were several items. There were the plates themselves and "other things" with them. Two stones "laid crossways" at the bottom of the box. "on these rested the plates and other things." They were covered by a thin type of linen cloth which was very fragile at this point. There were two clear "stones fastened to silver bows" and "attached to a breastplate". These were the famous Urim and Thumim seer stones through which Joseph looked at the plates to get a translation of said plates. 

3. There was also a sword with a precious steel blade and a pure gold hilt which is the original sword of Laban spoken of by Nephi and later passed down from general to general as a token of leadership. A very interesting piece to be sure.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do that with metal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way the age of a metal artifact is determined is by carefully excavating it and then determining at what level it was buried.  The age of the other artifacts, bones, and so on at the same level would then determine the age of the metal artifact.
> 
> Were there any other items found with the plates?  If any of them still exist, if they were made of any carbon compound, then it would be possible to date the plates.  If  the plates were found all by themselves,  then it would lead a researcher to wonder why that is.  Usually, a find is not just one object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a great point. Joseph described the find thus:
> 1. The artifacts were contained in a box of "some kind of cement." This box was covered by a large stone with rounded edges which were partially buried by earth and leaves. The stone had to be pried off the box with a large fallen tree branch by wedging it under.
> 
> 2. Inside the "cement" box there were several items. There were the plates themselves and "other things" with them. Two stones "laid crossways" at the bottom of the box. "on these rested the plates and other things." They were covered by a thin type of linen cloth which was very fragile at this point. There were two clear "stones fastened to silver bows" and "attached to a breastplate". These were the famous Urim and Thumim seer stones through which Joseph looked at the plates to get a translation of said plates.
> 
> 3. There was also a sword with a precious steel blade and a pure gold hilt which is the original sword of Laban spoken of by Nephi and later passed down from general to general as a token of leadership. A very interesting piece to be sure.
Click to expand...


However he was lead or directed to the find by an Angel he did not stumble on it while out searching.

The box was a set aside for holding the plates and the devices to read the plates. And in the 1800's even if he had been interested in dating the find ( which it is my understanding he was not) the technology did not exist at the time to do so.

He alone was directed to the plates and as I recall he went alone to recover them. After the translations wasn't he also directed what to do with the plates and the means to decipher them?

Leaving us with the witnesses he was allowed or chose to show the plates to. The simple reality is that since it requires some measure of faith to believe the story and the find, some people are never going to believe it.

Part of the process for me of becoming a member was praying for answers to questions like that. I was instructed to seek through prayer my ability to believe those things that can not be physically proven. And to learn of the verification that did occur. The fact that witnesses to the gold plates left the Church but NEVER retracted their statements was a very big part of believing for me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

RetiredGySgt said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way the age of a metal artifact is determined is by carefully excavating it and then determining at what level it was buried.  The age of the other artifacts, bones, and so on at the same level would then determine the age of the metal artifact.
> 
> Were there any other items found with the plates?  If any of them still exist, if they were made of any carbon compound, then it would be possible to date the plates.  If  the plates were found all by themselves,  then it would lead a researcher to wonder why that is.  Usually, a find is not just one object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a great point. Joseph described the find thus:
> 1. The artifacts were contained in a box of "some kind of cement." This box was covered by a large stone with rounded edges which were partially buried by earth and leaves. The stone had to be pried off the box with a large fallen tree branch by wedging it under.
> 
> 2. Inside the "cement" box there were several items. There were the plates themselves and "other things" with them. Two stones "laid crossways" at the bottom of the box. "on these rested the plates and other things." They were covered by a thin type of linen cloth which was very fragile at this point. There were two clear "stones fastened to silver bows" and "attached to a breastplate". These were the famous Urim and Thumim seer stones through which Joseph looked at the plates to get a translation of said plates.
> 
> 3. There was also a sword with a precious steel blade and a pure gold hilt which is the original sword of Laban spoken of by Nephi and later passed down from general to general as a token of leadership. A very interesting piece to be sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However he was lead or directed to the find by an Angel he did not stumble on it while out searching.
> 
> The box was a set aside for holding the plates and the devices to read the plates. And in the 1800's even if he had been interested in dating the find ( which it is my understanding he was not) the technology did not exist at the time to do so.
> 
> He alone was directed to the plates and as I recall he went alone to recover them. After the translations wasn't he also directed what to do with the plates and the means to decipher them?
> 
> Leaving us with the witnesses he was allowed or chose to show the plates to. The simple reality is that since it requires some measure of faith to believe the story and the find, some people are never going to believe it.
> 
> Part of the process for me of becoming a member was praying for answers to questions like that. I was instructed to seek through prayer my ability to believe those things that can not be physically proven. And to learn of the verification that did occur. The fact that witnesses to the gold plates left the Church but NEVER retracted their statements was a very big part of believing for me.
Click to expand...


Word of mouth testimonies are very powerful and I believe can be carried to the logical part of a person's brain whether true or false.


----------



## Zona

A lot of religions are fake, but any religion found in the states is phony.  Look at Scientology.  It is laughable as well.  Just saying.  Good luck idiots.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> A lot of religions are fake, but any religion found in the states is phony.  Look at Scientology.  It is laughable as well.  Just saying.  Good luck idiots.



Our religion actually wasn't founded in the states. It was founded by Jesus way back when he introduced it to Adam.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. The plates WERE made available to 13 different people, all who swore to holding them.
> 
> Although the plates themselves were purposefully hidden from the "professors" of the day, a sample of the charactors found on the plates were submitted to two professors of ancient scholarship who pronounced the charactors to be authentic.
> 
> Why weren't the plates themselves presented. There are several reasons why:
> 
> 1. This was to be a trial of faith. God has always worked this way. He always wants us to excercise faith before he proves anything to us.
> 2. It was a different time in Joseph's day and far less governed. Many people were trying to steal the plates from Joseph. The would be _thieves_ knew he had them. They were thought to be made of pure gold which would have made them worth a fortune. If they were stolen, they would have been lost forever, probably melted down and traded in for the value.
> 3. God would not allow this priceless treasure of information to pass into the hands of corrupt men.
Click to expand...


After this sparkling analysis by you, the rest of thinking humanity are supposed to take this testimony as believable?  Truth and RGS, testimonies are only for the individual, never for cooboration of another's belief.  This is America, and I am glad we have the right to believe what we want.  Have a blast with it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I post drunk."_ - Autozona_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I like little boys" - _Dr. House_
Click to expand...


Why on earth are you telling Dr. House that you like little boys? You've got serious issues man.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do that with metal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way the age of a metal artifact is determined is by carefully excavating it and then determining at what level it was buried.  The age of the other artifacts, bones, and so on at the same level would then determine the age of the metal artifact.
> 
> Were there any other items found with the plates?  If any of them still exist, if they were made of any carbon compound, then it would be possible to date the plates.  If  the plates were found all by themselves,  then it would lead a researcher to wonder why that is.  Usually, a find is not just one object.
Click to expand...


Other objects found with it: Urim and Thumim, The Sword of Laban, and the Liahona. At least I think that's all of them. I dont know that any of them have any carbon to test.

I dont think something intentionally buried would be as easy to date as something that just casually fell to the ground and was eventually lost over time.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plates could be carbon dated if God decided to make them available again. And he will. We will all get to see them eventually. They would be carbon dated between 2600 and 1700 years old.
Click to expand...


Carbon dating would be impossible with metal objects.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> A lot of religions are fake, but any religion found in the states is phony.  Look at Scientology.  It is laughable as well.  Just saying.  Good luck idiots.



So what youre saying is that only a religion founded in another country can be valid. Christ was truly accurate when He testified that "A prophet has no honor in his own country."


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> After this sparkling analysis by you, the rest of thinking humanity are supposed to take this testimony as believable?  Truth and RGS, testimonies are only for the individual, never for cooboration of another's belief.  This is America, and I am glad we have the right to believe what we want.  Have a blast with it.



They saw the plates. They testified to the world that they saw them. And they invited all men everywhere to learn for themselves by asking God.  This is a key that is lost on alot of people in the world. and Im not talking just about the Book of Mormon. I mean as a principle in general.

I've asked people why they believe what they do. And there are tons of responses usually. Rarely does anyone say they believe what they do because they asked God whether it was true. In fact, I've only seen one group of people consistantly say that.

Clearly my analysis is anecdotal. But its amazing how many people just refuse to ask God. I mean how are you supposed to follow God if you dont talk to Him and dont listen when He does speak?

I've seen tons of people proclaim their belief in the Bible, but they never question whether they understand it correctly. They just think that because they were taught certain verses mean something or when they think they mean something, thats what they mean. They never ask to see if they are correct. 

I think we would see a much different world if we had people asking God in faith to teach them. I dont think God is silent. I think He is more than willing to teach people who come to Him humbly willing to learn and willing to put in the effort to do so. But people fail to do that.

I admit I have had times when I havent been so good about it. But I can literally see the difference. When I am seeking the Spirit to teach me and studying hard I can learn so much more easily than when Im not. Life is much happier as well.

A man cannot be saved in ignorance. If a man is saved He cannot remain ignorant to the things of God. Each man may learn at a different rate, but he will learn or he cannot be saved.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, they handled the plates.  They never actually saw the plates physically with their eyes in the light of day.  Go back and study that, Avatar4321.  Go read your Bible on guidance to determine what is true or not.  That "burning in your bosom" may very well just be heartburn.  But, nonetheless, if LDS'ism works for you and brings you closer to Jesus, go for it.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you do that with metal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The way the age of a metal artifact is determined is by carefully excavating it and then determining at what level it was buried.  The age of the other artifacts, bones, and so on at the same level would then determine the age of the metal artifact.
> 
> Were there any other items found with the plates?  If any of them still exist, if they were made of any carbon compound, then it would be possible to date the plates.  If  the plates were found all by themselves,  then it would lead a researcher to wonder why that is.  Usually, a find is not just one object.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other objects found with it: Urim and Thumim, The Sword of Laban, and the Liahona. At least I think that's all of them. I dont know that any of them have any carbon to test.
> 
> I dont think something intentionally buried would be as easy to date as something that just casually fell to the ground and was eventually lost over time.
Click to expand...


That linnen cloth could be tested using today's methods, if it could be found.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why were these gold plates, never made available to be checked for authenticity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. The plates WERE made available to 13 different people, all who swore to holding them.
> 
> Although the plates themselves were purposefully hidden from the "professors" of the day, a sample of the charactors found on the plates were submitted to two professors of ancient scholarship who pronounced the charactors to be authentic.
> 
> Why weren't the plates themselves presented. There are several reasons why:
> 
> 1. This was to be a trial of faith. God has always worked this way. He always wants us to excercise faith before he proves anything to us.
> 2. It was a different time in Joseph's day and far less governed. Many people were trying to steal the plates from Joseph. The would be _thieves_ knew he had them. They were thought to be made of pure gold which would have made them worth a fortune. If they were stolen, they would have been lost forever, probably melted down and traded in for the value.
> 3. God would not allow this priceless treasure of information to pass into the hands of corrupt men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After this sparkling analysis by you, the rest of thinking humanity are supposed to take this testimony as believable?  Truth and RGS, testimonies are only for the individual, never for cooboration of another's belief.  This is America, and I am glad we have the right to believe what we want.  Have a blast with it.
Click to expand...


Were you trying to say corroborate because _cooborate_ is not a word. If you were trying to say corroborate, the sentence doesn't make sense and I don't know how to reply to you. 
Are you trying to say that because I believe Joseph's account that I'm trying to force it on others? 
You're way off if that's the case. I'm just telling everyone the truth about "Mormons".

One of our articles of faith states that "We believe in worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men everywhere the same privilege. Let them worship how, where and what they may."

Please, no double talk.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plates could be carbon dated if God decided to make them available again. And he will. We will all get to see them eventually. They would be carbon dated between 2600 and 1700 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carbon dating would be impossible with metal objects.
Click to expand...


Learn something new every day.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> No, they handled the plates.  They never actually saw the plates physically with their eyes in the light of day.  Go back and study that, Avatar4321.  Go read your Bible on guidance to determine what is true or not.  That "burning in your bosom" may very well just be heartburn.  But, nonetheless, if LDS'ism works for you and brings you closer to Jesus, go for it.



The first time Joseph saw the angel Moroni he told us that the light of the room was "brighter than the noonday sun". 
The same angel was the deliverer of the plates on the day of this statement.
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. 
Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris 

And also this statement:

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it. 
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith 

Oh yes it was in broad daylight.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The plates could be carbon dated if God decided to make them available again. And he will. We will all get to see them eventually. They would be carbon dated between 2600 and 1700 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon dating would be impossible with metal objects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn something new every day.
Click to expand...


So there was no evidence of joe ever having them, other than joe saying he had them, God didn't take back the ten commandments tablets, why would he take those?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon dating would be impossible with metal objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn something new every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there was no evidence of joe ever having them, other than joe saying he had them, God didn't take back the ten commandments tablets, why would he take those?
Click to expand...


Would you like to inform all of us who have been looking for said commandments where they are right now if God didn't take them away?

you are astounding froggy, what'll ya think of next?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn something new every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was no evidence of joe ever having them, other than joe saying he had them, God didn't take back the ten commandments tablets, why would he take those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you like to inform all of us who have been looking for said commandments where they are right now if God didn't take them away?
> 
> you are astounding froggy, what'll ya think of next?
Click to expand...


You mormons didn't fall far from joes tree, Where in the bible did god say, " oh by the way moses i'll need those back"?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> No, they handled the plates.  They never actually saw the plates physically with their eyes in the light of day.  Go back and study that, Avatar4321.  Go read your Bible on guidance to determine what is true or not.  That "burning in your bosom" may very well just be heartburn.  But, nonetheless, if LDS'ism works for you and brings you closer to Jesus, go for it.



After the long difficult research of reading what they actually wrote when they stated they saw the plates and were shown the plates and saw the engravings therein. Ive decided you dont know jack.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> You mormons didn't fall far from joes tree, Where in the bible did god say, " oh by the way moses i'll need those back"?



I hate to break this to you, but there is alot that God has said that didnt make it to the Bible. I know this is a difficult concept for you. But it really shouldnt be. Your own relationship with God is not in the Bible. Does that mean you arent saved? Think about it.

Where are the tablets?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mormons didn't fall far from joes tree, Where in the bible did god say, " oh by the way moses i'll need those back"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, but there is alot that God has said that didnt make it to the Bible. I know this is a difficult concept for you. But it really shouldnt be. Your own relationship with God is not in the Bible. Does that mean you arent saved? Think about it.
> 
> Where are the tablets?
Click to expand...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okd3hLlvvLw[/ame]  this is the way mormons think(imagine joe said and believe it)


----------



## Skeptik

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there was no evidence of joe ever having them, other than joe saying he had them, God didn't take back the ten commandments tablets, why would he take those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like to inform all of us who have been looking for said commandments where they are right now if God didn't take them away?
> 
> you are astounding froggy, what'll ya think of next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mormons didn't fall far from joes tree, Where in the bible did god say, " oh by the way moses i'll need those back"?
Click to expand...



He didn't did he?  So, which Jewish museum has the tablets on display today?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mormons didn't fall far from joes tree, Where in the bible did god say, " oh by the way moses i'll need those back"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, but there is alot that God has said that didnt make it to the Bible. I know this is a difficult concept for you. But it really shouldnt be. Your own relationship with God is not in the Bible. Does that mean you arent saved? Think about it.
> 
> Where are the tablets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the way mormons think(imagine joe said and believe it)
Click to expand...


I dont really care what you think about the answers. Id just like you to answer the questions

1) Where are the ten commandment tablets? This has nothing to do with Joseph. So you dont really have an excuse.

2) Do you honestly believe everything God has said is in the Bible?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, but there is alot that God has said that didnt make it to the Bible. I know this is a difficult concept for you. But it really shouldnt be. Your own relationship with God is not in the Bible. Does that mean you arent saved? Think about it.
> 
> Where are the tablets?
> 
> 
> 
> this is the way mormons think(imagine joe said and believe it)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont really care what you think about the answers. Id just like you to answer the questions
> 
> 1) Where are the ten commandment tablets? This has nothing to do with Joseph. So you dont really have an excuse.
> 
> 2) Do you honestly believe everything God has said is in the Bible?
Click to expand...


Some rich collecters vault i'd imagine.


----------



## froggy

Do you think God would give us his commandments and then hid them from us. God put his word inside us. He doesn't have to hide it from us to be dug up years later in a field by a con. Well ava what your answer?


----------



## Zona

Dr.House said:


> "I post drunk."_ - Autozona_





Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I post drunk."_ - Autozona_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I like little boys" - _Dr. House_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why on earth are you telling Dr. House that you like little boys? You've got serious issues man.
Click to expand...


You must have missed it.  If you need a guide, please tell the attendants.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Some rich collecters vault i'd imagine.



You think a rich collector has the ten commandments???


----------



## Avatar4321

Though not specifically related to anything we are currently discussing. I though a link to Mormon Scholars Testify might be an interesting reprieve for our normal discussion and allow people to get a new perspective on the topic of mormonism


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> You must have missed it.  If you need a guide, please tell the attendants.



No, I saw it quite fine. I'm glad to see you are seeking professional help, but if you probably need to work on talking to the good doctor privately so you dont tell everyone everything. Confidentiality that way and all.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Do you think God would give us his commandments and then hid them from us. God put his word inside us. He doesn't have to hide it from us to be dug up years later in a field by a con.



I think God hides alot from us in mercy because we are simply too unprepared for alot of what He has to present to us. Paul spoke in the Bible that he was providing the people the milk of the Gospel in his epistles. That they werent ready for meat. Sadly, I think that is still true today.

God has so many things He wants to share with us. I mean look at all the knowledge He has poured out on all His children in the last 200 years. Could we be here talking from various locations around the world instantaneously if not for the grace of God? Could we without His mercy showing us how?

The Lord has commanded us to "Ask and ye shall recieve; seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be given unto you." Does it sound like everythings just handed to us? or that its already in us? Or does it sound like God wants us to work and search out His Word. He wants us to prove our trustworthiness.

Sadly few do try and many who try arent at the point where they can recieve much yet because they havent recieve all theyve already been given.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some rich collecters vault i'd imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think a rich collector has the ten commandments???
Click to expand...


You wanted to know where i thought the tablets were.


----------



## Zona

Two words.  Glenn Beck.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think God would give us his commandments and then hid them from us. God put his word inside us. He doesn't have to hide it from us to be dug up years later in a field by a con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think God hides alot from us in mercy because we are simply too unprepared for alot of what He has to present to us. Paul spoke in the Bible that he was providing the people the milk of the Gospel in his epistles. That they werent ready for meat. Sadly, I think that is still true today.
> 
> God has so many things He wants to share with us. I mean look at all the knowledge He has poured out on all His children in the last 200 years. Could we be here talking from various locations around the world instantaneously if not for the grace of God? Could we without His mercy showing us how?
> 
> The Lord has commanded us to "Ask and ye shall recieve; seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be given unto you." Does it sound like everythings just handed to us? or that its already in us? Or does it sound like God wants us to work and search out His Word. He wants us to prove our trustworthiness.
> 
> Sadly few do try and many who try arent at the point where they can recieve much yet because they havent recieve all theyve already been given.
Click to expand...


Your misleading again, the milk paul spoke of was for new christians he refered to as babes not able to eat meat like older christians. god gave us the holy ghost to help able us to understand his word.  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Two words.  Glenn Beck.



Yeah, you are obsessed with him. We get it.


----------



## Liability

Zona said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I post drunk."_ - Autozona_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I like little boys" - _Dr. House_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why on earth are you telling Dr. House that you like little boys? You've got serious issues man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed it.  If you need a guide, please tell the attendants.
Click to expand...


And ... ANOTHER one sails way the fuck over Zona's pinhead at mach speed!

It remains a mystery why Zona is inclined toward pedophilia.  But science, so far, is sadly aware of this:  there is no cure for pedophilia known to science.   Thus, there is no cure for Zona's expressed affliction.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon dating would be impossible with metal objects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn something new every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there was no evidence of joe ever having them, other than joe saying he had them, God didn't take back the ten commandments tablets, why would he take those?
Click to expand...


Evidences other than "Joe saying he had them" for the existence of the "gold plates":

-Witnesses of 12 others already posted
-Mobbers relentlessly vandalizing the Smith's property to find them
-Mobber who had his face wallopped by the heavy plates inside the bag
-The charactor set copied and presented to Dr.'s Mitchell and Anthon
-Horse bones carbon dated to book of mormon times
-Egyptian style mummies found in the new world also dated to said times
-Modified heiroglyphic use similar to Egyptian style found
-Pyramids
-Accurate path through Arabian desert described despite no knowledge on the matter.
-Ore and wood found as described
-Cities found with ancient ruins dating to said times.
-Widespread oral traditions among nearly all tribes of ancient pale god(Kate-zahl, Qetzal-Coatl) who once taught them.
-Tobacco found in Egypt pre-columbus
-Cocoa found in Egypt pre-columbus
-Egyptian figurines found in Guatemala dating to said times.
-End of Olmec culture destroyed as Mayan culture rises dating to same time as fall and rise of Jaredite culture and Nephite culture
-Oral traditions in agreement with book of mormon
-Burial site of Ishmael found, "Nahom", Yemen
-Tree of life, vision of Lehi stone found, Stella 5, dated to said times.

Do you want more? How many more evidences do you want? 
Like I said before, it is not evidences or ancient knick-knacks that convince someone, it is the Holy Spirit that speaks for Father in Heaven that confirms truths to us.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Two words.  Glenn Beck.



That's like saying "Two words: Abraham Lincoln."

Just because you say it like that, doesn't make him a bad guy.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn something new every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there was no evidence of joe ever having them, other than joe saying he had them, God didn't take back the ten commandments tablets, why would he take those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidences other than "Joe saying he had them" for the existence of the "gold plates":
> 
> -Witnesses of 12 others already posted
> -Mobbers relentlessly vandalizing the Smith's property to find them
> -Mobber who had his face wallopped by the heavy plates inside the bag
> -The charactor set copied and presented to Dr.'s Mitchell and Anthon
> -Horse bones carbon dated to book of mormon times
> -Egyptian style mummies found in the new world also dated to said times
> -Modified heiroglyphic use similar to Egyptian style found
> -Pyramids
> -Accurate path through Arabian desert described despite no knowledge on the matter.
> -Ore and wood found as described
> -Cities found with ancient ruins dating to said times.
> -Widespread oral traditions among nearly all tribes of ancient pale god(Kate-zahl, Qetzal-Coatl) who once taught them.
> -Tobacco found in Egypt pre-columbus
> -Cocoa found in Egypt pre-columbus
> -Egyptian figurines found in Guatemala dating to said times.
> -End of Olmec culture destroyed as Mayan culture rises dating to same time as fall and rise of Jaredite culture and Nephite culture
> -Oral traditions in agreement with book of mormon
> -Burial site of Ishmael found, "Nahom", Yemen
> -Tree of life, vision of Lehi stone found, Stella 5, dated to said times.
> 
> Do you want more? How many more evidences do you want?
> Like I said before, it is not evidences or ancient knick-knacks that convince someone, it is the Holy Spirit that speaks for Father in Heaven that confirms truths to us.
Click to expand...


Show me the proof, not what joe wrote.


----------



## Truthspeaker

"Joe" didn't write that stuff? Those are facts.


----------



## froggy

Avatar1234 if you'd rid yourself of the mormons, you could become a fruitful vessel for the lord, instead of the corrupt fruit your spreading now, serve the lord God to be fruitful, and quit serving him in vain.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Show me the proof, not what joe wrote.



You havent even bothered to read what Joseph "wrote" so how would you even begin to know whether what he wrote was suported by evidence?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar1234 if you'd rid yourself of the mormons, you could become a fruitful vessel for the lord, instead of the corrupt fruit your spreading now, serve the lord God to be fruitful, and quit serving him in vain.



And what exactly would I have to do to be fruitful in your eyes?


----------



## kyzr

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And exactly how would you authenticate them, pray tell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The plates could be carbon dated if God decided to make them available again. And he will. We will all get to see them eventually. They would be carbon dated between 2600 and 1700 years old.
Click to expand...


Just reading thru some of these and "point of information'

*GOLD PLATES DO NOT CONTAIN ANY CARBON*


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar1234 if you'd rid yourself of the mormons, you could become a fruitful vessel for the lord, instead of the corrupt fruit your spreading now, serve the lord God to be fruitful, and quit serving him in vain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly would I have to do to be fruitful in your eyes?
Click to expand...


How many will you try to decieve through mormonism, get my point.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar1234 if you'd rid yourself of the mormons, you could become a fruitful vessel for the lord, instead of the corrupt fruit your spreading now, serve the lord God to be fruitful, and quit serving him in vain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly would I have to do to be fruitful in your eyes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many will you try to decieve through mormonism, get my point.
Click to expand...


No. Not at all. Did you make one?

How is encouraging people to see truth bad? How is encouraging them to accept Christ bad? How is encourage them to be better people bad? How is any of this unfruitful?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the proof, not what joe wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You havent even bothered to read what Joseph "wrote" so how would you even begin to know whether what he wrote was suported by evidence?
Click to expand...


Joe got the ideal from a book Ethan Smith had written earlier, Joe, Oliver Cowdery, and Cowdery cousin  David Whitmer. It was a scam. A great lie, he lied to those who invested in his illegal bank, the robbed them blind, he was a con. through his counsler Sidney Rigdon, after they got sued he split the country. Then he gave his (three witness) the boot. But ole cowdery got the last laugh on Joe. after joes demise,and the movement broke up Cowdery talked Brigham Young into starting it up again.


----------



## froggy

Ava do you have other so-called brother morms watching you on this site, and when someone tries to get you out, do they start sending you mormon messages?


----------



## Truthspeaker

kyzr said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about the age of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The plates could be carbon dated if God decided to make them available again. And he will. We will all get to see them eventually. They would be carbon dated between 2600 and 1700 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just reading thru some of these and "point of information'
> 
> *GOLD PLATES DO NOT CONTAIN ANY CARBON*
Click to expand...


I stood corrected a while ago.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what exactly would I have to do to be fruitful in your eyes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many will you try to deceive through mormonism, get my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Not at all. Did you make one?
> 
> How is encouraging people to see truth bad? How is encouraging them to accept Christ bad? How is encourage them to be better people bad? How is any of this unfruitful?
Click to expand...


Your working through a deceitful organization for one.


----------



## froggy

Collapse of church in Ohio
After the dedication of the Kirtland temple, Smith's life "descended into a tangle of intrigue and conflict."[84] The religious enthusiasm relating to the temple was destroyed by a series of internal disputes that caused the collapse of the church in Ohio.[86] One dispute had to do with the embarrassment caused by Smith's failure of "redeem Zion". Another dispute related to a 14-year-old girl named Fanny Alger, with whom Smith had married as a plural wife. Smith's assistant president Oliver Cowdery was dismayed by this, considering it to be a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair."[87]

The greatest strain on the church, however, was financial. From an economic perspective, the Kirtland temple had been "a disaster," as money that might have been used for the City of Zion was channeled into a costly building project. Both Smith and his church went deeply in debt, and Smith was "hounded by his creditors ever after."[88] In an attempt to recover, in August 1836, Smith dictated a revelation that there was "much treasure" in Salem, Massachusetts. Hoping he might find it with his seer stone, he and his closest associates left the financially troubled Kirtland community for the East. By September they were back in Kirtland; they returned with no treasure.[89]

A more common expedient for raising money on the frontier was wildcat banking. Smith did not have enough capital to obtain a state charter, but he printed notes anyway and circulated them in January 1837. The Kirtland Safety Society failed within a month. The notes had Smith's signature on them, and he was personally blamed for the fiasco. The onset of a nationwide panic in 1837 also encouraged creditors to pursue their debtors vigorously.[90] Many Latter Day Saints, including prominent leaders who had invested in the banking scheme, became disaffected and either left the church or were excommunicated.[91] There were even a couple of unseemly rows in the temple, including one occasion on which guns and knives were drawn.[92] When a leading apostle, David W. Patten, raised insulting questions, Smith slapped him in the face and kicked him into the yard.[93] After a warrant was issued for Smith's arrest on the charge of bank fraud, Smith and Rigdon fled Kirtland for Missouri on the night of January 12, 1838.[


----------



## Godboy

Truthspeaker said:


> "Joe" didn't write that stuff? Those are facts.



No they arent. You are a clear example of push over. Conmen like Joe love guys like you, and so do the current elders in your cult. They make tons of cash from idiots, but at least you got your nifty magic underwear starter kit.


----------



## Avatar4321

Godboy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Joe" didn't write that stuff? Those are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they arent. You are a clear example of push over. Conmen like Joe love guys like you, and so do the current elders in your cult. They make tons of cash from idiots, but at least you got your nifty magic underwear starter kit.
Click to expand...


You guys say Joseph was such a brilliant conman, yet an idiot. But he died in abject proverty. Murdered by people who hated him simply for his faith. What conman does that? What conman doesnt try to make money, but in fact, regularly gives his possessions away for free? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Godboy

Avatar4321 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Joe" didn't write that stuff? Those are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they arent. You are a clear example of push over. Conmen like Joe love guys like you, and so do the current elders in your cult. They make tons of cash from idiots, but at least you got your nifty magic underwear starter kit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys say Joseph was such a brilliant conman, yet an idiot. But he died in abject proverty. Murdered by people who hated him simply for his faith. What conman does that? What conman doesnt try to make money, but in fact, regularly gives his possessions away for free? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...


The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.


----------



## Avatar4321

Godboy said:


> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.



Can you name any farmer he supposedly ripped off? What town did he skip? If it happened more than once it cant be too difficult to cite.

And quite frankly, I dont need forgiveness from you for telling the truth and question citations. I dont know who you are. I've done nothing to you. So please keep your self righteous attitude to yourself.


----------



## Liability

A quickie recap:

Mormons believe the basic precepts and tenents of their Faith.

Those who are hostile to the Mormons disbelieve the historical basis for much of the Mormon faith.

IF one were to bother engaging in the form of argumentation favored by those here who are expressing such hostility to the Mormon faith, and apply it to the religion of choice of such critics, I wonder how they'd feel about it?  Would their answers be founded on anything better than *the faith* expressed by the Mormon faithful?  I doubt it.

Now back to our show:

*BUMP!*


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they arent. You are a clear example of push over. Conmen like Joe love guys like you, and so do the current elders in your cult. They make tons of cash from idiots, but at least you got your nifty magic underwear starter kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say Joseph was such a brilliant conman, yet an idiot. But he died in abject proverty. Murdered by people who hated him simply for his faith. What conman does that? What conman doesnt try to make money, but in fact, regularly gives his possessions away for free? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.
Click to expand...


Source please.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they arent. You are a clear example of push over. Conmen like Joe love guys like you, and so do the current elders in your cult. They make tons of cash from idiots, but at least you got your nifty magic underwear starter kit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say Joseph was such a brilliant conman, yet an idiot. But he died in abject proverty. Murdered by people who hated him simply for his faith. What conman does that? What conman doesnt try to make money, but in fact, regularly gives his possessions away for free? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.
Click to expand...


Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> A quickie recap:
> 
> Mormons believe the basic precepts and tenents of their Faith.
> 
> Those who are hostile to the Mormons disbelieve the historical basis for much of the Mormon faith.
> 
> IF one were to bother engaging in the form of argumentation favored by those here who are expressing such hostility to the Mormon faith, and apply it to the religion of choice of such critics, I wonder how they'd feel about it?  Would their answers be founded on anything better than *the faith* expressed by the Mormon faithful?  I doubt it.
> 
> Now back to our show:
> 
> *BUMP!*



Isn't that the truth?!! And HOW?!

You could pick any religion out of a hat and the skeletons in their closet would be far worse than any pretended to be of our religion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A little for those challenged on Mormon culture.  Please feel free to add to it.

MO DICTIONARY


MO - Mormon
NO MO - Non-Mormon
MO NO MO - Apostate
MO NOPOLY - Utah
MO TOWN - Provo
MO PEDS - People walking across the street to Temple Square or the MTC in Provo.
MO HAIR - Missionary standards haircut.
PO MO - A financially challenged Mormon
MO LASSES - Mormon Babes!!
MO TEL - Bishop's interview, tithing settlement.
PO MO HOMO - a postmormon gay.
SU MO - Grad of BYU Law School
MO GUL - Large white Utah bird frequently seen in Church history books, parking lots and dumps.
MO RALLY - Third quarter BYU drive against the U of U.
MO SEY - LDS sense of time. See also LOCO MO TION.
LOCO MO TION - Post-game exodus from Cougar Stadium.
MO NOGOMY - LDS marriage practices.
MO TIF - Two or more Mormons engaged in a heated difference of opinion.
MO LDIE - Older LDS member, temple worker, etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

As I was walking past the City-County building on State Street this morning, I heard a voice cry out as if it were a voice crying out from the wilderness. The voice said, "Look! Behold the legacy of Mormonism." And I looked and saw a multitude gathered in front of the Matheson Courthouse. There were many men, women, and children milling about. The women were of curious nature and had long ponytails that would have made Rapunzel jealous. There seemed to be some kind of post-Pioneer Day Celebration going on. I was mesmerized. Just then the voice said, "Look!" And I looked and saw old men hugging their granddaughters. And I said, "What's the big deal about that?" And the voice said, "That's not their granddaughters." "Who are these people," I asked. And the voice said, "Behold, these are the people who would not go along to get along when the Federal Government outlawed polygamy. They are the spawn of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "But the mainstream Mormon Church decries and disavows polygamy," I said. And I heard the voice chuckle and say, "The mainstream Mormon Church is playing possum. Polygamy is still part of their canonized scripture. The mainstream Mormon Church lies to avoid governmental intrusion." "Wow, how can anyone ever fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," I said. And the voice said, "Listen!" And I listened. And the voice said, "To fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you must be in Utah but not of Utah." "In Utah but not of Utah? For how long," I said. And the voice said, "Until the twelfth of never, and that's a long, long time." And I said to the voice, "Who are you?" And the voice said, "I am Donald of OZmund." "Donald of OZmund, do you have a sister named Marie," I said. And as the voice faded away it said, "Yeah, what's it to ya?" Utah is getting "curiouser and curiouser."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> You could pick any religion out of a hat and the skeletons in their closet would be far worse than any pretended to be of our religion.



Any religion is a pick list to choose from, but your basic point is generally correct.  But that does not excuse you from the historical truth of your own set of beliefs.  And that truth condemns much of it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> A little for those challenged on Mormon culture.  Please feel free to add to it.
> 
> MO DICTIONARY
> 
> 
> MO - Mormon
> NO MO - Non-Mormon
> MO NO MO - Apostate
> MO NOPOLY - Utah
> MO TOWN - Provo
> MO PEDS - People walking across the street to Temple Square or the MTC in Provo.
> MO HAIR - Missionary standards haircut.
> PO MO - A financially challenged Mormon
> MO LASSES - Mormon Babes!!
> MO TEL - Bishop's interview, tithing settlement.
> PO MO HOMO - a postmormon gay.
> SU MO - Grad of BYU Law School
> MO GUL - Large white Utah bird frequently seen in Church history books, parking lots and dumps.
> MO RALLY - Third quarter BYU drive against the U of U.
> MO SEY - LDS sense of time. See also LOCO MO TION.
> LOCO MO TION - Post-game exodus from Cougar Stadium.
> MO NOGOMY - LDS marriage practices.
> MO TIF - Two or more Mormons engaged in a heated difference of opinion.
> MO LDIE - Older LDS member, temple worker, etc.



That IS witty.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> As I was walking past the City-County building on State Street this morning, I heard a voice cry out as if it were a voice crying out from the wilderness. The voice said, "Look! Behold the legacy of Mormonism." And I looked and saw a multitude gathered in front of the Matheson Courthouse. There were many men, women, and children milling about. The women were of curious nature and had long ponytails that would have made Rapunzel jealous. There seemed to be some kind of post-Pioneer Day Celebration going on. I was mesmerized. Just then the voice said, "Look!" And I looked and saw old men hugging their granddaughters. And I said, "What's the big deal about that?" And the voice said, "That's not their granddaughters." "Who are these people," I asked. And the voice said, "Behold, these are the people who would not go along to get along when the Federal Government outlawed polygamy. They are the spawn of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "But the mainstream Mormon Church decries and disavows polygamy," I said. And I heard the voice chuckle and say, "The mainstream Mormon Church is playing possum. Polygamy is still part of their canonized scripture. The mainstream Mormon Church lies to avoid governmental intrusion." "Wow, how can anyone ever fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," I said. And the voice said, "Listen!" And I listened. And the voice said, "To fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you must be in Utah but not of Utah." "In Utah but not of Utah? For how long," I said. And the voice said, "Until the twelfth of never, and that's a long, long time." And I said to the voice, "Who are you?" And the voice said, "I am Donald of OZmund." "Donald of OZmund, do you have a sister named Marie," I said. And as the voice faded away it said, "Yeah, what's it to ya?" Utah is getting "curiouser and curiouser."



It's really not that hard to understand. Especially when all our doctrine is written down for the public to examine.


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I was walking past the City-County building on State Street this morning, I heard a voice cry out as if it were a voice crying out from the wilderness. The voice said, "Look! Behold the legacy of Mormonism." And I looked and saw a multitude gathered in front of the Matheson Courthouse. There were many men, women, and children milling about. The women were of curious nature and had long ponytails that would have made Rapunzel jealous. There seemed to be some kind of post-Pioneer Day Celebration going on. I was mesmerized. Just then the voice said, "Look!" And I looked and saw old men hugging their granddaughters. And I said, "What's the big deal about that?" And the voice said, "That's not their granddaughters." "Who are these people," I asked. And the voice said, "Behold, these are the people who would not go along to get along when the Federal Government outlawed polygamy. They are the spawn of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "But the mainstream Mormon Church decries and disavows polygamy," I said. And I heard the voice chuckle and say, "The mainstream Mormon Church is playing possum. Polygamy is still part of their canonized scripture. The mainstream Mormon Church lies to avoid governmental intrusion." "Wow, how can anyone ever fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," I said. And the voice said, "Listen!" And I listened. And the voice said, "To fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you must be in Utah but not of Utah." "In Utah but not of Utah? For how long," I said. And the voice said, "Until the twelfth of never, and that's a long, long time." And I said to the voice, "Who are you?" And the voice said, "I am Donald of OZmund." "Donald of OZmund, do you have a sister named Marie," I said. And as the voice faded away it said, "Yeah, what's it to ya?" Utah is getting "curiouser and curiouser."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's really not that hard to understand. Especially when all our doctrine is written down for the public to examine.
Click to expand...


It's not hard to understand at all.  But you are talking to Jokey.  He and truth are not on speaking terms, you know.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could pick any religion out of a hat and the skeletons in their closet would be far worse than any pretended to be of our religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any religion is a pick list to choose from, but your basic point is generally correct.  But that does not excuse you from the historical truth of your own set of beliefs.  And that truth condemns much of it.
Click to expand...


My name says it all buddy. I ain't afraid of truth. There are always two sides to every story. I haven't found any truths that condemn my religion. Care to share some with us?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> As I was walking past the City-County building on State Street this morning, I heard a voice cry out as if it were a voice crying out from the wilderness. The voice said, "Look! Behold the legacy of Mormonism." And I looked and saw a multitude gathered in front of the Matheson Courthouse. There were many men, women, and children milling about. The women were of curious nature and had long ponytails that would have made Rapunzel jealous. There seemed to be some kind of post-Pioneer Day Celebration going on. I was mesmerized. Just then the voice said, "Look!" And I looked and saw old men hugging their granddaughters. And I said, "What's the big deal about that?" And the voice said, "That's not their granddaughters." "Who are these people," I asked. And the voice said, "Behold, these are the people who would not go along to get along when the Federal Government outlawed polygamy. They are the spawn of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "But the mainstream Mormon Church decries and disavows polygamy," I said. And I heard the voice chuckle and say, "The mainstream Mormon Church is playing possum. Polygamy is still part of their canonized scripture. The mainstream Mormon Church lies to avoid governmental intrusion." "Wow, how can anyone ever fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," I said. And the voice said, "Listen!" And I listened. And the voice said, "To fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you must be in Utah but not of Utah." "In Utah but not of Utah? For how long," I said. And the voice said, "Until the twelfth of never, and that's a long, long time." And I said to the voice, "Who are you?" And the voice said, "I am Donald of OZmund." "Donald of OZmund, do you have a sister named Marie," I said. And as the voice faded away it said, "Yeah, what's it to ya?" Utah is getting "curiouser and curiouser."



Please excuse my language, but what the hell are you talking about? And as this seems ot be some sort of cut and paste do you have a source?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I was walking past the City-County building on State Street this morning, I heard a voice cry out as if it were a voice crying out from the wilderness. The voice said, "Look! Behold the legacy of Mormonism." And I looked and saw a multitude gathered in front of the Matheson Courthouse. There were many men, women, and children milling about. The women were of curious nature and had long ponytails that would have made Rapunzel jealous. There seemed to be some kind of post-Pioneer Day Celebration going on. I was mesmerized. Just then the voice said, "Look!" And I looked and saw old men hugging their granddaughters. And I said, "What's the big deal about that?" And the voice said, "That's not their granddaughters." "Who are these people," I asked. And the voice said, "Behold, these are the people who would not go along to get along when the Federal Government outlawed polygamy. They are the spawn of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." "But the mainstream Mormon Church decries and disavows polygamy," I said. And I heard the voice chuckle and say, "The mainstream Mormon Church is playing possum. Polygamy is still part of their canonized scripture. The mainstream Mormon Church lies to avoid governmental intrusion." "Wow, how can anyone ever fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," I said. And the voice said, "Listen!" And I listened. And the voice said, "To fully understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you must be in Utah but not of Utah." "In Utah but not of Utah? For how long," I said. And the voice said, "Until the twelfth of never, and that's a long, long time." And I said to the voice, "Who are you?" And the voice said, "I am Donald of OZmund." "Donald of OZmund, do you have a sister named Marie," I said. And as the voice faded away it said, "Yeah, what's it to ya?" Utah is getting "curiouser and curiouser."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please excuse my language, but what the hell are you talking about? And as this seems ot be some sort of cut and paste do you have a source?
Click to expand...


He's doing the same thing Joey did, making up a story.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say Joseph was such a brilliant conman, yet an idiot. But he died in abject proverty. Murdered by people who hated him simply for his faith. What conman does that? What conman doesnt try to make money, but in fact, regularly gives his possessions away for free? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too
Click to expand...

Sourcew of moses being a con, please.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sourcew of moses being a con, please.
Click to expand...




I am not saying that Moses was a con-man. But akin to YOUR stupid critique of Joseph Smith, *the tablets which Moses carried are also missing*.  If missing tablets (of gold or stone) are an indication that the one who brought them to the people is a con-man in the case of J. Smith, then your logic would SEEM to suggest that Moses must have been a con-man, too.

I AM surprised that you consider Moses a con-man.  I find your lack of faith disturbing.


----------



## froggy

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too
> 
> 
> 
> Sourcew of moses being a con, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that Moses was a con-man. But akin to YOUR stupid critique of Joseph Smith, *the tablets which Moses carried are also missing*.  If missing tablets (of gold or stone) are an indication that the one who brought them to the people is a con-man in the case of J. Smith, then your logic would SEEM to suggest that Moses must have been a con-man, too.
> 
> I AM surprised that you consider Moses a con-man.  I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Click to expand...

But moses actually had the tablets. When joes story got out about looking for the gold plates other shysters came loking for them but joe quickly told he had found them but never could produce the actual plates. He told he was translating them from beneath the dirt through a seer stone he placed in a stovepipe hat, what a crock.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could pick any religion out of a hat and the skeletons in their closet would be far worse than any pretended to be of our religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any religion is a pick list to choose from, but your basic point is generally correct.  But that does not excuse you from the historical truth of your own set of beliefs.  And that truth condemns much of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My name says it all buddy. I ain't afraid of truth. There are always two sides to every story. I haven't found any truths that condemn my religion. Care to share some with us?
Click to expand...


We have been over plenty of them.  You simply won't (can't?) apply the same standard to your beliefs that you put on others.  Not unusual.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability, I find your inability to use constructive reasoning disturbing.  But there it is.  You are a D level reasoner.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too
> 
> 
> 
> Sourcew of moses being a con, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that Moses was a con-man. But akin to YOUR stupid critique of Joseph Smith, *the tablets which Moses carried are also missing*.  If missing tablets (of gold or stone) are an indication that the one who brought them to the people is a con-man in the case of J. Smith, then your logic would SEEM to suggest that Moses must have been a con-man, too.
> 
> I AM surprised that you consider Moses a con-man.  I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Click to expand...


For everyone involved, I was referring to Moses using a rod to strike a rock to make water come out of it, not either of their being a con man. But hey everyone always has bad things to say about all prophets. There is not one who is immune to attacks of jealousy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sourcew of moses being a con, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that Moses was a con-man. But akin to YOUR stupid critique of Joseph Smith, *the tablets which Moses carried are also missing*.  If missing tablets (of gold or stone) are an indication that the one who brought them to the people is a con-man in the case of J. Smith, then your logic would SEEM to suggest that Moses must have been a con-man, too.
> 
> I AM surprised that you consider Moses a con-man.  I find your lack of faith disturbing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But moses actually had the tablets. When joes story got out about looking for the gold plates other shysters came loking for them but joe quickly told he had found them but never could produce the actual plates. He told he was translating them from beneath the dirt through a seer stone he placed in a stovepipe hat, what a crock.
Click to expand...


Your logic is crooked. He put all his effort into KEEPING THE PLATES HIDDEN in a gold hungry society, not into showing them to everyone. That would NOT have been the smartest thing to do out on the frontier if you have ANY intention of trying to keep them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any religion is a pick list to choose from, but your basic point is generally correct.  But that does not excuse you from the historical truth of your own set of beliefs.  And that truth condemns much of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My name says it all buddy. I ain't afraid of truth. There are always two sides to every story. I haven't found any truths that condemn my religion. Care to share some with us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have been over plenty of them.  You simply won't (can't?) apply the same standard to your beliefs that you put on others.  Not unusual.
Click to expand...


Nice sidestep

Please, don't shy away from the issues you claim I ignore. Let's go 1 at a time and make it easy. I'll be waiting.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> _[Joseph Smith] put all his effort into KEEPING THE PLATES HIDDEN in a gold hungry society, not into showing them to everyone._



(sigh) Truth, did JS _show _them to _anyone_? Did one individual say that s/he actually saw them with his/her own physical sight?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> My name says it all buddy. I ain't afraid of truth. There are always two sides to every story. I haven't found any truths that condemn my religion. Care to share some with us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been over plenty of them.  You simply won't (can't?) apply the same standard to your beliefs that you put on others.  Not unusual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice sidestep
> 
> Please, don't shy away from the issues you claim I ignore. Let's go 1 at a time and make it easy. I'll be waiting.
Click to expand...


We have handled your issues here many, many times to Mormonism's disadvantage.  Concentrate for a moment on who _actually _saw the gold plates.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And you, Truth, along with Avatar, I believe, were nattering on sometime earlier about blacks being the spiritual recipients of those spirits in the "pre-mortal" existence who were somehow less valiant than other spirits in the spiritual war between Jesus and Lucifer.  I pointed out that the last of the LDS apostles who smacked of that type of Rudger Clawson racism (look him up) were D. Stapely and M. Romney.  All that nonsense went out with Kimball's inclusion of the blacks into the blessings of the priesthood and temple, et al.  Really, you don't understand your own denomination's history and culture.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been over plenty of them.  You simply won't (can't?) apply the same standard to your beliefs that you put on others.  Not unusual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sidestep
> 
> Please, don't shy away from the issues you claim I ignore. Let's go 1 at a time and make it easy. I'll be waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have handled your issues here many, many times to Mormonism's disadvantage.  Concentrate for a moment on who _actually _saw the gold plates.
Click to expand...


no one saw the so called gold plates. Joe cohersed with, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and the brains of it all, Sidney Rigdon. It was all made up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth, who actually saw the golden plates, other than (give you the benefit of the doubt) Captain Moroni and young Joseph?


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Joseph Smith] put all his effort into KEEPING THE PLATES HIDDEN in a gold hungry society, not into showing them to everyone._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) Truth, did JS _show _them to _anyone_? Did one individual say that s/he actually saw them with his/her own physical sight?
Click to expand...


Truth already answered that question.  Try to keep up.

Oh, yes, the answer was yes.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth, who actually saw the golden plates, other than (give you the benefit of the doubt) Captain Moroni and young Joseph?



Do you even bother reading? The Book of Mormon begins with the testimony of the 12 main witnesses who saw and handled the plates. Their testimony has been provided to you multiple times. Are you still seriously trying to claim otherwise.

They arent the only ones either.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability, I find your inability to use constructive reasoning disturbing.  But there it is.  You are a D level reasoner.



Nobody cares what a fucking dickhead like you supposedly "finds."  You find tinfoil simply fascinating.  It's all shiny!

Your assessements carry no weight because you are just retarded.


----------



## Godboy

Truthspeaker said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say Joseph was such a brilliant conman, yet an idiot. But he died in abject proverty. Murdered by people who hated him simply for his faith. What conman does that? What conman doesnt try to make money, but in fact, regularly gives his possessions away for free? Your position makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too
Click to expand...


Moses aint my boy. He as crazy of the rest of you religious wackjobs. Yes my name is Godboy, but my avatar is a pentagram. I mock religion with glee, particularly the really crazy ones like Scientology, Islam and Mormonism. If its any consolation, of the 3 dumbest religions on earth, yours is in third place, so at least you got that going for you.


----------



## Liability

Godboy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moses aint my boy. He as crazy of the rest of you religious wackjobs. Yes my name is Godboy, but my avatar is a pentagram. I mock religion with glee, particularly the really crazy ones like Scientology, Islam and Mormonism. If its any concellation, of the 3 dumbest religions on earth, yours is in third place, so at least you got that going for you.
Click to expand...


I mock Islam, Scientology and I tweak the occasional Mormon.

Except, Scientology isn't really a religion.  It's Science Fiction based fraud.  Not much more to it.

And Islam is fucking vile shit.  Allah said so!  Don't believe me?  Just ask Hammer and Sickle-cell boi, Proletaerianism, or whatever that dickless idiot calls himself.

And mocking another person's faith is really classless.  You oughta be ashamed of you.  


I know I am 



ashamed of you.


----------



## Avatar4321

Godboy said:


> Moses aint my boy. He as crazy of the rest of you religious wackjobs. Yes my name is Godboy, but my avatar is a pentagram. I mock religion with glee, particularly the really crazy ones like Scientology, Islam and Mormonism. If its any consolation, of the 3 dumbest religions on earth, yours is in third place, so at least you got that going for you.



Ah I see. You have absolutely no support for your position so you have to resort to mocking. How utterly ironic that you mock the Book of Mormon when it describes you so perfectly.


----------



## Liability

A mocking bump!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Joseph Smith] put all his effort into KEEPING THE PLATES HIDDEN in a gold hungry society, not into showing them to everyone._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) Truth, did JS _show _them to _anyone_? Did one individual say that s/he actually saw them with his/her own physical sight?
Click to expand...


Did you bother to read the tesimony of the 13 witnesses I posted. All who claimed Joseph showed them said plates and engravings.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> And you, Truth, along with Avatar, I believe, were nattering on sometime earlier about blacks being the spiritual recipients of those spirits in the "pre-mortal" existence who were somehow less valiant than other spirits in the spiritual war between Jesus and Lucifer.  I pointed out that the last of the LDS apostles who smacked of that type of Rudger Clawson racism (look him up) were D. Stapely and M. Romney.  All that nonsense went out with Kimball's inclusion of the blacks into the blessings of the priesthood and temple, et al.  Really, you don't understand your own denomination's history and culture.



Let's talk about what's being misunderstood:

The less valiant doctrine was applied to those who were born in an age where there would be no access to the priesthood. What many fail to understand is that this applied not only to blacks but to everyone else who wouldn't get a chance to have it. 
And who really cares if they were less valiant then?
It's about what you've done lately that will save you, not what you did in the pre-existence. Lucifer was VERY valiant before he turncoated. None of that matters. The truth is the truth and we would do well not to be offended by it. God doesn't care about your idea of political correctness. 

How about the doctrine taught by Gordon B. Hinckley in which he is quoted "Now the Lord has sent some of his most valiant and talented spirits in to these people(blacks). They too were prepared before the foundation of the world. Reserved until the last hour to fight against Satan during his hardest push to overthrow the work of God."

But certainly this quote doesn't get any press from people like you. You want to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel just like the Pharisees. Please consider your double talk more carefully before you attack someone more knowledgeable than you. It's not arrogance. It's eternal truth

To quote the emperor from "Mulan":
No matter how loud the wind howls, the mountain will never bow to it.

You are the wind. The doctrine is the mountain.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Godboy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guy used to rip off farmers before he came across the religion con. He claimed he could use divining rods to find water. After a couple weeks when he wasnt able to produce results, he skipped out of town with a fist full of dollars in his hand and a mob of pissed of farmers on his trail. This happened more than once. He also claimed he could find people treasure, using those same rods. I forgive the ignorant people from those times, but you people in the modern age have no excuse for believing in that garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source please. I might add that your boy Moses did the same thing. Hopefully you're willing to forgive him too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moses aint my boy. He as crazy of the rest of you religious wackjobs. Yes my name is Godboy, but my avatar is a pentagram. I mock religion with glee, particularly the really crazy ones like Scientology, Islam and Mormonism. If its any consolation, of the 3 dumbest religions on earth, yours is in third place, so at least you got that going for you.
Click to expand...


Why thank you for that. What made you decide that God doesn't exist? What are you going to say to God when you  find out you were mocking someone you don't even believe in or know? How can you mock something you don't know? Does that seem smart? Are you just jealous because you don't have any direction in your life? What's it like not having any answers to questions regarding life or the injustices that occur? How empty does it feel to have no hope of ever seeing loved ones again after they die?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Joseph Smith] put all his effort into KEEPING THE PLATES HIDDEN in a gold hungry society, not into showing them to everyone._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) Truth, did JS _show _them to _anyone_? Did one individual say that s/he actually saw them with his/her own physical sight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read the tesimony of the 13 witnesses I posted. All who claimed Joseph showed them said plates and engravings.
Click to expand...


You mean the "13" co-conspirators?  Many of which left the church........Why?  If the plates existed.........who would want to leave the "real" and "true" church..............?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) Truth, did JS _show _them to _anyone_? Did one individual say that s/he actually saw them with his/her own physical sight?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read the tesimony of the 13 witnesses I posted. All who claimed Joseph showed them said plates and engravings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the "13" co-conspirators?  Many of which left the church........Why?  If the plates existed.........who would want to leave the "real" and "true" church..............?
Click to expand...


The more important question is, why if it was a fraud, did they go out of their way to affirm that they saw the plates even after having no vested interested in the Church? Take David Whitmer, he wasnt affiliated with the Church for years, but he still called up reporters before he died to tell them that He really did see the plates. Oliver and Martin both returned to the Church.

Simply because you know something is true and correct, doesnt mean you always live it. We are all sinners. Yet despite having every reason to deny their testimonies, they continued to bear witness that they saw the plates.

The only logical reason to do so is that they were being honest. They saw the plates and the angel. They heard the Lord proclaim that the Book of Mormon is true.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother to read the tesimony of the 13 witnesses I posted. All who claimed Joseph showed them said plates and engravings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the "13" co-conspirators?  Many of which left the church........Why?  If the plates existed.........who would want to leave the "real" and "true" church..............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more important question is, why if it was a fraud, did they go out of their way to affirm that they saw the plates even after having no vested interested in the Church? Take David Whitmer, he wasnt affiliated with the Church for years, but he still called up reporters before he died to tell them that He really did see the plates. Oliver and Martin both returned to the Church.
> 
> Simply because you know something is true and correct, doesnt mean you always live it. We are all sinners. Yet despite having every reason to deny their testimonies, they continued to bear witness that they saw the plates.
> 
> The only logical reason to do so is that they were being honest. They saw the plates and the angel. They heard the Lord proclaim that the Book of Mormon is true.
Click to expand...


To be a mormon, you must be willing to believe a lie no matter how stupid it is.


----------



## Liability

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the "13" co-conspirators?  Many of which left the church........Why?  If the plates existed.........who would want to leave the "real" and "true" church..............?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more important question is, why if it was a fraud, did they go out of their way to affirm that they saw the plates even after having no vested interested in the Church? Take David Whitmer, he wasnt affiliated with the Church for years, but he still called up reporters before he died to tell them that He really did see the plates. Oliver and Martin both returned to the Church.
> 
> Simply because you know something is true and correct, doesnt mean you always live it. We are all sinners. Yet despite having every reason to deny their testimonies, they continued to bear witness that they saw the plates.
> 
> The only logical reason to do so is that they were being honest. They saw the plates and the angel. They heard the Lord proclaim that the Book of Mormon is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be a mormon, you must be willing to believe a lie no matter how stupid it is.
Click to expand...


Like the story about a virgin giving birth to a baby boy?

Or the story of a human being who was both the Son of God and God Himself?

I know many folks who find those stories inexplicably stupid.  Some people cannot fathom how ANY adult, who isn't severely retarded, could believe such a thing.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> To be a mormon, you must be willing to believe a lie no matter how stupid it is.



Except you havent shown where anything is a lie or how it is stupid. And it's not like you havent had plenty of opportunity to.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the "13" co-conspirators?  Many of which left the church........Why?  If the plates existed.........who would want to leave the "real" and "true" church..............?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more important question is, why if it was a fraud, did they go out of their way to affirm that they saw the plates even after having no vested interested in the Church? Take David Whitmer, he wasnt affiliated with the Church for years, but he still called up reporters before he died to tell them that He really did see the plates. Oliver and Martin both returned to the Church.
> 
> Simply because you know something is true and correct, doesnt mean you always live it. We are all sinners. Yet despite having every reason to deny their testimonies, they continued to bear witness that they saw the plates.
> 
> The only logical reason to do so is that they were being honest. They saw the plates and the angel. They heard the Lord proclaim that the Book of Mormon is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be a mormon, you must be willing to believe a lie no matter how stupid it is.
Click to expand...


Simple concept. WHY would people no longer affiliated with the Church INSIST even upon their death bed they saw the Plates?


----------



## Liability

Let's start a LIST of GREAT threads involving issues about Religion and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Bump!


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> Let's start a LIST of GREAT threads involving issues about Religion and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Bump!



Is there a thread other than this?


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start a LIST of GREAT threads involving issues about Religion and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Bump!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a thread other than this?
Click to expand...


There are other threads.

But this one is gonna end up as one of the all time CLASSICS!


----------



## Dr.House

Liability said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start a LIST of GREAT threads involving issues about Religion and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Bump!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a thread other than this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are other threads.
> 
> But this one is gonna end up as one of the all time CLASSICS!
Click to expand...


Yes, this one tops the list..lol


----------



## Liability

Dr.House said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a thread other than this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are other threads.
> 
> But this one is gonna end up as one of the all time CLASSICS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, this one tops the list..lol
Click to expand...


Santa is makin' a list.  He's checkin' it TWICE!

And this Mormon thread is gonna be ON it!

It's the only list that really matters!


----------



## Truthspeaker

It's surprising to see how many people actually pay attention when we speak. We either ruffle feathers or command interest. I love it!


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> It's surprising to see how many people actually pay attention when we speak. We either ruffle feathers or command interest. I love it!



"Pride cometh before a fall, sayeth the Lord."


----------



## Liability

Take PRIDE in this terrific thread!

No falling down on the job!

Bump!


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's surprising to see how many people actually pay attention when we speak. We either ruffle feathers or command interest. I love it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Pride cometh before a fall, sayeth the Lord."
Click to expand...


I sincerely hope you take that to heart.  Maybe you will be more willing to listen to what the Lord has to say now rather than trying to claim He cant say any more.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well I certainly hope you all had a GREAT Christmas, Jew and Gentile alike. I know I had a great Christmas spending it with all the Jews in this country who came to Disneyland with us. It was way less crowded and the park was beautiful. I even saw a huge character costume of Joseph Smith in the parade! It was awesome.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Making up your own religion sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?


----------



## Liability

Screaming Eagle said:


> Making up your own religion sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?



Tell that to the Muslims.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Screaming Eagle said:


> Making up your own religion sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?



I guess if I did make up my own religion, I don't know what purpose I'd be defeating. Please elaborate since I haven't done either.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Truthspeaker said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making up your own religion sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if I did make up my own religion, I don't know what purpose I'd be defeating. Please elaborate since I haven't done either.
Click to expand...


Religion serves the purpose of worshiping God, instituted by God. Joe Smith just made a bunch of crap up and everyone knows it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Screaming Eagle said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Making up your own religion sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if I did make up my own religion, I don't know what purpose I'd be defeating. Please elaborate since I haven't done either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion serves the purpose of worshiping God, instituted by God. Joe Smith just made a bunch of crap up and everyone knows it.
Click to expand...


So your saying he just made things up and got extremely lucky with everything he nailed correctly? Personally, I think at some point you have to stop thinking it's just a coincidence and consider that there might be something to what he had to say.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Avatar4321 said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if I did make up my own religion, I don't know what purpose I'd be defeating. Please elaborate since I haven't done either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion serves the purpose of worshiping God, instituted by God. Joe Smith just made a bunch of crap up and everyone knows it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your saying he just made things up and got extremely lucky with everything he nailed correctly? Personally, I think at some point you have to stop thinking it's just a coincidence and consider that there might be something to what he had to say.
Click to expand...


Nah.


----------



## Avatar4321

Screaming Eagle said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religion serves the purpose of worshiping God, instituted by God. Joe Smith just made a bunch of crap up and everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying he just made things up and got extremely lucky with everything he nailed correctly? Personally, I think at some point you have to stop thinking it's just a coincidence and consider that there might be something to what he had to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah.
Click to expand...


So he didnt make things up. Glad to see you agree.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Examples like the one previous are the reasons why people continue to perpetuate ignorance.


----------



## strollingbones

doesnt your god live in heaven on what planet?  doesnt your god have sexual relations with the "heavenly mother"?  dont you believe that you are part of the spirit of god going back to the beginning and that you will become a "god" in the afterlife?  dont you also believe you can baptize the dead?

do latter day saints associate with those who are not of their religion?


----------



## strollingbones

and that the native americans are a tribe  of israel?


----------



## strollingbones

and tell us again where the garden of eden was?


----------



## Liability

strollingbones said:


> and tell us again where the garden of eden was?



You mean it wasn't in South Jersey?


----------



## Skeptik

strollingbones said:


> and tell us again where the garden of eden was?



Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden was on the American Continent (presumably, the North American) as that was one of the things that Joseph Smith said.  

As to you other questions, the answer is yes to all of them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> doesnt your god live in heaven on what planet?


Heaven is more a state of existence than an actual planet. God lives on whatever planet he wants to. The name of the planet he most often resides on is not given. But the star closest to the planet is called Kolob. I get that you're trying to mock me on this but that's ok. It's the truth.



> doesnt your god have sexual relations with the "heavenly mother"?


I don't know why people are mortified by the thought of sex in heaven. It's not a sin to have sex with a wife. It's one of the most powerful bonding experiences the two can have. But yes. We do believe that even though we don't talk much about it because sex is a sacred experience and shouldn't be spoken of lightly.




> dont you believe that you are part of the spirit of god going back to the beginning and that you will become a "god" in the afterlife?



We do not believe that we are part of the spirit of God. He has His own spirit, coupled with His own body. Just like us. Individual. We do not believe that we "will" become gods, but that by obedience to the commandments of God, we can eventually achieve godhood in the eternities. It is not an instant transformation. Just think how long it will take to achieve all knowledge. That's about the timeline. 



> dont you also believe you can baptize the dead?



No. We do not baptize the dead. They stay in their graves. We do however perform baptisms FOR the dead by proxy. The soul of the person deceased, witnessing the act from the other side has the choice to accept or reject that baptism.



> do latter day saints associate with those who are not of their religion?



I live in San Francisco. I barely associate with lds members.


----------



## strollingbones

i am not mocking you.  i was simply asking questions.  sorry you feel the need to be defensive.

your beliefs are your own...


----------



## strollingbones

i am reading "a higher authority" which deals with the mormon church and their core beliefs.


----------



## amrchaos

Truthspeaker said:


> doesnt your god live in heaven on what planet?
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven is more a state of existence than an actual planet. God lives on whatever planet he wants to. The name of the planet he most often resides on is not given. But the star closest to the planet is called Kolob. I get that you're trying to mock me on this but that's ok. It's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesnt your god have sexual relations with the "heavenly mother"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know why people are mortified by the thought of sex in heaven. It's not a sin to have sex with a wife. It's one of the most powerful bonding experiences the two can have. But yes. We do believe that even though we don't talk much about it because sex is a sacred experience and shouldn't be spoken of lightly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not believe that we are part of the spirit of God. He has His own spirit, coupled with His own body. Just like us. Individual. We do not believe that we "will" become gods, but that by obedience to the commandments of God, we can eventually achieve godhood in the eternities. It is not an instant transformation. Just think how long it will take to achieve all knowledge. That's about the timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont you also believe you can baptize the dead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. We do not baptize the dead. They stay in their graves. We do however perform baptisms FOR the dead by proxy. The soul of the person deceased, witnessing the act from the other side has the choice to accept or reject that baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do latter day saints associate with those who are not of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in San Francisco. I barely associate with lds members.
Click to expand...





Hold it--Wait--Are you telling me that you believe that *God is a space alien*??

I reasoned it out through the use of theological claims and a priori logic, but some believers here got their panties in a wad and refused to accept it!!

At last, we have a christian that admits the truth!!!  God is an E.T.!!


----------



## amrchaos

Truthspeaker said:


> doesnt your god live in heaven on what planet?
> 
> 
> 
> Heaven is more a state of existence than an actual planet. God lives on whatever planet he wants to. The name of the planet he most often resides on is not given. But the star closest to the planet is called Kolob. I get that you're trying to mock me on this but that's ok. It's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesnt your god have sexual relations with the "heavenly mother"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know why people are mortified by the thought of sex in heaven. It's not a sin to have sex with a wife. It's one of the most powerful bonding experiences the two can have. But yes. We do believe that even though we don't talk much about it because sex is a sacred experience and shouldn't be spoken of lightly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We do not believe that we are part of the spirit of God. He has His own spirit, coupled with His own body. Just like us. Individual. We do not believe that we "will" become gods, but that by obedience to the commandments of God, we can eventually achieve godhood in the eternities. It is not an instant transformation. Just think how long it will take to achieve all knowledge. That's about the timeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont you also believe you can baptize the dead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. We do not baptize the dead. They stay in their graves. We do however perform baptisms FOR the dead by proxy. The soul of the person deceased, witnessing the act from the other side has the choice to accept or reject that baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do latter day saints associate with those who are not of their religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in San Francisco. I barely associate with lds members.
Click to expand...





Hold it--Wait--Are you telling me that you believe that *God is a space alien*??

I reasoned it out through the use of theological claims and a priori logic, but some believers here got their panties in a wad and refused to accept it!!

At last, we have a christian that admits the truth!!!  The Christian God is an E.T.!!


----------



## strollingbones

surely in 3000 plus posts this is not the first time you have spoken of these beliefs?


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> and that the native americans are a tribe  of israel?



Yes, many of the native americans are of the various tribes of Israel.


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> and tell us again where the garden of eden was?



When the earth was of a different climate and in it's pangeaic state, The garden was located in what is present day Missouri. I know it's another one of our less known facts.


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> i am not mocking you.  i was simply asking questions.  sorry you feel the need to be defensive.
> 
> your beliefs are your own...



Not defensive. Just expectant of the mockery which comes with being a Mormon. I'll be fine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Hold it--Wait--Are you telling me that you believe that *God is a space alien*??
> 
> I reasoned it out through the use of theological claims and a priori logic, but some believers here got their panties in a wad and refused to accept it!!
> 
> At last, we have a christian that admits the truth!!!  God is an E.T.!!



Space Alien usually brings this image to mind






But really this is more like it:


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> surely in 3000 plus posts this is not the first time you have spoken of these beliefs?



Certainly not.


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> i am reading "a higher authority" which deals with the mormon church and their core beliefs.



That's cool. Who's it written by?


----------



## strollingbones

stephen white


----------



## Avatar4321

strollingbones said:


> stephen white



Interesting. Never heard of him or it. How is it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

I'm going to introduce an interesting new aspect to this thread. I am going to do a short expose on 1 Book of Mormon Character per day:

Today's person of the day?

Ammon





He lived in 90 BC and as a youth among the Nephites was very rebellious. He joined a gang led by Alma, and consisted of he and his brothers who were sons of the Nephite King Mosiah, in the which they committed many crimes but also fought to destroy the church of God and it's followers. After a miraculous conversion he embarked on a 14 year mission to spread the word of God among the Lamanites, a civilization which had broken away from the Nephites and although related were visciously hateful towards all Nephites and often killed them on site.

When he approached the people he was bound and taken before one of the local kings and astonished him by requesting to be his servant. He was put to work tending the kings sheep. A dangerous job since it required warding off marauders who often would scatter the flocks for sport. This would often result in the death of the herders who failed to protect the flocks. For the king executed servants who failed him.
While on the job many of the bandits came to scatter the flocks while Ammon was with the other servants. What followed after would become the most famous of all the doings of Ammon. He instructed the other servants to encircle the sheep "while I go and contend with these men." The power of God fell on him much like it fell upon David when he slew Goliath. The bandits were "in number not a few."
They began hurling stones at him with their slings. They all missed and during the crossfire Ammon killed 6 bandits with his sling. This angered the marauders and they charged him with their swords but every man who lifted his arm to strike Ammon had his arm chopped off by Ammon's skilled swordsmanship. During the attacks he killed their leader with his sword and the band fled after the arms and bodies piled up. 7 total were killed and a heap of dismembered arms were gathered by the shepherds and carried before the king as a testament to Ammon's doings. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And the arms were "not few in number." This act caused great amazement throughout the king's hall and inspired a fear of him as well. They thought he was a god or sent from the Great Spirit to destroy them. 
The King asked to speak with Ammon but didn't know what to say and after an hour of silence finally asked Ammon who he was and what was his purpose in coming to them. Ammon used this moment to influence the king to believe in God and His Son Jesus who would come soon among their people. This began a chain of events that led to one of the greatest conversions of all time. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The King and all his people in that region became converts to the Lord and friends to the Nephites.


----------



## Skeptik

This Stephen White, the author?  What does he have to do with religion?

Say, Truthspeaker, herding sheep in the Americas?  Are you sure?


----------



## barry1960

I am not a Mormon myself, but I do have an interest in their history. My dad grew up in Salt Lake City and my great grandfather was Brigham Young Junior. That makes Brigham Young my great great grandfather. Since he had 56 wives and 20,000 descendents, my ancestory is certainly not unique.

One thing that troubles me is Brigham Young's history regarding the Mountain Meadows massacre back in the 1850's. I believe about 150 unarmed settlers were massacred by Mormons. Originally the Mormons hoped to disguise themselves as Indians, but when that ruse failed they talked the settlers into disarming, then executed them. Historians do not know how complicit Brigham Young was in this matter, but most agree that at the very least he turned a blind eye to the incident.

I would hate to think that my great great grandfather was a mass murder. He does have a university named after him. What's next, the Charles Manson Institute of Technology? (I am not mocking you, just having a little fun. Although as a Christian I reject you religion, I respect that you take time to explain it on this very contentious message board). I am interested in your take on this historical incident.


----------



## strollingbones

Skeptik said:


> This Stephen White, the author?  What does he have to do with religion?
> 
> Say, Truthspeaker, herding sheep in the Americas?  Are you sure?



the book is a murder mystery....takes place in utah and deals with the mormon church and the core beliefs of mormons.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> This Stephen White, the author?  What does he have to do with religion?
> 
> Say, Truthspeaker, herding sheep in the Americas?  Are you sure?



Actually, I say sheep, but I stand corrected. The text says "flocks" and not sheep.


----------



## Truthspeaker

barry1960 said:


> I am not a Mormon myself, but I do have an interest in their history. My dad grew up in Salt Lake City and my great grandfather was Brigham Young Junior. That makes Brigham Young my great great grandfather. Since he had 56 wives and 20,000 descendents, my ancestory is certainly not unique.
> 
> One thing that troubles me is Brigham Young's history regarding the Mountain Meadows massacre back in the 1850's. I believe about 150 unarmed settlers were massacred by Mormons. Originally the Mormons hoped to disguise themselves as Indians, but when that ruse failed they talked the settlers into disarming, then executed them. Historians do not know how complicit Brigham Young was in this matter, but most agree that at the very least he turned a blind eye to the incident.
> 
> I would hate to think that my great great grandfather was a mass murder. He does have a university named after him. What's next, the Charles Manson Institute of Technology? (I am not mocking you, just having a little fun. Although as a Christian I reject you religion, I respect that you take time to explain it on this very contentious message board). I am interested in your take on this historical incident.



I don't know how numerous my addresses on this issue have been but rest assured, you haven't read the many discourses I've given on the subject. I advise you to read from the beginning or search the thread using the tools "search this thread." 

I'm tired of repeating myself sometimes but for your sake I'll sum up the more detailed explanation I've given earlier:

the historical account shows that Brigham Young had nothing to do with the sinful slaughter perpetrated by that band of members of our church. It has been proven that Brigham Young's letter reached the recipients too late telling the mormons in that area to "let them(the arkansas travelers) alone. You must not meddle with them."

Upon hearing of the atrocity it is reported he wept bitterly at the news. He condemned the unjustified cruelty of the murderers and was certainly the opposite of a mass murderer if you had read any of his teachings regarding the love of Christ and peace.

The murderers either fled, turned themselves in and all were punished according to the law and were obviously excommunicated from the church. This was NOT by order of the church and anyone who knows even a smidgeon of our doctrine must know that we teach the opposite of violence.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Stephen White, the author?  What does he have to do with religion?
> 
> Say, Truthspeaker, herding sheep in the Americas?  Are you sure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I say sheep, but I stand corrected. The text says "flocks" and not sheep.
Click to expand...


The only flocks that they had in the Americas before Columbus were of llamas an alpacas.  That's one of the questions that make one wonder about the Book of Mormon:  mention of horses and even elephants.  Those things simply didn't exist here at that time.  Ditto olive trees.  

Don't you wonder why old world plants and animals were ascribed to a new world culture that didn't know them?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> The only flocks that they had in the Americas before Columbus were of llamas an alpacas.



that is simply not true. There are discoveries that have been ignored and the other major problem with that notion is that only 2% of all mesoamerican sites have been excavated. It's the same as the fact that not a single lion skeleton has been found in ancient Israel, yet the Bible talks of lions. Those skeletons aren't lying around like fallen apples. Think of the climate in the jungle environment. everything just about gets swallowed up and vanishes. 



> That's one of the questions that make one wonder about the Book of Mormon:  mention of horses and even elephants.



It still amazes me that the ancient misconception about horses in bom times comes up. The discoveries have already been made but often are ignored. See this link
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals
Also the possibility of remnants of elephants surviving to Jaredite times as well. 
Book of Mormon Problems: Plants and Animals



> Those things simply didn't exist here at that time.  Ditto olive trees.



The olive trees were only spoken of by the original colony which were familiar with olive trees in Jerusalem. They never said there were olive trees in the new world. The allegory of the olive tree was given to them by prophets before their time in Jerusalem, not the new world.




> Don't you wonder why old world plants and animals were ascribed to a new world culture that didn't know them?



I contend that they did know them, and extensively.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormons Most Conservative Major Religious Group in U.S.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Mormon myself, but I do have an interest in their history. My dad grew up in Salt Lake City and my great grandfather was Brigham Young Junior. That makes Brigham Young my great great grandfather. Since he had 56 wives and 20,000 descendents, my ancestory is certainly not unique.
> 
> One thing that troubles me is Brigham Young's history regarding the Mountain Meadows massacre back in the 1850's. I believe about 150 unarmed settlers were massacred by Mormons. Originally the Mormons hoped to disguise themselves as Indians, but when that ruse failed they talked the settlers into disarming, then executed them. Historians do not know how complicit Brigham Young was in this matter, but most agree that at the very least he turned a blind eye to the incident.
> 
> I would hate to think that my great great grandfather was a mass murder. He does have a university named after him. What's next, the Charles Manson Institute of Technology? (I am not mocking you, just having a little fun. Although as a Christian I reject you religion, I respect that you take time to explain it on this very contentious message board). I am interested in your take on this historical incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how numerous my addresses on this issue have been but rest assured, you haven't read the many discourses I've given on the subject. I advise you to read from the beginning or search the thread using the tools "search this thread."
> 
> I'm tired of repeating myself sometimes but for your sake I'll sum up the more detailed explanation I've given earlier:
> 
> the historical account shows that Brigham Young had nothing to do with the sinful slaughter perpetrated by that band of members of our church. It has been proven that Brigham Young's letter reached the recipients too late telling the mormons in that area to "let them(the arkansas travelers) alone. You must not meddle with them."
> 
> Upon hearing of the atrocity it is reported he wept bitterly at the news. He condemned the unjustified cruelty of the murderers and was certainly the opposite of a mass murderer if you had read any of his teachings regarding the love of Christ and peace.
> 
> The murderers either fled, turned themselves in and all were punished according to the law and were obviously excommunicated from the church. This was NOT by order of the church and anyone who knows even a smidgeon of our doctrine must know that we teach the opposite of violence.
Click to expand...


B.Y. sent that letter after the fact to cover himself.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> B.Y. sent that letter after the fact to cover himself.



Of course, because he somehow sent it before it happened because he knew he would need it to cover it up. Are you saying that he had the gift of prophecy?


----------



## JakeStarkey

On the issue of Mountain Meadows, Truthspeaker has absolutely no creditibility; he is playing defense as a church homer, which is fine, but that is why I am pointing it out.

The best works by far are (1) Juanita Bagley (temple goer), _The Mountain Meadows Massacre_ (1950); (2) Will Bagley, _Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows _(2006); and (3) Richard Turley, Ron Walker and Glen Leonard, _Massacre at Mountain Meadows _(2008).  Brooks exonerates BY of plotting the attack but believes he covered it up; Bagley indicts Young for planning the crime and masterminding the coverup; Turley et al were the LDS church's picked team to defend BY's reputation and honor.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> On the issue of Mountain Meadows, Truthspeaker has absolutely no creditibility; he is playing defense as a church homer, which is fine, but that is why I am pointing it out.
> 
> The best works by far are (1) Juanita Bagley (temple goer), _The Mountain Meadows Massacre_ (1950); (2) Will Bagley, _Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows _(2006); and (3) Richard Turley, Ron Walker and Glen Leonard, _Massacre at Mountain Meadows _(2008).  Brooks exonerates BY of plotting the attack but believes he covered it up; Bagley indicts Young for planning the crime and masterminding the coverup; Turley et al were the LDS church's picked team to defend BY's reputation and honor.



No bias in your sources of course.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RGS, fair comment.  

Juanita Brooks was a temple going LDS member all of her life.  

Will Bagley is a 7th-generation "former member", as he calls it, and he firmly believes BY was involved in the planning of the mass murder right up to his whiskers.  

Turley et al are the LDS church's picked members to write an 'objective' history.  They exculpate Young and other high-church leaders in Salt Lake City from any involvement in the plotting of the massacre.

Is that fair?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

There is absolutely no credible evidence anywhere that Brigham Young was involved in the massacre at all. There is some evidence that he may have tried to cover it up, a natural reaction by the Church in that day and Age. Having already been driven out of every community they built in the United States by fear and armed mobs and soon to be invaded by a US Army under a lie that Brigham Young refused to give up his Governorship. And that the entire Mormon Community was in armed revolt.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> On the issue of Mountain Meadows, Truthspeaker has absolutely no creditibility; he is playing defense as a church homer, which is fine, but that is why I am pointing it out.


I don't know why you say I have no credibility. I've only reported the facts as they stand. You fail to bring up specifics time and time again and I'll show you with your bogus book titles below.



> The best works by far are (1) Juanita Bagley (temple goer), _The Mountain Meadows Massacre_ (1950);



Look we're not going to read the book but since you have such a knowledge about it, why don't you bring up a specific point in the book that can be discussed. There's no credibility in a book just because it's a book.




> (2) Will Bagley, _Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows _(2006)



ditto above

;





> and (3) Richard Turley, Ron Walker and Glen Leonard, _Massacre at Mountain Meadows _(2008).



ditto above.



> Brooks exonerates BY of plotting the attack but believes he covered it up; Bagley indicts Young for planning the crime and masterminding the coverup; Turley et al were the LDS church's picked team to defend BY's reputation and honor.




Brooks opinion is just that. Assuming he actually says what you claim. Everyone's got one of those and a brown third eye too.

Here's what the church ACTUALLY picked as the official explanation of the issue.
LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Mountain Meadows Massacre

I demand you refute this detailed historical account. See the statement by Elder Eyering below for extra credit.

150th Anniversary of Mountain Meadows Massacre - LDS Newsroom

If you refuse to accept the account i have provided then that's your decision. You will have turned it into nothing more than a he-said-she-said. It's up to everyone to study the facts and draw their own conclusion.
Part of those facts include studying the sermons of Brigham Young and deciding if a man who could teach such marvelous words of Jesus is capable of ordering such an atrocity. 

"Judge ye".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth, you can opine and whine all day, and who cares.  Read the book, check the footnotes, consider the sources.  RGS, get a bit of circumstantial evidence ties BY to the planning but not the execution of the crime.  Without a doubt he contributed to the emotional atmosphere of the times.  And, if I were BY, I would have covered it up, too.  Why?  If the real truth had gotten out that first year, the U.S. Army and the California volunteers from the south would ran the LDS into the Salt Lake or into the mountains.

I will leave it at that, folks.  Read the books.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth, you can opine and whine all day, and who cares.  Read the book, check the footnotes, consider the sources.  RGS, get a bit of circumstantial evidence ties BY to the planning but not the execution of the crime.  Without a doubt he contributed to the emotional atmosphere of the times.  And, if I were BY, I would have covered it up, too.  Why?  If the real truth had gotten out that first year, the U.S. Army and the California volunteers from the south would ran the LDS into the Salt Lake or into the mountains.
> 
> I will leave it at that, folks.  Read the books.



I've done my reading. I know Brigham was a good man. He was not capable of such a crime. You can opine and whine all you want, but it doesn't hide your prejudice of the man. 
They didn't have email, they didn't even have snail mail. It was more like horseback rider or cart and buggy mail. So don't give me that crap about him masterminding it. He responded instantly when he got the message and the message is clear, dated and documented. 
Leave the Arkansas party alone. "You must not meddle with them."

The perpetrators of the act were tired of the oppression they had suffered and overreacted to the threats of the Arkansas party. They lost the spirit of God and let the Devil take over. The rest is history. Brigham Young's character could never have been capable of ordering a mass murder.

You get your facts straight. Just because a few "Mormons" who were "temple goers" opined about the massacre doesn't make them the authority. 

Draw your own conclusions. Pray about it and ask God what really happened. He'll tell you if you believe he'll answer you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We can both whine and opine, truthspeaker.  But, oh yes, the professional historians know far more about what happened than you or I do.  Stick your head in the sand, then, but remember that your opinion is only good for you.  I am disappointed to see you runaway from this issue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Double post.  So let me add about Mormon historians.  If truthspeaker were silly enough to get up and try to debate with any of them, including the professors at Brigham Young University, they would all say, "Glad you got a testimony there, scout, but sit down and shut up.  A new convert does more damage than twenty devils.  Have a deviled egg!  And bring me one, too."


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> We can both whine and opine, truthspeaker.  But, oh yes, the professional historians know far more about what happened than you or I do.  Stick your head in the sand, then, but remember that your opinion is only good for you.  I am disappointed to see you runaway from this issue.



At what point in this brief thread have I run away from any issue. That's rich. The historians have documented what happened. You don't make sense. What have I run away from. Humor me with a specific.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Double post.  So let me add about Mormon historians.  If truthspeaker were silly enough to get up and try to debate with any of them, including the professors at Brigham Young University, they would all say, "Glad you got a testimony there, scout, but sit down and shut up.  A new convert does more damage than twenty devils.  Have a deviled egg!  And bring me one, too."



Oh? is that so?

What part of the links I provided do you have a problem with? What part of the links provided would the historians have a problem with?

Humor me with an answer please.


----------



## strollingbones

okay is it true that mormon men think they will become gods and be given a star or planet...just like your god has?  

i am about finished with the book...it discusses diantes?


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> okay is it true that mormon men think they will become gods and be given a star or planet...just like your god has?
> 
> i am about finished with the book...it discusses diantes?



No. Mormon men are not given Godhood, planets or stars when they die.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> okay is it true that mormon men think they will become gods and be given a star or planet...just like your god has?
> 
> i am about finished with the book...it discusses diantes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Mormon men are not given Godhood, planets or stars when they die.
Click to expand...


But they can acheive godhood eventually.  One of the most attractive doctrines of he church is eternal progression.  We continue to learn, to improve, and to progress until we're capable of creating a world of our own and becoming like god.  That sounds a lot better to me than sitting asround on a cloud singing praises for eternity.

We ask ourselves where we want to be in ten years.  If you believe in eternal life, then you need to ask yourself where you will be in ten million.


----------



## JakeStarkey

As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become.

Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
President, LDS church


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> As man is, God once was;
> As God is, man may become.
> 
> Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
> President, LDS church



It was true then, it's still true today.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was;
> As God is, man may become.
> 
> Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
> President, LDS church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was true then, it's still true today.
Click to expand...


God was never a man, and man will never be a god.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was;
> As God is, man may become.
> 
> Lorenzo Snow, 1898-1901
> President, LDS church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was true then, it's still true today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God was never a man, and man will never be a god.
Click to expand...


So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was true then, it's still true today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God was never a man, and man will never be a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.
Click to expand...


Yes he was on earth in man form, but not a mere man. My brother passed away the first of the year, my thinking still off a little.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was never a man, and man will never be a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he was on earth in man form, but not a mere man.
Click to expand...


So Christ was a man, are you saying that He wasnt God? Was John lying when He said that the Word was God?


----------



## Skeptik

The meaning of Jakestarky's post is not that Christ was a god in man form.  It literally means that god was once like us, and that we may one day become like him.

If god is our heavenly father, why not?  Don't children grow to be like  their parents?


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> The meaning of Jakestarky's post is not that Christ was a god in man form.  It literally means that god was once like us, and that we may one day become like him.
> 
> If god is our heavenly father, why not?  Don't children grow to be like  their parents?



That's beside the point. Whether we are talking about the Father or the Son, the scriptures are clear that God became a man and that we are supposed to become like God. The idea that it's somehow alright to believe that Christ is God and was made flesh and we are supposed to become like Him and yet the Father is God and once mortal, and we are supposed to be like Him is blasphemous and wrong is incredibly inconsistant.

Especially when these are the same people claiming they are one and the same being.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> 
> okay is it true that mormon men think they will become gods and be given a star or planet...just like your god has?
> 
> i am about finished with the book...it discusses diantes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Mormon men are not given Godhood, planets or stars when they die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they can acheive godhood eventually.  One of the most attractive doctrines of he church is eternal progression.  We continue to learn, to improve, and to progress until we're capable of creating a world of our own and becoming like god.  That sounds a lot better to me than sitting asround on a cloud singing praises for eternity.
> 
> We ask ourselves where we want to be in ten years.  If you believe in eternal life, then you need to ask yourself where you will be in ten million.
Click to expand...


Yes but that reward is extended to all men, not just "Mormon" men.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. Mormon men are not given Godhood, planets or stars when they die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they can acheive godhood eventually.  One of the most attractive doctrines of he church is eternal progression.  We continue to learn, to improve, and to progress until we're capable of creating a world of our own and becoming like god.  That sounds a lot better to me than sitting asround on a cloud singing praises for eternity.
> 
> We ask ourselves where we want to be in ten years.  If you believe in eternal life, then you need to ask yourself where you will be in ten million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but that reward is extended to all men, not just "Mormon" men.
Click to expand...


Good point.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> God was never a man, and man will never be a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he was on earth in man form, but not a mere man. My brother passed away the first of the year, my thinking still off a little.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry to hear about your brother. God bless him and you.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your saying that everything the New Testament taught us about Jesus Christ is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he was on earth in man form, but not a mere man. My brother passed away the first of the year, my thinking still off a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to hear about your brother. God bless him and you.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Truthspeaker


----------



## Truthspeaker

Book of Mormon Man of the Day:

NEPHI- Approx. 620 BC - 544 BC......





One of the most famous characters of the entire Book of Mormon. Also one of the most critical. One of the original members of the first colony of roughly 30 people led by Lehi out of Jerusalem. The fourth son of Lehi and eventual prophet and king of the Nephite people who called themselves under his name.




Was well known for having many arguments and reconciliations with his wicked and stubborn brothers 





Laman and Lemuel, before finally, fleeing for the life of his person,family and friends, he separated from the "Lamanites". Thus beginning a long lasting feud not unlike Muslims & Jews.

He was large in stature and spirit. Humble and obedient to his father and his God. An excellent hunter and Bedouin Arab. Skilled in Hebrew and Egyptian. Was also instructed by God on how smelt ore into metal and to build a ship that was ahead of it's time to bear the company across the Indian and Pacific oceans.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Was a great speaker and had voice mimicking talents and must have been a dead ringer for Laban in appearance; at least in the dimly lit Jerusalem nighttime. Probably wore a beard despite popular depictions, at least while in Jerusalem. Famous for chopping off the head of Laban, a major military figure in ancient Jerusalem.





 He was the founder of the plates of Nephi which consisted of two different sets of records of the people and kept on thin metal plates with engravings thereon; a secular history and a spiritual history. From these, Mormon summarized, along with other writings to compile the book we currently call the Book of Mormon. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




He was a great leader and true prophet of God and his Christ. Prophesied the coming of Jesus and many other true happenings in his day and long after he lived.

Stay tuned till next time...........


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> Book of Mormon Man of the Day:
> 
> NEPHI- Approx. 620 BC - 544 BC......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most famous characters of the entire Book of Mormon. Also one of the most critical. One of the original members of the first colony of roughly 30 people led by Lehi out of Jerusalem. The fourth son of Lehi and eventual prophet and king of the Nephite people who called themselves under his name.
> 
> * * * *



Kinda looks like he might be wearing a blue and red suit underneath his tunic with a large letter "S" inscribed on his chest (within a diamond shape)!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Book of Mormon Man of the Day:
> 
> NEPHI- Approx. 620 BC - 544 BC......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most famous characters of the entire Book of Mormon. Also one of the most critical. One of the original members of the first colony of roughly 30 people led by Lehi out of Jerusalem. The fourth son of Lehi and eventual prophet and king of the Nephite people who called themselves under his name.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda looks like he might be wearing a blue and red suit underneath his tunic with a large letter "S" inscribed on his chest (within a diamond shape)!
Click to expand...



Well he also had his weaknesses just like everybody else. But everyone can become great if they humble themselves before God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Book of Mormon Man of the Day:

MORMON:

It's time we address the man who's name is on the tip of everyone's tongue these days. This man is truly among the greatest who ever lived. Spiritually he was like an apostle. Militarily he arguably could have been the greatest general ever to walk the planet. He is the one pictured reaching out with his hand.





He was born in a time of great wickedness. Most people of the day only pretended live the laws of God. The Churches had become largely corrupted by the time of his adolescence. Yet he decided to live moral life despite everyone else discarding the gospel. He was from a long line of record keepers and his lineage was full of leaders. This is part of the reason why he was chosen at the age of 15 to be the commander of the entire Nephite army. The other reasons were that he was trustworthy, brave, skilled and large beyond his years. He also weiled the sword of Laban that had been handed down by lineage from Nephi down to his own day.

He used his influence in the military to teach the gospel to whoever would listen. He put his faith in God to help deliver the armies of the Nephites from the Lamanites who vastly outnumbered them. He received revelations on how to live his life and how to use military stratagems. He was highly favored of God. 

He was also the keeper of the archives and is the great editor who put the collection of books known as The Book of Mormon together. He also added commentary on the words of other prophets and wrote a small book of his own detailing the gruesome consequences of war and disobedience to God's laws.





He lamented the fall of his people when they became more wicked than the lamanites and therefore lost their privilege of protection from God according to the promises made to them. He tried and tried to get them to repent but they refused.

After their last great victory over the Lamanites, the armies and people of the Nephites became proud and arrogant and decided they would no longer fight just to defend themselves but that they would seek out the Lamanites and destroy them. At this point Mormon refused to lead them any more and steps down as their leader. This was the fatal decision for the society of the Nephites.

After the Lamanites had punished the Nephites to the point of near collapse, the people begged Mormon to return and lead them, as if they thought one man could save them from destruction. He thought this meant they would repent and come back to God. But they still did not return to God. They instead cursed God and blamed him for their problems, using all the excuses man is capable of making. Reluctantly Mormon led his people in battle nonetheless. Even though he knew his people would be destroyed. He buried the many records that had been kept and prepared for the final battles of his people.





Before he was killed in battle at the age of 60, he entrusted the secret hiding place of the records to his son Moroni, one of 24 survivors of the final battle, and the only survivor of the 24 refugees that wasn't eventually hunted down.

Mormon along with his son Moroni is also known for painting the bloodiest picture of the destruction of the Nephites in all of scripture. A warning to nations who rebel against the God who placed them in power.

Mormon lived great and died great in the eyes of God.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Book of Mormon Man of the Day:
> 
> NEPHI- Approx. 620 BC - 544 BC......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most famous characters of the entire Book of Mormon. Also one of the most critical. One of the original members of the first colony of roughly 30 people led by Lehi out of Jerusalem. The fourth son of Lehi and eventual prophet and king of the Nephite people who called themselves under his name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was well known for having many arguments and reconciliations with his wicked and stubborn brothers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laman and Lemuel, before finally, fleeing for the life of his person,family and friends, he separated from the "Lamanites". Thus beginning a long lasting feud not unlike Muslims & Jews.
> 
> He was large in stature and spirit. Humble and obedient to his father and his God. An excellent hunter and Bedouin Arab. Skilled in Hebrew and Egyptian. Was also instructed by God on how smelt ore into metal and to build a ship that was ahead of it's time to bear the company across the Indian and Pacific oceans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was a great speaker and had voice mimicking talents and must have been a dead ringer for Laban in appearance; at least in the dimly lit Jerusalem nighttime. Probably wore a beard despite popular depictions, at least while in Jerusalem. Famous for chopping off the head of Laban, a major military figure in ancient Jerusalem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was the founder of the plates of Nephi which consisted of two different sets of records of the people and kept on thin metal plates with engravings thereon; a secular history and a spiritual history. From these, Mormon summarized, along with other writings to compile the book we currently call the Book of Mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was a great leader and true prophet of God and his Christ. Prophesied the coming of Jesus and many other true happenings in his day and long after he lived.
> 
> Stay tuned till next time...........


Great fairytale with pictures, that joe. Who'd he get to write it for him?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Froggy, truly you should not discount the literary ability of Joseph Smith.  He gets bad reviews: either God wrote, so he is merely the copy boy, or he did write it and becomes nothing more than a huckster.  But, wow, great story line, super characters, internal conflict, blood, gore, guts: super stuff.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> Froggy, truly you should not discount the literary ability of Joseph Smith.  He gets bad reviews: either God wrote, so he is merely the copy boy, or he did write it and becomes nothing more than a huckster.  But, wow, great story line, super characters, internal conflict, blood, gore, guts: super stuff.



Thats what i said great fairytale.


----------



## Truthspeaker

So at least both of you admit it's a great book. Thanks


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> So at least both of you admit it's a great book. Thanks



Id be more impressed with their praises if they bothered reading it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have read it several times over the years, and I still think it is an unique literary adventure in American religious fiction.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I have read it several times over the years, and I still think it is an unique literary adventure in American religious fiction.



I doubt you have ever sat down and read the book all the way through. I find it virtually impossible to believe you know how many authors the book claims to have and find it completely impossible to believe you prayed to know if the book was true. This is because I don't think you really believe in God. 
If what you say is true and you have actually read the book several times then you obviously have been reading not to comprehend and or grow your faith, but to pick apart any flaws you think you can find.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth goes, "blah blah blah blah."  You remind me of Mercutio in the scene about fairies and the night air and the senseless nonsense of man.  I have read the BoM several times.  It's good religious fiction, unlike anything else in American literature.


----------



## TheSuaveOne

I left the church last year for my own personal reasons. That being said, most Mormons I know and have known are kind, thoughtful and giving people. My youngest daughter is named after the missionary that taught my ex-wife and myself the initial lessons during our investigation of the church.

-TSO


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> I left the church last year for my own personal reasons. That being said, most Mormons I know and have known are kind, thoughtful and giving people. My youngest daughter is named after the missionary that taught my ex-wife and myself the initial lessons during our investigation of the church.
> 
> -TSO



Wow, for some reason that sounds like such a sad story to me. I don't mean to pry, but this is a discussion board. What reasons caused you to leave the church?


----------



## TheSuaveOne

To me religion is a very personal thing. The way the church pushes it's members to prosthesis was a big issue for me. I did not feel comfortable with how often I was pushed to try and get neighbors to come to our church or to come to my home to be taught lessons by the missionaries. If someone is interested in becoming a member, I never had issue with answering questions, but I did not like the idea of going out and recruiting.

I think the final straw was the church's support of prop 8. To me for them to get that involved in something that the people of California had already approved was in poor taste, and overstepped their position in the community.

I held a number of positions within my ward and did enjoy those callings especially ward mission leader. I did hold a temple recommend for years and never had issues with what was done there, and I do miss my magic underwear. 

-TSO


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> To me religion is a very personal thing. The way the church pushes it's members to prosthesis was a big issue for me. I did not feel comfortable with how often I was pushed to try and get neighbors to come to our church or to come to my home to be taught lessons by the missionaries. If someone is interested in becoming a member, I never had issue with answering questions, but I did not like the idea of going out and recruiting.
> 
> I think the final straw was the church's support of prop 8. To me for them to get that involved in something that the people of California had already approved was in poor taste, and overstepped their position in the community.
> 
> I held a number of positions within my ward and did enjoy those callings especially ward mission leader. I did hold a temple recommend for years and never had issues with what was done there, and I do miss my magic underwear.
> 
> -TSO



I always find it curious when people have been in deep with our church yet oppose some of it's strongest principles, like missionary work and standing for priniciples.

Were those the only two reasons you left the church?

Do you really feel right when discussing your garments so casually?

Do you believe the book of mormon?

Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?

Do you still believe in Jesus?

What do you mean when you say you were pressured to bring recruits?


I've never ever had an individual come up to me and ask why I didn't bring more friends to church. If you felt pressured by leaders who spoke of the importance of spreading the gospel from the pulpit, then you must feel pressured by Jesus when he tells us "Go ye into all the world and share my gospel." He didn't say "Wait for all the world to come to you and ask about my gospel." 

Plus I've never heard a sermon of any kind urging our members to get prosthetic limbs.

It is with respect that I ask these questions. Please don't feel that I'm attacking. Just trying to understand your point of view. Thank you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TSO, I feel that Truthspeaker, while meaning well within his narrow worldview, is being disingenuous.  He is trying to guide you toward his goal of you either (1) returning to the church, or (2) finding a glaring, "evil" sin that the can lamblast you with.

Truth, I think TSO was honest and open, and I think you should accept it at, and leave it there.


----------



## JakeStarkey

double post   So I will ask this here.  Is Liability a member of your church?  He is an active member?  Does he go to the temple, and does he don special garments on a daily basis.  Instead of TSO, I think you should be looking at and talking to Liability.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Book of Mormon Man of the Day:

TEANCUM- ?-61AD

His exact age was unknown but clearly perished in the prime of his life. He was one of the chief generals of the Nephite nation in the early 1st century. He was loyal to Moroni, the commander of all the armies and was famous for being an elite warrior, leader and strategist.





He believed in Jesus and was a truly righteous man who loved freedom.




 Fought in many battles and was most famous for the assasinations of two tyrants, Amalickiah and Ammoron his brother who took over for him. After throwing a javeline at Ammoron while he slept, the dying king woke his guards who tracked down Teancum before he could escape over the city walls and killed him.





He was a great motivation to the Nephite people and they mourned his death. Teancum was my personal favorite.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> TSO, I feel that Truthspeaker, while meaning well within his narrow worldview, is being disingenuous.  He is trying to guide you toward his goal of you either (1) returning to the church, or (2) finding a glaring, "evil" sin that the can lamblast you with.
> 
> Truth, I think TSO was honest and open, and I think you should accept it at, and leave it there.



Jake, nobody asked you. Why do you care about our conversation. What is in it for me if he decides to come back to church? Do you really think that I have the power to change him? I don't. This is a discussion board. Why do people discuss things? To get information. I like knowledge. It might help me one day. You can learn something from everyone. I have no interest in uncovering some glaring sin. We all have those. That is the furthest thing from my mind. You don't have to be a sinner to leave the LDS church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> double post   So I will ask this here.  Is Liability a member of your church?  He is an active member?  Does he go to the temple, and does he don special garments on a daily basis.  Instead of TSO, I think you should be looking at and talking to Liability.



If Liability is a member of our church, then I'm a Hindu.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am very glad you said that, Truthspeaker, because many LDS, like folks from other faiths, do think that sin is the only real reason that some one would leave the "true faith".  I apologize then for imputing the possibility of ulterior motives to you.  But, because this is a public forum, I will participate if I wish.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I am very glad you said that, Truthspeaker, because many LDS, like folks from other faiths, do think that sin is the only real reason that some one would leave the "true faith".  I apologize then for imputing the possibility of ulterior motives to you.  But, because this is a public forum, I will participate if I wish.



No problem Jake. And I wasn't discouraging you from participating. I just thought you were speaking inappropriately. Please continue to chime in. And since you do think the Book of Mormon is interesting, I'd like to know who your favorite character is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

My favorite character?  Probably King Benjamin.  His advise in Mosiah 3 and 4 is applicable to today.


----------



## Truthspeaker

btw Jake's avatar is a stroke of genius for Schrute lovers everywhere!

Tomorrow I will do a plug for King Benjamin!


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Truthspeaker said:


> I always find it curious when people have been in deep with our church yet oppose some of it's strongest principles, like missionary work and standing for priniciples.
> 
> Were those the only two reasons you left the church? *God no, there were many others. I just don't really feel like listing them here.*
> 
> Do you really feel right when discussing your garments so casually?* To me the "sanctity" of the garments seemed a bit silly. I did find it odd that there was nothing in the discussions about garments, and I only really found out about them during my temple prep class. But don't worry, I cut them up properly before discarding of them.*
> 
> Do you believe the book of mormon? *Nope.*
> 
> Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet? *Nope.*
> 
> Do you still believe in Jesus? *That he existed, sure. That he was the son of God? No.*
> 
> What do you mean when you say you were pressured to bring recruits? *Not something I chose to discuss at this moment.*



See my answers above in bold.

-TSO


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it several times over the years, and I still think it is an unique literary adventure in American religious fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you have ever sat down and read the book all the way through. I find it virtually impossible to believe you know how many authors the book claims to have and find it completely impossible to believe you prayed to know if the book was true. This is because I don't think you really believe in God.
> If what you say is true and you have actually read the book several times then you obviously have been reading not to comprehend and or grow your faith, but to pick apart any flaws you think you can find.
Click to expand...


I can't believe it either, that he would waste his time like that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker: "If what you say is true and you have actually read the book several times then you obviously have been reading not to comprehend and or grow your faith, *but to pick apart any flaws you think you can find*."

Why would I do that, when I do not believe JS was a prophet, thus the BoM is not scripture.  I read it because I think it the most unique piece of American religious literature, period."  JS keeps not getting his due.  If God revealed, then the guy is just the mope being used by Him; if not, then he is just a huckster.  I don't judge at all: I look at the work.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it curious when people have been in deep with our church yet oppose some of it's strongest principles, like missionary work and standing for priniciples.
> 
> Were those the only two reasons you left the church? *God no, there were many others. I just don't really feel like listing them here.*
> 
> Do you really feel right when discussing your garments so casually?* To me the "sanctity" of the garments seemed a bit silly. I did find it odd that there was nothing in the discussions about garments, and I only really found out about them during my temple prep class. But don't worry, I cut them up properly before discarding of them.*
> 
> Do you believe the book of mormon? *Nope.*
> 
> Do you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet? *Nope.*
> 
> Do you still believe in Jesus? *That he existed, sure. That he was the son of God? No.*
> 
> What do you mean when you say you were pressured to bring recruits? *Not something I chose to discuss at this moment.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See my answers above in bold.
> 
> -TSO
Click to expand...


Man, well I guess it all boils down to the Jesus thing. It all starts there. Everything after Him being the son of God is an afterthought and isn't even worth discussing until you deal with that first.

Why don't you believe He was the Son of God?


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Truthspeaker, you know better than to try to engage me that way.  My own beliefs are my own.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read it several times over the years, and I still think it is an unique literary adventure in American religious fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you have ever sat down and read the book all the way through. I find it virtually impossible to believe you know how many authors the book claims to have and find it completely impossible to believe you prayed to know if the book was true. This is because I don't think you really believe in God.
> If what you say is true and you have actually read the book several times then you obviously have been reading not to comprehend and or grow your faith, but to pick apart any flaws you think you can find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't believe it either, that he would waste his time like that.
Click to expand...


Pot meet Kettle


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kettle meet pot and pan.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker: "If what you say is true and you have actually read the book several times then you obviously have been reading not to comprehend and or grow your faith, *but to pick apart any flaws you think you can find*."
> 
> Why would I do that, when I do not believe JS was a prophet, thus the BoM is not scripture.  I read it because I think it the most unique piece of American religious literature, period."  JS keeps not getting his due.  If God revealed, then the guy is just the mope being used by Him; if not, then he is just a huckster.  I don't judge at all: I look at the work.



What do you have to say about all the work being so applicable to history and archaeology? Since you're so keen on the work itself? Why not test it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> No, Truthspeaker, you know better than to try to engage me that way.  My own beliefs are my own.



I was talking to the suave one.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Kettle meet pot and pan.



Except I'm not accusing anyone of wasting their time here on this forum. Froggy accused you. Yet if he thinks you're wasting your time with me yet continues with his own dribble, that effectively makes him the pot. 
I on the other hand by definition am neither pot, kettle or pan.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The BoM fails archaeology and history, you know that, Truthspeaker.  The Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religion at BYU is maneuvering to a limited geographical model for Lehi and his descendents rather than being the general father of most of the Native Americans.  That's one simple example that even in your own faith group that you are in the minority.  I mean (and I am not laughing, only pointing out) that you still believe in the concept of African ancestry is linked to the less valiant in the war before the formation of the Earth.  I mean, what's up with that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Truthspeaker, you know better than to try to engage me that way.  My own beliefs are my own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking to the suave one.
Click to expand...


My bad.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kettle meet pot and pan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I'm not accusing anyone of wasting their time here on this forum. Froggy accused you. Yet if he thinks you're wasting your time with me yet continues with his own dribble, that effectively makes him the pot.
> I on the other hand by definition am neither pot, kettle or pan.
Click to expand...


OK, you can be the sink.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> My own beliefs are my own.



I'd actually like to know what they are. However off topic.


----------



## Liability

A Mormon Bump!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The BoM fails archaeology and history, you know that, Truthspeaker.  The Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religion at BYU is maneuvering to a limited geographical model for Lehi and his descendents rather than being the general father of most of the Native Americans.  That's one simple example that even in your own faith group that you are in the minority.  I mean (and I am not laughing, only pointing out) that you still believe in the concept of African ancestry is linked to the less valiant in the war before the formation of the Earth.  I mean, what's up with that?



My poor dear jake,
 We've been here before but you refuse to accept my doctrinally sound answer. The book itself generalizes when talking about ancestry. The book says that those who were of Lehi's ancestry and those who were not of his ancestry but chose to be associated under his name would be called his children in a general sense. The book itself mentions that the majority of people throughout the timeline were actually more numerous than Lehi's descendents already in THOSE days. How could you miss that? We never claimed that ALL of the native americans were of Lehi's descent. But that is the lineage which gets the recognition because of the spiritual implications. The Mulekites themselves were more than all the Lehites combined. Understand that just like today, there was a huge mixing of gene pools back then. You need to understand what the text actually says. 

As for the less valiant deal with africans. That age has passed. those less valiant souls have already lived their lives before the time of the restoration. It was true then, it's not true any more. Cut and dry. No big deal.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kettle meet pot and pan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except I'm not accusing anyone of wasting their time here on this forum. Froggy accused you. Yet if he thinks you're wasting your time with me yet continues with his own dribble, that effectively makes him the pot.
> I on the other hand by definition am neither pot, kettle or pan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you can be the sink.
Click to expand...


The place of cleansing? What a great compliment!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BoM fails archaeology and history, you know that, Truthspeaker.  The Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Studies at BYU is maneuvering to a limited geographical model for Lehi and his descendents rather than being the general father of most of the Native Americans.  That's one simple example that even in your own faith group that you are in the minority.  I mean (and I am not laughing, only pointing out) that you still believe in the concept of African ancestry is linked to the less valiant in the war before the formation of the Earth.  I mean, what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My poor dear jake,
> We've been here before but you refuse to accept my doctrinally sound answer. The book itself generalizes when talking about ancestry. The book says that those who were of Lehi's ancestry and those who were not of his ancestry but chose to be associated under his name would be called his children in a general sense. The book itself mentions that the majority of people throughout the timeline were actually more numerous than Lehi's descendents already in THOSE days. How could you miss that? We never claimed that ALL of the native americans were of Lehi's descent. But that is the lineage which gets the recognition because of the spiritual implications. The Mulekites themselves were more than all the Lehites combined. Understand that just like today, there was a huge mixing of gene pools back then. You need to understand what the text actually says.
> 
> As for the less valiant deal with africans. That age has passed. those less valiant souls have already lived their lives before the time of the restoration. It was true then, it's not true any more. Cut and dry. No big deal.
Click to expand...


It's not only me, Truthspeaker: it is many of your church leaders that do not agree with your beliefs now and before.  For any who have further interests in these matters, please go to Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Home and lds.org for more traditional LDS stances.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The BoM fails archaeology and history, you know that, Truthspeaker.  The Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Studies at BYU is maneuvering to a limited geographical model for Lehi and his descendents rather than being the general father of most of the Native Americans.  That's one simple example that even in your own faith group that you are in the minority.  I mean (and I am not laughing, only pointing out) that you still believe in the concept of African ancestry is linked to the less valiant in the war before the formation of the Earth.  I mean, what's up with that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My poor dear jake,
> We've been here before but you refuse to accept my doctrinally sound answer. The book itself generalizes when talking about ancestry. The book says that those who were of Lehi's ancestry and those who were not of his ancestry but chose to be associated under his name would be called his children in a general sense. The book itself mentions that the majority of people throughout the timeline were actually more numerous than Lehi's descendents already in THOSE days. How could you miss that? We never claimed that ALL of the native americans were of Lehi's descent. But that is the lineage which gets the recognition because of the spiritual implications. The Mulekites themselves were more than all the Lehites combined. Understand that just like today, there was a huge mixing of gene pools back then. You need to understand what the text actually says.
> 
> As for the less valiant deal with africans. That age has passed. those less valiant souls have already lived their lives before the time of the restoration. It was true then, it's not true any more. Cut and dry. No big deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not only me, Truthspeaker: it is many of your church leaders that do not agree with your beliefs now and before.  For any who have further interests in these matters, please go to Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Home and lds.org for more traditional LDS stances.
Click to expand...



You're such a spin doctor. Yes I encourage everyone to go to that site. You'll hear the same thing I've been telling all along. I say that because you never.....EVER cite a specific article contradicting what I've said. You've never posted one statement from our leaders that's not in line with what I've told you. Please, prove me wrong. There I am putting myself out there again......


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not truthful, Truthspeaker.  I have given you many folks and stuff to read, and all you have ever said is that you don't care what others wrote if it disagrees with you.  That is why I am sending any who are interested to approved LDS sites.  Holy Hannah, TS, you ought to be pleased.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt you have ever sat down and read the book all the way through. I find it virtually impossible to believe you know how many authors the book claims to have and find it completely impossible to believe you prayed to know if the book was true. This is because I don't think you really believe in God.
> If what you say is true and you have actually read the book several times then you obviously have been reading not to comprehend and or grow your faith, but to pick apart any flaws you think you can find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe it either, that he would waste his time like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet Kettle
Click to expand...


Pot meet Kettle meet fence post.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Not truthful, Truthspeaker.  I have given you many folks and stuff to read, and all you have ever said is that you don't care what others wrote if it disagrees with you.  That is why I am sending any who are interested to approved LDS sites.  Holy Hannah, TS, you ought to be pleased.



Sure I'm pleased, but I'm confused when you say I'm preaching something out of step with our leaders. I'd like to hear some specifics.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe it either, that he would waste his time like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pot meet Kettle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pot meet Kettle meet fence post.
Click to expand...


I still don't get it


----------



## froggy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0WvXpyufT8]YouTube - "Master Jack" 4 Jacks and a Jill[/ame] shes got a message for all mormons.


----------



## Truthspeaker

The message is that it's a strange world we live in. I concur since all the other worlds in the solar system are very different from here. Thank you for that nugget.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> The message is that it's a strange world we live in. I concur since all the other worlds in the solar system are very different from here. Thank you for that nugget.














No, she said she was going out in the real world and not stay in master jacks.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The message is that it's a strange world we live in. I concur since all the other worlds in the solar system are very different from here. Thank you for that nugget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she said she was going out in the real world and not stay in master jacks.
Click to expand...


Seems rather irrelevant to anything going on in this thread. But I would invite you into the real world.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The message is that it's a strange world we live in. I concur since all the other worlds in the solar system are very different from here. Thank you for that nugget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, she said she was going out in the real world and not stay in master jacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems rather irrelevant to anything going on in this thread. But I would invite you into the real world.
Click to expand...


I think if you were in the real world, you could see the truth about Joey.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> I think if you were in the real world, you could see the truth about Joey.



I do. The fact that you don't believe me is irrelevant.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think if you were in the real world, you could see the truth about Joey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. The fact that you don't believe me is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


You do what?


----------



## Skeptik

Let's do a little math relating to the idea that there are other worlds than this one.

Astronomers tell us that there are about a hundred billion galaxies in the known universe, each with about a hundred billion stars on average.

That is 10^11 galaxies x 10^11 stars = 10^22 stars in all.

Now, if only 1% of those stars have planets, and if 1% of those planets is habitable, that is 10^22/10^4 or 10^18 habitable planets in the known universe.  

Of course, those figures are probably conservative, but that's OK.

Back when the national debt was "only" ten trillion, a comparison was done.  Ten trillion = 10^14 dollars, or 10^16 pennies.

So, the likely number of habitable planets is equal to 100 times the number of pennies in the national debt at that time.

Of course, the debt has grown, so now there may be only 90 times the number of pennies in the debt.

And this is the only planet with life?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Excellent points, Skeptik, and using your logic, what would be the probablity that God the Father and God the Son appear to a 14-year old boy on an insignifcant planet in a backwater solar system in a galaxy that just isn't all that important?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Let's do a little math relating to the idea that there are other worlds than this one.
> 
> Astronomers tell us that there are about a hundred billion galaxies in the known universe, each with about a hundred billion stars on average.
> 
> That is 10^11 galaxies x 10^11 stars = 10^22 stars in all.
> 
> Now, if only 1% of those stars have planets, and if 1% of those planets is habitable, that is 10^22/10^4 or 10^18 habitable planets in the known universe.
> 
> Of course, those figures are probably conservative, but that's OK.
> 
> Back when the national debt was "only" ten trillion, a comparison was done.  Ten trillion = 10^14 dollars, or 10^16 pennies.
> 
> So, the likely number of habitable planets is equal to 100 times the number of pennies in the national debt at that time.
> 
> Of course, the debt has grown, so now there may be only 90 times the number of pennies in the debt.
> 
> And this is the only planet with life?



Well I hope you didn't interpret my words to mean that life on a planet like ours doesn't exist in the universe except here. 
My exact words were that "our solar system" doesn't have life like ours. For the record, I believe there are innumerable worlds like ours in existence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't think, Truth, they are "like ours", but I do believe the sentient species exist throughout the universe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Excellent points, Skeptik, and using your logic, what would be the probablity that God the Father and God the Son appear to a 14-year old boy on an insignifcant planet in a backwater solar system in a galaxy that just isn't all that important?



The decision God made to appear to Joseph makes the probability 100%. Since it had been decided before the world began that he would be the boy to appear to there was no chance involved. When God decides something, the probability that it will happen becomes 100%. 

Also, why do you assume this solar system is "backwater"? And why would you think a galaxy God created would be unimportant? Do you think God does unimportant things with his time? You're saying that God wasted an untold amount of years to create the milky way just to kill time. Talk about massive excessive compulsive boredom!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I don't think, Truth, they are "like ours", but I do believe the sentient species exist throughout the universe.



That seems improbable to me but... ok.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think, Truth, they are "like ours", but I do believe the sentient species exist throughout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems improbable to me but... ok.
Click to expand...


It shouldn't be.  Our difference is only in the form that said forms sentience would take in the galaxy.  You believe because of your religious belief that it would be uniform, and I believe in a God, not wanting to be bored, that would delight in complexity of form and design.

As an aside to IDers and Creationists: note what I did above.  My last comment was philosophical, completely unverifiable by science.  Thus, Truthspeaker and I should continue our discussion as if we were in a Humanities or Liberal Arts or Comparitve Religions class then in a science class.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think, Truth, they are "like ours", but I do believe the sentient species exist throughout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems improbable to me but... ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't be.  Our difference is only in the form that said forms sentience would take in the galaxy.  You believe because of your religious belief that it would be uniform, and I believe in a God, not wanting to be bored, that would delight in complexity of form and design.
> 
> As an aside to IDers and Creationists: note what I did above.  My last comment was philosophical, completely unverifiable by science.  Thus, Truthspeaker and I should continue our discussion as if we were in a Humanities or Liberal Arts or Comparitve Religions class then in a science class.
Click to expand...


I too believe in a god who loves variety. That's why each human has a different appearance than any other. But I do believe he has other worlds with people like us on them on different planets with different languages, customs and societies. That's what i mean when I say "like us". I also believe there are developing worlds with life on them but no people. Much like ancient prehistoric earth.

the pearl of great price quotes God saying "Worlds without number have I created. For they cannot be numbered unto man, but they are numbered unto me, for I know them and they are mine."


----------



## Liability

A timely bump!


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think, Truth, they are "like ours", but I do believe the sentient species exist throughout the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That seems improbable to me but... ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It shouldn't be.  Our difference is only in the form that said forms sentience would take in the galaxy.  You believe because of your religious belief that it would be uniform, and I believe in a God, not wanting to be bored, that would delight in complexity of form and design.
> 
> As an aside to IDers and Creationists: note what I did above.  My last comment was philosophical, completely unverifiable by science.  Thus, Truthspeaker and I should continue our discussion as if we were in a Humanities or Liberal Arts or Comparitve Religions class then in a science class.
Click to expand...


The Bible says that god created man "in his own image", which would imply that sentient beings would look pretty much the same throughout creation.  

But, the Bible says a lot of things that are contradictory and likely to have resulted from misunderstandings and mistranslations, so why not?  Perhaps the bar scene in "Star Wars" is a better depiction of intelligent life elsewhere.

I believe I made an error in the post above.  Ten trillion is actually 10^13, not 10^14, which would leave us with around 900 habitable planets for every cent of the national debt currently, not 90.  

That's a lot of planets any way you look at it.

Now, here's another little bit of food for thought:  Looking back on the pace of technological progress for the past thousand years or so, we see a dramatic increase in knowledge the closer we get to our own time.  The technological learning curve looks like a geometric progression, in fact.

So, if there are among those countless planets some with intelligent life that is say, 1 or 2 millennia or so more advanced than we are, why couldn't they have come to visit us?  Is that so far fetched?


----------



## JakeStarkey

How do we know they haven't?


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> How do we know they haven't?



We don't, do we?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Talk to Terrel and Eots and Liability.


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> Talk to Terrel and Eots and Liability.



Another display of Jokey dishonesty.

I have never shared the views of Turdel or Id-eots.

But, still, at least Jokey's dishonesty serves as a bump.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> A timely bump!



Why do you keep bumping us? Is Huggy Bottoms still trying to approach us?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> How do we know they haven't?



Everything about that last statement just looks and sounds like Dwight Schrute with one eyebrow raised.


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> A timely bump!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you keep bumping us? Is Huggy Bottoms still trying to approach us?
Click to expand...


I don't know.  I haven't kept track of that other would-be contender.  

I just like to see some folks discussing religion, once in a while, without all the sanctimony.

You seem to be able to pull that off, for example.  And strikingly, in this thread, you aren't alone!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to Terrel and Eots and Liability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another display of Jokey dishonesty.
> 
> I have never shared the views of Turdel or Id-eots.
> 
> But, still, at least Jokey's dishonesty serves as a bump.
Click to expand...


But you, L, have been as silly as they have in defending undefendable positions.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to Terrel and Eots and Liability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another display of Jokey dishonesty.
> 
> I have never shared the views of Turdel or Id-eots.
> 
> But, still, at least Jokey's dishonesty serves as a bump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you, L, have been as silly as they have in defending undefendable positions.
Click to expand...


Which position have I taken that's indefensible?(correct usage provided by grammarnazi.com)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another display of Jokey dishonesty.
> 
> I have never shared the views of Turdel or Id-eots.
> 
> But, still, at least Jokey's dishonesty serves as a bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you, L, have been as silly as they have in defending undefendable positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which position have I taken that indefensible?(correct usage provided by grammarnazi.com)
Click to expand...


The conservative LDS position normally.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you, L, have been as silly as they have in defending undefendable positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which position have I taken that indefensible?(correct usage provided by grammarnazi.com)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The conservative LDS position normally.
Click to expand...


humor me with a specific.


----------



## JakeStarkey

One specific, then.  Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson.  Think about that.  Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument.  Then ponder.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> One specific, then.  Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson.  Think about that.  Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument.  Then ponder.



No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together. 

Fair enough?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One specific, then.  Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson.  Think about that.  Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument.  Then ponder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.
> 
> Fair enough?
Click to expand...


Yeah, it does work that way.  Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities.  You have a very hard time holding your own.

Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> So, if there are among those countless planets some with intelligent life that is say, 1 or 2 millennia or so more advanced than we are, why couldn't they have come to visit us?  Is that so far fetched?



Perhaps they aren't allowed to.  Perhaps they have more important things to do than visit backwater planets. Perhaps the odds of meeting are so astronomical that it would be unlikely to happen. Who knows? I guess you could ask God.

Maybe the real problem is that Bill and Ted failed their history exam on this world.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> One specific, then.  Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson.  Think about that.  Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument.  Then ponder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.
> 
> Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it does work that way.  Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities.  You have a very hard time holding your own.
> 
> Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.
Click to expand...


At least you are consistent, even if consitently bad. You consistently refuse to point out which specific issues the church and I differ on. Here's to old faithful.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if there are among those countless planets some with intelligent life that is say, 1 or 2 millennia or so more advanced than we are, why couldn't they have come to visit us?  Is that so far fetched?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they aren't allowed to.  Perhaps they have more important things to do than visit backwater planets. Perhaps the odds of meeting are so astronomical that it would be unlikely to happen. Who knows? I guess you could ask God.
> 
> Maybe the real problem is that Bill and Ted failed their history exam on this world.
Click to expand...


As an off topic sidenote, I still need to see that movie they made about you. Was it any good?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.
> 
> Fair enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it does work that way.  Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities.  You have a very hard time holding your own.
> 
> Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you are consistent, even if consitently bad. You consistently refuse to point out which specific issues the church and I differ on. Here's to old faithful.
Click to expand...


I have diligently, nay, quite efficiently, shown your errors with evidence and critical thinking, continually showing you the errors of your way.

You?  You say you don't believe it.  OK.  I am not going away, not too worry.  When you err again, I will point out.  In the meantime, folks, try www.lds.org.


----------



## IDSSTING39

Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stalin's USSR and Mao's China were atheist states, killing tens of millions.


----------



## Liability

IDSSTING39 said:


> Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the *other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics,* Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".





Catholics ARE Christians.  Mormons ARE Christians.  

Religious freedom, which America insisted upon at its inception, permits you to be an agnostic or an atheist. 

Religious faith has been a good thing in history as well as sometimes being misused and abused.

There is no necessary correlation between "religion" and "mind control."

And being unnecessarily rude and dismissive about those who harbor religious faith does not make you more intelligent.  It just makes you petty.


----------



## Avatar4321

IDSSTING39 said:


> Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".



Encouraging people to be honest, seek knowledge, have patience, temperance, control anger, be morally chaste, etc is poison and crazy? Seems like good common sense to me. Or what's left of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Liability said:


> IDSSTING39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the *other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics,* Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics ARE Christians.  Mormons ARE Christians.
> 
> Religious freedom, which America insisted upon at its inception, permits you to be an agnostic or an atheist.
> 
> Religious faith has been a good thing in history as well as sometimes being misused and abused.
> 
> There is no necessary correlation between "religion" and "mind control."
> 
> And being unnecessarily rude and dismissive about those who harbor religious faith does not make you more intelligent.  It just makes you petty.
Click to expand...


The right to have or not have religion is fundamental to our way of life.  Whether one is agnostic or atheist or a true believer remains that individual's right, not granted, but guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Liability is absolutely correct on the point of no correlation between religious belief and mind control.  Atheists have done terrible things as have religious leaders.  And both have advanced the path of humanity.

To suggest otherwise denies history.


----------



## emilynghiem

Liability said:


> IDSSTING39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the *other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics,* Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Catholics ARE Christians.  Mormons ARE Christians.
> 
> Religious freedom, which America insisted upon at its inception, permits you to be an agnostic or an atheist.
> 
> Religious faith has been a good thing in history as well as sometimes being misused and abused.
> 
> There is no necessary correlation between "religion" and "mind control."
> 
> And being unnecessarily rude and dismissive about those who harbor religious faith does not make you more intelligent.  It just makes you petty.
Click to expand...


1. The way I saw it described on a Free Masonry webpage, as long as a person is not "sectarian" about religion (ie one way is right and the others are wrong), then any religion can be properly practiced.

2. As for the quote asking if Al Qaeda is not free to kill are any of us free:

We all have free will to consider any such choices; but nobody can invoke laws justifying killing without also considering the full context of the laws which would then check and balance that to prevent injustice and abuse. Otherwise by the same laws, you face the consequences of taking parts of the law out of context to violate the spirit of the contract. So when you have free will and reason, and you consider the full context and consequences, then you will moderate your own actions accordingly. You still have free will but you follow the laws by conscience so that enforcement comes equally from within.

This is similar to having free speech, but not yelling fire in a crowed theatre. The same respect for laws by which freedom of speech, or of the press, is protected also prohibit hate speech, harassment, slander or libel, fraud or other abuses of speech to violate the rights and freedoms and equal protections of other people. Even within the First Amendment, along with the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or of the press, there is the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble, and to petition for a redress of grievances. So you cannot abuse part of the law to obstruct or deny other rights and freedoms within the same contract. Likewise with the 2nd Amendment and the 4th. You cannot abuse rights and freedoms in ways that threaten, abridge, or deny the equal right of security for all persons. Because all the articles are part of the same body of laws.

So the problem brought forth with terrorism and counterterrorism, is that the militant aggressors are not following the laws on peaceful petitioning and democratic process; but when facing prosecution, the system being applied is based on respect for civil rights and protections. So the real issue is setting up a system of laws that the parties agree to follow. If they only answer to Islamic laws, then that authority must be used which would condemn attackers as infidels for not making peace before making offerings to God; if the victims of the violence are under Constitutional laws, then they have the right to petition under that to redress grievances, but not necessarily those who refuse to obey these laws.

Since you cannot invoke or enforce laws that you are violating, any such actions void the contract. So until you make good on the terms, you cannot demand the same protections.

The reason our politicians are not able to demand Constitutional enforcement by such consistent standards, is that most of them are taking liberties and abusing political majority to bypass the spirit of the law which is based on consent of the governed. So as with the terrorist attackers, if our own politicians show no respect for Constitutional laws on equal protection of interests and democratic due process, they are in no position to enforce and demand the same of others. So this is the real issue that is being challenged.


----------



## emilynghiem

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.
> 
> Fair enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it does work that way.  Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities.  You have a very hard time holding your own.
> 
> Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least you are consistent, even if consitently bad. You consistently refuse to point out which specific issues the church and I differ on. Here's to old faithful.
Click to expand...


Dear Truthseeker: I think the Mormons are credited with introducing the idea that Jesus appeared to the Native Americans as the Great Manito, so that they have received the Holy Spirit, and the Native Americans living by natural laws are as Gentiles that Jesus governs under those laws parallel to how the churched people are governed under Biblical laws.
So the Native American Gospel was given to them differently, but the same spirit of God fulfills them both. Is this close enough?

My question is do you or other Mormons also recognize that Buddha's vision and teaching is in line with God's laws, but given in a natural way in terms of spiritual wisdom about human nature and life. Are you okay with the idea that Buddha's prophesies about later fulfillment and spiritual maturity point to the coming and return of Jesus with the Holy Spirit, so that the same Christian concepts of reuniting man and God fulfill Buddhism also.

And are you okay with teaching that Buddha, like Moses, was a true prophet because both serve as witnesses to Christ Jesus who fulfills both the laws of God and the laws of man as one. Do you also see the founding fathers who lay down the Constitutional laws as inspired by the same God, so that these secular/civil laws are also fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## Liability

Do you people see why I like this thread?


----------



## JakeStarkey

As you may know, the First Presidency of your church issued a formal statement on November 14, 2008 condemning public protests against those who participate in the democratic process of our government.  Specifically, the First Presidency defined such protests as acts of "intimidation" and "hostile response," which are "not worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation."  They went on to declare that such acts have "no place in civil discourse over controversial issues," and that such a response to governmental process "should be deplored by people of goodwill [sic] everywhere."  Knowing how seriously you take the counsel of the First Presidency as the inspired word of deity, do you think that this is an inspired reference about the coming actions of the Tea Party in the Town Hall meetings last summer?


----------



## TheSuaveOne

emilynghiem said:


> And are you okay with teaching that Buddha, like Moses, was a true prophet because both serve as witnesses to Christ Jesus who fulfills both the laws of God and the laws of man as one. Do you also see the founding fathers who lay down the Constitutional laws as inspired by the same God, so that these secular/civil laws are also fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily



The church is fine with other teachings. They don't agree that they are teaching the word of God as the Mormons believe they are "The One True Church".  The problem I always had with other Christian religions was how they actually spent time teaching their followers how to help convert Mormons, and taught them how Mormons were not Christians.

-TSO


----------



## Truthspeaker

emilynghiem said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Truthseeker:
> 
> 
> 
> I always do seek for truth at all times, but that is not my handle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Mormons are credited with introducing the idea that Jesus appeared to the Native Americans as the Great Manito, so that they have received the Holy Spirit, and the Native Americans living by natural laws are as Gentiles that Jesus governs under those laws parallel to how the churched people are governed under Biblical laws.
> So the Native American Gospel was given to them differently, but the same spirit of God fulfills them both. Is this close enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me clarify....
> 
> We have a book that is a copy of an ancient collection of documents which describe one of Jesus' visits to the new world. This was his most famous visit. In this book we read of the words Jesus gave them. The same principles he taught in the Bible are to be found in the Book of Mormon, except in clearer detail on several occasions.
> It was not a different gospel than the one preached in Jerusalem. It was the same gospel but with a personal touch for those people in those times, with parables they could relate to just like when Jesus spoke in parables the Jews could understand.
> The native americans are also of the house of Israel and the book describes the european settlers as the gentiles.
> There are also different contexts to be considered when using the word gentile. They have several different meanings.
> And by the way there is no such thing as a "biblical law". The laws of God come from Him and not from a book. The book is a medium of communication, not a law unto itself. Just as Jesus said "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."; He would also say "The Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My question is do you or other Mormons also recognize that Buddha's vision and teaching is in line with God's laws,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I understand of Buddhism, most of their teachings are Christian, others we don't believe are inspired of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but given in a natural way in terms of spiritual wisdom about human nature and life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope your not saying Christian teachings are unnatural. I'm not sure what you mean by "a natural way".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you okay with the idea that Buddha's prophesies about later fulfillment and spiritual maturity point to the coming and return of Jesus with the Holy Spirit, so that the same Christian concepts of reuniting man and God fulfill Buddhism also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not aware of Buddha prophesying of the coming of Christ. If so then he was a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And are you okay with teaching that Buddha, like Moses, was a true prophet because both serve as witnesses to Christ Jesus who fulfills both the laws of God and the laws of man as one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really making a case that Buddha was Christian. Can you provide me some quotes where Buddha prophesied anything, especially in relation to Christ?
> 
> In light of the information I currently hold about Buddha, I am not ok with calling him a true prophet like Moses just yet. I believe he was a great philosopher and good person and if he lived his teachings of peace and kindness, he'll be alright on the other side when he meets Jesus. But I haven't heard enough from him to call him an oracle of God. Some of his teachings I just can't accept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you also see the founding fathers who lay down the Constitutional laws as inspired by the same God, so that these secular/civil laws are also fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Buddha, I believe the founding fathers of our country were inspired by God when they did good things. That doesn't make them prophets but I believe God helped them form our country. God did not however assist in any sins or crimes they may have committed.
> 
> Thank you so much for the excellent and thought provoking questions. We need to hear more of you on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> As you may know, the First Presidency of your church issued a formal statement on November 14, 2008 condemning public protests against those who participate in the democratic process of our government.  Specifically, the First Presidency defined such protests as acts of "intimidation" and "hostile response," which are "not worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation."  They went on to declare that such acts have "no place in civil discourse over controversial issues," and that such a response to governmental process "should be deplored by people of goodwill [sic] everywhere."  Knowing how seriously you take the counsel of the First Presidency as the inspired word of deity, do you think that this is an inspired reference about the coming actions of the Tea Party?



People must know the context in which this statement was given. It followed in the wake of verbally and psychologically hostile protests and vandalisms on the side of NO on Prop 8.
That camp crowded around our houses of worship, waving disrespectful and insulting signs, shouting obscenities, name calling, spraying graffitti on our buildings, etc.

This behavior is unacceptable, juvenile and malicious. Peaceful protests do not include such things. Threatening Mormons who entered and exited the premises of our private property is a crime and can hardly help their cause anyway.

The statement's purpose was twofold:
1. To denounce the deplorable actions of anyone who behaves in such a manner
2. To discourage reciprocation of said actions.

I don't know what the tea party'ers are planning to do but if they behave in the same manner, we don't support such a protest.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you very much.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you very much.



Then click the Thanks button and give me some more thanks!


----------



## Truthspeaker

For the first time I am not sporting a real avatar instead of a real photo. What do you think? I just thought this was great, even if I don't drink beer.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Truthspeaker said:


> For the first time I am not sporting a real avatar instead of a real photo. What do you think? I just thought this was great, even if I don't drink beer.



My dad used to drink Schlitz.  And Schaffer (Schaffer is the one beer to have when you're having more than one).  He thinks there's one big keg in the sky and they just change the labels on the bottles.  He's wrong.


----------



## froggy

Out of all the post here by the mormons, they still haven't admited the truth about Joey


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Out of all the post here by the mormons, they still haven't admited the truth about Joey



Admit what? I've been posting the truth about Joseph Smith for over a year on this thread. where have you been?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Out of all the post here by the mormons, they still haven't admited the truth about Joey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admit what? I've been posting the truth about Joseph Smith for over a year on this thread. where have you been?
Click to expand...


admit he was a con.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> admit he was a con.



Can't admit what isnt true.

You really ought to read some of what he actually said. Some sermons in full context. I dont think youd believe he was a con then either.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> admit he was a con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't admit what isnt true.
> 
> You really ought to read some of what he actually said. Some sermons in full context. I dont think youd believe he was a con then either.
Click to expand...


I have done that over the decades, among other things.  

Maybe it was scam, maybe he was delusional and believed all that he said he saw and heard.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> admit he was a con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't admit what isnt true.
> 
> You really ought to read some of what he actually said. Some sermons in full context. I dont think youd believe he was a con then either.
Click to expand...


Its easy, just tell the truth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> admit he was a con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't admit what isnt true.
> 
> You really ought to read some of what he actually said. Some sermons in full context. I dont think youd believe he was a con then either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its easy, just tell the truth.
Click to expand...


Ok I'll admit that YOU think he was a con. 
So why don't you put your money where your mouth is. Tell me what you disagree with in this sermon of Joseph Smith Jr.'s:


 A Discourse, by President Joseph Smith, delivered at the Conference held near the Temple, in Nauvoo, April 6, 1844. Reported by W. Richards, W. Woodruff, T. Bullock, and W. Clayton

Beloved Saints,--I will call the attention of this congregation while I address you on the subject of the dead. The decease of our beloved brother, Elder King Follett, who was crushed in a well by the falling of a tub of rock, has more immediately led me to that subject. I have been requested to speak by his friends and relatives; but inasmuch as there are a great many in this congregation who live in this city, as well as elsewhere, who have lost friends, I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and offer you my ideas so far as I have ability and so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy Spirit to dwell on this subject.

I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony many carry conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say. Pray that the Lord may strengthen my lungs, stay the winds, and let the prayers of the Saints to heaven appear, that they may enter into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth; for the effectual prayers of the righteous avail much. There is strength here; and I verily believe that your prayers will be heard.

Before I enter fully into the investigation of the subject which is lying before me, I wish to pave the way and bring up the subject from the beginning, that you may understand it. I will make a few preliminaries, in order that you may understand the subject when I come to it. I do not calculate or intend to please your ears with superfluity of words, or oratory, or with much learning; but I calculate to edify you with the simple truths from heaven.

In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning--to the morn of creation. There is the starting-point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes, and decrees of the great Eloheim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of this world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.

There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past or that which is to come, as respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and, consequently, they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink, and sleep. This is all man knows about God or his existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the almighty.

If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink, and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same thing. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God: yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into a more lofty sphere and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.

I want to ask this congregation--every man, women, and child, to answer the question in their own heart, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with him. This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question--What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, or communed with him? Here is the question that will peradventure from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The Scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."

If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being he is,--if he will search diligently his own heart--if the declarations of Jesus and the Apostles be true--he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being he is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations, inspirations, or to be a Prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world--a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life. But if all religious teachers were honest enough to renounce their pretensions to godliness, when their ignorance of the knowledge of God is made manifest, they will all be as badly off as I am, at any rate; and you might just as well take the lives of other false teachers as that of mine, if I am false. If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher; and where would be the end of blood? and who would not be the sufferer?

But meddle not with any man for his religion; and all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.

I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know him and to be familiar with him; and if I can bring you to a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant; for I speak as one having authority.

I will go back to the beginning, before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth; for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why he interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,--I say, if you were to see him to-day, you would see him like a man in form--like yourselves, in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked, and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary that we should understand the character and being of God, and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some; but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible. I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon.) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power"--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner, to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,--namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,--from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners, when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again, to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the track of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation; and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much hath been said.

When you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel: you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the vail before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world: it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I did, I think there are so many over-wise men here, that they would cry "treason" and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator to-day.

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible. I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible--Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith--in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh--the head. Sheit--grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the Baith there. An old Jew, without any authority, added the word. He thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signified to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus, the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

I will transpose and simplify if in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand counsellors sat at the head in yonder heavens, and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at that time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the doctors and lawyers of the Scriptures. I have done so hitherto without explanation, to let the lawyers flutter, and everybody laugh at them. Some learned doctor might take a notion to say the Scriptures say thus and so; and we must believe the Scriptures; they are not to be altered. But I am going to show you an error in them.

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Hebrew, Latin, German, and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jachoboy, the son of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James. Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity, and never get the keys. In the 21st verse of the fourth chapter of Matthew, my old German edition gives the word Jacob instead of James.

The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not of physic,) say, "If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason." How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains. The Latin says Jachabod, which means Jacob; the Hebrew says Jacob, the Creek says Jacob, and the German says Jacob. Here we have the testimony of four against one. I thank God I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony, were it not to back up the word Rosh--the head, the father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn in this way, we begin to learn the only true God and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him and how to ask so as to receive an answer.

When we understand the character of God and know how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.

Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost. They account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow; and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and I will associate myself with him.

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, "Don't the Bible say he created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize--the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed: they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.

I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man. But it is impossible for me to say much on this subject. I shall, therefore, just touch upon it; for time will not permit me to say all. It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead--namely, the soul, the mind of man, the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning. But it is not so. The very idea lessons man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine. I know better. Here it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don't believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. I will make a man appear a fool before I get through, if he does not believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. [Referred to the old Bible.] How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, "God made man out of the earth, and put into him Adam's spirit, and so became a living body."

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they co-equal with our Father in heaven.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man--on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man--the immortal part, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two, then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and I rejoice more and more.

I want to talk more of the relation of man to God. I will open your eyes in relation to your dead. All things whatsoever God of his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle; but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our bodies. God reveals them to us in view of no eternal dissolution of the body, or tabernacle. Hence the responsibility--the awful responsibility that rests upon us in relation to our dead; for all the spirits who have not obeyed the Gospel in the flesh must either obey it in the spirit or be damned. Solemn thought!--dreadful thought! Is there nothing to be done? No preparation--no salvation for our fathers and friends who have died without having had the opportunity to obey the decrees of the Son of Man? Would to God that I had forty days and nights in which to tell you all! I would let you know that I am not a "fallen prophet."

What promises are made in relation to the subject of the salvation of the dead? and what kind of characters are those who can be saved, although their bodies are mouldering and decaying in the grave? When his commandments teach us, it is in view of eternity; for we are looked upon by God as though we were in eternity. God dwells in eternity, and does not view things as we do.

The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead. The Apostle says, "They without us cannot be made perfect;" for it is necessary that the sealing power should be in our hands to seal our children and our dead for the fulness of the dispensation of times--a dispensation to meet the promises made by Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world for the salvation of man.

Now, I will speak of them. I will meet Paul half-way. I say to you, Paul, you cannot be perfect without us. It is necessary that those who are gone before and those who come after us should have salvation in common with us; and thus hath God made it obligatory upon man. Hence God said, "I will send Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

I have a declaration to make as to the provisions which God hath made to suit the conditions of man, made from before the foundation of the world. What has Jesus said? All sins, and all blasphemies, and every transgression, except one, that man can be guilty of, may be forgiven; and there is a salvation for all men, either in this world or the world to come, who have not committed the unpardonable sin, there being a provision either in this world or the world of spirits. Hence God hath made a provision that every spirit in the eternal world can be ferreted out and saved, unless he has committed that unpardonable sin which cannot be remitted to him either in this world or the world of spirits. God has wrought out a salvation for all men, unless they have committed a certain sin; and every man who has a friend in the eternal world can save him, unless he has committed the unpardonable sin. And so you can see how far you can be a saviour.

A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the Gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.

A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.

I know the Scriptures and understand them. I said no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life until he received the Holy Ghost; but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men in order to triumph over the Devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Saviour. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself.

The contention in heaven was--Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the Devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favour of Jesus Christ. So the Devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him.

All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me; he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the Devil--the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life,--the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance: they make open war like the Devil, and awful is the consequence.

I advise all of you to be careful what you do, or you may by-and-by find out that you have been deceived. Stay yourselves; do not give way; don't make any hasty moves: you may be be saved. If a spirit of bitterness is in you, don't be in haste. You may say that man is a sinner. Well, if he repents, he shall be forgiven. Be cautious: await! When you find a spirit what wants bloodshed--murder, the same is not of God, but is of the Devil. Out of the abundance of the heart of man the mouth speaketh.

The best men bring forth the best works. The man who tells you words of life is the man who can save you. I warn you against all evil characters who sin against the Holy Ghost; for there is no redemption for them in this world nor in the world to come.

I could go back and trace every subject of interest concerning the relationship of man to God, if I had time. I can enter into the mysteries; I can enter largely into the eternal worlds; for Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." (John 14th chap., 2nd v.) Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." (1st Cor. 15th chap., 41st v.) What have we to console us in relation to the dead? We have reason to have the greatest hope and consolations for our dead of any people on the earth; for we have seen them walk worthily in our midst, and seen them sink asleep in the arms of Jesus; and those who have died in the faith are now in the celestial kingdom of God. And hence is the glory of the sun.

You mourners have occasion to rejoice (speaking of the death of Elder King Follett); for your husband and father is gone to wait until the resurrection of the dead--until the perfection of the remainder; for at the resurrection your friend will rise in perfect felicity and go to celestial glory, while many must wait myriads of years before they can receive the like blessings; and your expectations and hopes are far above what man can conceive; for why has God revealed it to us?

I AM AUTHORIZED to say, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that you have no occasion to fear; for he is gone to the home of the just. Don't mourn; don't weep. I know it by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that is within me; and you may wait for your friends to come forth to meet you in the morn of the celestial world.

Rejoice, O Israel! Your friends who have been murdered for the truth's sake in the persecution shall triumph gloriously in the celestial world, while their murderers shall welter for ages in torment, even until they shall have paid the uttermost farthing. I say this for the benefit of strangers.

I have a father, brothers, children, and friends who have gone to a world of spirits. They are only absent for a moment. They are in the spirit, and we shall soon meet again. The time will soon arrive when the trumpet shall sound. When we depart, we shall hail our mothers, fathers, friends, and all whom we love who have fallen asleep in Jesus. There will be no fear of mobs, persecutions, or malicious law-suits and arrests; but it will be an eternity of felicity.

A question may be asked--"Will mothers have their children in eternity?" Yes! yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life; for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaits them, for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow: it will still be the child, in the same precise form as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.

I will leave this subject here, and make a few remarks on the subject of baptism. The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holly Ghost attending it, is of no use: they are necessary and inseparably connected. An individual must be born of water and the spirit in order to get into the kingdom of God. In the German, the text bears me out the same as the revelations which I have given and taught for the last fourteen years on that subject. I have the testimony to put in their teeth. My testimony has been true all the time. You will find it in the declaration of John the Baptist. [Reads from the German.] John says, "I baptise you with water; but when Jesus comes, who has the power (or keys), he shall administer the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost." Great God! where is now all the sectarian world? And if this testimony is true, they are all damned as clearly as anathema can do it. I know the text is true. I call upon all you Germans who know that it is true to say aye. (Loud shouts of aye.)

Alexander Campbell, how are you going to save people with water alone? For John said his baptism was good for nothing without the baptism of Jesus Christ. "Therefore, not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit." (Heb. 6th chap., 1st to 3rd v.)

There is one God, one Father, one Jesus, one hope of our calling, one baptism. All these three baptisms only make one. Many talk of baptism not being essential to salvation: but this kind of teaching would lay the foundation of their damnation. I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can.

I have now preached a little Latin, a little Hebrew, Greek, and German; and I have fulfilled all. I am not so big a fool as many have taken me to be. The Germans know that I read the German correctly.

Hear it, all ye ends of the earth--all ye priests, all ye sinners, and all men. Repent! repent! Obey the Gospel. Turn to God; for your religion won't save you, and you will be damned. I do not say how long. There have been remarks made concerning all men being redeemed from hell; but I say that those who sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world to come: they shall die the second death. Those who commit the unpardonable sin are doomed to Gnolom, to dwell in hell, worlds without end. As they concoct scenes of bloodshed in this world, so they shall rise to that resurrection which is as the lake of fire and brimstone. Some shall rise to the everlasting burning of God; for God dwells in everlasting burnings; and some shall rise to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment a the lake of fire and brimstone.

I have intended my remarks for all, both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small. I have no enmity against any man. I love you all; but I have some of your deeds. I am your best friend; and if persons miss their mark, it is their own fault. If I reprove a man and he hates me, he is a fool; for I love all men, especially these my brethren and sisters.

I rejoice in hearing the testimony of my aged friends. You don't know me: you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born into the world. My voice is always for peace.

I cannot lie down until all my work is finished. I never think any evil, nor do anything to the harm of my fellow-man. When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then. I add no more. God bless you all. Amen.


----------



## Truthspeaker

For you Jake, these well calculated words do not equate to the ramblings of a delusional man. There is a calmness, an awareness in these words that simply cannot be denied. The truth has a certain ring to it. And it always polarizes people.

He was either a prophet of God, or THE GREATEST con in history. Delusional is not possible.


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Spending time on the internet on Sunday is not something the church would look kindly at, unless of course it was for the prepping of a lesson for next week.

tisk tisk.

-TSO


----------



## JakeStarkey

Delusional individuals can be very convincing, Truth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> Spending time on the internet on Sunday is not something the church would look kindly at, unless of course it was for the prepping of a lesson for next week.
> 
> tisk tisk.
> 
> -TSO



Not true. I don't know why you would say that. Especially if I am instructing in matters of religion. Your statement does not make sense to me at all.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Delusional individuals can be very convincing, Truth.



I don't think so. Every delusional person I've ever talked to is obviously deluded. It's pretty easy, at least for me, to tell if someone is full of it or not. Perhaps you could give me an example of a very convincing delusional person.


----------



## strollingbones

i.e. jim jones...the list goes on and on...


----------



## strollingbones

Truthspeaker said:


> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spending time on the internet on Sunday is not something the church would look kindly at, unless of course it was for the prepping of a lesson for next week.
> 
> tisk tisk.
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't know why you would say that. Especially i*f I am instructing in matters of religion. Your statement does not make sense to *me at all.
Click to expand...




i dont see this as instructing matters of religion...i simply see it as you trying to witness and convert...which i find highly offensive


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> i.e. jim jones...the list goes on and on...



Did he convince you? Really, just how many did he convince? A small band of other delusionals. Joseph Smith's influence is over millions and continues to influence; whereas Jim Jones' religion lived and died the life of a butterfly.

 Try and find someone delusional that was truly convincing on a mass scale and then we'll do comparisons.


----------



## Truthspeaker

strollingbones said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spending time on the internet on Sunday is not something the church would look kindly at, unless of course it was for the prepping of a lesson for next week.
> 
> tisk tisk.
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't know why you would say that. Especially i*f I am instructing in matters of religion. Your statement does not make sense to *me at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i dont see this as instructing matters of religion...i simply see it as you trying to witness and convert...which i find highly offensive
Click to expand...


Whether you are offended or not, I AM instructing, at least in matters of my own religion. What you fail to realize is what I have said all along. I know that I have zero power to convert anyone. I'm not even really witnessing that much. Maybe a little but what am doing is proclaiming the truth about mormons. Whether that's clarifying misconceptions or stating official doctrines. 
Fair enough?


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Truthspeaker said:


> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spending time on the internet on Sunday is not something the church would look kindly at, unless of course it was for the prepping of a lesson for next week.
> 
> tisk tisk.
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. I don't know why you would say that. Especially if I am instructing in matters of religion. Your statement does not make sense to me at all.
Click to expand...


Instead of playing around in an internet forum, shouldn't you have been spending the time with your family, or out completing your monthly home teaching assignments? You realize that Sunday is a day of rest and as long as you are using services like the internet, you are in a round about way making others work to make sure your internet connection is in place. It's the same as not going out to eat or to the store on Sunday.

-TSO


----------



## strollingbones

sciencetology


----------



## Avatar4321

TheSuaveOne said:


> Instead of playing around in an internet forum, shouldn't you have been spending the time with your family, or out completing your monthly home teaching assignments? You realize that Sunday is a day of rest and as long as you are using services like the internet, you are in a round about way making others work to make sure your internet connection is in place. It's the same as not going out to eat or to the store on Sunday.
> 
> -TSO



I rest by surfing the web and talking with people.


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Avatar4321 said:


> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing around in an internet forum, shouldn't you have been spending the time with your family, or out completing your monthly home teaching assignments? You realize that Sunday is a day of rest and as long as you are using services like the internet, you are in a round about way making others work to make sure your internet connection is in place. It's the same as not going out to eat or to the store on Sunday.
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest by surfing the web and talking with people.
Click to expand...


That's great, however, I wonder what your Bishop would say? I doubt he would think that was an appropriate action for you to do on a Sunday evening. Are all of your family home teaching assignments completed for the month? Couldn't you be out with the missionaries helping others complete their home teaching assignments? Maybe spending time with your family reading the scriptures?

Just sayin.

-TSO


----------



## Neubarth

Truthspeaker said:


> Oh and one last question: Can you please explain the mountainous evidence in support of the book of mormon



All I know about the Book of Mormon is that it claims that American Indians were Jews, yet no DNA link exists to support that claim.  Supposedly the second wave of Jews came to America on nuclear powered submarines from Viet Nam. Who built those submarines that could travel and stay underwater?
The Cities that these waves of Jewish immigrants built in no way compare to modern archeological sites that have been unearthed.  They are physically in the wrong place. I have had Mormons tell me that God caused tremendous cataclysm in the New World just before Columbus arrived and that caused all of the Jewish Indian cities to move hundreds of miles across the landscape of the Americas.  That sounds even screwier than the crappola that L Ron Hubbard made up to create the Church of Scientology. 

To me it appears that Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were phony to the max.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing around in an internet forum, shouldn't you have been spending the time with your family, or out completing your monthly home teaching assignments? You realize that Sunday is a day of rest and as long as you are using services like the internet, you are in a round about way making others work to make sure your internet connection is in place. It's the same as not going out to eat or to the store on Sunday.
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest by surfing the web and talking with people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great, however, I wonder what your Bishop would say? I doubt he would think that was an appropriate action for you to do on a Sunday evening. Are all of your family home teaching assignments completed for the month? Couldn't you be out with the missionaries helping others complete their home teaching assignments? Maybe spending time with your family reading the scriptures?
> 
> Just sayin.
> 
> -TSO
Click to expand...


I'll have you know that I've done all of those things and have not made my brief visits on this forum the priority of my whole life. You CAN find room to do all those things. I make dates to go out with the missionaries as well. My bishop knows about this thread. I haven't heard any general authority speak out on the evils of using the internet on Sunday. I think that's taking it a little too far. Remember "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

So you can keep judging all you want. That's fine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Neubarth said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and one last question: Can you please explain the mountainous evidence in support of the book of mormon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I know about the Book of Mormon is that it claims that American Indians were Jews, yet no DNA link exists to support that claim.  Supposedly the second wave of Jews came to America on nuclear powered submarines from Viet Nam. Who built those submarines that could travel and stay underwater?
> The Cities that these waves of Jewish immigrants built in no way compare to modern archeological sites that have been unearthed.  They are physically in the wrong place. I have had Mormons tell me that God caused tremendous cataclysm in the New World just before Columbus arrived and that caused all of the Jewish Indian cities to move hundreds of miles across the landscape of the Americas.  That sounds even screwier than the crappola that L Ron Hubbard made up to create the Church of Scientology.
> 
> To me it appears that Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard were phony to the max.
Click to expand...


Welcome back Neuby!

Not to backtrack too much but it was over a year ago in the very first post that I dealt with your very same question. I never heard back from you till now so I guess you just hit and run. Please go back and read my answer. 

Cheers!


----------



## TheSuaveOne

> Because the Sabbath is a holy day, it should be reserved for worthy and holy activities. Abstaining from work and recreation is not enough. In fact, those who merely lounge about doing nothing on the Sabbath fail to keep the day holy. In a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1831, the Lord commanded: That thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; for verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High" (D&C 59:910). In harmony with this revelation, Church members attend sacrament meeting each week. Other Sabbath-day activities may include praying, meditating, studying the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets, writing letters to family members and friends, reading wholesome material, visiting the sick and distressed, and attending other Church meetings.



link

-TSO


----------



## emilynghiem

Truthspeaker said:


> For you Jake, these well calculated words do not equate to the ramblings of a delusional man. There is a calmness, an awareness in these words that simply cannot be denied. The truth has a certain ring to it. And it always polarizes people.
> 
> He was either a prophet of God, or THE GREATEST con in history. Delusional is not possible.



I would like to clarify a point in the speech which I agree is divinely inspired of God's truth.
The point is not to discredit but to show that each person is limited in  perception and audience addressed. And that others can equally add knowledge to and refine the truth so that it is better understood by a different audience. 

The point about the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

QUOTE: "All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

How I understand this is the sin of "unforgiveness."

If you do not forgive, you are not permitting God's will to enter in through Jesus and redeem or correct or bring restitution or restoration of equity to that relationship.
So this is the one thing that we either must do or must ask God's help to do if we cannot.
We must forgive or ask help to forgive, as a way to submit to God's will by our free will.
He cannot force forgiveness on us, it is the one thing that can block healing by the Spirit.

So in context, even though we are not "at fault" for the sins of others like our predecessors, if we do not "forgive" then we repeat and/or create a "new sin."

So in this way the "sins of the forefathers are visited upon the sons to the fourth and fifth generation" not as punishment but in order that we learn to forgive in Christ Jesus to break this cycle of sin and suffering, instead of repeating the past in retribution. 
When we choose the path of "restorative justice" over "retributive justice" that is when we choose the way of justice with mercy or Christ Jesus (over abuse of law as the spirit of antichrist or injustice, the opposite spirit of Jesus).

I agree with the general "spirit" of the speaker as true, but I would clarify the meaning so that it reaches or speaks to more people, especially those like me who may relate to secular terms and real life applications before the concepts make sense as universally true.

Thank you for sharing
I believe there are true prophets and witnesses from all tribes, and we just need to put all that diverse knowledge together to see the bigger perspective of God's truth before us.

What is not clear from one angle, can be clarified by another.
So that when we submit "one to another" in Christ Jesus, the truth may be established in the mouths of two or three witnesses. And if any of the people should speak in tongues (even different religious terms) then let a third party "interpret". So this way we may cross-communicate between religious systems and all tongues shall speak to the same truth though in different ways that lend greater insight than just one angle by itself.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## Avatar4321

TheSuaveOne said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of playing around in an internet forum, shouldn't you have been spending the time with your family, or out completing your monthly home teaching assignments? You realize that Sunday is a day of rest and as long as you are using services like the internet, you are in a round about way making others work to make sure your internet connection is in place. It's the same as not going out to eat or to the store on Sunday.
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rest by surfing the web and talking with people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great, however, I wonder what your Bishop would say? I doubt he would think that was an appropriate action for you to do on a Sunday evening. Are all of your family home teaching assignments completed for the month? Couldn't you be out with the missionaries helping others complete their home teaching assignments? Maybe spending time with your family reading the scriptures?
> 
> Just sayin.
> 
> -TSO
Click to expand...


I dont think he is that concerned about it. He doesnt micromanage our lives. He provides guidence and encourages us to get the Spirit ourself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> Because the Sabbath is a holy day, it should be reserved for worthy and holy activities. Abstaining from work and recreation is not enough. In fact, those who merely lounge about doing nothing on the Sabbath fail to keep the day holy. In a revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1831, the Lord commanded: That thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day; for verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High" (D&C 59:910). In harmony with this revelation, Church members attend sacrament meeting each week. Other Sabbath-day activities may include praying, meditating, studying the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets, writing letters to family members and friends, reading wholesome material, visiting the sick and distressed, and attending other Church meetings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link
> 
> -TSO
Click to expand...


I  totally agree with that entire statement. But I don't see how chatting about our faith online on Sunday is in breach of the Sabbath.


----------



## Avatar4321

emilynghiem said:


> I would like to clarify a point in the speech which I agree is divinely inspired of God's truth.
> The point is not to discredit but to show that each person is limited in  perception and audience addressed. And that others can equally add knowledge to and refine the truth so that it is better understood by a different audience.
> 
> The point about the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
> 
> QUOTE: "All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
> 
> How I understand this is the sin of "unforgiveness."
> 
> If you do not forgive, you are not permitting God's will to enter in through Jesus and redeem or correct or bring restitution or restoration of equity to that relationship.
> So this is the one thing that we either must do or must ask God's help to do if we cannot.
> We must forgive or ask help to forgive, as a way to submit to God's will by our free will.
> He cannot force forgiveness on us, it is the one thing that can block healing by the Spirit.
> 
> So in context, even though we are not "at fault" for the sins of others like our predecessors, if we do not "forgive" then we repeat and/or create a "new sin."
> 
> So in this way the "sins of the forefathers are visited upon the sons to the fourth and fifth generation" not as punishment but in order that we learn to forgive in Christ Jesus to break this cycle of sin and suffering, instead of repeating the past in retribution.
> When we choose the path of "restorative justice" over "retributive justice" that is when we choose the way of justice with mercy or Christ Jesus (over abuse of law as the spirit of antichrist or injustice, the opposite spirit of Jesus).
> 
> I agree with the general "spirit" of the speaker as true, but I would clarify the meaning so that it reaches or speaks to more people, especially those like me who may relate to secular terms and real life applications before the concepts make sense as universally true.
> 
> Thank you for sharing
> I believe there are true prophets and witnesses from all tribes, and we just need to put all that diverse knowledge together to see the bigger perspective of God's truth before us.
> 
> What is not clear from one angle, can be clarified by another.
> So that when we submit "one to another" in Christ Jesus, the truth may be established in the mouths of two or three witnesses. And if any of the people should speak in tongues (even different religious terms) then let a third party "interpret". So this way we may cross-communicate between religious systems and all tongues shall speak to the same truth though in different ways that lend greater insight than just one angle by itself.
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily



Please forgive me, but I have no clue what you are talking about. And I have no clue how it's related to the topic here. Could you elaborate or break things down better? because Id really like to have a more indepth conversation here but I just dont understand what point you are trying to make.


----------



## Truthspeaker

emilynghiem said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you Jake, these well calculated words do not equate to the ramblings of a delusional man. There is a calmness, an awareness in these words that simply cannot be denied. The truth has a certain ring to it. And it always polarizes people.
> 
> He was either a prophet of God, or THE GREATEST con in history. Delusional is not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to clarify a point in the speech which I agree is divinely inspired of God's truth.
> The point is not to discredit but to show that each person is limited in  perception and audience addressed. And that others can equally add knowledge to and refine the truth so that it is better understood by a different audience.
> 
> The point about the only unforgiveable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
> 
> QUOTE: "All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
> 
> How I understand this is the sin of "unforgiveness."
> 
> If you do not forgive, you are not permitting God's will to enter in through Jesus and redeem or correct or bring restitution or restoration of equity to that relationship.
> So this is the one thing that we either must do or must ask God's help to do if we cannot.
> We must forgive or ask help to forgive, as a way to submit to God's will by our free will.
> He cannot force forgiveness on us, it is the one thing that can block healing by the Spirit.
> 
> So in context, even though we are not "at fault" for the sins of others like our predecessors, if we do not "forgive" then we repeat and/or create a "new sin."
> 
> So in this way the "sins of the forefathers are visited upon the sons to the fourth and fifth generation" not as punishment but in order that we learn to forgive in Christ Jesus to break this cycle of sin and suffering, instead of repeating the past in retribution.
> When we choose the path of "restorative justice" over "retributive justice" that is when we choose the way of justice with mercy or Christ Jesus (over abuse of law as the spirit of antichrist or injustice, the opposite spirit of Jesus).
> 
> I agree with the general "spirit" of the speaker as true, but I would clarify the meaning so that it reaches or speaks to more people, especially those like me who may relate to secular terms and real life applications before the concepts make sense as universally true.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
Click to expand...


Emily I appreciate your input on this sermon of Joseph's. However I must be official as to the doctrine of the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin happens only once and cannot be forgiven. The sin of holding grudges and being an unforgiving person can be overcome by transforming into a forgiving person and abandoning that sin. However this is not what Joseph was speaking of. 

The sin he is speaking of is much worse and is the only one from which there is no going back. To sin against the Holy Ghost has been described as "tasting of the goodness of Jesus, abiding by his commandments, seeing his face, knowing for a fact the entire plan of redemption as brought forth by Him. Then turning your back on Jesus, spitting in his face, crucifying him again and denying you ever knew Him, betraying Him and working with Satan to destroy His Church." "To look at the Noonday sun and behold it's brightness and the next moment deny that it shines."

I doubt any of us has ever even met such a person and probably never will. I can't Judge Judas entirely but I don't think his actions are going to go over well on the next side.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But simply let me remind all that traditional and historical Christianity does not interpret the "unpardonable sin" as does the opinion of Mormon theology.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> But simply let me remind all that traditional and historical Christianity does not interpret the "unpardonable sin" as does the opinion of Mormon theology.



Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But simply let me remind all that traditional and historical Christianity does not interpret the "unpardonable sin" as does the opinion of Mormon theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.
Click to expand...


I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements.  Revelation?  No.


----------



## emilynghiem

Truthspeaker said:


> Emily I appreciate your input on this sermon of Joseph's. However I must be official as to the doctrine of the unpardonable sin. The unpardonable sin happens only once and cannot be forgiven. The sin of holding grudges and being an unforgiving person can be overcome by transforming into a forgiving person and abandoning that sin. However this is not what Joseph was speaking of.
> 
> The sin he is speaking of is much worse and is the only one from which there is no going back. To sin against the Holy Ghost has been described as "tasting of the goodness of Jesus, abiding by his commandments, seeing his face, knowing for a fact the entire plan of redemption as brought forth by Him. Then turning your back on Jesus, spitting in his face, crucifying him again and denying you ever knew Him, betraying Him and working with Satan to destroy His Church." "To look at the Noonday sun and behold it's brightness and the next moment deny that it shines."
> 
> I doubt any of us has ever even met such a person and probably never will. I can't Judge Judas entirely but I don't think his actions are going to go over well on the next side.



Dear Truth I appreciate you also for how you started and conduct this thread in the spirit of truth, and correction with forgiveness. I believe you will succeed in sharing and establishing truth because of your pure motivations.

As for your specific qualifications on sins against the Holy Spirit, given that Jesus and the Bible are for all people, I find this is "too limited" unless you interpret what you provided more universally to apply to the "spiritual state" that is causing the unforgiveness.

If you pinpoint just one specific application, instead of the general condition and causes behind what you presented, then people would go around targeting THOSE particular cases or people, and we would no longer be equal in God's eyes. The interpretation, even of what you state, should be able to apply to any and all people equally, so we are equally at fault when we threaten to go into that state of unforgiveness which causes such rebellion and retribution; basically being so jealous or resentful of God's ways being supreme that we would seek to sabotage what is good and healed -- any action like that must STILL come from "unforgiveness". So "unforgiveness" is still the common root of the sin, and which applies to ALL people.

Now if you mean when unforgiveness causes someone else to break their faith and become unforgiving, so it causes a chain reaction, then yes, that still shows how many layers, even generations, it would take to heal the consequences of unforgiveness.

So I would also agree that makes the degree of sin multifold, and explains WHY it takes more than one world or generation before such a chain of sins is fully healed or forgiven.

So I would not agree to limit the issue of unforgiveness to just that particular literal instance, but would still look at the SPIRIT of what causes the example you gave to be such a compounding issue; and to see how other cases are on the same level of transgression, causing so much damage that it is not healed "in this world or the next."

However, by the fourth and fifth generation, even curses carried in the spirit that people in the past died without forgiving and giving to Christ; these can be given by future generations and still be brought to redemption. So there is an end to the unforgiveness.

Healing may not come in one life or the next, but once divine forgiveness in Christ is established then all truth is revealed so all are set free from the past. 

From our human perspective it is NOT forgiven, since lifetimes are limited and once you die in sin that is too late to make peace. But from God's perspective, which transcends the linear limitations of human life and death, then God's love and grace conquers all over time.

I don't think this has to negate your Mormon interpretation, but just expands on it to apply the same concept of "unforgiveness" causing rebellion and vengeful destruction. I believe we agree more than disagree, because "unforgiveness" is the common factor that would cause such problems and consequences.

I think that is the better focus because the warning would be general and apply to ALL people in ALL things we do. Anything we do out of "unforgiveness" especially for those who do not forgive God and do self-destructive things to hurt themselves or others out of anger, can be seen as falling under that level of abuse with lifetimes of repercussions. Such a negative chain reaction has the SAME effect you mention of causing others to fall away or reject or lose faith, by spreading unforgiving destruction. But it does not have to be literal "teaching" as a formal minister. It can be teaching indirectly by example.

So I would just interpret it more generally, in keeping with the SPIRIT of why the case you present is so critical, but not necessarily just a literal case that would not apply to all people.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Avatar4321 said:


> Please forgive me, but I have no clue what you are talking about. And I have no clue how it's related to the topic here. Could you elaborate or break things down better? because Id really like to have a more indepth conversation here but I just dont understand what point you are trying to make.



Sorry Avatar. The three points I was making
1. that this prophet may be right in spirit, but other views may help add needed clarity and refine the concept even better. So "one way" is not enough to establish the whole truth.
Agreement in Christ is the only way, not just Mormon/Christian/Buddhist etc by itself.
2. the specific scripture was that blasphemies against God and Christ are forgiven, but blasphemies against the Holy Spirit are not forgiven in this world or the next.
The interpretation I follow is that "unforgiveness" is the one block against receiving forgiveness.
So I went into too much detail that with respect to human "free will" we must "choose" to let something be forgiven before God will help us with that. I have never ever seen someone who could be forced to forgive it does not work! It must be by free will. So that unforgiveness is the one thing that will block God's will from happening until we agree.
3. And the examples I gave are how it is true that unforgiven sins cause a chain reaction or cycle of unforgiveness from one generation to the next, in keeping with the concept that it is "not forgiven in this world or the next". It can take several generations to break the cycle of addiction or abuse, for example. Since I have a friend who specializes in prayer therapy to help people out of self-destructive addiction caused by generational problems passed down, then I use this as an example. That once a person in a future generation accepts to forgive, the cycle is broken for all the people in that chain. The dead still died in the state of unforgiveness, so they suffered and that cannot change physically. But spiritually there is redemption over more than one lifetime or generation. So this world or the next may not see the end of crime and violence and war, but there is hope for the next.

(As for TS response, I do agree with the spirit and reason his example causes such a multiple degree of sin upon sin. But since it is based on unforgiveness, then I would still say that is the common cause of why it is not forgiven. It makes sense that the more layers of unforgiveness inciting others to be unforgiving would take more than one lifetime or generation to forgive and heal all the damage caused. But I don't believe in restricting it to just that one particular case literally, but any case incurring similar degrees of damage along the same lines)


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But simply let me remind all that traditional and historical Christianity does not interpret the "unpardonable sin" as does the opinion of Mormon theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements.  Revelation?  No.
Click to expand...


Well you say NO and I say SO. But we have the only writings on the subject of Unpardonable Sin. Take them for what they're worth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Dear Truth I appreciate you also for how you started and conduct this thread in the spirit of truth, and correction with forgiveness. I believe you will succeed in sharing and establishing truth because of your pure motivations.
> 
> As for your specific qualifications on sins against the Holy Spirit, given that Jesus and the Bible are for all people, I find this is "too limited" unless you interpret what you provided more universally to apply to the "spiritual state" that is causing the unforgiveness.
> 
> If you pinpoint just one specific application, instead of the general condition and causes behind what you presented, then people would go around targeting THOSE particular cases or people, and we would no longer be equal in God's eyes. The interpretation, even of what you state, should be able to apply to any and all people equally, so we are equally at fault when we threaten to go into that state of unforgiveness which causes such rebellion and retribution; basically being so jealous or resentful of God's ways being supreme that we would seek to sabotage what is good and healed -- any action like that must STILL come from "unforgiveness". So "unforgiveness" is still the common root of the sin, and which applies to ALL people.
> 
> Now if you mean when unforgiveness causes someone else to break their faith and become unforgiving, so it causes a chain reaction, then yes, that still shows how many layers, even generations, it would take to heal the consequences of unforgiveness.
> 
> So I would also agree that makes the degree of sin multifold, and explains WHY it takes more than one world or generation before such a chain of sins is fully healed or forgiven.
> 
> So I would not agree to limit the issue of unforgiveness to just that particular literal instance, but would still look at the SPIRIT of what causes the example you gave to be such a compounding issue; and to see how other cases are on the same level of transgression, causing so much damage that it is not healed "in this world or the next."
> 
> However, by the fourth and fifth generation, even curses carried in the spirit that people in the past died without forgiving and giving to Christ; these can be given by future generations and still be brought to redemption. So there is an end to the unforgiveness.
> 
> Healing may not come in one life or the next, but once divine forgiveness in Christ is established then all truth is revealed so all are set free from the past.
> 
> From our human perspective it is NOT forgiven, since lifetimes are limited and once you die in sin that is too late to make peace. But from God's perspective, which transcends the linear limitations of human life and death, then God's love and grace conquers all over time.
> 
> I don't think this has to negate your Mormon interpretation, but just expands on it to apply the same concept of "unforgiveness" causing rebellion and vengeful destruction. I believe we agree more than disagree, because "unforgiveness" is the common factor that would cause such problems and consequences.
> 
> I think that is the better focus because the warning would be general and apply to ALL people in ALL things we do. Anything we do out of "unforgiveness" especially for those who do not forgive God and do self-destructive things to hurt themselves or others out of anger, can be seen as falling under that level of abuse with lifetimes of repercussions. Such a negative chain reaction has the SAME effect you mention of causing others to fall away or reject or lose faith, by spreading unforgiving destruction. But it does not have to be literal "teaching" as a formal minister. It can be teaching indirectly by example.
> 
> So I would just interpret it more generally, in keeping with the SPIRIT of why the case you present is so critical, but not necessarily just a literal case that would not apply to all people.
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily




Emily,
Though I may not agree with everything you say regarding the root of all evil, we can agree on this statement by God:

"I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive. But for you it is required to forgive all man. For verily vengeance is mine. And I will repay."

The root of all evil is actually a lack of love for God and your fellow man. These two virtues when absent result in entirely selfish behavior and the man's deeds/crimes are limited only by his imagination.

Truthspeaker


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements.  Revelation?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you say NO and I say SO. But we have the only writings on the subject of Unpardonable Sin. Take them for what they're worth.
Click to expand...


I am fully aware of what they are worth, but hang on to them if it makes you happy.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But simply let me remind all that traditional and historical Christianity does not interpret the "unpardonable sin" as does the opinion of Mormon theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements.  Revelation?  No.
Click to expand...


Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?


----------



## Liability

The Mormon bump du jour!

The bump used to be a dance (or at least a dance move).

Do actual adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints engage in such frivolity?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> The Mormon bump du jour!
> 
> The bump used to be a dance (or at least a dance move).
> 
> Do actual adherents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints engage in such frivolity?



You should see me on the dance floor. I got moves


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, because traditional Christianity does not have any writings in the Bible about the unpardonable sin. We have more revelation on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements.  Revelation?  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?
Click to expand...


Perhaps Jake feels that Christianity never apostatized? Perhaps he feels that Christianity was false all along? I wonder which?


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that you have plenty of opinion and statements.  Revelation?  No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps Jake feels that Christianity never apostatized? Perhaps he feels that Christianity was false all along? I wonder which?
Click to expand...


I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages.  The choices are:  Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.  

The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.

BTW, in your never give up av, are you the frog, or the heron?  It looks to me like the frog might as well give it up.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe that real Christianity could have been restored after the Middle Ages by any means other than revelation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Jake feels that Christianity never apostatized? Perhaps he feels that Christianity was false all along? I wonder which?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages.  The choices are:  Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.
> 
> The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.
> 
> BTW, in your never give up av, are you the frog, or the heron?  It looks to me like the frog might as well give it up.
Click to expand...


I'm definitely the frog!

The heron definitely looks surprised but if he just bites down harder he should break those little frog arms but if he panicks the the frog may have earned another two weeks of life by getting spit out.

But I agree with your statement completely.


----------



## JakeStarkey

How ignorant you are of scripture and history.  There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century.  Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.

Let you in on a secret, gang.  The Lord Christ does not your advice.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> How ignorant you are of scripture and history.  There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century.  Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.
> 
> Let you in on a secret, gang.  The Lord Christ does not your advice.



I'm sure Christ was very proud of his church when Torqumada was torturing the Jews and when the Crusaders were trying to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims.


----------



## Liability

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ignorant you are of scripture and history.  There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century.  Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.
> 
> Let you in on a secret, gang.  The Lord Christ does not your advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Christ was very proud of his church when [Torquemada] was torturing the Jews and when the Crusaders were trying to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims.
Click to expand...


Far be it from me to take up for Jake, but --

Jesus Christ taught non-violence.  It is a fallacy to ascribe to Jesus or His teachings the actions of Torquemada.  

It is a similar fallacy to ascribe to Jesus Christ or His teachings or the Church any of the actions of the Crusaders -- justifiable or not.

There IS a difference between the pure teachings of Jesus and the historical interpretation of those teachings later by the Church.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ignorant you are of scripture and history.  There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century.  Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.
> 
> Let you in on a secret, gang.  The Lord Christ does not your advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure Christ was very proud of his church when [Torquemada] was torturing the Jews and when the Crusaders were trying to take Jerusalem back from the Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far be it from me to take up for Jake, but --
> 
> Jesus Christ taught non-violence.  It is a fallacy to ascribe to Jesus or His teachings the actions of Torquemada.
> 
> It is a similar fallacy to ascribe to Jesus Christ or His teachings or the Church any of the actions of the Crusaders -- justifiable or not.
> 
> There IS a difference between the pure teachings of Jesus and the historical interpretation of those teachings later by the Church.
Click to expand...


You're right but I think you missed Skeptik's sarcasm.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> How ignorant you are of scripture and history.  There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century.  Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.
> 
> Let you in on a secret, gang.  The Lord Christ does not your advice.



Which, of course, is why Paul stated that Christ would not return until after there was an Apostasy. And why John saw that the Saints were overcome by the adversary until the Lord sent an Angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the people to prepare them for the judgments of God. Or Amons prophecied there would be a Famine of the Word and God and man would travel throughout the land and be unable to find it. Or why Isaiah prophecied that men would break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.

Or why there are thousands of different Christian Churches teaching different doctrines. Or why there ceased to be scripture and revelation. It must be because God has changed rather than because of man turning from Him.

Quite frankly, I dont buy it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows.  Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart.  I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Church fathers, doctors, theologians, etc. among the historical churches clearly teach that such teaching involved local audiences with local concerns.  Thus a teaching on a sin about adultery is obviously for all Christians, but a teaching about apostasy is a local concern, not a prophesy that a church wide apostasy was coming.

To think you have the only path to the Father and the Son is rather hubristic.  Narrow is the gate.  Look to your own character and soul, and find your rest and comfort in Christ.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows.  Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart.  I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.



You're missing the mark. Even though the cases you brought up are quite questionable it remains irrelevant to the doctrine. The mere pointing out of the sins of an individual in a church who goes against the teachings of his religion does not damage the religion itself. It only leaves a poor reputation for the person committing the crime.

Everyone commits sins. Don't blame the doctrine. The doctrine doesn't teach anyone to commit sins.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The inquisition, by your facile reasoning, then is exculpated for the Catholic Church.  The acts of Pratt, or Smith, or Young do reflect on the integrity of your church: don't every pretend they don't.  And the acts are not questionable.  They happened.  And your leaders were unrighteous.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Church fathers, doctors, theologians, etc. among the historical churches clearly teach that such teaching involved local audiences with local concerns.


What does that mean? Who cares what they said. Amos in the Bible prophecied of the "falling away" that would come before the "great and dreadful day of the Lord."



> Thus a teaching on a sin about adultery is obviously for all Christians, but a teaching about apostasy is a local concern, not a prophesy that a church wide apostasy was coming.


That's quite an opinion but this is the good ol' USA.



> To think you have the only path to the Father and the Son is rather hubristic.


 Says the man who oozes hubrisity not unlike the character glorified by his avatar. At least at times. But thanks for the runaway word of the day.



> Narrow is the gate.



Yeah. The gate IS narrow. That seems very contradictory of you to say, especially on the heels of blaming us for claiming we have the only true way. That would make the way pretty narrow.



> Look to your own character and soul, and find your rest and comfort in Christ


We can agree on this


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The inquisition, by your facile reasoning, then is exculpated for the Catholic Church.  The acts of Pratt, or Smith, or Young do reflect on the integrity of your church: don't every pretend they don't.  And the acts are not questionable.  They happened.  And your leaders were unrighteous.



Just because you insist something doesn't somehow make it true. Let's go incident by incident then if we have to. 
What act perpetrated by our leaders changes our doctrine? Remember, since the church is founded on Christ and not our leaders, even the prophet can be in breach of his own teachings and yet the church itself remains intact. 
But I maintain that our leaders were righteous men to begin with.


----------



## Liability

Somewhere it is already after midnight.

Thus, in a way, this is an early Mormon Bump.

Good Mormon!



> *Touch me in the Mormon
> Then just walk away
> We don't have tomorrow
> But we had yesterday*


----------



## JakeStarkey

The facts through the years, Truth, have supported my position and overthrown yours.  What you think is immaterial and irrelevant.  But carry on.  I defend your right right to be wrong.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> The inquisition, by your facile reasoning, then is exculpated for the Catholic Church.



No the doctrine of the Catholic Church was not changed. The leadership of the catholic church interpreted their own version of the Bible to justify the inquisition. But the perpetrators of those murders should lie on the murderers themselves and not the Catholic Church. No where in Catholic doctrine does it justify what their leaders did. Get the point. 
Put the blame where it ought to lie.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The facts through the years, Truth, have supported my position and overthrown yours.  What you think is immaterial and irrelevant.  But carry on.  I defend your right right to be wrong.



As long as you fail to discuss specifics you do nothing but look like a yapping dog.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The facts have been evidenced in this thread over and over.  The fact that you don't accept them is imnmaterial.  You are wrong, and you have the right to be wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Inside source tells me the First Presidency spent almost $600k for some documents, including a deed to the "Maid of Iowa" signed by Joseph Smith and several letters on MMM-related letters, including a 31 March 1859 one from Dr. Charles Brewer stating that the Arkansas women and children "were not only scalped, but according to Mormon custom their throats cut from ear to ear & heads severed."  Yeah, real nice players, those LDS priesthood holders in southern Utah.


----------



## Said1

Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?


----------



## dilloduck

Said1 said:


> Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?



pervert


----------



## Said1

Takes one to know one, perv.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Inside source tells me the First Presidency spent almost $600k for some documents, including a deed to the "Maid of Iowa" signed by Joseph Smith and several letters on MMM-related letters, including a 31 March 1859 one from Dr. Charles Brewer stating that the Arkansas women and children "were not only scalped, but according to Mormon custom their throats cut from ear to ear & heads severed."  Yeah, real nice players, those LDS priesthood holders in southern Utah.



You're kidding right Dwight? Why should I accept your phony "inside source". You don't even realize that Joseph Smith was dead before the MMM. Your position has been compromised Mr. Schrute. Authorities will soon triangulate your position. Must destroy phone and go dark.

Major League fail job on your part. Yet another example of your spouting off without specifics. Oh. You think because some people claim there were joker type killings in the MMM that the Church taught that it was ok. Well it's obviously been proven that those "priesthood holders" had abandoned their priesthood the moment they decided to sin in such a manner. 
If you knew the contents of the Doctrine and Covenants, you would have known that priesthood holders only hold the priesthood as long as they are living righteously. The book of our official doctrine in section 121 verses 37 and 39 quotes thus:

37 That they(the rights and powers of the priesthood) may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, *Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.*
          
  39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the anature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little bauthority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise cunrighteous dominion.

So just as the word Amen marks the end of a speech. So it's use marks the end of the authority of that man's priesthood.

Those men no longer speak for the church when they lose the spirit.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Said1 said:


> Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?



They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?

All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth, either you are an idiot, or you don't read, or you deliberately falsify.

JS died before MMM, yes.  I was talking about a steamship deed that he signed in 1844, weeks before he died.  I am talking about another letter from a man who talked to LDS participants in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Son, you better believe me when I say I have "inside" sources, because I do.  What I stated above will soon be public.

You are a neophyte, son, a non-player in all of this.  You have an opinion, it's generally wrong, and that is all you can offer.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth, either you are an idiot, or you don't read, or you deliberately falsify.
> 
> JS died before MMM, yes.  I was talking about a steamship deed that he signed in 1844, weeks before he died.  I am talking about another letter from a man who talked to LDS participants in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
> 
> Son, you better believe me when I say I have "inside" sources, because I do.  What I stated above will soon be public.
> 
> You are a neophyte, son, a non-player in all of this.  You have an opinion, it's generally wrong, and that is all you can offer.





When logic, fact, and reason fail, there is always the "inside sources" ploy.  If you only knew what I know, then you would agree with me, but since my sources are off limits to such as you, then you'll just have to take me at my word.  

It worked for Nixon when he told us he had a plan to end the Vietnam War, but couldn't tell us since he had privileged information.  Got him elected president, how about that!  

OK, we poor folks who don't have your "inside connections" are waiting with baited breath for your predictions to come to fruition.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptic, read what you wrote, then feel stupid.  Because you don't have a line, doesn't mean others are your pitiful shape.

The Church History Library will announce the documents sometime between now and July.


----------



## Liability

Good Mormon, Sunshine!


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptic, read what you wrote, then feel stupid.  Because you don't have a line, doesn't mean others are your pitiful shape.
> 
> The Church History Library will announce the documents sometime between now and July.



I'm waiting.  After July, what will your position be?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Pointing this post out, Skpetik.  Why are you upset?  Because Joseph signed a deed on a steamboat?  Because an undiscovered contemporary letter about MMM has been discovered?  Because you don't know very much about your own history but you want to spin it anyway?

Goober, the LDS Church will be proud of the find and will showcase, which is a very smart move of transparency.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Pointing this post out, Skpetik.  Why are you upset?  Because Joseph signed a deed on a steamboat?  Because an undiscovered contemporary letter about MMM has been discovered?  Because you don't know very much about your own history but you want to spin it anyway?
> 
> Goober, the LDS Church will be proud of the find and will showcase, which is a very smart move of transparency.



Upset?  Do I sound upset?

No, more like amused by your assertion of having some inside information that none of the rest of us has.

I'm not even insulted by your childish name calling.  I'm rubber, after all, and you're glue.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, my, Skeptik.


----------



## Humongo

Looks like I have some catching up to do Senior Truthspeaker. Be kind while I rewind and attempt assimilation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Humongo said:


> Looks like I have some catching up to do Senior Truthspeaker. Be kind while I rewind and attempt assimilation.



Whoever you are, I love the avatar. Please do catch up and contribute.


----------



## Liability

Just call me Angel of the Mormon, Angel!


----------



## emilynghiem

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows.  Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart.  I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the mark. Even though the cases you brought up are quite questionable it remains irrelevant to the doctrine. The mere pointing out of the sins of an individual in a church who goes against the teachings of his religion does not damage the religion itself. It only leaves a poor reputation for the person committing the crime.
> 
> Everyone commits sins. Don't blame the doctrine. The doctrine doesn't teach anyone to commit sins.
Click to expand...


Dear Truth: Would like to see consistency here.

If the good teachings of a particular Mormon leader are taken as a good reflection on "another" person or member who claims affiliation,
can you then selectively choose "not" to associate when a negative observation is made.

That is fine if you are going to hold each person individually responsible, and not as representing a group, but then also credit people individually and not by association by group or with the actions or teachings of others in the same group.

I just ran into this same issue with JW members on another forum.

Anytime anything good could be said about what "other JW members did" they wanted to share credit as a group. But whenever anything bad was reported, then they did not associate themselves with those members or exmembers who were "individually responsible."

As long as you are consistent, as you seem to be level headed and fair, that is my concern here. The most common fault of any group is to become so used to defending your reputation that you lose objectivity in acknowledging and correcting shortcomings or areas where improvements could be made.

Groups that are sectarian, in believing their way is right as opposed to other ways being wrong, or having unequal or no ability to give input into the decisions of authorities within their own group are more liable to let errors go unchecked.

If there is not equal accountability throughout the whole group, but the authority is uneven, there is a greater chance for problems to go uncorrected and result in abuses.

So even though individuals ARE ultimately responsible for their own actions or violations, having an imbalanced or unchecked organization can be a key factor in religious abuse.

The idea that the elders are "infallible" almost sets people up to fail, whereas groups that acknowledge the equal authority and responsibility of all people do not concentrate all power at the top to cause an imbalance, that too easily corrupted in larger institutions.


----------



## emilynghiem

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ignorant you are of scripture and history.  There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century.  Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.
> 
> Let you in on a secret, gang.  The Lord Christ does not your advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why Paul stated that Christ would not return until after there was an Apostasy. And why John saw that the Saints were overcome by the adversary until the Lord sent an Angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the people to prepare them for the judgments of God. Or Amons prophecied there would be a Famine of the Word and God and man would travel throughout the land and be unable to find it. Or why Isaiah prophecied that men would break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.
> 
> Or why there are thousands of different Christian Churches teaching different doctrines. Or why there ceased to be scripture and revelation. It must be because God has changed rather than because of man turning from Him.
> 
> Quite frankly, I dont buy it.
Click to expand...




			
				Skeptik said:
			
		

> I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages. The choices are: Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.
> 
> The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.



Dear Avatar and Skeptick (also JakeStarkey and Truthspeaker):
(A) Have you read "Saving Paradise" by Rebecca Parker.
The book traces the history of early Christianity which DID present Jesus as bringing peace on earth and brotherly love. That period was followed by the introduction of crusades and killing in the name of the Cross, the first crucifix dating to 963, about 1000 years into church history. 

So maybe this is the apostasy or antichrist phase kicking in.
In the Bible Satan is bound for 1000 years and then let loose again on earth.
So maybe this refers to that stage, that there is a falling away from the spirit of the laws, and then it is restored after that.

It is not necessarily "justified war" that it is "God's will" that all this killing and coersion and genocide take place, but that the Bible gives a warning that certain stages will occur. The rising of the antichrist, or those who come in the name of Christ but are against the spirit of the law, is certainly not in keeping with God's ideal will.  I understand this in terms of a learning curve of humanity, or also a grief process where certain stages have to pass in order to heal and come to spiritual resolution, although the losses and suffering are not the goal or good in themselves, they serve a purpose in the bigger scheme of life.

(B) As for requiring another prophet or prophecy,
the final stage of the Holy Spirit is supposed to come with the return of Christ.
So you could consider that a third and final stage of spiritual development to maturity.

The Muslims believe Mohammed was the last prophet and fulfillment.
But the Bahai came out of that culture and are bringing out healing between races, religions and nations, with faith in the "oneness of humanity" which is more like how I would envision the last stage of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth as in heaven.

It may seem like a "new" teaching but the process of forgiving past conflicts, divisions and injuries, and renewing the "spirit" of the laws is like establishing the message all along.

In Christ all things are "made new" but that means true to their original purpose from the very beginning. We are mostly having to "unlearn" or expand upon the old ways we have been taught which do not have to be a source of division.

As for the comment "Christianity or Mormonism" has to be right or revised,
I find that ALL denominations have equal contributions and corrections to exchange with one another in order to have God's complete universal truth. 

There is no one righteous except "Christ Jesus" so no one person or no one group is going to be 100% complete. Otherwise why would the others exist.

(C) As for Avatar, if you do not ascribe to any of this Christian teaching, I was not brought up with this either! I just say that "IF" some one or some group is going to teach Jesus and the Bible, then teach it in a way that includes and corrects all people and all groups equally; and does not make any one more right or wrong than any other.

I believe the spirit of the laws, both the divine laws of churched tribes and the natural laws of gentiles and secular humanists, are both fulfilled in Christ Jesus who represents the establishment of "restorative justice." 

So not just one group has a monopoly on teaching the laws.
Even the Buddhist laws or Dharma are fulfilled in the spirit of Christ.
And the natural laws made statutory and written into the Constitution and its amendments.

Any group or person can take the spirit of the laws, based on the love of truth, to heart by conscience and be one with Christ in following the cultural ways of their tribes or elders.

You do not judge by the letter of the law, or appearances, but by the spirit by which people are guided, to see if it is one with Christ or working against Christ. Often appearances are misleading, as even Jesus used the example of the Samaritan as being a neighbor in Christ, at a time when Samaritans were most avoided as unholy people.

If you treat your neighbor with charity, especially having forgiveness, with no condition or reward expected but just for the sake of good faith relations and good will, then that is the spirit of Christ and God, to do all things with love, and especially speaking the truth with love.

So the Christians and theist religionists have just as much to learn, if not more, about forgiving and loving all neighbors as one in Christ as those who are secular in philosophy.

This way, not any one path has an advantage over any other.

As Jake pointed out that we should seek the narrow gate of righteousness and not
the broad path of destruction. ANY person or group can easily become sectarian and declare "my way is right, your way is wrong." And we can all go to war or to hell that way.

But it takes a very discerning conscience to focus on how EACH person or group has some truth to offer that benefits the whole, and has shortcomings or omissions that another can correct with their contributions. In this way, all are equal as a key part of God's creation.

And again, only where these different paths intersect or agree in "Christ Jesus" then that union is supreme, the whole is greater than the sum of any parts by themselves.

So this would make all people equal, while also acknowledging our diversity and different purposes.

Avatar, you may not believe in Christianity, especially the way it has been taught.
But there are ways of teaching it that fulfill and include all other ways even secular.
So that is how I recommend that meaning of Jesus and the Bible be taught.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, and Jesus is the universal messiah for all humanity, then all people and all paths should be included in salvation. 

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ignorant you are of scripture and history.  There was no Christian wide apostasy in the 2nd or 4th or 16th century.  Any who believe that refuse to recognize the majesty of Christ the King who rules over us all.
> 
> Let you in on a secret, gang.  The Lord Christ does not your advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why Paul stated that Christ would not return until after there was an Apostasy. And why John saw that the Saints were overcome by the adversary until the Lord sent an Angel carrying the Everlasting Gospel to the people to prepare them for the judgments of God. Or Amons prophecied there would be a Famine of the Word and God and man would travel throughout the land and be unable to find it. Or why Isaiah prophecied that men would break the everlasting covenant and change the ordinances.
> 
> Or why there are thousands of different Christian Churches teaching different doctrines. Or why there ceased to be scripture and revelation. It must be because God has changed rather than because of man turning from Him.
> 
> Quite frankly, I dont buy it.
Click to expand...




			
				Skeptik said:
			
		

> I don't see how anyone could study the history of Christianity and not see that the teachings of Christ totally corrupted during the Middle Ages. The choices are: Christianity was false all along, or the Christian church had to be restored through prophecy.
> 
> The only way Christianity can be right, and Mormonism wrong, is if the prophet is yet to be born.



Dear Avatar and Skeptick (also JakeStarkey and Truthspeaker):
(A) Have you read "Saving Paradise" by Rebecca Parker.
The book traces the history of early Christianity which DID present Jesus as bringing peace on earth and brotherly love. That period was followed by the introduction of crusades and killing in the name of the Cross, the first crucifix dating to 963, about 1000 years into church history. 

So maybe this is the apostasy or antichrist phase kicking in.
In the Bible Satan is bound for 1000 years and then let loose again on earth.
So maybe this refers to that stage, that there is a falling away from the spirit of the laws, and then it is restored after that.

It is not necessarily "justified war" that it is "God's will" that all this killing and coersion and genocide take place, but that the Bible gives a warning that certain stages will occur. The rising of the antichrist, or those who come in the name of Christ but are against the spirit of the law, is certainly not in keeping with God's ideal will.  I understand this in terms of a learning curve of humanity, or also a grief process where certain stages have to pass in order to heal and come to spiritual resolution, although the losses and suffering are not the goal or good in themselves, they serve a purpose in the bigger scheme of life.

(B) As for requiring another prophet or prophecy,
the final stage of the Holy Spirit is supposed to come with the return of Christ.
So you could consider that a third and final stage of spiritual development to maturity.

The Muslims believe Mohammed was the last prophet and fulfillment.
But the Bahai came out of that culture and are bringing out healing between races, religions and nations, with faith in the "oneness of humanity" which is more like how I would envision the last stage of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth as in heaven.

It may seem like a "new" teaching but the process of forgiving past conflicts, divisions and injuries, and renewing the "spirit" of the laws is like establishing the message all along.

In Christ all things are "made new" but that means true to their original purpose from the very beginning. We are mostly having to "unlearn" or expand upon the old ways we have been taught which do not have to be a source of division.

As for the comment "Christianity or Mormonism" has to be right or revised,
I find that ALL denominations have equal contributions and corrections to exchange with one another in order to have God's complete universal truth. 

There is no one righteous except "Christ Jesus" so no one person or no one group is going to be 100% complete. Otherwise why would the others exist.

(C) As for Avatar, if you do not ascribe to any of this Christian teaching, I was not brought up with this either! I just say that "IF" some one or some group is going to teach Jesus and the Bible, then teach it in a way that includes and corrects all people and all groups equally; and does not make any one more right or wrong than any other.

I believe the spirit of the laws, both the divine laws of churched tribes and the natural laws of gentiles and secular humanists, are both fulfilled in Christ Jesus who represents the establishment of "restorative justice." 

So not just one group has a monopoly on teaching the laws.
Even the Buddhist laws or Dharma are fulfilled in the spirit of Christ.
And the natural laws made statutory and written into the Constitution and its amendments.

Any group or person can take the spirit of the laws, based on the love of truth, to heart by conscience and be one with Christ in following the cultural ways of their tribes or elders. As long as you give and receive mutual redress and corrections, through mediation and agreement as prescribed in the Bible, you can correct any conflict and prevent any trespass; so all ways should be able to get along in harmony by putting the spirit of truth first. Even where you disagree, you can settle that fairly by treating one another as neighbors with equal respect, instead of competing for more authority or power in decisions. So this way of equality in relations is the law and love of Christ Jesus, even if known by other names such as social justice or charity or good will for all humanity.

Unless you want to be judged by appearance, you do not judge by the letter of the law, or appearances, but by the spirit by which people are guided, to see if it is one with Christ or working against Christ. Often appearances are misleading, as even Jesus used the example of the Samaritan as being a neighbor in Christ, at a time when Samaritans were most avoided as unholy people.

If you treat your neighbor with charity, especially having forgiveness, with no condition or reward expected but just for the sake of good faith relations and good will, then that is the spirit of Christ and God, to do all things with love, and especially speaking the truth with love. And as you forgive others, you are also forgiven; but if you criticize then you are also.

So the Christians and theist religionists have just as much to learn, if not more, about forgiving and loving all neighbors as one in Christ as those who are secular in philosophy.

This way, not any one path has an advantage over any other.

As Jake pointed out that we should seek the narrow gate of righteousness and not
the broad path of destruction. ANY person or group can easily become sectarian and declare "my way is right, your way is wrong." And we can all go to war or to hell that way.

But it takes a very discerning conscience to focus on how EACH person or group has some truth to offer that benefits the whole, and has shortcomings or omissions that another can correct with their contributions. In this way, all are equal as a key part of God's creation.

And again, only where these different paths intersect or agree in "Christ Jesus" then that union is supreme, the whole is greater than the sum of any parts by themselves.

So this would make all people equal, while also acknowledging our diversity and different purposes.

Avatar, you may not believe in Christianity, especially the way it has been taught.
But there are ways of teaching it that fulfill and include all other ways even secular.
So that is how I recommend that meaning of Jesus and the Bible be taught.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, and Jesus is the universal messiah for all humanity, then all people and all paths should be included in salvation. 

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Truth: Let us focus on where we seem to agree on a positive constructive message and wisdom in this scripture

(A). can we both agree that the problems in both cases are caused by "unforgiveness."

For someone to turn and twist the blessings of Jesus and scripture to go against God and cause harm to themselves and others; if they do so with full knowledge and free will (which makes no sense to me) then they are CONSCIOUSLY not forgiving something and doing this out of spite or destruction or anger or something caused by unforgiveness. If they do so "not knowing" how to achieve the goals in their heads in harmony instead of against (which I am more likely to believe, as even Hitler and his followers thought they were championing the oppressed and doing the right thing), then there is still some factor of unforgiven conflict causing that bias in their heads making them go in that direction.   

So whether the unpardonable sin manifest this way or that way, locally or globally,
can we agree the common key to prevent it is always acting and thinking with the spirit of "forgiveness" so we are not led astray by any bias or resentment that taints our judgment and would cause us to sin on either a pardonable or unpardonable level.

Can we agree on the common cause, and how it can be prevented in Christ Jesus.

See B and C below also.



Truthspeaker said:


> Dear Truth I appreciate you also for how you started and conduct this thread in the spirit of truth, and correction with forgiveness. I believe you will succeed in sharing and establishing truth because of your pure motivations.
> 
> As for your specific qualifications on sins against the Holy Spirit, given that Jesus and the Bible are for all people, I find this is "too limited" unless you interpret what you provided more universally to apply to the "spiritual state" that is causing the unforgiveness.
> 
> If you pinpoint just one specific application, instead of the general condition and causes behind what you presented, then people would go around targeting THOSE particular cases or people, and we would no longer be equal in God's eyes. The interpretation, even of what you state, should be able to apply to any and all people equally, so we are equally at fault when we threaten to go into that state of unforgiveness which causes such rebellion and retribution; basically being so jealous or resentful of God's ways being supreme that we would seek to sabotage what is good and healed -- any action like that must STILL come from "unforgiveness". So "unforgiveness" is still the common root of the sin, and which applies to ALL people.
> 
> Now if you mean when unforgiveness causes someone else to break their faith and become unforgiving, so it causes a chain reaction, then yes, that still shows how many layers, even generations, it would take to heal the consequences of unforgiveness.
> 
> So I would also agree that makes the degree of sin multifold, and explains WHY it takes more than one world or generation before such a chain of sins is fully healed or forgiven.
> 
> So I would not agree to limit the issue of unforgiveness to just that particular literal instance, but would still look at the SPIRIT of what causes the example you gave to be such a compounding issue; and to see how other cases are on the same level of transgression, causing so much damage that it is not healed "in this world or the next."
> 
> However, by the fourth and fifth generation, even curses carried in the spirit that people in the past died without forgiving and giving to Christ; these can be given by future generations and still be brought to redemption. So there is an end to the unforgiveness.
> 
> Healing may not come in one life or the next, but once divine forgiveness in Christ is established then all truth is revealed so all are set free from the past.
> 
> From our human perspective it is NOT forgiven, since lifetimes are limited and once you die in sin that is too late to make peace. But from God's perspective, which transcends the linear limitations of human life and death, then God's love and grace conquers all over time.
> 
> I don't think this has to negate your Mormon interpretation, but just expands on it to apply the same concept of "unforgiveness" causing rebellion and vengeful destruction. I believe we agree more than disagree, because "unforgiveness" is the common factor that would cause such problems and consequences.
> 
> I think that is the better focus because the warning would be general and apply to ALL people in ALL things we do. Anything we do out of "unforgiveness" especially for those who do not forgive God and do self-destructive things to hurt themselves or others out of anger, can be seen as falling under that level of abuse with lifetimes of repercussions. Such a negative chain reaction has the SAME effect you mention of causing others to fall away or reject or lose faith, by spreading unforgiving destruction. But it does not have to be literal "teaching" as a formal minister. It can be teaching indirectly by example.
> 
> So I would just interpret it more generally, in keeping with the SPIRIT of why the case you present is so critical, but not necessarily just a literal case that would not apply to all people.
> 
> Yours truly,
> Emily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Emily,
> Though I may not agree with everything you say regarding the root of all evil, we can agree on this statement by God:
> 
> "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive. But for you it is required to forgive all man. For verily vengeance is mine. And I will repay."
> 
> The root of all evil is actually a lack of love for God and your fellow man. These two virtues when absent result in entirely selfish behavior and the man's deeds/crimes are limited only by his imagination.
> 
> Truthspeaker
Click to expand...


(B) I would say the same thing but in the opposite way. Instead of emphasizing the retributive option of God's laws, that if you don't forgive but live by retribution you receive that instead of forgiveness; I emphasize the restorative side of justice, that the more you forgive others and allow correction, then you are given the same freedom to correct yourself and be forgiven at the same time, not as a condition but both together.

I believe the Old Testament shows the fallibility and corruption of living by the letter of the law, fear of retribution and abusing laws to control authority; whereas the New Testament is about living by the spirit of the law and "restorative justice" where you get the mercy you give; and so the Bible recommends that we confess our faults one to another, that we may be healed, and we rebuke and redress one another as equals to restore relations in Christ Jesus by establishing truth to free ourselves from worldly conflicts of interest.

(C) In response to your statement that the Mormons have the only teachings on the unpardonable sin, this is fine if you equally give credit to the Buddhists for teaching unique parts of God's wisdom or laws, or the Constitutionalists for prescribing equal protection of interests and due process, or the Bahai for teaching methods of shared dialogue in a healing environment, or the Quakers for teaching conflict resolution both in and out of prisons to restore humanity.

Every person or group has a unique purpose in God's plans and creation.

I believe we should well acknowledge the good contributions of all people and groups, but never one at the expense of another. Even with errors, I believe that corrections are made mutually so that equal respect is maintained at all times.

You personally do not come across to me as cliquish or cultish.
I am sure you have run into people who have already attacked you as such, just by your affiliation. 

I do not judge you for that, but I look at how you try to reply to each person individually, which is the right way to establish truth and corrections.

However, by affiliating yourself with a group that traditionally teaches its members to consider their way the "only right way" you set yourself up for this line of attack.

So that part is your responsibility if you are teaching that line of thinking.

I have found the right way of teaching any tradition is to be in harmony and equally acknowledging the same propensity for strengths and weaknesses in any person and any group, and not holding any one as more or less in status than any other.

With any person who judges people on different levels by group, I have found biases and incomplete information because that perspective limits the ability to perceive universally.

You do not seem to have too much of a bias that you cannot check and balance, though it shows when you start putting "Mormon" before others instead of Christ first as purely righteous in spirit, and all others equally submitting one to another in Christ after that.

Yours truly, 
Emily


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks, Emily: food thought.


----------



## Truthspeaker

emilynghiem said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or when Parley Pratt tried to kill an injured captive in Missouri, or when Bill Hickman or Orrin Rockwell was on the loose, or at Mountain Meadows.  Or when Joseph Smith broke his wife's heart.  I agree that God sheds tears over all his children's misdeeds in a church's cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're missing the mark. Even though the cases you brought up are quite questionable it remains irrelevant to the doctrine. The mere pointing out of the sins of an individual in a church who goes against the teachings of his religion does not damage the religion itself. It only leaves a poor reputation for the person committing the crime.
> 
> Everyone commits sins. Don't blame the doctrine. The doctrine doesn't teach anyone to commit sins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Truth: Would like to see consistency here.
> 
> If the good teachings of a particular Mormon leader are taken as a good reflection on "another" person or member who claims affiliation,
> can you then selectively choose "not" to associate when a negative observation is made.
> 
> That is fine if you are going to hold each person individually responsible, and not as representing a group, but then also credit people individually and not by association by group or with the actions or teachings of others in the same group.
> 
> I just ran into this same issue with JW members on another forum.
> 
> Anytime anything good could be said about what "other JW members did" they wanted to share credit as a group. But whenever anything bad was reported, then they did not associate themselves with those members or exmembers who were "individually responsible."
> 
> As long as you are consistent, as you seem to be level headed and fair, that is my concern here. The most common fault of any group is to become so used to defending your reputation that you lose objectivity in acknowledging and correcting shortcomings or areas where improvements could be made.
> 
> Groups that are sectarian, in believing their way is right as opposed to other ways being wrong, or having unequal or no ability to give input into the decisions of authorities within their own group are more liable to let errors go unchecked.
> 
> If there is not equal accountability throughout the whole group, but the authority is uneven, there is a greater chance for problems to go uncorrected and result in abuses.
> 
> So even though individuals ARE ultimately responsible for their own actions or violations, having an imbalanced or unchecked organization can be a key factor in religious abuse.
> 
> The idea that the elders are "infallible" almost sets people up to fail, whereas groups that acknowledge the equal authority and responsibility of all people do not concentrate all power at the top to cause an imbalance, that too easily corrupted in larger institutions.
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong Emily. Reputation means nothing to the Lord. He knows whether you ARE something or you're NOT. He knows what we really are. When people start to realize that God is their judge, they cease to care too much about their reputation. Jesus had a great reputation to some and a horrible reputation to many. 

What's most important is that you and the Lord are open with each other. No one ever said that our leaders were infallible. But I will tell you that the teachings they gave which were inspired of God are infallible. Prophets are as human as the rest of us. They can fall from grace just like the rest of us. So when one of them does, the blame for their actions should fall on their individual heads and not the church.

Conversely, one can only get by on reputation for so long. At the end of the day you have to walk the talk. And it doesn't matter what church you belong to. All virtuous principles come from Jesus. They are all doctrines of His church. So whenever you are abiding by any of those principles, you are practicing the true religion of Christ. Having the "Mormon" label will not save any of us at the last day.

Is that fair and consistent enough for you?


----------



## emilynghiem

Truthspeaker said:


> Don't get me wrong Emily. Reputation means nothing to the Lord. He knows whether you ARE something or you're NOT. He knows what we really are. When people start to realize that God is their judge, they cease to care too much about their reputation. Jesus had a great reputation to some and a horrible reputation to many.
> 
> What's most important is that you and the Lord are open with each other. No one ever said that our leaders were infallible. But I will tell you that the teachings they gave which were inspired of God are infallible. Prophets are as human as the rest of us. They can fall from grace just like the rest of us. So when one of them does, the blame for their actions should fall on their individual heads and not the church.
> 
> Conversely, one can only get by on reputation for so long. At the end of the day you have to walk the talk. And it doesn't matter what church you belong to. All virtuous principles come from Jesus. They are all doctrines of His church. So whenever you are abiding by any of those principles, you are practicing the true religion of Christ. Having the "Mormon" label will not save any of us at the last day.
> 
> Is that fair and consistent enough for you?



1. Yes, as long as you hold the same standards and respect for all others, also, such Buddha as a prophet of God's wisdom wherever those teachings are also the principles of Christ.
I have found it is a common principle in Bahai and also Islam to respect all the prophets or messengers sent by God; and in Buddhism that everyone can attain Buddhahood or spiritual maturity and in Hinduism that everyone is born a Hindu or Spiritual Being.

2. As for reputation, I think the laws of justice apply to our record and the spirit in how we administer the laws. If we redress and rebuke one another as equals, in the spirit of love of truth, forgiveness, and correction, then we receive the same. Not so much our reputation but the standards and spirit we enforce. And likewise with hypocrisy that projects blame on the other party; we would get the same treatment we give to others.

I believe you stay within the spirit of the laws, which is always good to find. I much prefer corrections be made by people with a fair perspective in relation to all other people and groups, who will naturally carry their own personal biases and perspectives on truth. You seem to accept responsibility for both the positive and negative perceptions of Mormon teachings, and I support you in bringing out the best in all people, while correcting the misgivings and shortcomings. 

3. If you would like to continue comparing the wisdom that different teachings, such as Buddhism or other Christian denominations besides Mormon have to offer, one of the common concepts I find key is the idea of spiritual geneaology, not just physically knowing your history but also spiritually understanding the patterns from one generation to the next. The Buddhists teach about karma that carries on beyond lifetimes; some Christians teach about generational curses and breaking cycles of abuse or addiction in Christ Jesus.

I believe more counseling, therapy, and recovery from abuse, crime, especially violence and war, will draw from the most effective applications of a combination of these spiritual teachings about how the human pscyhe and spirit work, how we carry knowledge or patterns from the past, and how we heal and recover through forgiveness and restitution.

That happens to be an area of great interest to me, as I am advocating for reform of medical, legal, and even criminal justice systems by applying spiritual methods that can be proven to work effectively in correcting abusive situations before they escalate into more serious crime and violence; as well as applying these to recovery and healing for victims.

To implement "equal protections" and access to resources to all people equally, I believe it will take enforcing Constitutional laws and principles, teaching these individually for people to adopt and uphold with the same commitment that Christians share with Biblical laws.

So that is why I look at the divine purpose of Constitutional laws equally with Christianity and Buddhism as a major factor in establishing justice and peace on earth. So whatever teachers, leaders, prophets or messengers bring out this spirit of the laws, whether through the Bible, or Buddhism, or the Bill of Rights, I believe a combination of that wisdom and natural laws with divine spirit of truth and justice will bring unity of all people.

I do not see this coming from any one source by itself, but a union and an intersection of the best that all traditions have to offer. I hoped to see this culmination in my lifetime, and at this point it looks like all or nothing, either the bottom is going to fall out and collapse, or the top is going to blow off and the solutions will rise above the fray, or both. I was really hoping the transition would be smoother, using diplomatic relations, but change has been more disruptive and violent in the past, and in comparison we have more democratic means and freedom to make innovations today without as much unrest and restistance.

Thank you, Truthspeaker, and I hope to support you in any way I can in your mission and purpose to establish truth in Christ Jesus, and understanding between people and especially between whole groups where there had been division and misperception. To overcome fear and division is the better part of the battle, and after the fear is gone it just gets easier and easier even though the challenges never stop coming. May you continue to build on your successes in working around walls, which are meant to provide structure and support, and opening paths, bridges, windows and doors for information to flow freely.

If you want to join the discussion on another forum also, another friend invited me here from backpage dot com under religion, and there is also politics which go hand in hand.

I hope you gain as much from interacting with others as they stand to gain from you.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## ItHappens

This is a interesting topic.
Mormons certainly consider themselves Christian (followers of Christ).
In my opinion the book of his teachings they subscribe to however is false.
The traditional (non "Book of Mormon") bible talks about how God will judge the heart of mankind.  Mormons certainly have and demonstrate a love of Christ.
I am not Mormon.  I think their "book" is false and their faith in that misguided.
But any friends I have ever had of the faith are certainly wonderful people who really walk the walk and talk the talk.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ItHappens said:


> This is a interesting topic.
> Mormons certainly consider themselves Christian (followers of Christ).
> In my opinion the book of his teachings they subscribe to however is false.
> The traditional (non "Book of Mormon") bible talks about how God will judge the heart of mankind.  Mormons certainly have and demonstrate a love of Christ.
> I am not Mormon.  I think their "book" is false and their faith in that misguided.
> But any friends I have ever had of the faith are certainly wonderful people who really walk the walk and talk the talk.



I appreciate your sentiment and I'm sure many others share your point of view. I'm curious as to why you think the Book of Mormon is false. Surely there must be something in it that you have a problem with. What might that be for you?

I also note that you hold us in a good light with a reputation for living Christlike lives. Isn't that what Jesus said to do? Does it even matter what book that teaching comes from if it teaches people to live in a Christlike manner? How false could such a book be?


----------



## Said1

Truthspeaker said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?
> 
> All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?
Click to expand...


A simple yes or no would have sufficed. 

I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Said1 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?
> 
> All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
> 
> I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?
Click to expand...


Many LDS do wear religious symbols visibly.  Lapel pins in the shape of LDS temples or a CTR ring (Choose The Right).


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> ItHappens said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a interesting topic.
> Mormons certainly consider themselves Christian (followers of Christ).
> In my opinion the book of his teachings they subscribe to however is false.
> The traditional (non "Book of Mormon") bible talks about how God will judge the heart of mankind.  Mormons certainly have and demonstrate a love of Christ.
> I am not Mormon.  I think their "book" is false and their faith in that misguided.
> But any friends I have ever had of the faith are certainly wonderful people who really walk the walk and talk the talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your sentiment and I'm sure many others share your point of view. I'm curious as to why you think the Book of Mormon is false. Surely there must be something in it that you have a problem with. What might that be for you?
> 
> I also note that you hold us in a good light with a reputation for living Christlike lives. Isn't that what Jesus said to do? Does it even matter what book that teaching comes from if it teaches people to live in a Christlike manner? How false could such a book be?
Click to expand...


If the book were religious fiction (as I believe it to be) yet held up as revealed scripture, then the problem begins with the falsehood of that.

Now remember that I am the non-member here who defends that book as a very good work of American religious fiction, perhaps the best in our history, so keep your words in context.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Said1 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do Mormons still wear under clothing or whatever those things are - pantaloons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?
> 
> All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
> 
> I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?
Click to expand...


Only when I play basketball


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not called what you say they are. We do continue to wear sacred undergarments. Why is everyone so fascinated by undergarments?
> 
> All religions wear symbolic clothing. But they wear it on the outside to show how pious they are. We're not trying to draw attention to ourselves so we wear it under normal clothes. What's the root of this obsession people have with our underwear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
> 
> I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many LDS do wear religious symbols visibly.  Lapel pins in the shape of LDS temples or a CTR ring (Choose The Right).
Click to expand...


I guess I didn't think about those. But even the ones that wear those tend not to wear real flashy emblems. Those are small ornaments that most people wouldn't understand to peg someone as a mormon by looking at their lapel pin or ring.(everyone has a ring on it seems.) 
The point is to be discreet. and most of those adornments happen in Utah.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> If the book were religious fiction (as I believe it to be) yet held up as revealed scripture, then the problem begins with the falsehood of that.
> 
> Now remember that I am the non-member here who defends that book as a very good work of American religious fiction, perhaps the best in our history, so keep your words in context.



Now bear in mind that I'm not trying to change your opinion by asking this; but why do you consider the book to be fictitious?


----------



## Liability

Good MORMON Viet Nam!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
> 
> I guess yours are in a bunch, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many LDS do wear religious symbols visibly.  Lapel pins in the shape of LDS temples or a CTR ring (Choose The Right).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess I didn't think about those. But even the ones that wear those tend not to wear real flashy emblems. Those are small ornaments that most people wouldn't understand to peg someone as a mormon by looking at their lapel pin or ring.(everyone has a ring on it seems.)
> The point is to be discreet. and most of those adornments happen in Utah.
Click to expand...


They are worn in Utah, for one purpose of several, I think, to identify LDS from non-LDS.  Having lived in Utah off and on for eleven years (though I don't now), all no-Mos and Mos understand perfectly what they mean.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> If the book were religious fiction (as I believe it to be) yet held up as revealed scripture, then the problem begins with the falsehood of that.
> 
> Now remember that I am the non-member here who defends that book as a very good work of American religious fiction, perhaps the best in our history, so keep your words in context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now bear in mind that I'm not trying to change your opinion by asking this; but why do you consider the book to be fictitious?
Click to expand...


We've been through that, you and me, and you and others, several times here, and no good will come from rehashing that.

But if you want to discuss it as a literary artifact, I would enjoy that.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> We've been through that, you and me, and you and others, several times here, and no good will come from rehashing that.
> 
> But if you want to discuss it as a literary artifact, I would enjoy that.



No Jake, I don't think we really have. Perhaps I've forgotten any specific issues you have with the text itself. But I just can't remember any individual problem you have brought up with the book. I've only heard from you that you think it's fiction. 
I won't harbor any ill will because you bring up a problem with the book. I'm here to learn just like anyone else. Who knows? Maybe you could be the one to show me the error of my ways. If you do I would certainly accept the truth and renounce a false book.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Book of Mormon Man of the Day:

Abinadi(A-bin-a-die) ?-148 BC:






Another of the truly brave martyrs to live in this world. He came among the people to teach against the corrupt priesthood who were abusing their power by decreeing false doctrines to justify heavy taxes on the people to support the king and his priests. They used these taxes to spend on frivolous living with whores and excess. They were truly corrupt and using organized religion to benefit their own profits.
When Abinadi denounced their teachings he was brought before a mock trial on heinous charges of  blasphemy.
When the priests questioned him in a snakelike manner to trick him in his words he withstood their questions with sound answers and true doctrine and made a fool of them. They tried to destroy him during this interrogation but was granted godly strength to strike down the guards sent to attack him and told them that he could not be destroyed until he had "finished my message." To boot this was done while he was chained. A true miracle.
He taught the true meaning of the scriptures including the ten commandments. He prophesied many fearful things that would happen to the King and his people if they harmed him now that his message was finished. 
The wicked King whose name was Noah, became frightened and was about to release Abinadi, but his posse of priests riled him up and he finally gave in and executed Abinadi by burning him to death. And these are the words of the dying prophet:

15 Behold, even as ye have done unto me, so shall it come to pass that thy seed shall cause that many shall suffer the pains that I do suffer, even the pains of death by fire; and this because they believe in the salvation of the Lord their God.
  16 And it will come to pass that ye shall be afflicted with all manner of diseases because of your iniquities.
  17 Yea, and ye shall be smitten on every hand, and shall be driven and scattered to and fro, even as a wild flock is driven by wild and ferocious beasts.
  18 And in that day ye shall be hunted, and ye shall be taken by the hand of your enemies, and then ye shall suffer, as I suffer, the pains of death by fire.
  19 Thus God executeth vengeance upon those that destroy his people. O God, receive my soul.
  20 And now, when Abinadi had said these words, he fell, having suffered death by fire; yea, having been put to death because he would not deny the commandments of God, having sealed the truth of his words by his death.


Later on the prophecies of Abinadi were fulfilled. Including the wicked King Noah being taken by his own men and burned to death at the stake after he told them to leave their wives and children behind to be killed by the attacking Lamanite army and stay with him.


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Other than the book of Mormon, are there any other historical references to these men?

-TSO


----------



## Liability

The Blizzard is gone, the sun is shining, reflecting off the fairly new-fallen snow, bedazzling our eyes in this City.  It is a beautiful start to another wonderful day.  I really enjoy a good cold, clean, crisp, fresh, sun-filled Mormon.


----------



## JenyEliza

xsited1 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s. There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas. I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II". Quite interesting."
> 
> It's too bad that you are hearing a one sided point of view from some bitter ex-members that want to portray half-truths. I would like to know what was so interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that I found interesting was Mormon Baptism for the Dead.
Click to expand...


I don't find that interesting in the least.

It PISSES ME RIGHT OFF.

Me and my family have CHOSEN our faith in our lifetime and it is NOT the right, privilege or under the purview of some half-assed Morman to "baptise" any of our dead.

Our fath (Roman Catholic) believes in ONE baptism....and ONE BAPTISM ONLY.  We are entitled to hold to the tenets of our faith---even in death.

The Mormans need to knock this shit off.


----------



## Avatar4321

TheSuaveOne said:


> Other than the book of Mormon, are there any other historical references to these men?
> 
> -TSO



The Bible and many contemporary people have mented Jesus Christ. As He is the most prominent person in the Book of Mormon, I would have to say yes.

However, if you want historical references to people from a time and place, where as yet, no written histories exist: good luck.


----------



## Avatar4321

JenyEliza said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s. There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas. I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II". Quite interesting."
> 
> It's too bad that you are hearing a one sided point of view from some bitter ex-members that want to portray half-truths. I would like to know what was so interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that I found interesting was Mormon Baptism for the Dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't find that interesting in the least.
> 
> It PISSES ME RIGHT OFF.
> 
> Me and my family have CHOSEN our faith in our lifetime and it is NOT the right, privilege or under the purview of some half-assed Morman to "baptise" any of our dead.
> 
> Our fath (Roman Catholic) believes in ONE baptism....and ONE BAPTISM ONLY.  We are entitled to hold to the tenets of our faith---even in death.
> 
> The Mormans need to knock this shit off.
Click to expand...


After careful consideration of your request. I have to decline.


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Avatar4321 said:


> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the book of Mormon, are there any other historical references to these men?
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible and many contemporary people have mented Jesus Christ. As He is the most prominent person in the Book of Mormon, I would have to say yes.
> 
> However, if you want historical references to people from a time and place, where as yet, no written histories exist: good luck.
Click to expand...


Nah, I am talking more of the others discussed as historical figures throughout the BoM.

-TSO


----------



## TheSuaveOne

JenyEliza said:


> I don't find that interesting in the least.
> 
> It PISSES ME RIGHT OFF.
> 
> Me and my family have CHOSEN our faith in our lifetime and it is NOT the right, privilege or under the purview of some half-assed Morman to "baptise" any of our dead.
> 
> Our fath (Roman Catholic) believes in ONE baptism....and ONE BAPTISM ONLY.  We are entitled to hold to the tenets of our faith---even in death.
> 
> The Mormans need to knock this shit off.



I wouldn't let it bother you. Think of it this way. If a family member of yours is baptised in the Mormon Temple, all it does is open up the possiblility if the Mormon church is The true church that they will have the ability to go to heaven and be with God. There is nothing that says that if they are baptised Mormon that in the afterlife they have to convert, all it does is give them the chance if they make that choice in the afterlife.

-TSO


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> Other than the book of Mormon, are there any other historical references to these men?
> 
> -TSO



Not that I am aware of. I do know that some of the names in the book are found in the Bible. But that is the whole reason why the Book of Mormon exists. To bring new and sweet information that has been lying dormant for thousands of years.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> The Blizzard is gone, the sun is shining, reflecting off the fairly new-fallen snow, bedazzling our eyes in this City.  It is a beautiful start to another wonderful day.  I really enjoy a good cold, clean, crisp, fresh, sun-filled Mormon.



You're weird man


----------



## Truthspeaker

JenyEliza said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s. There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas. I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II". Quite interesting."
> 
> It's too bad that you are hearing a one sided point of view from some bitter ex-members that want to portray half-truths. I would like to know what was so interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that I found interesting was Mormon Baptism for the Dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't find that interesting in the least.
> 
> It PISSES ME RIGHT OFF.
> 
> Me and my family have CHOSEN our faith in our lifetime and it is NOT the right, privilege or under the purview of some half-assed Morman to "baptise" any of our dead.
> 
> Our fath (Roman Catholic) believes in ONE baptism....and ONE BAPTISM ONLY.  We are entitled to hold to the tenets of our faith---even in death.
> 
> The Mormans need to knock this shit off.
Click to expand...


Really Jeny? Please spare me your phony rage and ask the real question that's on your mind. 
It seems to me that you assume we baptize people after we have dug them up from the grave. This is not so. And we don't do anything unless family members have submitted their relative's names to the temple for the proxy ordinance. Please can you discuss these issues like a normal human being and again, spare us the phony rage.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> And we don't do anything unless family members have submitted their relative's names to the temple for the proxy ordinance.



(sigh) I wish you knew your own religion instead of having to be corrected so very often.

_The Mormon/Jewish Controversy: This web page chronicles the controversy between members of the Jewish faith and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons have been criticized in recent years for the practice of posthumously baptizing thousands of deceased Jews (among them Holocaust victims) and those of other faiths. The wrongful posthumous baptism of Jewish dead continues, despite repeated denials by the disingenuous Mormon leadership. In their missionary zeal, Mormons continue their wrongful baptism of Jews, attempting to convince people (dead or alive) from other religions to convert. Jewish leaders have called the practice arrogant and said it is disrespectful to the dead, especially Holocaust victims.

Mormons are hijacking history. In a hundred years who will know the true facts about you and your heritage? Who will know anything about your family? No one. Very possibly no one! Because in a hundred years the record will apparently show that they were allegedly converts without making clear that it was by no act of their own._
A chronicle of the Mormon/Jewish controversy; THE LDS AGREEMENT: A JewishGen InfoFile


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> And we don't do anything unless family members have submitted their relative's names to the temple for the proxy ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) I wish you knew your own religion instead of having to be corrected so very often.
> 
> _The Mormon/Jewish Controversy: This web page chronicles the controversy between members of the Jewish faith and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons have been criticized in recent years for the practice of posthumously baptizing thousands of deceased Jews (among them Holocaust victims) and those of other faiths. The wrongful posthumous baptism of Jewish dead continues, despite repeated denials by the disingenuous Mormon leadership. In their missionary zeal, Mormons continue their wrongful baptism of Jews, attempting to convince people (dead or alive) from other religions to convert. Jewish leaders have called the practice arrogant and said it is disrespectful to the dead, especially Holocaust victims.
> 
> Mormons are hijacking history. In a hundred years who will know the true facts about you and your heritage? Who will know anything about your family? No one. Very possibly no one! Because in a hundred years the record will apparently show that they were allegedly converts without making clear that it was by no act of their own._
> A chronicle of the Mormon/Jewish controversy; THE LDS AGREEMENT: A JewishGen InfoFile
Click to expand...



You fail to realize that I've been over this before with everyone a long time ago. We changed our policy since the incident with Jewish complaints. We used to just get every name we could but with respect to requests we currently adhere to the policy I mentioned. 

and btw the people writing that article really don't have a grasp on the reality of our doctrine regarding baptism for the dead. The records of our church do not record that those deceased have become converts. Only that the proxy ordinance was done on their behalf for them to choose to accept or reject. We never claimed that we were converting posthumously. That is ridiculous. Apparently you don't have a grasp either. Darn.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we don't do anything unless family members have submitted their relative's names to the temple for the proxy ordinance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) I wish you knew your own religion instead of having to be corrected so very often.
> 
> _The Mormon/Jewish Controversy: This web page chronicles the controversy between members of the Jewish faith and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons have been criticized in recent years for the practice of posthumously baptizing thousands of deceased Jews (among them Holocaust victims) and those of other faiths. The wrongful posthumous baptism of Jewish dead continues, despite repeated denials by the disingenuous Mormon leadership. In their missionary zeal, Mormons continue their wrongful baptism of Jews, attempting to convince people (dead or alive) from other religions to convert. Jewish leaders have called the practice arrogant and said it is disrespectful to the dead, especially Holocaust victims.
> 
> Mormons are hijacking history. In a hundred years who will know the true facts about you and your heritage? Who will know anything about your family? No one. Very possibly no one! Because in a hundred years the record will apparently show that they were allegedly converts without making clear that it was by no act of their own._
> A chronicle of the Mormon/Jewish controversy; THE LDS AGREEMENT: A JewishGen InfoFile
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . .  the people writing that article really don't have a grasp on the reality of our doctrine regarding baptism for the dead. The records of our church do not record that those deceased have become converts. Only that the proxy ordinance was done on their behalf for them to choose to accept or reject. We never claimed that we were converting posthumously. That is ridiculous. Apparently you don't have a grasp either. Darn.
Click to expand...


Truth, apparently you are unaware, regardless of whatever the church leadership or policy says or may be, folks still get baptized all the time who should not.  The families and organizations opposed to the practice don't have to have a grasp on the technical aspects of the process.  Simply understand this: the families and their representatives make these decisions, not your church.


----------



## Liability

(Sung to the tune sung by Cat Stevens):

MORMON has broken!


----------



## JenyEliza

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> (sigh) I wish you knew your own religion instead of having to be corrected so very often.
> 
> _The Mormon/Jewish Controversy: This web page chronicles the controversy between members of the Jewish faith and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons have been criticized in recent years for the practice of posthumously baptizing thousands of deceased Jews (among them Holocaust victims) and those of other faiths. The wrongful posthumous baptism of Jewish dead continues, despite repeated denials by the disingenuous Mormon leadership. In their missionary zeal, Mormons continue their wrongful baptism of Jews, attempting to convince people (dead or alive) from other religions to convert. Jewish leaders have called the practice arrogant and said it is disrespectful to the dead, especially Holocaust victims.
> 
> Mormons are hijacking history. In a hundred years who will know the true facts about you and your heritage? Who will know anything about your family? No one. Very possibly no one! Because in a hundred years the record will apparently show that they were allegedly converts without making clear that it was by no act of their own._
> A chronicle of the Mormon/Jewish controversy; THE LDS AGREEMENT: A JewishGen InfoFile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  the people writing that article really don't have a grasp on the reality of our doctrine regarding baptism for the dead. The records of our church do not record that those deceased have become converts. Only that the proxy ordinance was done on their behalf for them to choose to accept or reject. We never claimed that we were converting posthumously. That is ridiculous. Apparently you don't have a grasp either. Darn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth, apparently you are unaware, regardless of whatever the church leadership or policy says or may be, folks still get baptized all the time who should not.  The families and organizations opposed to the practice don't have to have a grasp on the technical aspects of the process.  Simply understand this: the families and their representatives make these decisions, not your church.
Click to expand...


   

Thank you for setting Truth straight on his own religion's ridiculous practices (which, in spite of his ignorance, STILL continue to this day).

In doing research I have found Roman Catholic members of MY family that were baptised Mormon by proxy who would have been HORRIFIED in life had they known this ever took place.

These were people who left Northern Ireland to escape the tyrany of the British Crown against Irish Catholics.  Only to come to America, work hard, raise good families, die and have some dimwit Mormon re-Baptize them in spite of their faith's prohibition on more than one Baptism.

So, "Truth", go learn a little TRUTH for yourself.  I have NO questions to ask you.  I KNOW what I KNOW.  Personal family experience.

Mormon posthumous "baptism" is EVIL, arrogant, presumptuous and WRONG.  And it STILL HAPPENS even though the JDL and others have shined a light on the practice.

It needs to STOP.

NOW.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JenyEliza said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .  the people writing that article really don't have a grasp on the reality of our doctrine regarding baptism for the dead. The records of our church do not record that those deceased have become converts. Only that the proxy ordinance was done on their behalf for them to choose to accept or reject. We never claimed that we were converting posthumously. That is ridiculous. Apparently you don't have a grasp either. Darn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, apparently you are unaware, regardless of whatever the church leadership or policy says or may be, folks still get baptized all the time who should not.  The families and organizations opposed to the practice don't have to have a grasp on the technical aspects of the process.  Simply understand this: the families and their representatives make these decisions, not your church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for setting Truth straight on his own religion's ridiculous practices (which, in spite of his ignorance, STILL continue to this day).
> 
> In doing research I have found Roman Catholic members of MY family that were baptised Mormon by proxy who would have been HORRIFIED in life had they known this ever took place.
> 
> These were people who left Northern Ireland to escape the tyrany of the British Crown against Irish Catholics.  Only to come to America, work hard, raise good families, die and have some dimwit Mormon re-Baptize them in spite of their faith's prohibition on more than one Baptism.
> 
> So, "Truth", go learn a little TRUTH for yourself.  I have NO questions to ask you.  I KNOW what I KNOW.  Personal family experience.
> 
> Mormon posthumous "baptism" is EVIL, arrogant, presumptuous and WRONG.  And it STILL HAPPENS even though the JDL and others have shined a light on the practice.
> 
> It needs to STOP.
> 
> NOW.
Click to expand...


Considering the fact that the Catholic Church does not BELIEVE in baptism of the dead or proxy baptism, your complaint is foolish at best. As in YOUR religion they have not been baptized twice at all. But hey thanks for playing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No,  RGS, you are showing a form of irreconciliable stubborness that I encounter in those who have trouble processing critical evidence that simply demonstrates that a former belief is incorrect.

This is not a matter of opinion but rather what is right and what is not.  First, it happens when it should not.  Second, the decision morally rests with the family members.  Third, your personal opinion is immaterial to the facts ~ that you think it does not mean anything in itself does not  mean anything.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> No,  RGS, you are showing a form of irreconciliable stubborness that I encounter in those who have trouble processing critical evidence that simply demonstrates that a former belief is incorrect.
> 
> This is not a matter of opinion but rather what is right and what is not.  First, it happens when it should not.  Second, the decision morally rests with the family members.  Third, your personal opinion is immaterial to the facts ~ that you think it does not mean anything in itself does not  mean anything.



And you have no proof it is happening now. But hey thanks for playing. Once again reality applies. The Catholic Church does not recognize proxy baptism nor baptism of the dead so any such ritual has no meaning to dead Catholics with in the Catholic religion. That is a simple fact. If I am not mistaken the Catholic Church considers the Mormon Church to be a false religion, meaning we have no power over them at all. No matter what we do. In regards the doctrines and beliefs of the Catholic Church.


----------



## JenyEliza

Ah.....RGS reveals himself to be an anti-Catholic bigot.  A Mormon with his widdle feelings hurt by the Catholic Church. 

His response makes sense now.  Still doesn't make his response right.


----------



## JenyEliza

Look, if Jews and Catholics are united on this issue of Mormon's posthumous Baptism of our dead, then there MUST be something to it.  

Jews and Catholics haven't exactly gotten along too well since....well....Christ's Crucifixion.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JenyEliza said:


> Ah.....RGS reveals himself to be an anti-Catholic bigot.  A Mormon with his widdle feelings hurt by the Catholic Church.
> 
> His response makes sense now.  Still doesn't make his response right.



I am unconcerned so my feelings are hardly hurt. That logic does not phase you is the telling point. What the hell do you care what a false religion does? Since it is false it can have no effect on anything true, right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you have no proof it is happening now. But hey thanks for playing. Once again reality applies. The Catholic Church does not recognize proxy baptism nor baptism of the dead so any such ritual has no meaning to dead Catholics with in the Catholic religion. That is a simple fact. If I am not mistaken the Catholic Church considers the Mormon Church to be a false religion, meaning we have no power over them at all. No matter what we do. In regards the doctrines and beliefs of the Catholic Church.



Yeah, it does happen, look it up, lazy one.  The blog Mormon Coffee has some good quotes and linkst at http://blog.mrm.org/category/mormon-temple/baptism-for-the-dead/.

What the family wants is what is paramount, not what the Catholic Church believes.  Your argument is a red herring that smells.

You and Truth are flatly wrong on this one.  Period.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have no proof it is happening now. But hey thanks for playing. Once again reality applies. The Catholic Church does not recognize proxy baptism nor baptism of the dead so any such ritual has no meaning to dead Catholics with in the Catholic religion. That is a simple fact. If I am not mistaken the Catholic Church considers the Mormon Church to be a false religion, meaning we have no power over them at all. No matter what we do. In regards the doctrines and beliefs of the Catholic Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it does happen, look it up, lazy one.  The blog Mormon Coffee has some good quotes and linkst at http://blog.mrm.org/category/mormon-temple/baptism-for-the-dead/.
> 
> What the family wants is what is paramount, not what the Catholic Church believes.  Your argument is a red herring that smells.
> 
> You and Truth are flatly wrong on this one.  Period.
Click to expand...


Once again since you believe the church is false, the book of Mormon a work of fiction, what the hell does it matter spiritually if nutters preform a fake ceremony for some dead guy? The Catholic Church believes the Mormon church is fake, any ritual the Mormon church preforms by definition from the Catholic Church is therefore fake as well. Further according to the Catholic Church one can not baptize the dead or proxy baptize anyone so any such ceremony is false and has no meaning at all. If one is a Catholic anyway.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are backwards on this issue and you are wrong.  I will leave it at that.


----------



## JenyEliza

JakeStarkey said:


> You are backwards on this issue and you are wrong.  I will leave it at that.



Not only that, but Catholics are NOT the only other faith that objects to this outrageous practice of the Mormons.

Anyone who can unite Jews and Catholics on a topic has done something quite spectacular, as I said, Jews and Catholics haven't exactly had a loving relationship for thousands of years.

And yet, Jews and Catholics BOTH protest the outrageous practice of posthumous "baptism" by Mormons.

Imagine that. 

The way I see it is this:  If any of my Catholic family members wish to be Mormon, they are free to make that decision WHILE ALIVE.  

Once they are dead, if they have not converted to LDS, then the issue is settled.  THEY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN CATHOLIC, by virtue of their SINGLE (as in 1/ONE Baptism as an infant), and their souls should be forever left unmolested by Mormons with their second "baptism" after their death.

Period.  The End.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JenyEliza, a sensible person will recognize the logical and rightness of your point.


----------



## Truthspeaker

You guys are amazing. To be so concerned with something that doesn't concern you. This is my response to the multiple strange attacks on our church about baptism for the dead. 

I don't care if you think we're wrong. I already assumed that. The fact of the matter is that baptism is an act done by an individual. That individual being baptized is the only one in charge of the decision. Even after they are deceased. We have different beliefs about what goes on in the afterlife than you do so arguing about it makes no sense. 
Fact of the matter is that we disturb no one's graves. If someone on the other side has been informed that a baptism is being done for them that they never got the chance to have done for them, they will choose to accept it as their own or ignore it as they believe it false. If they ignore it then one of our members just takes a dip in the water.
I wouldn't be offended in the least if Muslims or Jews started doing posthumous conversions for me upon my death. Trust me, on the other side, I've got better things to focus my attention on. It is pointless for me to argue that our way is better than someone elses. We will see in the end won't we. And thanks for the neg rep and damnation sent my way by the individual who sent me said condemnation. I won't retaliate. I've got far better things to do than worry about my online reputation. In the end........Nobody cares.

I hope to see all of you at the pearly gates one day


----------



## JenyEliza

JakeStarkey said:


> JenyEliza, a sensible person will recognize the logical and rightness of your point.



Well, one would think so.  And then you've got these nutcases who think it's perfectly OK to tinker with a dead person's spiritual life and choice of faith.

It's just wrong.  Dead wrong.  (no pun intended).

The Roman Catholic faith requires ONLY ONE Baptism.  That tenet of our faith should be respected by Mormons, but it is not.  And they don't give a diddly that they are being offensive in disprespecting our faith or our dead.

THAT is what pisses me off.  They don't respect OUR faith, yet they demand that we respect THEIRS.

BULLSPIT, I say.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker is merely defending the indefensible.  The strangeness is his, not those who correctly point out just how wrong such behavior is by folks without permission from the family; and this from a church that is about family.


----------



## Skeptik

But the person being baptized by proxy makes the final decision, correct?

It seems to me we'll have a better idea what religion to follow in the afterlife.  At least, we'll know that there is an afterlife.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am always amazed at just how much fans (fanatics) want to help God out.  Not to worry, Skeptic, God will know who are His.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> I am always amazed at just how much fans (fanatics) want to help God out.  Not to worry, Skeptic, God will know who are His.



We  are all his.  The question is, who will choose him?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Who?  Those to whom God reveals himself.  No church or doctrine or other folks are needed.  The individual and God will be fine.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JenyEliza said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JenyEliza, a sensible person will recognize the logical and rightness of your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one would think so.  And then you've got these nutcases who think it's perfectly OK to tinker with a dead person's spiritual life and choice of faith.
> 
> It's just wrong.  Dead wrong.  (no pun intended).
> 
> The Roman Catholic faith requires ONLY ONE Baptism.  That tenet of our faith should be respected by Mormons, but it is not.  And they don't give a diddly that they are being offensive in disprespecting our faith or our dead.
> 
> THAT is what pisses me off.  They don't respect OUR faith, yet they demand that we respect THEIRS.
> 
> BULLSPIT, I say.
Click to expand...



If we're nutcases, why do you care what we say?

How can we tinker with anyone's spiritual life beyond the grave? We haven't figured out how to do it nor have we tried. So please tell me what you're ON? I've never seen this kind of reaction before.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Who?  Those to whom God reveals himself.  No church or doctrine or other folks are needed.  The individual and God will be fine.



That's an age old debate, but not the purpose of this thread. That debate, like the infant baptism doctrine is one that has led to nothing positive in Christian history. We've already established that we have different doctrines. I'm not here to apologize for them or prove them to anyone. Only to state what it is we believe about each subject.

I'm happy to discuss why we differ on such stances but certainly won't endeavor to convince anyone or twist anyone's arm into believing my way is better.

Care for any human discussion?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tom Clancy said:


> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?



Negative.

We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Truthspeaker said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative.
> 
> We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.
Click to expand...


That's still baptizing the dead.. 

As a Catholic, that's pretty crazy to me. 

just sayin'


----------



## Truthspeaker

Just randomly. Now this is shocking........There are now more friendly votes than crazy votes and more Christian votes than bigoted. Amazing


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tom Clancy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative.
> 
> We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's still baptizing the dead..
> 
> As a Catholic, that's pretty crazy to me.
> 
> just sayin'
Click to expand...


Just for trivial reasons.... Do you REALLY care if someone submitted your name to one of our temples after you die. The baptism doesn't pronounce you a "Mormon" now that you're dead. It just puts it out there for you to choose to accept or reject when the time comes. Does that really offend you? Especially if you don't believe in our religion?


----------



## Tom Clancy

Truthspeaker said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negative.
> 
> We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's still baptizing the dead..
> 
> As a Catholic, that's pretty crazy to me.
> 
> just sayin'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just for trivial reasons.... Do you REALLY care if someone submitted your name to one of our temples after you die. The baptism doesn't pronounce you a "Mormon" now that you're dead. It just puts it out there for you to choose to accept or reject when the time comes. Does that really offend you? Especially if you don't believe in our religion?
Click to expand...


Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when they're dead?  With Consent or Without? 

It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JenyEliza said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JenyEliza, a sensible person will recognize the logical and rightness of your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one would think so.  And then you've got these nutcases who think it's perfectly OK to tinker with a dead person's spiritual life and choice of faith.
> 
> It's just wrong.  Dead wrong.  (no pun intended).
> 
> The Roman Catholic faith requires ONLY ONE Baptism.  That tenet of our faith should be respected by Mormons, but it is not.  And they don't give a diddly that they are being offensive in disprespecting our faith or our dead.
> 
> THAT is what pisses me off.  They don't respect OUR faith, yet they demand that we respect THEIRS.
> 
> BULLSPIT, I say.
Click to expand...


So YOU do not believe the Mormon Church is a false religion? Thanks, I appreciate that. That can be the ONLY sane reason you would care about a ceremony that has no meaning to you and does not involve anyone you even know.

So I repeat, does the Catholic Church believe in proxy baptism and the baptizing of the Dead? If the answer is no, what the hell do you care what unbelievers do in their false temples with their false beliefs? If as you believe it has no meaning it can not then effect the dead at all. 

I must then surmise you actually DO believe that these ceremonies have a meaning and are not false. THAT would be a discussion you need to have with your religious affiliation and its leaders.


----------



## Modbert

Tom Clancy said:


> Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when their dead?  With Consent or Without?
> 
> It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.



That's definitely one of the "interesting" parts of Mormonism. The whole baptizing someone if they're dead and haven't given you their consent.

And by "interesting" I mean really damn weird.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dogbert said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when their dead?  With Consent or Without?
> 
> It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's definitely one of the "interesting" parts of Mormonism. The whole baptizing someone if they're dead and haven't given you their consent.
> 
> And by "interesting" I mean really damn weird.
Click to expand...


Again why do you care? We are all nutters to you, so why do you care what we do in OUR temples? It hurts no one. In fact it involves no one except LDS members.

If we are a false religion how does it matter at all that we practice proxy baptisms for the dead? Nothing we do is real, remember? No dead people are actually involved and we do not go to graveyards to do the baptisms. Only LDS people are involved.

Do you also worry about voodoo ceremonies?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tom Clancy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's still baptizing the dead..
> 
> As a Catholic, that's pretty crazy to me.
> 
> just sayin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for trivial reasons.... Do you REALLY care if someone submitted your name to one of our temples after you die. The baptism doesn't pronounce you a "Mormon" now that you're dead. It just puts it out there for you to choose to accept or reject when the time comes. Does that really offend you? Especially if you don't believe in our religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when they're dead?  With Consent or Without?
> 
> It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.
Click to expand...


Well you go on being offended then. I can't help you. Especially since you don't understand that we don't baptize dead people.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dogbert said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when their dead?  With Consent or Without?
> 
> It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's definitely one of the "interesting" parts of Mormonism. The whole baptizing someone if they're dead and haven't given you their consent.
> 
> And by "interesting" I mean really damn weird.
Click to expand...


Says the man with a Lecter Avatar... BTW we don't baptize dead people with or without their consent.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Truthspeaker said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for trivial reasons.... Do you REALLY care if someone submitted your name to one of our temples after you die. The baptism doesn't pronounce you a "Mormon" now that you're dead. It just puts it out there for you to choose to accept or reject when the time comes. Does that really offend you? Especially if you don't believe in our religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when they're dead?  With Consent or Without?
> 
> It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you go on being offended then. I can't help you. Especially since you don't understand that we don't baptize dead people.
Click to expand...


Oh i'm sorry, "proxy baptisms".  Right, because it's not the same thing as a normal baptism.  So as a Roman Catholic that sounds just outright disgusting and wrong. 

I'm sorry, I respect your ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't call your "Cult" crazy from time to time. 

You Mormons are nice people.. But thinking when you die you get your own planet and it's your mission to repopulate IS kinda weird..


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tom Clancy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when they're dead?  With Consent or Without?
> 
> It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you go on being offended then. I can't help you. Especially since you don't understand that we don't baptize dead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh i'm sorry, "proxy baptisms".  Right, because it's not the same thing as a normal baptism.  So as a Roman Catholic that sounds just outright disgusting and wrong.
> 
> I'm sorry, I respect your ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't call your "Cult" crazy from time to time.
> 
> You Mormons are nice people.. But thinking when you die you get your own planet and it's your mission to repopulate IS kinda weird..
Click to expand...


If that were what we believed, it might sound weird. But we don't believe that about getting planets when you die. Proxy baptisms, yes. planet control upon death, no.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Truthspeaker said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you go on being offended then. I can't help you. Especially since you don't understand that we don't baptize dead people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh i'm sorry, "proxy baptisms".  Right, because it's not the same thing as a normal baptism.  So as a Roman Catholic that sounds just outright disgusting and wrong.
> 
> I'm sorry, I respect your ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't call your "Cult" crazy from time to time.
> 
> You Mormons are nice people.. But thinking when you die you get your own planet and it's your mission to repopulate IS kinda weird..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that were what we believed, it might sound weird. But we don't believe that about getting planets when you die. Proxy baptisms, yes. planet control upon death, no.
Click to expand...


That's what i've heard.. also believing Adam and Eve lived in Missouri or some crapola like that.. 

Well yes, Baptizing the dead is just *Wrong*.


----------



## JenyEliza

Truthspeaker said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... If someone submits your name your Religion will come baptize them when their dead?  With Consent or Without?
> 
> It offends me when you Baptize dead people, yes it does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's definitely one of the "interesting" parts of Mormonism. The whole baptizing someone if they're dead and haven't given you their consent.
> 
> And by "interesting" I mean really damn weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the man with a Lecter Avatar... BTW we don't baptize dead people with or without their consent.
Click to expand...


Liar.


----------



## JenyEliza

Tom Clancy said:


> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?



No.  They Baptise EVERYONE's dead.  Jews. Catholics. Baptists.  Methodists.  Muslims.  Jehovah's Witness.  Lutherans.  Presbyterians.  Unitarians.

They Baptise EVERYONE's dead.  Not just Mormons.


----------



## JenyEliza

Truthspeaker said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative.
> 
> We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

You "perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have DIED".

DEAD PEOPLE ARE NOT LIVE, hence "only live people are involved" is bullshit and a outright, boldfaced LIE.

Quit twisting in the wind and avoiding the TRUTH.  

You twisted weirdos BAPTISE THE DEAD--without their consent or the consent of their families.  No other way around it, you farking LIAR.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JenyEliza said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative.
> 
> We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You "perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have DIED".
> 
> DEAD PEOPLE ARE NOT LIVE, hence "only live people are involved" is bullshit and a outright, boldfaced LIE.
> 
> Quit twisting in the wind and avoiding the TRUTH.
> 
> You twisted weirdos BAPTISE THE DEAD--without their consent or the consent of their families.  No other way around it, you farking LIAR.
Click to expand...


SO you believe in proxy baptism. Have you discussed this with your religious leaders? YOU believe the dead can be baptized as well. Another issue you need to bring up with your religious leaders.

Perhaps YOU are in the wrong religion? DO you also believe in Voodoo rituals? Can a Voodoo ritual turn you into a zombie?


----------



## Tom Clancy

RetiredGySgt said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Negative.
> 
> We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You "perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have DIED".
> 
> DEAD PEOPLE ARE NOT LIVE, hence "only live people are involved" is bullshit and a outright, boldfaced LIE.
> 
> Quit twisting in the wind and avoiding the TRUTH.
> 
> You twisted weirdos BAPTISE THE DEAD--without their consent or the consent of their families.  No other way around it, you farking LIAR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO you believe in proxy baptism. Have you discussed this with your religious leaders? YOU believe the dead can be baptized as well. Another issue you need to bring up with your religious leaders.
> 
> Perhaps YOU are in the wrong religion? DO you also believe in Voodoo rituals? Can a Voodoo ritual turn you into a zombie?
Click to expand...


Why the hell should us Catholics baptize our dead...? 

Perhaps Mormonism is just outright weird.. (no offense)  I mean i hear all types of stuff about Mormonism, makes me go how can you believe this stuff from a man named Joseph Smith? 

Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Tom Clancy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You "perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have DIED".
> 
> DEAD PEOPLE ARE NOT LIVE, hence "only live people are involved" is bullshit and a outright, boldfaced LIE.
> 
> Quit twisting in the wind and avoiding the TRUTH.
> 
> You twisted weirdos BAPTISE THE DEAD--without their consent or the consent of their families.  No other way around it, you farking LIAR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO you believe in proxy baptism. Have you discussed this with your religious leaders? YOU believe the dead can be baptized as well. Another issue you need to bring up with your religious leaders.
> 
> Perhaps YOU are in the wrong religion? DO you also believe in Voodoo rituals? Can a Voodoo ritual turn you into a zombie?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why the hell should us Catholics baptize our dead...?
> 
> Perhaps Mormonism is just outright weird.. (no offense)  I mean i hear all types of stuff about Mormonism, makes me go how can you believe this stuff from a man named Joseph Smith?
> 
> Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false...
Click to expand...


I am not suggesting you should baptize the dead, I am pointing out that since you do NOT believe it does anything what does it matter if some cult does it? After all you have called us a cult. We are, according to you, a false religion. Why would you care what we do in our fake temples with our fake religion and ceremonies? They are not real right? Yet here you are all out raged that a fake religion conducts fake ceremonies in their fake temples.

So I repeat, do you believe a Voodoo Curse can turn you into a Zombie too?


----------



## Tom Clancy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO you believe in proxy baptism. Have you discussed this with your religious leaders? YOU believe the dead can be baptized as well. Another issue you need to bring up with your religious leaders.
> 
> Perhaps YOU are in the wrong religion? DO you also believe in Voodoo rituals? Can a Voodoo ritual turn you into a zombie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell should us Catholics baptize our dead...?
> 
> Perhaps Mormonism is just outright weird.. (no offense)  I mean i hear all types of stuff about Mormonism, makes me go how can you believe this stuff from a man named Joseph Smith?
> 
> Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not suggesting you should baptize the dead, I am pointing out that since you do NOT believe it does anything what does it matter if some cult does it? After all you have called us a cult. We are, according to you, a false religion. Why would you care what we do in our fake temples with our fake religion and ceremonies? They are not real right? Yet here you are all out raged that a fake religion conducts fake ceremonies in their fake temples.
> 
> So I repeat, do you believe a Voodoo Curse can turn you into a Zombie too?
Click to expand...


Just the same reason i speak out against Islam.. 

Why the hell wouldn't I speak out against Baptizing the dead? how is that even considered normal? or holy? 

It's a False Religion, by a False Profit. 

Ever heard of a man named Jesus Christ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Tom Clancy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell should us Catholics baptize our dead...?
> 
> Perhaps Mormonism is just outright weird.. (no offense)  I mean i hear all types of stuff about Mormonism, makes me go how can you believe this stuff from a man named Joseph Smith?
> 
> Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not suggesting you should baptize the dead, I am pointing out that since you do NOT believe it does anything what does it matter if some cult does it? After all you have called us a cult. We are, according to you, a false religion. Why would you care what we do in our fake temples with our fake religion and ceremonies? They are not real right? Yet here you are all out raged that a fake religion conducts fake ceremonies in their fake temples.
> 
> So I repeat, do you believe a Voodoo Curse can turn you into a Zombie too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the same reason i speak out against Islam..
> 
> Why the hell wouldn't I speak out against Baptizing the dead? how is that even considered normal? or holy?
> 
> It's a False Religion, by a False Profit.
> 
> Ever heard of a man named Jesus Christ?
Click to expand...


In other words you have nothing except your fear and prejudices. You could just say that and be done with it. I promise no Mormon is going to find you and force you to convert. Nor will they condemn your religion.

As for Jesus Christ your ignorance is showing through once again. The name of our Church says it all. DO you even know our name?

You obviously know NOTHING of our beliefs. Live your life in fear and ignorance. Sounds like it suits you.


----------



## Tom Clancy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not suggesting you should baptize the dead, I am pointing out that since you do NOT believe it does anything what does it matter if some cult does it? After all you have called us a cult. We are, according to you, a false religion. Why would you care what we do in our fake temples with our fake religion and ceremonies? They are not real right? Yet here you are all out raged that a fake religion conducts fake ceremonies in their fake temples.
> 
> So I repeat, do you believe a Voodoo Curse can turn you into a Zombie too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the same reason i speak out against Islam..
> 
> Why the hell wouldn't I speak out against Baptizing the dead? how is that even considered normal? or holy?
> 
> It's a False Religion, by a False Profit.
> 
> Ever heard of a man named Jesus Christ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words you have nothing except your fear and prejudices. You could just say that and be done with it. I promise no Mormon is going to find you and force you to convert. Nor will they condemn your religion.
> 
> As for Jesus Christ your ignorance is showing through once again. The name of our Church says it all. DO you even know our name?
> 
> You obviously know NOTHING of our beliefs. Live your life in fear and ignorance. Sounds like it suits you.
Click to expand...


You sure? I've had Mormons come up to me near the mall and try and "sit down" with me and talk about the Book of Mormon.. and boy do they want you to convert.. 

So you don't believe Jesus Christ was the real prophet? Or is it Joseph Smith? 

I know more than you think I know about your beliefs..  And truth to be told, it sometimes makes me wonder how you can believe in all those crazy acts? for EX: Baptizing the dead.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Tom Clancy said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the same reason i speak out against Islam..
> 
> Why the hell wouldn't I speak out against Baptizing the dead? how is that even considered normal? or holy?
> 
> It's a False Religion, by a False Profit.
> 
> Ever heard of a man named Jesus Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have nothing except your fear and prejudices. You could just say that and be done with it. I promise no Mormon is going to find you and force you to convert. Nor will they condemn your religion.
> 
> As for Jesus Christ your ignorance is showing through once again. The name of our Church says it all. DO you even know our name?
> 
> You obviously know NOTHING of our beliefs. Live your life in fear and ignorance. Sounds like it suits you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure? I've had Mormons come up to me near the mall and try and "sit down" with me and talk about the Book of Mormon.. and boy do they want you to convert..
> 
> So you don't believe Jesus Christ was the real prophet? Or is it Joseph Smith?
> 
> I know more than you think I know about your beliefs..  And truth to be told, it sometimes makes me wonder how you can believe in all those crazy acts? for EX: Baptizing the dead.
Click to expand...


You are not a very good Christian if you believe Jesus Christ was a Prophet. That would be Islam that believes that. Christians happen to believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

Last I checked all one need do is tell an Elder they do not wish to talk to them and that Elder will leave him alone. More misinformation from a person that has no clue what they are talking about.


----------



## Tom Clancy

RetiredGySgt said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words you have nothing except your fear and prejudices. You could just say that and be done with it. I promise no Mormon is going to find you and force you to convert. Nor will they condemn your religion.
> 
> As for Jesus Christ your ignorance is showing through once again. The name of our Church says it all. DO you even know our name?
> 
> You obviously know NOTHING of our beliefs. Live your life in fear and ignorance. Sounds like it suits you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure? I've had Mormons come up to me near the mall and try and "sit down" with me and talk about the Book of Mormon.. and boy do they want you to convert..
> 
> So you don't believe Jesus Christ was the real prophet? Or is it Joseph Smith?
> 
> I know more than you think I know about your beliefs..  And truth to be told, it sometimes makes me wonder how you can believe in all those crazy acts? for EX: Baptizing the dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not a very good Christian if you believe Jesus Christ was a Prophet. That would be Islam that believes that. Christians happen to believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God.
> 
> Last I checked all one need do is tell an Elder they do not wish to talk to them and that Elder will leave him alone. More misinformation from a person that has no clue what they are talking about.
Click to expand...


You want to be Politically correct? 

In Christianity a prophet (or seer  1 Samuel 9:9 ) is one inspired by God through the Holy Spirit to deliver a message for a specific purpose. 

Jesus, Son of God, Born from the Virgin Mary. 

Weird.. now your telling me a i'm ignorant when i myself was in that moment.. yeah ok. 

I told them i'm not interested and still they persisted.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> That's what i've heard.. also believing Adam and Eve lived in Missouri or some crapola like that..



Well there almost always is SOME truth to what you've heard generally speaking. In this case there is some truth also. But there are missing facts and contexts to be considered. Whenever you are serious about getting the real facts I can answer your questions. But it seems you are only interested in mocking our "strange" ideas.



> Well yes, Baptizing the dead is just *Wrong*



One day you will understand the beauty and subtlety of the English language; and how just one little word can drastically change the meaning of an entire sentence. See example below:

1.
(a)  Baptisms FOR the dead.
(b)  Baptisms OF the dead.

Actually the subtleties can be found in the mere addition or absence of just one letter as in the above examples. Note the difference. Exhibit 1(a) is what we do. Exhibit 1(b).....I don't know who does that. Case closed.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JenyEliza said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's definitely one of the "interesting" parts of Mormonism. The whole baptizing someone if they're dead and haven't given you their consent.
> 
> And by "interesting" I mean really damn weird.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the man with a Lecter Avatar... BTW we don't baptize dead people with or without their consent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


The burden of proof is on the accuser. Since you say I am a  can you please show one instance of a corpse being baptized. Care to revise your statement?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JenyEliza said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  They Baptise *FOR* EVERYONE's dead.  Jews. Catholics. Baptists.  Methodists.  Muslims.  Jehovah's Witness.  Lutherans.  Presbyterians.  Unitarians.
> 
> They Baptise *FOR* EVERYONE's dead.  Not just Mormons.
Click to expand...


Correction added in Red above.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JenyEliza said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait wait.. Mormons baptize their dead?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative.
> 
> We perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have died without baptism. Only live people are involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You "perform proxy baptisms for the names of people who have DIED".
> 
> DEAD PEOPLE ARE NOT LIVE, hence "only live people are involved" is bullshit and a outright, boldfaced LIE.
> 
> Quit twisting in the wind and avoiding the TRUTH.
> 
> You twisted weirdos BAPTISE THE DEAD--without their consent or the consent of their families.  No other way around it, you farking LIAR.
Click to expand...


You're getting pretty desperate aren't you?

I refer to my previous rebuttal of your lame emotings.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Why the hell should us Catholics baptize our dead...?


I don't think any one should baptize their dead.



> Perhaps Mormonism is just outright weird.. (no offense)


 Of course none taken. Weirdness doesn't mean wrong.



> I mean i hear all types of stuff about Mormonism, makes me go how can you believe this stuff from a man named Joseph Smith?



Shouldn't your first reaction be more like, "Makes me wonder how much all that crap they say about the Mormons and Joe Smith is really true."




> Mormonism must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a Prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead people, then he should be exposed, his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false...



Bingo.


----------



## Liability

Sometimes, after a couple of drinks, the thread title of this thread looks a bit like "The Truth about *Hormones*."

That reminds me of a story ....


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Just the same reason i speak out against Islam..



Do you believe in the freedom of religion?



> Why the hell wouldn't I speak out against Baptizing the dead? how is that even considered normal? or holy?


We don't baptize dead...Again.



> It's a False Religion, by a False Profit.


So you say. That's fine if you think so. But you aren't going to get anywhere with us by just coming in here to attack us. What's your angle? Are you curious or just trying to "expose" us?

As for a false profit, that sounds more like what's been going on the last few years on Wall Street. 





> Ever heard of a man named Jesus Christ?



Yeah, totally! Great guy. I pattern my life after Him! He's like... My Hero. We go WAY back. Where do you know Him from?!


----------



## Truthspeaker

> You sure? I've had Mormons come up to me near the mall and try and "sit down" with me and talk about the Book of Mormon.. and boy do they want you to convert..


It's no big secret that we WANT you to convert. That's why we send out 40,000 missionaries around the world. That was never a secret. The information that has somehow been kept a secret from you is that we already KNOW that we CAN'T convert you. People have to do it on their own. All we do is spread the word. Let the chips fall where they may.



> So you don't believe Jesus Christ was the real prophet? Or is it Joseph Smith?


You're kidding. Jesus is everything. It all starts with Him. He was the Savior of the world along with the greatest Prophet of all time. But he certainly wasn't the only prophet. That's why the Bible is full of writings of prophets and apostles. Joseph Smith was just another in the selection process of God.




> I know more than you think I know about your beliefs..  And truth to be told, it sometimes makes me wonder how you can believe in all those crazy acts? for EX: Baptizing the dead.



Actually the more I read from you the more I realize that you know less and less about our religion than I had previously thought. I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension skills as well. This because I have clearly explained the difference between baptizing the dead and baptizing for the dead.

What other crazy acts do you think or have you heard we believe in? It's time to set your record straight. Since you refuse to read the whole article and learn for yourself what our core beliefs are.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I told them i'm not interested and still they persisted.



Hey nobody's perfect. You must have bumped into the one pair of twenty year olds that I've ever heard of that didn't leave someone alone when told to skeedaddle. Congratulations. You have found some imperfect "Mormons".


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Sometimes, after a couple of drinks, the thread title of this thread looks a bit like "The Truth about *Hormones*."
> 
> That reminds me of a story ....



How quaint.


----------



## Eightball

> You're kidding. Jesus is everything. It all starts with Him. He was the Savior of the world along with the greatest Prophet of all time. But he certainly wasn't the only prophet. That's why the Bible is full of writings of prophets and apostles. Joseph Smith was just another in the selection process of God.



You know full well that your Mormon doctrine does not venerate Jesus as "everything" as He is just a progression of an infinite number of gods, and saviors for an infinite prosession of planets......earth being just one of those infinite myriad of planets that are settled with new Adam and Eves who were good Mormons.

Also, we have all these little babies up there somewhere waiting for a Mommy and Daddy to procreate under the bed sheets and have one come down learn to be a good Mormon..........Right?

When you include Joseph Smith Jr. in the same league or sentence with Jesus Christ.............your are making a con-man and sinner equal to the Son of God.......who is unique, and the only Son of God....   J.S. Jr. was a son too, but the son of a earthly sinner Dad who was a con artist who taught his sone J.S. jr. to be one also.

The con game didn't end with New York treasure hunting, but progressed to a "religious con game" not unlike "Benny Hinn", "Bob Tilton", "Kenneth Copeland", and even the esteemed "Reverend Wright".

Mormonism is on the apex of the con game made religious scale; second to none.  It's other "apex" feeders, would be Scientology, Watchtower/Jehovah's Witnesses, Bahai, Moonies, Unitarianism, apostles of Christ church, ...........the names of religions that have butchered the contextural integrity of the bible goes on and on.

In an attempt to change the "gospel" message to a humanistically made "gospel" the LDS/Mormon church has exceeded incredibly.  It hides behind the innocent demeaner of Mom, Apple Pie, Conservatism, American flag, veneer.

The responses to the above statement is that "eightball" is a "hater" of Mormons.  Far from it.  On my father's side of the family are Mormons who help build the S.L.C. temple, and had heavy involvement in the early LDS movement.  Though my father was not Mormon, his Mormon mother's religion impacted him in a way that "naturally" lead him to Freemasonry, where he worked his way through all the Lodge chairs and became a Worshipful Master.  The finger prints of Masonry rituals are found all about secretive LDS temple rituals, as J.S. Jr. was a Freemason himself.

If Mormonism is of God, why does it reek of humanistic and occult Freemasonry?  Why do the LDS undergarments reek of occult symbolism?

Read any part of the bible, and witchcraft/occult is forbidden to the nth degree and will be met with God's furious judgement if "said" participants don't walk away from it.  

I feel so sorry for those neat clean-cut men and women that come to my door trying to proselytize me from my biblical, Christian faith.  They usually are with an elder or will have an elder come to you when you differ with their LDS statements and biblical interpretations that absolutely maim and slaughter the context of the bible to slant it towards the apostasy of Mormon doctrine.

They want me to pray and ask God if Mormonism is the "truth".   The bible tells me that "exactly" who God is..............He was revealed in Jesus Christ Himself, but that isn't good enough, because this does not lead me to embrace Mormonism.  I must make sure I'm right by asking God to confirm or deny the validity of Mormonism as the "real" truth, that has "trumped" the "old, corrupted" truth contained in the bible.  I.E. the Book of Mormon was needed to make things straight as well as the Mormon books, "Pearl of Great Price", and the "Journal of Discourses" too.

What was once just good old time religion with the Good Old book the bible has been redefined by the LDS church as a myriad of teachings, convoluted rewriting of North American history in relationship to human habitation.........mis-interpretations of the sacred Christian rite of baptism to include dead people who may or may not have been Christians at death.

Anyone remember Jesus' parable about the poor man and rich man Lazarus?  Jesus made it very clear in the parable that every human being had a time to believe on Him as their Savior from their sinful life, and it was not after one's physical/earthly death.  Yet Mormons go on and on baptising the dead.  

There's a good chance that you a Catholic, Protestant, or non-denominational bible Christian have been baptized by the LDS church?  Yes!  They are saving your soul from your foul, unGodly, belief system that doesn't coincide with their Founder J.S. Jr. and their later church prophets.
******
The bible clearly shows that the time of prophets ended with John the Baptist...........as Jesus came and fullfilled the Law as the sinless human, yet God in the flesh........the very nature and likeness of God, yet visual, touchable.  

Jesus did not have siblings in the heavenly realm before His incarnation.  You will never find that in the bible, but you will find it in LDS teaching.  Can you imagine folks:  LDS teaching actually places Jesus with a sibling named Lucifer.  Lucifer might have been our Saviour on earth, but Jesus' and Lucifers' Dad chose Jesus to come down instead of Lucifer............................So Lucifer, Satan, the Devil...........really is such a bad dude afterall.  He's Jesus' blood brother.........from the same lineage.

Do you realize the impact of this?  Jesus in the bible says that He has pre-existed before time.  He said He is the Alpha and the Omega.........That is God my friends!  The beginning and the end!   Lucifer as clearly explained in the bible is a "created being".............an angel............a most formidable and powerful angel.

Jesus even proclaimed with joy that He saw Lucifer being cast from heaven to roam about the earth.  Lucifer is called the "Prince of this world" by Jesus right in John Chapter 14.   Notice he's called a "prince", not a king.   Yes there is a king, and in that chapter 14 and subsequent chapters you it is clearly revealed that Jesus is the one who has a one on one relationship with God the Father, as the Son of God......Emmanuel, Jehovah.......the "I AM".  k

Lucifer is but a created being that has dwelt in the heavenly realm and was intended to be one of God's many angels who would serve Him, and do service to mankind according to God's will.  Lucifer was created with free-will and "chose" to raise himself above his Creator.  Seems ridiculous doesn't it, but when we choose to go are own way, and place God in a second class position or just plain, change God's truth and nature as He intended man to know Him, we walk on a very thin and tenuous rope.  
******
The answer is not a pile of conflicting books of discourses, and alleged inspired books by 19th and 20 century false prophets, but is contained in a very simple book called the Holy bible.  It contains 66 God inspired books written by many God inspired men over a period of several thousand years.

It has spawned some of the greatest men and women over the century..........Martin Luther, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Michael Faraday(Father of the electric motor/generator), Washington Carver, many of our country's founders, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham.................and the names of those that gave their lives to bring others blessing through medicine, science and inventions, pastoring and leading people to God's peace that passeth all understanding goes on and on and on..  They all just had the bible.................That's all.

Folks, don't hate Mormons!  They are human beings made in God's image............just as Muslims, Hindu's, biblle believing Christians, agnostics, atheists,,,,,,,,etc....  We are but mere flesh and bone..................Jesus took on that state of physical being as a willfull desire and obedience of God the Father.  Why would Jesus leave His heavenly realm and throne at the right side of God the Father to do this?  WE SINFUL HUMANS NEEDED A PERFECT REPLACEMENT IN OUR PLACE TO RECEIVE THE RIGHTFUL, JUDICIOUS PUNISHMENT OF A FALLEN SINFUL RACE.  Jesus was sinless because He was born from a sinful human's womb, but He/Jesus was from God, and was God(mysterious huh, and beyond our finite human minds to comprehend?).  Mary was chosen as she was a very obedient and God loving woman..............God doesn't make mistakes...........She/Mary made herself a humble servant to God, and will be remembered as many of God's chosen will be.  Jesus in 33 years returned to take up His seat at His Father's right hand after fullfilling the judicious act required by God the Father that would offer complete atonement for mankinds sins......................But.........the corker..........one must appropriate or "own" this work of Christ on the cross for their sins, but "believing/accepting" His sacrificial act personally for themselves..............Even that one thief on a cross of crucifixion alongside Jesus, repented, and asked Jesus to remember him.  Jesus said that before this day was done that he/the thief would be with Jesus in "paradise".  

So you see, the bible has revealed God's nature..................very succinctly, very clearly..............We don't need a new gospel(good news).........we got it 2,000 years ago, and it still applies very cleary to 21st century mankind.   We don't need a religion that shrouds itself in good deeds, patriotism, and works that are motivated by trying to please a god that is just one of an infinite number of gods that are in turn just mere fleshly, sinful humans that got cleared for godhood by another god...........on and on and on.

Folks, when you scratch the veneer of Mormonis, it is not pretty.  You will find with simple research a past and present that is filled with doctrines that go cross-hairs to the Holy bible, and the very teachings of God.  It is a human-designed counterfeit of the true gospel, designed on the outside to project a syrupy sweet display to entice those looking for some meaning to life.............and often a belong-ness that the Mormons will certainly supply.

Once in the LDS church they are gradually massaged along with introductions to the deeper teachings that reveal the true core of Mormonism.  This has to be done in order to not scare off new converts.

Not so with biblical Christianity.  It's all right out their in the open when you go to a true bible teaching church.  You see what the gospel entails and you are given a choice.............Committment to God/Christ is not white washed with working your way up the scale of "acceptance" and inevitably to blasphemous godhood.  

What makes God, God?  He's not created.............He's pre-existed infinitely both in the past, present and future, not bound by time, yet for 33 human years He indeed constricted Himself in the incarnation of Christ to bring His human creation back into a wonderous, eternal relationship once again.

The "red flags" of Mormon doctrine are everywhere.  Once a novice Mormon starts to receive the deeper teachings that would scare off one being initially proselytized, they are so immersed in the familial type bonding that often typifies cult practices, that questioning doctrine and using outside sources other than Mormon are considered wrong, and hurtful to the church.  
******
I know that Truthspeaker........(Lord how I can't understand how a person calling themselves a Christian would use that moniker except God Himself, as it reeks of pride and arrogance.)........will go into his bunker mode and "I've answered all that in past posts, Eightball" mantra.............but the problem is.........He hasn't, because he retreats to Mormon doctrine to refute biblical doctrine.

Now either God did a good job of protecting His Word to mankind via the Moses, Abraham, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Malachi, Solomon, David, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Paul, Peter, James.................etc.... because one of God's attributes is that He is OMNIPOTENT which seems conveniently brushed aside by Truth and his little family of Mormon apologists on this thread, or He, God, is WEAK, ANEMIC, UNWATCHFUL, DISTRACTED, UNCARING...........Thus we need this New, Improved, economy sized, gospel spawned from the over active imagination of one Joseph Smither Jr.. .


----------



## Eightball

Double post


----------



## Truthspeaker

Oh you again? You just couldn't stay away could you? Miss me too much?

Welcome back. You are in rare but expectable form. Another in the many long publications of the infamous 8-ball. Why can't you just post in paragraphs that people will actually read like a normal human being? 

I only read them because I have to,  but trust me no one else cares enough to read such lengthy posts.  I've got to dedicate a full hour to read and respond to your novels so I'll hit you back later tomorrow. Good night all.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I came across something in a comparative study on which I am working that reminded me that you and someone else in the LDS church here on the forum was still nattering on about the discarded folklore of blacks not being valiant or fence sitters in the war in heaven before the earth was created.  I asked for evidence for your outdated opinions.  You both shrugged it off, so . . . read and enjoy.

Joseph Fielding Smith, _Doctrines of Salvation _1:65-66 -  "No Neutrals In Heaven. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. ALL TOOK SIDES EITHER WITH CHRIST OR WITH SATAN. (Matt. 12:30; Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; 11:23). Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits." [emphasis in original] [_my comment_: JFS, grandson of Hyrum Smith, son of Joseph F. Smith, and apostle and president of the LDS church over a plus-sixty year span).

Bruce R. McConkie, _Mormon Doctrine_, 1st ed - "There were, of course, no neutral spirits in the war in heaven, any more than there are or can be neutrals in this life where choices between righteousness and unrighteousness are involved. 'He that is not with me is against me,' saith the Lord, 'and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.' (Matt. 12:30; 1 Ne. 14:10; Alma 5:38-40)".  (_my comment:_ BRM, son-in-law of JFS, long time general authority of the LDS church, dying as a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Also to add to the above, the following  website is pro-LDS.  It carries a talk that goes into great detail about "Blacks and the Priesthood."  You can read it at: http://www.fairlds. org/Misc/ Blacks_and_ the_Priesthood. html.  Marvin Perkins is among the African-Americans featured in CNN's Black in America. In this two-minute video, he explains why The Church of Jesus  Christ . . . CNN features black Mormon Marvin Perkins | Blacklds.org ·


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Every year we were given directories of the chuch leadership, it always made me shake my head with how many white males ran the the LDS church. Since the quorum of the 70 was reinstated in 1976, there have been 201 men called to the 1st or 2nd quorum, of those numbers there have been...

1 Native American 
2 Africans
8 Asians 
33 Hispanics 

Pretty sad imo.

-TSO


----------



## emilynghiem

Truthspeaker said:


> Why the hell should us Catholics baptize our dead...?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any one should baptize their dead.
Click to expand...


I don't see anything wrong with "praying to bless" souls, either before during or after life.
Since all spirit is connected, then sending good thoughts and prayers for healing and especially support for forgiveness, correction of past wrongs conflicts or divisions, and uplifting all souls is a positive force.

For Buddhists, the prayers on the anniversary of one's death are revered more than celebrating one's birthday, because it represents the soul's passing to higher spiritual realms, and the connection with future generations as well. So it provides strength for the entire family and heritage.

For Christians, if you believe Jesus descended into hell to reach all those souls across time and space who may not have had connection in Christian prayer, then the prayers for healing and salvation can still connect souls in the past and the future, through Christ, and include them in salvation also. Even if the sins that were not forgiven and resolved are carried by the future generations, the positive prayers help to heal those instead of repeating the same vicious cycle. So the souls can be saved even if the sins or karma is revisited on future generations until the cycle is broken through divine forgiveness and redemption in Christ. 

So there are different cultural expressions of this same concept to pray for the souls of the dead in order to bring spiritual peace to all people, all generations, all humanity, joined by conscience or in Christ in loving harmony.


----------



## Bearman

Excuse me Mr SuaveOne Sir,
Just a quick response to your last post.  Theres just one problem with that, God calls whom he calls, he doesnt have an Affirmative Action quota.  Besides, its far more inclusive than the way it use to be anyway.  It used to be that only the Israelites possessed authority for leadership, now its available to any and all.  If you want to point the finger for exclusivity, you're wasting your time, but if you do point, you cant logically point at the Mormon Church, the first church in American history to have Black leaders in front of White congregations.


----------



## Avatar4321

JenyEliza said:


> Look, if Jews and Catholics are united on this issue of Mormon's posthumous Baptism of our dead, then there MUST be something to it.
> 
> Jews and Catholics haven't exactly gotten along too well since....well....Christ's Crucifixion.



I can't see why you would have a problem with it, unless you acknowledge that what we do *actually effects what happens in the afterlife*. If it doesn't, then there is no point being upset because we are wasting our time and resources.

You do understand that by being upset you are acknowledging we have the authority to change the course of someone's Eternal destiny by doing so. So the real question to ask is this: If we have the authority, where does it put you?


----------



## Oscar Wao

Mormonism, how 'bout, NOT Christian.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> You know full well that your Mormon doctrine does not venerate Jesus as "everything" as He is just a progression of an infinite number of gods, and saviors for an infinite prosession of planets......earth being just one of those infinite myriad of planets that are settled with new Adam and Eves who were good Mormons.



You do realize that just a reading of the Book of Mormon would demonstrate you are completely lying don't you? I mean you might be able to decieve someone who is completely ignorant. But anyone with even a small knowledge of the subject knows your lying through your teeth.



> Also, we have all these little babies up there somewhere waiting for a Mommy and Daddy to procreate under the bed sheets and have one come down learn to be a good Mormon..........Right?



Actually, im sure the Spirits waiting for bodies are much more developed than children. In fact, I'm confident that in alot of subjects, they know much more than we do.



> When you include Joseph Smith Jr. in the same league or sentence with Jesus Christ.............your are making a con-man and sinner equal to the Son of God.......who is unique, and the only Son of God....   J.S. Jr. was a son too, but the son of a earthly sinner Dad who was a con artist who taught his sone J.S. jr. to be one also.



How on earth is stating the fact that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of Jesus Christ put him in the same league as the Savior of the World? 

Con artists usually make money. Or atleast try to. They dont give away everything they have to complete strangers.



> The con game didn't end with New York treasure hunting, but progressed to a "religious con game" not unlike "Benny Hinn", "Bob Tilton", "Kenneth Copeland", and even the esteemed "Reverend Wright".



And how many of them would sacrifice their life for their faith?



> Mormonism is on the apex of the con game made religious scale; second to none.  It's other "apex" feeders, would be Scientology, Watchtower/Jehovah's Witnesses, Bahai, Moonies, Unitarianism, apostles of Christ church, ...........the names of religions that have butchered the contextural integrity of the bible goes on and on.



I've demonstrated multiple times in this thread that you havent a clue what the Bible actually says. You tune out anything that doesnt fit your preconcieved notions. So who cares what you think on the subject?



> In an attempt to change the "gospel" message to a humanistically made "gospel" the LDS/Mormon church has exceeded incredibly.  It hides behind the innocent demeaner of Mom, Apple Pie, Conservatism, American flag, veneer.



What the heck is a "humanistically made gospel'? The message of Mormonism has always been that the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets is true. That Jesus Christ the Son of God atoned and died for the sins of the world, and then rose on the third day ascending to Heaven. Everything else is an appendage to this one great truth. That is the Gospel. If that is a humanistically made gospel, then what the heck gospel do you believe in?

Also, i really dont the people in South America, Africa, Asia, Austrailia, Europe, Mexico, and Canada, or any other nation really care about conservatism and the American flagg. And we serve Jello, not apple pie. Apple pie would be an improvement.



> The responses to the above statement is that "eightball" is a "hater" of Mormons.  Far from it.  On my father's side of the family are Mormons who help build the S.L.C. temple, and had heavy involvement in the early LDS movement.  Though my father was not Mormon, his Mormon mother's religion impacted him in a way that "naturally" lead him to Freemasonry, where he worked his way through all the Lodge chairs and became a Worshipful Master.  The finger prints of Masonry rituals are found all about secretive LDS temple rituals, as J.S. Jr. was a Freemason himself.



And lo and behold, you know nothing of your heritage. Score one for the liberal educational system



> If Mormonism is of God, why does it reek of humanistic and occult Freemasonry?  Why do the LDS undergarments reek of occult symbolism?



Because Satan has always tried to copy/imitate the Order of Heaven. He always sets up his forms to copy God, because He wants to be God. He just cant.

The real question you should ask is why do the mysteries exist is countless historical and cultural accounts throughout the ancient world? Why do they show up in early Christianity? 

More to the point, you should question what exact was Christ teaching the Apostles after He rose from the dead and spent 40 days teaching the Apostles? Of course, you wouldnt believe it if God Himself told you because those teachings aren't found in the Bible. And you cant believe anything unless its in the Bible despite God not saying anything to that effect. You limit yourself to what your mind can understand instead of opening yourself to what the Spirit can and will teach you and you wonder this is so foreign to you.



> Read any part of the bible, and witchcraft/occult is forbidden to the nth degree and will be met with God's furious judgement if "said" participants don't walk away from it.



Alright, Where does it say that in John 3:16? You did say any part of the Bible.



> I feel so sorry for those neat clean-cut men and women that come to my door trying to proselytize me from my biblical, Christian faith.  They usually are with an elder or will have an elder come to you when you differ with their LDS statements and biblical interpretations that absolutely maim and slaughter the context of the bible to slant it towards the apostasy of Mormon doctrine.



Your faith is about as Biblical as Islam. What your so upset about is that someone actually reads and understand the Bible differently then you do. Someone actually doesnt ignore inconvenient verses. Someone doesnt worship the Bible like you do while ignoring it when it's convenient.

Well so be it. Guilty as charged. I worship God the Father. He revealed the truths found in the Bible. The Bible doesnt reveal Him. It's a tool to teach us out to approach Him ourselves and learn from Him directly. 

People are always trying to put things between themselves and God. The Israelites tried to put Moses and the Prophets between them and God. The Pharisees put the scriptures between them and God. Sadly much of Modern Christianity is the same.

But the Goal of the Prophets and Apostles was never to be an intermediary between them and God. Their goal was to get the people to seek to know God on their own and prepare them to enter into His presence. Not in the future. But in this life. They were attempting to bring the people to repentence so that they could build the Kingdom of God on earth.

Sadly. most even today reject the call.



> They want me to pray and ask God if Mormonism is the "truth".   The bible tells me that "exactly" who God is..............He was revealed in Jesus Christ Himself, but that isn't good enough, because this does not lead me to embrace Mormonism.  I must make sure I'm right by asking God to confirm or deny the validity of Mormonism as the "real" truth, that has "trumped" the "old, corrupted" truth contained in the bible.  I.E. the Book of Mormon was needed to make things straight as well as the Mormon books, "Pearl of Great Price", and the "Journal of Discourses" too.



Wow. We ask you to actually talk to God and find out from Him what the Truth is. We ask you to actually get to know God. How horrible! I suppose it's easier to just turn pages in a book then it is to repent and converse with the Lord. But then, reading a book isnt good enough. It never has been and it never will be. 



> What was once just good old time religion with the Good Old book the bible has been redefined by the LDS church as a myriad of teachings, convoluted rewriting of North American history in relationship to human habitation.........mis-interpretations of the sacred Christian rite of baptism to include dead people who may or may not have been Christians at death.



We teach by revelation. We learn through revelation. We have actual experiences with God which we base our faith on. We dont rely on our own understanding. We rely on the Spirit.

Christ is the Savior of all the world. He is the Savior of the ancient civilizations and our modern civilizations. He is the Savior of man in Europe, Asia, Africa, Austrailia, North and South America. He is the Savior of the Isles of the Sea. It's absurd to conclude that of all the people the only ones God spoke to are the ones in the Middle East when He loves all man kind. It's absurd to conclude that God hasnt provided a way for men who die without hearing the Word of God to recieve it. 



> Anyone remember Jesus' parable about the poor man and rich man Lazarus?  Jesus made it very clear in the parable that every human being had a time to believe on Him as their Savior from their sinful life, and it was not after one's physical/earthly death.  Yet Mormons go on and on baptising the dead.



Why am I not surprised that you dont understand the parable? You do realize that Christ descended into hell to declare freedom to the prisoners? You do realize that the Gospel was preached to the dead don't you? Or do you conveniently ignore those verses as well? Baptism on behalf of the dead is a pretty lame argument for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ if it's not a legitimate ordinance. So I suppose Paul was an idiot for making such an absurd argument.



> There's a good chance that you a Catholic, Protestant, or non-denominational bible Christian have been baptized by the LDS church?  Yes!  They are saving your soul from your foul, unGodly, belief system that doesn't coincide with their Founder J.S. Jr. and their later church prophets.



If they have been baptized, it would be by their own choice and they would be LDS now. You do realize that we dont baptize people against there will don't you? Have you somehow been baptized without your knowledge? The argument is completely absurd.






> The bible clearly shows that the time of prophets ended with John the Baptist...........as Jesus came and fullfilled the Law as the sinless human, yet God in the flesh........the very nature and likeness of God, yet visual, touchable.



Which, of course, is why there were prophets in Acts and mentioned throughout the Epistles. That is, of course, why Paul stated that the Lord has given us Apostles and Prophets until we are all unified in faith so that we wont be lead astray.

But hey, ignore the Bible when it's convenient.



> Jesus did not have siblings in the heavenly realm before His incarnation.  You will never find that in the bible, but you will find it in LDS teaching.  Can you imagine folks:  LDS teaching actually places Jesus with a sibling named Lucifer.  Lucifer might have been our Saviour on earth, but Jesus' and Lucifers' Dad chose Jesus to come down instead of Lucifer............................So Lucifer, Satan, the Devil...........really is such a bad dude afterall.  He's Jesus' blood brother.........from the same lineage.



Really, How is Christ the Firstborn of the Father if there was no one born after Him?

Why does Job state that satan was among the sons of God in the Heavenly Council? 

But hey, ignore the Bible. You wouldnt want to be accused of being unbiblical.



> Do you realize the impact of this?  Jesus in the bible says that He has pre-existed before time.  He said He is the Alpha and the Omega.........That is God my friends!  The beginning and the end!   Lucifer as clearly explained in the bible is a "created being".............an angel............a most formidable and powerful angel.



The Bible is pretty clear that we existed before the Creation of the world as well. 




> Jesus even proclaimed with joy that He saw Lucifer being cast from heaven to roam about the earth.  Lucifer is called the "Prince of this world" by Jesus right in John Chapter 14.   Notice he's called a "prince", not a king.   Yes there is a king, and in that chapter 14 and subsequent chapters you it is clearly revealed that Jesus is the one who has a one on one relationship with God the Father, as the Son of God......Emmanuel, Jehovah.......the "I AM".  k



No one is disputing that Christ is the King of Kings. This rant is rather pointless.

However, it makes an interesting point. In order to be Prince, you have to have royal blood, so to speak. 




> Lucifer is but a created being that has dwelt in the heavenly realm and was intended to be one of God's many angels who would serve Him, and do service to mankind according to God's will.  Lucifer was created with free-will and "chose" to raise himself above his Creator.  Seems ridiculous doesn't it, but when we choose to go are own way, and place God in a second class position or just plain, change God's truth and nature as He intended man to know Him, we walk on a very thin and tenuous rope.



Be nice if you knew what created means. 




> The answer is not a pile of conflicting books of discourses, and alleged inspired books by 19th and 20 century false prophets, but is contained in a very simple book called the Holy bible.  It contains 66 God inspired books written by many God inspired men over a period of several thousand years.



The answer is going straight to God and finding out from Him directly. 

However, your premise is false to begin with because the Book of Mormon, Bible, Docrtine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price don't conflict.




> It has spawned some of the greatest men and women over the century..........Martin Luther, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Michael Faraday(Father of the electric motor/generator), Washington Carver, many of our country's founders, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham.................and the names of those that gave their lives to bring others blessing through medicine, science and inventions, pastoring and leading people to God's peace that passeth all understanding goes on and on and on..  They all just had the bible.................That's all.



Do you think their ideas came from the Bible itself, or from the Spirit who used the Bible to help them?




> Folks, don't hate Mormons!  They are human beings made in God's image............just as Muslims, Hindu's, biblle believing Christians, agnostics, atheists,,,,,,,,etc....  We are but mere flesh and bone..................Jesus took on that state of physical being as a willfull desire and obedience of God the Father.  Why would Jesus leave His heavenly realm and throne at the right side of God the Father to do this?  WE SINFUL HUMANS NEEDED A PERFECT REPLACEMENT IN OUR PLACE TO RECEIVE THE RIGHTFUL, JUDICIOUS PUNISHMENT OF A FALLEN SINFUL RACE.  Jesus was sinless because He was born from a sinful human's womb, but He/Jesus was from God, and was God(mysterious huh, and beyond our finite human minds to comprehend?).  Mary was chosen as she was a very obedient and God loving woman..............God doesn't make mistakes...........She/Mary made herself a humble servant to God, and will be remembered as many of God's chosen will be.  Jesus in 33 years returned to take up His seat at His Father's right hand after fullfilling the judicious act required by God the Father that would offer complete atonement for mankinds sins......................But.........the corker..........one must appropriate or "own" this work of Christ on the cross for their sins, but "believing/accepting" His sacrificial act personally for themselves..............Even that one thief on a cross of crucifixion alongside Jesus, repented, and asked Jesus to remember him.  Jesus said that before this day was done that he/the thief would be with Jesus in "paradise".



So we should ignore everything you just previously said? Alright, i will.



> So you see, the bible has revealed God's nature..................very succinctly, very clearly..............We don't need a new gospel(good news).........we got it 2,000 years ago, and it still applies very cleary to 21st century mankind.   We don't need a religion that shrouds itself in good deeds, patriotism, and works that are motivated by trying to please a god that is just one of an infinite number of gods that are in turn just mere fleshly, sinful humans that got cleared for godhood by another god...........on and on and on.



If the Bible revealed God's nature very succinctly there wouldnt be thousands of denominations disagreeing on doctrine. There would be no need for post Biblical creeds. 

You're claim therefore must be false. There is no support for it. 

The Bible can show people how to reach God if they study it and actually seek God. But without revelation No one understands God's nature. It's impossible to know Him without direct communication.

Quite frankly, I dont want a silent God. I want a God who actually loves me and will provide me with the answers to my prayers as much as He provided my ancestors an answer to theirs. I want to actually know God. Not just read what He did for other people.



> Folks, when you scratch the veneer of Mormonis, it is not pretty.  You will find with simple research a past and present that is filled with doctrines that go cross-hairs to the Holy bible, and the very teachings of God.  It is a human-designed counterfeit of the true gospel, designed on the outside to project a syrupy sweet display to entice those looking for some meaning to life.............and often a belong-ness that the Mormons will certainly supply.



It's not pretty for you, you mean. It destroys your doctrine. Thus you must malign it.




> Once in the LDS church they are gradually massaged along with introductions to the deeper teachings that reveal the true core of Mormonism.  This has to be done in order to not scare off new converts.



Im sure you would propose we start teaching children calculus before you they can count. But in the real world, you'd be looked as insane for doing so.

The true core of Mormonism is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who suffered for the Sins of the world and rose on the third day. That is the core. Your denial will not change that.




> Not so with biblical Christianity.  It's all right out their in the open when you go to a true bible teaching church.  You see what the gospel entails and you are given a choice.............Committment to God/Christ is not white washed with working your way up the scale of "acceptance" and inevitably to blasphemous godhood.



So what your saying is that you dont bother actually teaching them what the Bible you exalt says. How do you claim to teach the same Doctrine as Paul when Paul clearly taught that he was teaching the Milk and not the Meat of the Gospel because people werent ready for it?



> What makes God, God?  He's not created.............He's pre-existed infinitely both in the past, present and future, not bound by time, yet for 33 human years He indeed constricted Himself in the incarnation of Christ to bring His human creation back into a wonderous, eternal relationship once again.



How can you pre exist in the future?




> The "red flags" of Mormon doctrine are everywhere.  Once a novice Mormon starts to receive the deeper teachings that would scare off one being initially proselytized, they are so immersed in the familial type bonding that often typifies cult practices, that questioning doctrine and using outside sources other than Mormon are considered wrong, and hurtful to the church.



And what type of deeper teachings do you think are so scary? This ought to be entertaining.




> I know that Truthspeaker........(Lord how I can't understand how a person calling themselves a Christian would use that moniker except God Himself, as it reeks of pride and arrogance.)........will go into his bunker mode and "I've answered all that in past posts, Eightball" mantra.............but the problem is.........He hasn't, because he retreats to Mormon doctrine to refute biblical doctrine.




He has addressed everything youve said before. So have I. But honestly, I dont mind doing it more. Maybe it's insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But maybe, just maybe, God will help somehow and make the result different.



> Now either God did a good job of protecting His Word to mankind via the Moses, Abraham, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Malachi, Solomon, David, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Paul, Peter, James.................etc.... because one of God's attributes is that He is OMNIPOTENT which seems conveniently brushed aside by Truth and his little family of Mormon apologists on this thread, or He, God, is WEAK, ANEMIC, UNWATCHFUL, DISTRACTED, UNCARING...........Thus we need this New, Improved, economy sized, gospel spawned from the over active imagination of one Joseph Smither Jr.. .



But according to you God was unable to protect His word to anyone else. Somehow God spoke to men in the past but its pure blasphemy to conclude that God is the same today as He was then. He had the power to speak to man then, but cant now. Right..

Keep dreaming.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, if Jews and Catholics are united on this issue of Mormon's posthumous Baptism of our dead, then there MUST be something to it.
> 
> Jews and Catholics haven't exactly gotten along too well since....well....Christ's Crucifixion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see why you would have a problem with it, unless you acknowledge that what we do *actually effects what happens in the afterlife*. If it doesn't, then there is no point being upset because we are wasting our time and resources.
> 
> You do understand that by being upset you are acknowledging we have the authority to change the course of someone's Eternal destiny by doing so. So the real question to ask is this: If we have the authority, where does it put you?
Click to expand...


Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].

The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.


----------



## Christopher

Oscar Wao said:


> Mormonism, how 'bout, NOT Christian.



Care to explain why you believe that?


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, if Jews and Catholics are united on this issue of Mormon's posthumous Baptism of our dead, then there MUST be something to it.
> 
> Jews and Catholics haven't exactly gotten along too well since....well....Christ's Crucifixion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see why you would have a problem with it, unless you acknowledge that what we do *actually effects what happens in the afterlife*. If it doesn't, then there is no point being upset because we are wasting our time and resources.
> 
> You do understand that by being upset you are acknowledging we have the authority to change the course of someone's Eternal destiny by doing so. So the real question to ask is this: If we have the authority, where does it put you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].
> 
> The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.
Click to expand...


We believe Jesus and Heavenly Father will judge each person.  The only thing we believe that baptisms for the dead affects after this life is whether the person baptized and Jesus accept it or not.

How is it we abrogate others' responsibilities exactly?  Were people who had no chance at a knowledge of Christ in this life responsible to somehow know to be baptized?


----------



## Liability

Can't remember if I used this one yet:

Just call me Angel of the Mormon, baby!

Did I?

Things always look a little different in the Mormon.


----------



## AquaAthena

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Truthspeaker, I am an agnostic and do not sit in judgment of anybody for their religious beliefs. Some people have thought me to be a Buddhist, because I follow much of their insightful reasoning and _wisdom,_ as I perceive that, but I am not one. I don't wish to be one, but I do try to be Buddha-like, only, and in some ways. I have been exposed for 18 years to 4 religions on a regular basis and have even sung in a church choir. I enjoyed those years and those experiences, but nothing can make me believe there is an afterlife. And I won't even discuss the subject after this post. We are all entitled to our beliefs and while some religions disagree with this, we have no right to impose our beliefs on others, in my opinion. 

I do wish to say something about the Mormon religion and many of it's followers, that is very positive. I lived in Salt Lake City for two years as a young teen. Everyone I met was a Mormon or a Jack Mormon. I loved them all. I had seen many happy families before moving there but had never seen "such" cohesive happy families as the Mormon family. I loved them all and had fun playing with them. Their parents were busy with their many children and I loved their parents who treated my brother and I just as their own. That made me feel very accepted.

I am from a family of music lovers, on both sides, and music is so very important to me. My father was  a classically trained opera singer ( as was my aunt ) and I grew up with that influence and with country/western music. ( South ) When we moved to Salt Lake City, where I learned to snow ski and ice skate, my Dad HAD to hear the beautiful music of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and for two years, every Sunday we went to the Mormon Tabernacle for that reason and so enjoyed the beautiful music and the famous "world's largest organ" both of which were nationally telecast. I would stand in awe of the Temple, at Temple Square, of which no one could enter but the most diligent Mormon and I respected that. We were from First Baptist/Methodist/Catholic backgrounds and experiences. I loved those too. Unless some one is abusing another, I think I love just about eveybody and Mother Nature. I respect our differences as much as I do our similarities. Humanity is one tribe.

Over a year ago, I cast my vote for Mitt Romney, for president and _one of the many _reasons was because of my experience with the Mormon family and their traditions. 

May we all seek understanding and may we all love,

Mermaid*


----------



## Bearman

I applaud your humanity AquaAthena, and I will acquiesce to your request not to discuss the subject of an Afterlife, thus I will no expect a response.  But I would graciously say with all the fervor and honesty of my heart say to you that i met thousands of Maori people on my mission, most of which were not members of my church, many of which were not even Christian, but of those people I met, above 95 % could share with me an experience with Spirits of either their family or loved ones past.  I wont badger any more, but I am a logical person, and the numbers speak for themselves.  THere is hope and there is proof.  THere is an afterlife and I know that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see why you would have a problem with it, unless you acknowledge that what we do *actually effects what happens in the afterlife*. If it doesn't, then there is no point being upset because we are wasting our time and resources.
> 
> You do understand that by being upset you are acknowledging we have the authority to change the course of someone's Eternal destiny by doing so. So the real question to ask is this: If we have the authority, where does it put you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].
> 
> The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe Jesus and Heavenly Father will judge each person.  The only thing we believe that baptisms for the dead affects after this life is whether the person baptized and Jesus accept it or not.
> 
> How is it we abrogate others' responsibilities exactly?  Were people who had no chance at a knowledge of Christ in this life responsible to somehow know to be baptized?
Click to expand...


Because that responsibility is not yours but that of the family of the deceased.  Go ask the family, and if they tell you 'no',  than you can place the responsibility on them.  To do otherwise is to practice unrighteous dominion in the name of God.  Have you no decency?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> You know full well that your Mormon doctrine does not venerate Jesus as "everything" as He is just a progression of an infinite number of gods, and saviors for an infinite prosession of planets......earth being just one of those infinite myriad of planets that are settled with new Adam and Eves who were good Mormons.



You know full well that we do not believe that. Stop putting your rubbish ideas as our doctrines.

A





> lso, we have all these little babies up there somewhere waiting for a Mommy and Daddy to procreate under the bed sheets and have one come down learn to be a good Mormon..........Right?



Wrong.



> When you include Joseph Smith Jr. in the same league or sentence with Jesus Christ.............your are making a con-man and sinner equal to the Son of God.......who is unique, and the only Son of God....   J.S. Jr. was a son too, but the son of a earthly sinner Dad who was a con artist who taught his sone J.S. jr. to be one also.



Here are the scriptures in the bible which clearly show that Jesus is not the only son of God. Don't misunderstand the term "Only Begotten" and "Only" as being the same.

Job 38:7  When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:





> Mormonism is on the apex of the con game made religious scale; second to none.  It's other "apex" feeders, would be Scientology, Watchtower/Jehovah's Witnesses, Bahai, Moonies, Unitarianism, apostles of Christ church, ...........the names of religions that have butchered the contextural integrity of the bible goes on and on.



When you make accusations, it is your responsibility to show examples.




> In an attempt to change the "gospel" message to a humanistically made "gospel" the LDS/Mormon church has exceeded incredibly.  It hides behind the innocent demeaner of Mom, Apple Pie, Conservatism, American flag, veneer.



Major Fail.

You're so out of touch. More members of our church live outside the US and have never seen a single episode of Leave it to Beaver. 




> The responses to the above statement is that "eightball" is a "hater" of Mormons.  Far from it.



I can really feel your love.



> On my father's side of the family are Mormons who help build the S.L.C. temple, and had heavy involvement in the early LDS movement.  Though my father was not Mormon, his Mormon mother's religion impacted him in a way that "naturally" lead him to Freemasonry, where he worked his way through all the Lodge chairs and became a Worshipful Master.  The finger prints of Masonry rituals are found all about secretive LDS temple rituals, as J.S. Jr. was a Freemason himself.



We've been through this. The Freemason ceremony is vastly different from the temple rites.



> If Mormonism is of God, why does it reek of humanistic and occult Freemasonry?


 It doesn't. We've been through this oh circular one.



> Why do the LDS undergarments reek of occult symbolism?



For reasons I am not at liberty to discuss. However your misunderstanding of the word occult leads you to use it in a negative sense. We have all been informed that the word cult is simply described as a system of exclusive beliefs or religious practices. So your religion is a cult too. Thank you everyone



> Read any part of the bible, and witchcraft/occult is forbidden to the nth degree and will be met with God's furious judgement if "said" participants don't walk away from it.


Fail again. The Bible does forbid witchcraft, as do we! However the word cult or occult is not found in the bible and there is nothing to forbid cults who follow Jesus.



> I feel so sorry for those neat clean-cut men and women that come to my door trying to proselytize me from my biblical, Christian faith.  They usually are with an elder or will have an elder come to you when you differ with their LDS statements and biblical interpretations that absolutely maim and slaughter the context of the bible to slant it towards the apostasy of Mormon doctrine.



Rejoice for us. Pity us not, for we are in the arms of Jesus.



> They want me to pray and ask God if Mormonism is the "truth".   The bible tells me that "exactly" who God is..............He was revealed in Jesus Christ Himself, but that isn't good enough, because this does not lead me to embrace Mormonism.  I must make sure I'm right by asking God to confirm or deny the validity of Mormonism as the "real" truth, that has "trumped" the "old, corrupted" truth contained in the bible.  I.E. the Book of Mormon was needed to make things straight as well as the Mormon books, "Pearl of Great Price", and the "Journal of Discourses" too.



You're still worshiping a man made book that was inspired of God but not written by God. Why do you continue to worship the Bible and ignore the possibility that God can speak in other ways. Also I've already explained that Journal of Discourses is not official doctrine.




> What was once just good old time religion with the Good Old book the bible has been redefined by the LDS church as a myriad of teachings, convoluted rewriting of North American history in relationship to human habitation.........mis-interpretations of the sacred Christian rite of baptism to include dead people who may or may not have been Christians at death.



Oh if only we could go back to the good ol day when there was only the Bible and along with that, persecutions, contentions, inquisitions and the like. Obviously the bible has all by itself brought peace to the whole world right? The Bible is a tool to help us gain salvation. Not gain it for us. Understand?



> Anyone remember Jesus' parable about the poor man and rich man Lazarus?  Jesus made it very clear in the parable that every human being had a time to believe on Him as their Savior from their sinful life, and it was not after one's physical/earthly death.  Yet Mormons go on and on baptising the dead.



I repeat we don't baptize dead people. only FOR the dead. For reasons which you refuse to accept. But that's fine. You don't have to agree with us. I'm not trying to prove you wrong or me right. but don't say we baptize the dead. that is completely different.





> There's a good chance that you a Catholic, Protestant, or non-denominational bible Christian have been baptized by the LDS church?  Yes!  They are saving your soul from your foul, unGodly, belief system that doesn't coincide with their Founder J.S. Jr. and their later church prophets.



I'll repeat. We baptize FOR the dead and on the other side the deceased can choose to accept or reject this ordinance. If we are wrong then these baptisms are meaningless. If we are right then it's a pretty good idea. We don't involve non mormons in this process.
******


> The bible clearly shows that the time of prophets ended with John the Baptist...........as Jesus came and fullfilled the Law as the sinless human, yet God in the flesh........the very nature and likeness of God, yet visual, touchable.


And that makes sense how?



> Jesus did not have siblings in the heavenly realm before His incarnation.  You will never find that in the bible, but you will find it in LDS teaching.  Can you imagine folks:  LDS teaching actually places Jesus with a sibling named Lucifer.  Lucifer might have been our Saviour on earth, but Jesus' and Lucifers' Dad chose Jesus to come down instead of Lucifer............................So Lucifer, Satan, the Devil...........really is such a bad dude afterall.  He's Jesus' blood brother.........from the same lineage.



you got it. What's the problem? And weren't you trying to say that Lucifer ISN'T such a bad guy? I don't know because you made a typo. Anyway Lucifer is a pretty bad dude since he decided not to follow Jesus and took a 3rd of God's spirit children with him to help tempt and deceive us here in this mortal life. I'd say that makes him the worst of all. Let's make that clear.



> Do you realize the impact of this?  Jesus in the bible says that He has pre-existed before time.  He said He is the Alpha and the Omega.........That is God my friends!  The beginning and the end!   Lucifer as clearly explained in the bible is a "created being".............an angel............a most formidable and powerful angel.



Neither them nor us were ever created out of nothing. We have existed as intelligences always. there has never been a time when any of us did not exist. However we have always had different stages in our development. To deep for you ?




> Lucifer is but a created being that has dwelt in the heavenly realm and was intended to be one of God's many angels who would serve Him, and do service to mankind according to God's will.  Lucifer was created with free-will and "chose" to raise himself above his Creator.  Seems ridiculous doesn't it, but when we choose to go are own way, and place God in a second class position or just plain, change God's truth and nature as He intended man to know Him, we walk on a very thin and tenuous rope.


We've been saying that all along.

******


> The answer is not a pile of conflicting books of discourses, and alleged inspired books by 19th and 20 century false prophets, but is contained in a very simple book called the Holy bible.  It contains 66 God inspired books written by many God inspired men over a period of several thousand years.


That's fine if you think the Bible is the only inspired document on the planet. We disagree. We'll see in the end won't we?



> It has spawned some of the greatest men and women over the century..........Martin Luther, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Michael Faraday(Father of the electric motor/generator), Washington Carver, many of our country's founders,


Spawned? That's sounds like something Aliens and Salmon do. Could you use a better verb?



> Billy Sunday, Billy Graham.................



Yeah right! Ok whatever you say.



> and the names of those that gave their lives to bring others blessing through medicine, science and inventions, pastoring and leading people to God's peace that passeth all understanding goes on and on and on..  They all just had the bible.................That's all.



Martin Luther was quoted as saying "God's true church is not on the earth at this time. I look forward to the day God brings back his authority."





> We don't need a religion that shrouds itself in good deeds, patriotism, and works



AMEN! We certainly don't need any more of that!



> that are motivated by trying to please a god that is just one of an infinite number of gods that are in turn just mere fleshly, sinful humans that got cleared for godhood by another god...........on and on and on.


One day you will learn knowledge and look back this day and laugh.



> Folks, when you scratch the veneer of Mormonis, it is not pretty.  You will find with simple research a past and present that is filled with doctrines that go cross-hairs to the Holy bible, and the very teachings of God.


Your opinion is just your opinion.



> It is a human-designed counterfeit of the true gospel, designed on the outside to project a syrupy sweet display to entice those looking for some meaning to life.............and often a belong-ness that the Mormons will certainly supply.



Thank you for more of your priceless opinion.



> Once in the LDS church they are gradually massaged along with introductions to the deeper teachings that reveal the true core of Mormonism.  This has to be done in order to not scare off new converts.


Stop this man at once! Release the hounds before he let's out the BIG SECRET!




> Not so with biblical Christianity.  It's all right out their in the open when you go to a true bible teaching church.


 Which church would that be according to you?







> The "red flags" of Mormon doctrine are everywhere.  Once a novice Mormon starts to receive the deeper teachings that would scare off one being initially proselytized, they are so immersed in the familial type bonding that often typifies cult practices, that questioning doctrine and using outside sources other than Mormon are considered wrong, and hurtful to the church.



At every level in our church, the most persistently heard admonishment is "Ask and ye shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened to you." We always say and I mean ALWAYS say: Ask God yourself in private. Don't take it from me.

******


> I know that Truthspeaker........(Lord how I can't understand how a person calling themselves a Christian would use that moniker except God Himself, as it reeks of pride and arrogance.)........will go into his bunker mode and "I've answered all that in past posts, Eightball" mantra.............but the problem is.........He hasn't, because he retreats to Mormon doctrine to refute biblical doctrine.


Although you're wrong, that's not the point. I don't care who's right or wrong about his religion. We aren't arguing that. However I do care about getting the facts straight. And I HAVE answered every one of your hundreds of attacks and faux questions in kind. Please as I have asked in the past. Let's go one at a time so I don't have to read your novels. what haven't I answered? My name is also irrelevant to the discussion. But I call myself this because you will all see at the last day that I wasn't lying.




> Now either God did a good job of protecting His Word to mankind via the Moses, Abraham, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Malachi, Solomon, David, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Paul, Peter, James.................etc.... because one of God's attributes is that He is OMNIPOTENT which seems conveniently brushed aside by Truth and his little family of Mormon apologists on this thread, or He, God, is WEAK, ANEMIC, UNWATCHFUL, DISTRACTED, UNCARING...........Thus we need this New, Improved, economy sized, gospel spawned from the over active imagination of one Joseph Smither Jr..



Just because you ignore the fact that men have interpolated parts of the Bible and the original Bible is missing and there is not one version of said Bible, doesn't mean that God is weak. It means that He allows us to act for ourselves. It also means that He is all powerful to the point that He doesn't NEED the Bible either. He can speak in many different ways. Most importantly through The Holy Ghost. The Bible is just one of MANY ways God can reach us and teach us. You would pin Him down to just a few pages. Look where that has gotten Christianity over the last 1000 years.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Joseph Fielding Smith, _Doctrines of Salvation _1:65-66 -  "No Neutrals In Heaven. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. ALL TOOK SIDES EITHER WITH CHRIST OR WITH SATAN. (Matt. 12:30; Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50; 11:23). Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits." [emphasis in original] [_my comment_: JFS, grandson of Hyrum Smith, son of Joseph F. Smith, and apostle and president of the LDS church over a plus-sixty year span).



At the time this was given. Blacks could not receive the priesthood. That generation of souls was placed here for God's reasons. If it was because they were less valiant then I don't have a problem with that. The truth is the truth even if it's not popular. Today this is not the case. Obviously they can hold the priesthood today and they were among the very MOST valiant today. Try not to argue with God when we don't have all the answers.



> Bruce R. McConkie, _Mormon Doctrine_, 1st ed - "There were, of course, no neutral spirits in the war in heaven, any more than there are or can be neutrals in this life where choices between righteousness and unrighteousness are involved. 'He that is not with me is against me,' saith the Lord, 'and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.' (Matt. 12:30; 1 Ne. 14:10; Alma 5:38-40)".  (_my comment:_ BRM, son-in-law of JFS, long time general authority of the LDS church, dying as a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.)


[/QUOTE]
Another true statement. You just fail to realize that today's blacks are in the most valiant class. Whites who were never offered the priesthood or exposed to it in the middle ages were in the same boat.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> Every year we were given directories of the chuch leadership, it always made me shake my head with how many white males ran the the LDS church. Since the quorum of the 70 was reinstated in 1976, there have been 201 men called to the 1st or 2nd quorum, of those numbers there have been...
> 
> 1 Native American
> 2 Africans
> 8 Asians
> 33 Hispanics
> 
> Pretty sad imo.
> 
> -TSO


God doesn't have an affirmative action quota. Let me quote one of my heroes:
"I look forward to the day when men will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King Jr.


----------



## Truthspeaker

emilynghiem said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the hell should us Catholics baptize our dead...?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any one should baptize their dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with "praying to bless" souls, either before during or after life.
> Since all spirit is connected, then sending good thoughts and prayers for healing and especially support for forgiveness, correction of past wrongs conflicts or divisions, and uplifting all souls is a positive force.
> 
> For Buddhists, the prayers on the anniversary of one's death are revered more than celebrating one's birthday, because it represents the soul's passing to higher spiritual realms, and the connection with future generations as well. So it provides strength for the entire family and heritage.
> 
> For Christians, if you believe Jesus descended into hell to reach all those souls across time and space who may not have had connection in Christian prayer, then the prayers for healing and salvation can still connect souls in the past and the future, through Christ, and include them in salvation also. Even if the sins that were not forgiven and resolved are carried by the future generations, the positive prayers help to heal those instead of repeating the same vicious cycle. So the souls can be saved even if the sins or karma is revisited on future generations until the cycle is broken through divine forgiveness and redemption in Christ.
> 
> So there are different cultural expressions of this same concept to pray for the souls of the dead in order to bring spiritual peace to all people, all generations, all humanity, joined by conscience or in Christ in loving harmony.
Click to expand...


Some things we agree on in your statement. Our ceremonies performing baptisms for the dead are a testament to our faith in Jesus Christ's ability to save everyone who ever lived. Even if they didn't get a chance to hear the gospel in their earthly state. 
Can we get everyone's baptism done for those who are deceased? No. But just remember the kid trying to throw the starfish back into the sea. It will all be worked out in the end. No need to fear.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Oscar Wao said:


> Mormonism, how 'bout, NOT Christian.



How bout our real name? The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].
> 
> The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.



In English please?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Can't remember if I used this one yet:
> 
> Just call me Angel of the Mormon, baby!
> 
> Did I?
> 
> Things always look a little different in the Mormon.



You are weird man. Thanks for the bump though I guess. could you maybe contribute next time?


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].
> 
> The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe Jesus and Heavenly Father will judge each person.  The only thing we believe that baptisms for the dead affects after this life is whether the person baptized and Jesus accept it or not.
> 
> How is it we abrogate others' responsibilities exactly?  Were people who had no chance at a knowledge of Christ in this life responsible to somehow know to be baptized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that responsibility is not yours but that of the family of the deceased.  Go ask the family, and if they tell you 'no',  than you can place the responsibility on them.  To do otherwise is to practice unrighteous dominion in the name of God.  Have you no decency?
Click to expand...


Typically, the names are submitted for baptism by one of the ancestors of the deceased.  So, you have no point.

For those who have requested the church not perform proxy baptisms for certain people, the church has listened.  So, we do have decency.

Yet, for me personally I never understood why someone would be upset about the church baptizing their ancestors.  If they do not believe it does anything, why be upset about it?  If the Catholics were to baptize by proxy any of my ancestors I would have no problem with it.


----------



## Christopher

AquaAthena said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker, I am an agnostic and do not sit in judgment of anybody for their religious beliefs. Some people have thought me to be a Buddhist, because I follow much of their insightful reasoning and _wisdom,_ as I perceive that, but I am not one. I don't wish to be one, but I do try to be Buddha-like, only, and in some ways. I have been exposed for 18 years to 4 religions on a regular basis and have even sung in a church choir. I enjoyed those years and those experiences, but nothing can make me believe there is an afterlife. And I won't even discuss the subject after this post. We are all entitled to our beliefs and while some religions disagree with this, we have no right to impose our beliefs on others, in my opinion.
> 
> I do wish to say something about the Mormon religion and many of it's followers, that is very positive. I lived in Salt Lake City for two years as a young teen. Everyone I met was a Mormon or a Jack Mormon. I loved them all. I had seen many happy families before moving there but had never seen "such" cohesive happy families as the Mormon family. I loved them all and had fun playing with them. Their parents were busy with their many children and I loved their parents who treated my brother and I just as their own. That made me feel very accepted.
> 
> I am from a family of music lovers, on both sides, and music is so very important to me. My father was  a classically trained opera singer ( as was my aunt ) and I grew up with that influence and with country/western music. ( South ) When we moved to Salt Lake City, where I learned to snow ski and ice skate, my Dad HAD to hear the beautiful music of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and for two years, every Sunday we went to the Mormon Tabernacle for that reason and so enjoyed the beautiful music and the famous "world's largest organ" both of which were nationally telecast. I would stand in awe of the Temple, at Temple Square, of which no one could enter but the most diligent Mormon and I respected that. We were from First Baptist/Methodist/Catholic backgrounds and experiences. I loved those too. Unless some one is abusing another, I think I love just about eveybody and Mother Nature. I respect our differences as much as I do our similarities. Humanity is one tribe.
> 
> Over a year ago, I cast my vote for Mitt Romney, for president and _one of the many _reasons was because of my experience with the Mormon family and their traditions.
> 
> May we all seek understanding and may we all love,
> 
> Mermaid*
Click to expand...


Thank you for your kind words here.  I completely agree with your last sentence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker does not speak all of the truth.  At times names are submitted without family members' knowledge and instead of believing but verifying, the LDS church baptizes anyway.  Already the Jewish groups have put the LDS church into a brouhaha twice.  I don't the issue is LDS administrative duplicity but sheer stupidness or anger or whatever by some church members.  End of story.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JenyEliza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, if Jews and Catholics are united on this issue of Mormon's posthumous Baptism of our dead, then there MUST be something to it.
> 
> Jews and Catholics haven't exactly gotten along too well since....well....Christ's Crucifixion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't see why you would have a problem with it, unless you acknowledge that what we do *actually effects what happens in the afterlife*. If it doesn't, then there is no point being upset because we are wasting our time and resources.
> 
> You do understand that by being upset you are acknowledging we have the authority to change the course of someone's Eternal destiny by doing so. So the real question to ask is this: If we have the authority, where does it put you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].
> 
> The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.
Click to expand...


Your logic is illogical? Seriously, that's the best you can come up with?

If what we do has no effect on the afterlife, then absolutely no one is hurt. If it does, they are blessed. Either way, there is absolutely no point for us to stop or for anyone to be upset over it.

You could do whatever the heck you want to me by proxy after I die. If you dont have any authority, your actions are meaningless.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].
> 
> The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In English please?
Click to expand...


In other words, he has nothing.


----------



## Liability

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't remember if I used this one yet:
> 
> Just call me Angel of the Mormon, baby!
> 
> Did I?
> 
> Things always look a little different in the Mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are weird man. Thanks for the bump though I guess. could you maybe contribute next time?
Click to expand...


I'll think about contributing overnight

and get back to you sometime, perhaps, in the Mormon.


----------



## Bearman

Just some food for thought for the group.  Where did the soul of man come from?  Why are we here? What steps are we to follow while we are here? And where are we going when we die?  I'll just chuck that out there to see if there are any misconceptions on IMPORTANT doctrinal issues that apply to us here and now.  Frankly, I'm getting quite bored with this mindless banter on a peripheral doctrine, such as baptism for the dead.  If we all understood the ultimate  core plan for our souls perhaps the extending issues would be resolved.


----------



## Liability

Everything looked different in the Mormon.

woke up this Mormon, and I wrote down this song
 -- just can't remember who to send it to.

I LOVE the smell of Napalm in the Mormon.
It smells like -- I don't know -- victory!


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker does not speak all of the truth.  At times names are submitted without family members' knowledge and instead of believing but verifying, the LDS church baptizes anyway.  Already the Jewish groups have put the LDS church into a brouhaha twice.  I don't the issue is LDS administrative duplicity but sheer stupidness or anger or whatever by some church members.  End of story.



Please explain where I did not speak all the truth.  By the way, I am Christopher, not Truthspeaker.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker does not speak all of the truth.  At times names are submitted without family members' knowledge and instead of believing but verifying, the LDS church baptizes anyway.  Already the Jewish groups have put the LDS church into a brouhaha twice.  I don't the issue is LDS administrative duplicity but sheer stupidness or anger or whatever by some church members.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain where I did not speak all the truth.  By the way, I am Christopher, not Truthspeaker.
Click to expand...


I was talking Truthspeaker to you.  And I will add Avatar as well.  Get it straight, sons.  The LDS church does not verify the names in a way that would eliminate this incredibly embarassing situation for your church.  JenyEliza is speaking, I believe, for the overwhelming majority of humanity when she says to you to stop being stupid.  You have been judged and found wanting.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Bearman said:


> Just some food for thought for the group.  Where did the soul of man come from?  Why are we here? What steps are we to follow while we are here? And where are we going when we die?  I'll just chuck that out there to see if there are any misconceptions on IMPORTANT doctrinal issues that apply to us here and now.  Frankly, I'm getting quite bored with this mindless banter on a peripheral doctrine, such as baptism for the dead.  If we all understood the ultimate  core plan for our souls perhaps the extending issues would be resolved.



I agree. Unfortunately most people are uninterested in core basic doctrines. It's not controversial or sexy enough. Hence, I am doomed to beat around the bush with so many on this board.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker does not speak all of the truth.  At times names are submitted without family members' knowledge and instead of believing but verifying, the LDS church baptizes anyway.  Already the Jewish groups have put the LDS church into a brouhaha twice.  I don't the issue is LDS administrative duplicity but sheer stupidness or anger or whatever by some church members.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain where I did not speak all the truth.  By the way, I am Christopher, not Truthspeaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking Truthspeaker to you.  And I will add Avatar as well.  Get it straight, sons.  The LDS church does not verify the names in a way that would eliminate this incredibly embarassing situation for your church.  JenyEliza is speaking, I believe, for the overwhelming majority of humanity when she says to you to stop being stupid.  You have been judged and found wanting.
Click to expand...


Your comments sound every bit as arrogant and irrelevant as those of Dwight Schrute, your poster boy. I could care less what such people think.


----------



## JakeStarkey

My comments are dismissive of your feelings, you mean, Truthspeaker.  They are truthful.  Your church's admin policy has failed.  Correct it, and the problem goes away.  Got problems with that?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> My comments are dismissive of your feelings, you mean, Truthspeaker.  They are truthful.  Your church's admin policy has failed.  Correct it, and the problem goes away.  Got problems with that?



Quick Jake! Your position has been triangulated. Must destroy phone and go dark in order to remain covert with your deep dark secrets about our church. Soon the Danites will be upon you!


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear JakeStarkey and Truthspeaker:
I agree with what both of you are saying.
Jake, nobody can abrogate your ultimate choice.
We can support one another, be our brothers' keeper, but in the end people have to "choose" to forgive in order to receive God's love and understanding more fully.
Nobody can take that step for anyone else. We can support it along the way, and yes we can make a difference if someone has enough support to forgive and receive.
But it is always up to them and their timing. So you are right, that we should emphasize this importance of taking individual steps that no one else can do for us.

I believe more like Truthspeaker seems to be saying, that it is good that we pray to bless all others to receive and be fully embraced and saved in the love of Christ Jesus.
I don't see how that can ever be wrong, as long as you are not attaching some unnatural spiritism to it like ill will or witchcraft which backfires on the person wishing the ill will.

When I read what Truthspeaker is saying, he is not trying to bypass or supercede any person or family's responsibility. Even praying for persons will help prepare that family to take the steps themselves and is not doing it for them.

When Truthspeaker prays for all others, without condition, then he is attracting and multiplying those same blessings for himself as well. What comes around goes around. So if there was something amiss in his prayers, it would come back and effect him as the person responsible for the fault.

Jake I am trying to see what you are saying, how you don't want to blindly pray or heal or teach that this can be done blindly by others; and you DO want to emphasize the importance of people and family responsibility. But after that, there is social and collective responsibility for the larger spiritual family, and we are all children of God as one humanity.

So on THAT level, these are our brothers and sisters we are praying for.
And from those prayers, YES I do agree that the closer family will also receive greater spiritual support to take their responsibilities that no one else can carry for them.

I see you are both right in your concerns and points.
I do not see a problem with what either of you are saying.

Thank you very much Gentlemen
and may that many more people be blessed and receive more spiritual support to do their part because of what you contribute with your prayers and wisdom in your words

Yours truly,
Emily



JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh, your logic is stupidly illogical.  "You do understand that being upset by [Aryan racial superiority doctrines] we have the authority to change the course of [assert whatever].
> 
> The issue is you have  no authority while at the same time you arrogantly abrogate others' family responsibilities.  Shame on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe Jesus and Heavenly Father will judge each person.  The only thing we believe that baptisms for the dead affects after this life is whether the person baptized and Jesus accept it or not.
> 
> How is it we abrogate others' responsibilities exactly?  Were people who had no chance at a knowledge of Christ in this life responsible to somehow know to be baptized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that responsibility is not yours but that of the family of the deceased.  Go ask the family, and if they tell you 'no',  than you can place the responsibility on them.  To do otherwise is to practice unrighteous dominion in the name of God.  Have you no decency?
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Emily, thanks for your calm and thoughtful words.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker does not speak all of the truth.  At times names are submitted without family members' knowledge and instead of believing but verifying, the LDS church baptizes anyway.  Already the Jewish groups have put the LDS church into a brouhaha twice.  I don't the issue is LDS administrative duplicity but sheer stupidness or anger or whatever by some church members.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain where I did not speak all the truth.  By the way, I am Christopher, not Truthspeaker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking Truthspeaker to you.  And I will add Avatar as well.  Get it straight, sons.  The LDS church does not verify the names in a way that would eliminate this incredibly embarassing situation for your church.  JenyEliza is speaking, I believe, for the overwhelming majority of humanity when she says to you to stop being stupid.  You have been judged and found wanting.
Click to expand...


What percent of the names submitted would you say have created this "situation"?  I said it was typical that names are submitted by their ancestors.


----------



## TheSuaveOne

Truthspeaker said:


> God doesn't have an affirmative action quota.



That's certainly true, however you'd think that at least one african american would have risen to the level of General Authority since 1976 in the LDS church.

-TSO


----------



## Avatar4321

TheSuaveOne said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't have an affirmative action quota.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly true, however you'd think that at least one african american would have risen to the level of General Authority since 1976 in the LDS church.
> 
> -TSO
Click to expand...


Well, then you clearly arent paying attention.


----------



## Liability

There's Got To Be a Mormon After!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain where I did not speak all the truth.  By the way, I am Christopher, not Truthspeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking Truthspeaker to you.  And I will add Avatar as well.  Get it straight, sons.  The LDS church does not verify the names in a way that would eliminate this incredibly embarassing situation for your church.  JenyEliza is speaking, I believe, for the overwhelming majority of humanity when she says to you to stop being stupid.  You have been judged and found wanting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What percent of the names submitted would you say have created this "situation"?  I said it was typical that names are submitted by their ancestors.
Click to expand...


The % submitted is not as important as the Jewish groups have officially complained twice.  The issue, I think, is not your GAs but rather the hardheadedness of some of your members.  If the problem has been resolved recently, then good for everybody.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking Truthspeaker to you.  And I will add Avatar as well.  Get it straight, sons.  The LDS church does not verify the names in a way that would eliminate this incredibly embarassing situation for your church.  JenyEliza is speaking, I believe, for the overwhelming majority of humanity when she says to you to stop being stupid.  You have been judged and found wanting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percent of the names submitted would you say have created this "situation"?  I said it was typical that names are submitted by their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The % submitted is not as important as the Jewish groups have officially complained twice.  The issue, I think, is not your GAs but rather the hardheadedness of some of your members.  If the problem has been resolved recently, then good for everybody.
Click to expand...


And I REPEAT..... IF as you claim we are a false religion, NOTHING we do has authority. Nothing when practiced MATTERS at all.

Further since Baptism by proxy for the Dead does not in fact baptism them at all, simply provides a choice for them to make on Judgement day there is nothing religiously happening wrong even if we do have authority.

Further yet, since WE view it as an act required by God, you will not convince us to stop anymore then we can convince you to stop actions you think are proper based on your teachings and beliefs.

You are acting out of FEAR. A fear that is not based on reality. A fear without any reason at all. According to you we are a cult, a false religion, we have no prophet and no connection to God. If you ACTUALLY believe that is true then anything we do is meaningless. Obviously you do NOT believe that or you would not be so wrapped up in meaningless rituals that have, according to you, no bases in power or fact.

The Jewish religion, Catholic religion, any religion that views us as false and REALLY believed it would have no problem with any of our false rituals and our false prophet. Thanks for proving we are NOT viewed as false.


----------



## emilynghiem

TheSuaveOne said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn't have an affirmative action quota.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's certainly true, however you'd think that at least one african american would have risen to the level of General Authority since 1976 in the LDS church.
> 
> -TSO
Click to expand...


Dear TSO: Being a "spiritual elder" does not always coincide with being a recognized leader in a formal hierarchy. The delegation of authority in a hierarchy, as opposed to more egalitarian or shared power in collective communities, is more a cultural construct.
It has been noted in intercultural mediation that Eurocentric cultures place a higher value on individualism and linear type structures and models; while Asian-American, African-American and Latin-American cultures tend to favor more community-based or holistic approaches to decision making "in relation" to the whole.

Once you introduce gender biases between male/female roles, or class divisions between capitalist management and workers, then the imbalances become even more imposed or pronounced but it becomes harder to distinguish where the biases are coming from in how we "value" people.

As for African American communities, I have found more women in positions of power and influence who did not take formal positions but work behind the scenes and get more done that way. Some might even fear to compromise their ability to work holistically and freely, and refuse taking on a hierarchical position that is caught in politics and bureaucracy and limits what they can do. You cannot always judge people's positions based on appearance.

Even the Bible warns that the elect will be fooled, and the meek are the ones who inherit the earth. "He who shall be chief of all shall be servant to all." So often you may find the truly universal and powerful people are the meek humble servants at the "bottom of the totem pole" who are unrestricted and free to serve all people that way. The true power, knowledge and influence is not always where it seems, you cannot always judge that way.

Yours truly,
Emily


----------



## JakeStarkey

RetiredGySgt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percent of the names submitted would you say have created this "situation"?  I said it was typical that names are submitted by their ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The % submitted is not as important as the Jewish groups have officially complained twice.  The issue, I think, is not your GAs but rather the hardheadedness of some of your members.  If the problem has been resolved recently, then good for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I REPEAT..... IF as you claim we are a false religion, NOTHING we do has authority. Nothing when practiced MATTERS at all.
> 
> Further since Baptism by proxy for the Dead does not in fact baptism them at all, simply provides a choice for them to make on Judgement day there is nothing religiously happening wrong even if we do have authority.
> 
> Further yet, since WE view it as an act required by God, you will not convince us to stop anymore then we can convince you to stop actions you think are proper based on your teachings and beliefs.
> 
> You are acting out of FEAR. A fear that is not based on reality. A fear without any reason at all. According to you we are a cult, a false religion, we have no prophet and no connection to God. If you ACTUALLY believe that is true then anything we do is meaningless. Obviously you do NOT believe that or you would not be so wrapped up in meaningless rituals that have, according to you, no bases in power or fact.
> 
> The Jewish religion, Catholic religion, any religion that views us as false and REALLY believed it would have no problem with any of our false rituals and our false prophet. Thanks for proving we are NOT viewed as false.
Click to expand...


The issue is not so much as false but rather as unauthorized to conduct such ceremonies.

If you are truly about families, RGS, then respect their wishes and move on.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking Truthspeaker to you.  And I will add Avatar as well.  Get it straight, sons.  The LDS church does not verify the names in a way that would eliminate this incredibly embarassing situation for your church.  JenyEliza is speaking, I believe, for the overwhelming majority of humanity when she says to you to stop being stupid.  You have been judged and found wanting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percent of the names submitted would you say have created this "situation"?  I said it was typical that names are submitted by their ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The % submitted is not as important as the Jewish groups have officially complained twice.  The issue, I think, is not your GAs but rather the hardheadedness of some of your members.  If the problem has been resolved recently, then good for everybody.
Click to expand...


The percentage is only important to give perspective and so that the situation is not blown out of proportion.  Yes, some members have been over zealous and bypassed the churchs requirements established in 1995 when the Jewish community first discussed the situation with the Mormon church.  The church has done and is continuing to do all it can to remedy the situation.  The fault really lies with a few members and not the church itself.
Now, here is a great article from a prominent Jew and what he had to say about the whole situation.  This is a very good read and explains my position exactly about why this situation should not be a concern in the first place.  The Mormons are Jews' brothers | Deseret News
Here are some highlights (bold emphasis added):


> I could not care less if the Mormons baptize me after I'm dead. It won't affect me. I'll always be a Jew, in this life and the next. *If this is part of Mormon practice and belief, and they do it in the privacy of their own ritual, and it doesn't affect me in the slightest, why should I care?* People's beliefs are their own business. It's how they treat others that is everyone's business. What I care about is how much the Mormons support Israel today, not what they do with Jewish souls in what they regard as the afterlife. Far from being my sentiment alone, this is a pivotal Jewish teaching: It is the action (and not dogma) which is most important.
> 
> The Mormons are our brothers; the Christians are our kin. So long as they support and defend the Jewish people through their current persecution, that will always be so, whatever their beliefs, and we owe them our gratitude.


----------



## TheSuaveOne

I wonder how Mormons would feel if other religions baptised by proxy them after death?

Joseph Smith the Muslim
Brigham Young the Buddist
Gordon B. Hinkley the Catholic

-TSO


----------



## Christopher

TheSuaveOne said:


> I wonder how Mormons would feel if other religions baptised by proxy them after death?
> 
> Joseph Smith the Muslim
> Brigham Young the Buddist
> Gordon B. Hinkley the Catholic
> 
> -TSO



I've already said I would have no problem with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percent of the names submitted would you say have created this "situation"?  I said it was typical that names are submitted by their ancestors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The % submitted is not as important as the Jewish groups have officially complained twice.  The issue, I think, is not your GAs but rather the hardheadedness of some of your members.  If the problem has been resolved recently, then good for everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The percentage is only important to give perspective and so that the situation is not blown out of proportion.  Yes, some members have been over zealous and bypassed the churchs requirements established in 1995 when the Jewish community first discussed the situation with the Mormon church.  The church has done and is continuing to do all it can to remedy the situation.  The fault really lies with a few members and not the church itself.
> Now, here is a great article from a prominent Jew and what he had to say about the whole situation.  This is a very good read and explains my position exactly about why this situation should not be a concern in the first place.  The Mormons are Jews' brothers | Deseret News
> Here are some highlights (bold emphasis added):
> 
> 
> 
> I could not care less if the Mormons baptize me after I'm dead. It won't affect me. I'll always be a Jew, in this life and the next. *If this is part of Mormon practice and belief, and they do it in the privacy of their own ritual, and it doesn't affect me in the slightest, why should I care?* People's beliefs are their own business. It's how they treat others that is everyone's business. What I care about is how much the Mormons support Israel today, not what they do with Jewish souls in what they regard as the afterlife. Far from being my sentiment alone, this is a pivotal Jewish teaching: It is the action (and not dogma) which is most important.
> 
> The Mormons are our brothers; the Christians are our kin. So long as they support and defend the Jewish people through their current persecution, that will always be so, whatever their beliefs, and we owe them our gratitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting that the problem exists.

Also thank you for admitting the church offices are trying to corral the offenders.

What one individual above believes about it is as valuable as anybody else's and as worthless.  If you are about families, then corral the offensive ones.


----------



## Truthspeaker

TheSuaveOne said:


> I wonder how Mormons would feel if other religions baptised by proxy them after death?
> 
> Joseph Smith the Muslim
> Brigham Young the Buddist
> Gordon B. Hinkley the Catholic
> 
> -TSO



Wouldn't bother me in the least.


----------



## Liability

I woke up this Mormon and I wrote down this song
I just can't remember who to send it to


----------



## Truthspeaker

Been a while since we had any discussion. I wonder when Liability will contribute more than a mere play on words suggesting that "morning" and "mormon" sound similar.


----------



## Avatar4321

TheSuaveOne said:


> I wonder how Mormons would feel if other religions baptised by proxy them after death?
> 
> Joseph Smith the Muslim
> Brigham Young the Buddist
> Gordon B. Hinkley the Catholic
> 
> -TSO



They have no authority. Why would I care?

Even if they did, they would end up saving them, and that's bad because?

Either there they have no authority and the exercise is pointless, or they do have authority and they are bringing Eternal Salavation. I don't see a scenario where this is bad.

BTW, it would also help with the genealogical records and I might have an easier time with my family history. So even if their ritual means nothing, i might still be benefited. As well as anyone else who is interested.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Avatar4321 said:


> TheSuaveOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how Mormons would feel if other religions baptised by proxy them after death?
> 
> Joseph Smith the Muslim
> Brigham Young the Buddist
> Gordon B. Hinkley the Catholic
> 
> -TSO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have no authority. Why would I care?
> 
> Even if they did, they would end up saving them, and that's bad because?
> 
> Either there they have no authority and the exercise is pointless, or they do have authority and they are bringing Eternal Salavation. I don't see a scenario where this is bad.
> 
> BTW, it would also help with the genealogical records and I might have an easier time with my family history. So even if their ritual means nothing, i might still be benefited. As well as anyone else who is interested.
Click to expand...


Yup, the whole "you are a cult and have a false Prophet" would seem to say to me they do not believe we are a real religion. Since we are not, according to them, a real religion and have absolutely no authority or power, WHY does it bother them what FAKE ceremonies and rituals we do inside our temples. Well as long as we are not murdering people.


----------



## eots

Truthspeaker said:


> Been a while since we had any discussion. I wonder when Liability will contribute more than a mere play on words suggesting that "morning" and "mormon" sound similar.



don't hold your breath..he is a bit of a one trick pony


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well see what happens when I disappear for two weeks. No discussion at all


----------



## Truthspeaker

Does anyone here remember any particular missionaries that knocked on their door?


----------



## froggy

Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Dr Grump

Truthspeaker said:


> Well see what happens when I disappear for two weeks. No discussion at all



Bummer, thought this thread had finally died....like it deserved to....


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Does anyone here remember any particular missionaries that knocked on their door?



Absolutely!  They always leave a little shakey from visiting my door.

Introducing them to straight old biblical scripture, seems to give'em the old "deer in the headlights" reaction everytime.

I'm polite, I listen to them, and I discourse with them.

The ground rules with me is that the bible is the final Word.


----------



## Liability

I have been VERY remiss.  I have not bumped this thread in many a day.

My bad.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone here remember any particular missionaries that knocked on their door?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!  They always leave a little shakey from visiting my door.
> 
> Introducing them to straight old biblical scripture, seems to give'em the old "deer in the headlights" reaction everytime.
> 
> I'm polite, I listen to them, and I discourse with them.
> 
> The ground rules with me is that the bible is the final Word.
Click to expand...


So, what punishment do you think should be meted out for wearing a cotton/poly shirt?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You again? This again? Really?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr Grump said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well see what happens when I disappear for two weeks. No discussion at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bummer, thought this thread had finally died....like it deserved to....
Click to expand...


Not gonna die. Why do you care anyway, you have contributed nothing to the thread?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Absolutely!  They always leave a little shakey from visiting my door.


What were their names? I doubt there was any spiritual or physical shaking.



> Introducing them to straight old biblical scripture, seems to give'em the old "deer in the headlights" reaction everytime.


Introduced? that's rich.



> I'm polite, I listen to them, and I discourse with them.



Sure you do.



> The ground rules with me is that the bible is the final Word.



We know...I guess maybe they all leave your door and shake to the extent of shaking their heads in bewilderment at your strange stubbornness.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Re geographic distribution of Lehi's seed in the New World.  Several pooh pooh'd the idea that the LDS church would have to be moving to a much more limited geography for the children of Lehi in the new world, instead of the general belief that the Native Americans are all their descedents.  I told the nay sayers they were wrong.  Any interested can read at Debate on Mormons' geographic origins heats up | Religion | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Re geographic distribution of Lehi's seed in the New World.  Several pooh pooh'd the idea that the LDS church would have to be moving to a much more limited geography for the children of Lehi in the new world, instead of the general belief that the Native Americans are all their descedents.  I told the nay sayers they were wrong.  Any interested can read at Debate on Mormons' geographic origins heats up | Religion | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle



The United States East of the Mississippi?  But there are no archeological ruins there to indicate there have ever been cities prior to modern times.  

Moreover, where is the "narrow neck of land"?


----------



## Truthspeaker

First, we need to be careful as to when and how we use the word evidence. Evidence is not judgment. It is not final. Not even in a court of law. God knows. 

As to evidence of cites, it is mountainous. The topography discussed in detail matches identically with Meso America. There are many who have jumped to conclusions which have not been revealed. both parties are guilty of this. What is completely conclusive is that the results are not entirely conclusive. So what's the point of the argument? That's not the point of this thread. Those who want to believe one way will find "evidences" of their point of view. There is so much for both sides that really the only way to truly know is to pray for revelation privately and personally.

and btw, the book of mormon description of the "narrow neck of land" is not the Panama Isthmus as many had previously thought. Because of the description of the seas in the text as being "sea west", "sea east", "Sea North", and "Sea South". the only place for that to be possible would be the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico/Guatemala. Joseph Smith knew little of this geography as an unlearned farm boy, yet somehow seemed to hit every evidencial nail on the head, so to speak.


----------



## Truthspeaker

We also need to be careful when ascribing the words of Joseph Smith to any geographical implications. The few things he did say about what happened to descendants of Lehi in the heartland area were of names of men not mentioned in the Book of Mormon therefore suggesting they may not have happened in the same time or place as book of mormon peoples. People such as Onandagus and Zelph were not mentioned in the Book of Mormon but were at least descended from those people. The book of mormon itself claims that "not even a hundredth part" of the doings of the children of Lehi were recorded. 

Later when he described "Central America" he was referring specifically to the book of Mormon. 

but again. It is irrelevant to our current discussion. It's a separate debate altogether.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks to you two for demonstrating that your earlier comments in this thread are merely speculative and that a change in geographical distribution of Lehi's descendents will be coming from your church's historians.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks to you two for demonstrating that your earlier comments in this thread are merely speculative and that a change in geographical distribution of Lehi's descendents will be coming from your church's historians.



I've said all along that the comments were speculative. However in light of the evidence shown, my opinion is that Book of Mormon events took place largely in Mesoamerica. Revelation on exact locations of cities is not on the priority list of God's revelations. He has much more pertinent information to reveal. We can connect those scientific dots on our own. But He wants us to focus on building character and keeping his commandments more than focusing on trivia.

We could know all the exact locations and he could unearth all the ancient artifacts we could ask for  but still that wouldn't help any of his children come home to Him. Knowledge is trivia. Faith leads back to Heavenly Father and eternal certainty. You can't learn any faith from knowledge.


----------



## Dr Gregg

"joseph smith found a golden tab, dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb"


----------



## Douger

I like Mormons.
Myself ? I'm a moron.
Marie swallows, so I'm good with that.


----------



## Dr Gregg

Douger said:


> I like Mormons.
> Myself ? I'm a moron.
> Marie swallows, so I'm good with that.



They are really good people. I know someone who wasn't even a mormon and when his dad got very sick when he was a kid, all the mormons in the neighborhood came over to help out taking care of the kids, cooking meals, etc.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re geographic distribution of Lehi's seed in the New World.  Several pooh pooh'd the idea that the LDS church would have to be moving to a much more limited geography for the children of Lehi in the new world, instead of the general belief that the Native Americans are all their descedents.  I told the nay sayers they were wrong.  Any interested can read at Debate on Mormons' geographic origins heats up | Religion | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States East of the Mississippi?  But there are no archeological ruins there to indicate there have ever been cities prior to modern times.
> 
> Moreover, where is the "narrow neck of land"?
Click to expand...


There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to you two for demonstrating that your earlier comments in this thread are merely speculative and that a change in geographical distribution of Lehi's descendents will be coming from your church's historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said all along that the comments were speculative. However in light of the evidence shown, my opinion is that Book of Mormon events took place largely in Mesoamerica. Revelation on exact locations of cities is not on the priority list of God's revelations. He has much more pertinent information to reveal. We can connect those scientific dots on our own. But He wants us to focus on building character and keeping his commandments more than focusing on trivia.
> 
> We could know all the exact locations and he could unearth all the ancient artifacts we could ask for  but still that wouldn't help any of his children come home to Him. Knowledge is trivia. Faith leads back to Heavenly Father and eternal certainty. You can't learn any faith from knowledge.
Click to expand...


Then "the glory of God is knowledge" is trivia.  Got it.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re geographic distribution of Lehi's seed in the New World.  Several pooh pooh'd the idea that the LDS church would have to be moving to a much more limited geography for the children of Lehi in the new world, instead of the general belief that the Native Americans are all their descedents.  I told the nay sayers they were wrong.  Any interested can read at Debate on Mormons' geographic origins heats up | Religion | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States East of the Mississippi?  But there are no archeological ruins there to indicate there have ever been cities prior to modern times.
> 
> Moreover, where is the "narrow neck of land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.
Click to expand...


Yep, and double-yep.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re geographic distribution of Lehi's seed in the New World.  Several pooh pooh'd the idea that the LDS church would have to be moving to a much more limited geography for the children of Lehi in the new world, instead of the general belief that the Native Americans are all their descedents.  I told the nay sayers they were wrong.  Any interested can read at Debate on Mormons' geographic origins heats up | Religion | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States East of the Mississippi?  But there are no archeological ruins there to indicate there have ever been cities prior to modern times.
> 
> Moreover, where is the "narrow neck of land"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.
Click to expand...


No archaeological evidence? Really? Again? Really? My how in just a few short weeks some can forget amazing things like:
1.horse bones dated to book of mormon times
2. Egyptian figurines found in Guatemala dated to Book of Mormon times.
3. Mayan culture said to have started around 500 BC(Nat. Geo. 2009) coincidentally similar to Book of Mormon times.
4. Archaeological sites dating to Book of Mormon times.
5. Quetzalcoatl legend exactly the same as Jesus christ's appearance in Book of Mormon.
6. Bedouin Arab literary writing style found in Joseph's writings.
7. The Lachish letters
8. The fortress of Lachish
9. The mound builders
10. Stella 5' vision of the tree of life
11. The Toltec Calendar stone(please call me out on it)
12. 12 steps leading to Mayan temples pinnacle representing the 12  disciples of Quetzalcoatl.
13.Algonkin legend of "Chee Zoos" sounds remarkably like Jesus
14. The statement of "steel bow" as described by Nephi.
15. Swords "stained" as indicated in the Book of Mormon.
16. Ritual of human sacrifice accurately described by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Mesoamerican history.
17. Accurate path described through Arabian dessert by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Bedouin culture and Arabian topography or geography.
18. The grave of Ishmael.
19. The Kentucky Egyptian style Mummies found
20. Every ancient pyramid built in America.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to you two for demonstrating that your earlier comments in this thread are merely speculative and that a change in geographical distribution of Lehi's descendents will be coming from your church's historians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said all along that the comments were speculative. However in light of the evidence shown, my opinion is that Book of Mormon events took place largely in Mesoamerica. Revelation on exact locations of cities is not on the priority list of God's revelations. He has much more pertinent information to reveal. We can connect those scientific dots on our own. But He wants us to focus on building character and keeping his commandments more than focusing on trivia.
> 
> We could know all the exact locations and he could unearth all the ancient artifacts we could ask for  but still that wouldn't help any of his children come home to Him. Knowledge is trivia. Faith leads back to Heavenly Father and eternal certainty. You can't learn any faith from knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then "the glory of God is knowledge" is trivia.  Got it.
Click to expand...


don't go down a slippery slope now... We all know that man can be saved no faster than he gains knowledge. but trivial knowledge is different from eternal knowledge. Knowing when a rock from a castle is carbon dated is not going to give you a full knowledge of the people who once lived there. 

Only if you excercise faith and test God, will he undoubtedly confirm knowledge to you. There are lots of things we can learn on our own. But they are all trivial if they don't teach us how to gain salvation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dr Gregg said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like Mormons.
> Myself ? I'm a moron.
> Marie swallows, so I'm good with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are really good people. I know someone who wasn't even a mormon and when his dad got very sick when he was a kid, all the mormons in the neighborhood came over to help out taking care of the kids, cooking meals, etc.
Click to expand...


There's a method to the "madness"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States East of the Mississippi?  But there are no archeological ruins there to indicate there have ever been cities prior to modern times.
> 
> Moreover, where is the "narrow neck of land"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No archaeological evidence? Really? Again? Really? My how in just a few short weeks some can forget amazing things like:
> 1.horse bones dated to book of mormon times
> 2. Egyptian figurines found in Guatemala dated to Book of Mormon times.
> 3. Mayan culture said to have started around 500 BC(Nat. Geo. 2009) coincidentally similar to Book of Mormon times.
> 4. Archaeological sites dating to Book of Mormon times.
> 5. Quetzalcoatl legend exactly the same as Jesus christ's appearance in Book of Mormon.
> 6. Bedouin Arab literary writing style found in Joseph's writings.
> 7. The Lachish letters
> 8. The fortress of Lachish
> 9. The mound builders
> 10. Stella 5' vision of the tree of life
> 11. The Toltec Calendar stone(please call me out on it)
> 12. 12 steps leading to Mayan temples pinnacle representing the 12  disciples of Quetzalcoatl.
> 13.Algonkin legend of "Chee Zoos" sounds remarkably like Jesus
> 14. The statement of "steel bow" as described by Nephi.
> 15. Swords "stained" as indicated in the Book of Mormon.
> 16. Ritual of human sacrifice accurately described by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Mesoamerican history.
> 17. Accurate path described through Arabian dessert by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Bedouin culture and Arabian topography or geography.
> 18. The grave of Ishmael.
> 19. The Kentucky Egyptian style Mummies found
> 20. Every ancient pyramid built in America.
Click to expand...


None of that is evidence, because none of it support the speculation.  Just doesn't work.  Don't believe me, then talk to the folks at archaeology at BYU, speaker, because you are dead wrong.  Move along.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States East of the Mississippi?  But there are no archeological ruins there to indicate there have ever been cities prior to modern times.
> 
> Moreover, where is the "narrow neck of land"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, and double-yep.
Click to expand...


Ok wise guy, so you do realize their is no scientific evidence of the exodus right? Not a single shard. Not a single chariot has been found at the bottom of the red sea. No egyptian artifacts. Nothing left behind by the Jews in 40 years of desert roaming. How do you justify to the secular minded person that it ever did happen?

I have my justifications. What are yours?  Hear me now! all who have ears to hear or eyes to read. 8-ball will refuse to answer this question. It would take a true miracle for him to directly respond to this statement.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks, truthspeaker, for admitting that you are running on faith alone.  That's OK, as long as you admit instead of play the pseudo-scientific games you simply can't win.  Faith away!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No archaeological evidence? Really? Again? Really? My how in just a few short weeks some can forget amazing things like:
> 1.horse bones dated to book of mormon times
> 2. Egyptian figurines found in Guatemala dated to Book of Mormon times.
> 3. Mayan culture said to have started around 500 BC(Nat. Geo. 2009) coincidentally similar to Book of Mormon times.
> 4. Archaeological sites dating to Book of Mormon times.
> 5. Quetzalcoatl legend exactly the same as Jesus christ's appearance in Book of Mormon.
> 6. Bedouin Arab literary writing style found in Joseph's writings.
> 7. The Lachish letters
> 8. The fortress of Lachish
> 9. The mound builders
> 10. Stella 5' vision of the tree of life
> 11. The Toltec Calendar stone(please call me out on it)
> 12. 12 steps leading to Mayan temples pinnacle representing the 12  disciples of Quetzalcoatl.
> 13.Algonkin legend of "Chee Zoos" sounds remarkably like Jesus
> 14. The statement of "steel bow" as described by Nephi.
> 15. Swords "stained" as indicated in the Book of Mormon.
> 16. Ritual of human sacrifice accurately described by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Mesoamerican history.
> 17. Accurate path described through Arabian dessert by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Bedouin culture and Arabian topography or geography.
> 18. The grave of Ishmael.
> 19. The Kentucky Egyptian style Mummies found
> 20. Every ancient pyramid built in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of that is evidence, because none of it support the speculation.  Just doesn't work.  Don't believe me, then talk to the folks at archaeology at BYU, speaker, because you are dead wrong.  Move along.
Click to expand...


And yet you didn't address a single one of those 20 points I brought up. How many more do you need? You don't have a clue how to respond to any of them so you just deflect. Great job You should be a dodgeball player and not a debater.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No archaeological evidence? Really? Again? Really? My how in just a few short weeks some can forget amazing things like:
> 1.horse bones dated to book of mormon times
> 2. Egyptian figurines found in Guatemala dated to Book of Mormon times.
> 3. Mayan culture said to have started around 500 BC(Nat. Geo. 2009) coincidentally similar to Book of Mormon times.
> 4. Archaeological sites dating to Book of Mormon times.
> 5. Quetzalcoatl legend exactly the same as Jesus christ's appearance in Book of Mormon.
> 6. Bedouin Arab literary writing style found in Joseph's writings.
> 7. The Lachish letters
> 8. The fortress of Lachish
> 9. The mound builders
> 10. Stella 5' vision of the tree of life
> 11. The Toltec Calendar stone(please call me out on it)
> 12. 12 steps leading to Mayan temples pinnacle representing the 12  disciples of Quetzalcoatl.
> 13.Algonkin legend of "Chee Zoos" sounds remarkably like Jesus
> 14. The statement of "steel bow" as described by Nephi.
> 15. Swords "stained" as indicated in the Book of Mormon.
> 16. Ritual of human sacrifice accurately described by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Mesoamerican history.
> 17. Accurate path described through Arabian dessert by a farmboy who had less than zero knowledge of Bedouin culture and Arabian topography or geography.
> 18. The grave of Ishmael.
> 19. The Kentucky Egyptian style Mummies found
> 20. Every ancient pyramid built in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is evidence, because none of it support the speculation.  Just doesn't work.  Don't believe me, then talk to the folks at archaeology at BYU, speaker, because you are dead wrong.  Move along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you didn't address a single one of those 20 points I brought up. How many more do you need? You don't have a clue how to respond to any of them so you just deflect. Great job You should be a dodgeball player and not a debater.
Click to expand...


They are only a list, truth, nothing more: no evidence, no connections, no nothing.  Just a bunch of words not linked to support, son.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks, truthspeaker, for admitting that you are running on faith alone.  That's OK, as long as you admit instead of play the pseudo-scientific games you simply can't win.  Faith away!



I think you think I'm talking about the exodus of Lehi and his company from Jerusalem to the New World. I was clearly, however, talking about the famous exodus led by Moses through the red sea and the 40 years of wilderness wandering.

I officially stated that like bread alone, I do not live by faith alone. I have knowledge of what church's teachings claim.

I'm not trying to tear down anyone else's religion. Simply stating that I know mine is true. You should all feel the same way about your religions. Even the religion of irreligion.


----------



## Valerie

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and double-yep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok wise guy, *so you do realize there is no scientific evidence of the exodus right? Not a single shard. *Not a single chariot has been found at the bottom of the red sea. No egyptian artifacts. Nothing left behind by the Jews in 40 years of desert roaming. How do you justify to the secular minded person that it ever did happen?
> 
> I have my justifications. What are yours?  Hear me now! all who have ears to hear or eyes to read. 8-ball will refuse to answer this question. It would take a true miracle for him to directly respond to this statement.
Click to expand...








>

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is evidence, because none of it support the speculation.  Just doesn't work.  Don't believe me, then talk to the folks at archaeology at BYU, speaker, because you are dead wrong.  Move along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you didn't address a single one of those 20 points I brought up. How many more do you need? You don't have a clue how to respond to any of them so you just deflect. Great job You should be a dodgeball player and not a debater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are only a list, truth, nothing more: no evidence, no connections, no nothing.  Just a bunch of words not linked to support, son.
Click to expand...


Which one would you like me to support with links first? Please call me out on each and every one of them one at a time. Which one first?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Valerie said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and double-yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok wise guy, *so you do realize there is no scientific evidence of the exodus right? Not a single shard. *Not a single chariot has been found at the bottom of the red sea. No egyptian artifacts. Nothing left behind by the Jews in 40 years of desert roaming. How do you justify to the secular minded person that it ever did happen?
> 
> I have my justifications. What are yours?  Hear me now! all who have ears to hear or eyes to read. 8-ball will refuse to answer this question. It would take a true miracle for him to directly respond to this statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> 
> IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt
Click to expand...


Very interesting. I skimmed through the site and would be happy to read it later since it is so long. Do you know where these artifacts were found? When were they found? If it was very recently then you would see my point. For thousands of years this evidence was not known to science. But as time goes by, the faith of those who always believed is ratified. some may have even known although the scientific evidence may not have been found. Much of the Scientific community would still dismiss this evidence as inconclusive, even if it is evidenciary.

Now with these shards and stellae being used as evidence for the Bible, why wouldn't the same type of evidence be admitted for the Book of Mormon? I can show pictures and stellae as well for the book of mormon. More and more will continue to manifest themselves to the point where The Book of Mormon will become undeniable. But sadly, by then it will be too late. for faith was never excercised.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Go ahead and show the connections scientifically if you can, truth.  That is all anyone can ask for.  But please don't think lists make evidence.


----------



## nraforlife

Y'all claim Joseph Smith as a Prophet. True? Turns out the bulk of his 'prophecy' turned out to be hot air. Sooooo then are you surprised that he ended up getting what God Says should be dealt to false prophets?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence, period, to clearly indicate any support for BoM geography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and double-yep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok wise guy, so you do realize their is no scientific evidence of the exodus right? Not a single shard. Not a single chariot has been found at the bottom of the red sea. No egyptian artifacts. Nothing left behind by the Jews in 40 years of desert roaming. How do you justify to the secular minded person that it ever did happen?
> 
> I have my justifications. What are yours?  Hear me now! all who have ears to hear or eyes to read. 8-ball will refuse to answer this question. It would take a true miracle for him to directly respond to this statement.
Click to expand...


Oh...........we can't find the Egyptian Army stuff in the Red or "Reed" Sea area?   Oh........here we go with the "Straw Man" defense.

Biblical archeology has been unearthing myriads of artifacts in the Middle East that substantiate both OT and NT historicity.

Not one little iota of substantiated evidence confirming Book of Mormon ancient N. American/S. American historicity is or has been found.

Faith?...........Faith needs to be based on evidences or sound data.  Both Jewish, Christian, and secular archeology has proven over and over again the accuracy of the OT and NT accounts.  

You pick the chariots of the Red Sea exodus and it's "non find" as a defense for an entire religion with not one iota of creedence or support for it's book of faith............Namely the "book of Mormon".

One episode in the OT that archeological evidence hasn't unearthed, to defend an entire history of and you use that as your defense?  

This is laughable if it wasn't so sad...................Truth.....You fill the perfect qualifications of a cultist.  You believe, because you "want" to believe...........Faith is based on evidences, or proofs.

The bible is the most published/printed piece of literary work in the world.  

Wonder why?  I'm sure you have a good old Mormon defense for that statistic.  

I trully believe that one day Truth, you will see the light, and it will be the kind of light that is substantiated by the Word of God.

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God..."Not by burning bosums, dreams, nor asking the Mormon "g"od if "h"e is the real and true "G"od.


Celestial sex(Mormon teaching)...................77 Virgins to ravage(Islamic teaching).?????????????????????????????????  Hmmm?...similar finger or foot prints.  Wonder who author'd this striking similarity............?


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and double-yep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok wise guy, so you do realize their is no scientific evidence of the exodus right? Not a single shard. Not a single chariot has been found at the bottom of the red sea. No egyptian artifacts. Nothing left behind by the Jews in 40 years of desert roaming. How do you justify to the secular minded person that it ever did happen?
> 
> I have my justifications. What are yours?  Hear me now! all who have ears to hear or eyes to read. 8-ball will refuse to answer this question. It would take a true miracle for him to directly respond to this statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh...........we can't find the Egyptian Army stuff in the Red or "Reed" Sea area?   Oh........here we go with the "Straw Man" defense.
> 
> Biblical archeology has been unearthing myriads of artifacts in the Middle East that substantiate both OT and NT historicity.
> 
> Not one little iota of substantiated evidence confirming Book of Mormon ancient N. American/S. American historicity is or has been found.
> 
> Faith?...........Faith needs to be based on evidences or sound data.  Both Jewish, Christian, and secular archeology has proven over and over again the accuracy of the OT and NT accounts.
> 
> You pick the chariots of the Red Sea exodus and it's "non find" as a defense for an entire religion with not one iota of creedence or support for it's book of faith............Namely the "book of Mormon".
> 
> One episode in the OT that archeological evidence hasn't unearthed, to defend an entire history of and you use that as your defense?
> 
> This is laughable if it wasn't so sad...................Truth.....You fill the perfect qualifications of a cultist.  You believe, because you "want" to believe...........Faith is based on evidences, or proofs.
> 
> The bible is the most published/printed piece of literary work in the world.
> 
> Wonder why?  I'm sure you have a good old Mormon defense for that statistic.
> 
> I trully believe that one day Truth, you will see the light, and it will be the kind of light that is substantiated by the Word of God.
> 
> Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God..."Not by burning bosums, dreams, nor asking the Mormon "g"od if "h"e is the real and true "G"od.
> 
> 
> Celestial sex(Mormon teaching)...................77 Virgins to ravage(Islamic teaching).?????????????????????????????????  Hmmm?...similar finger or foot prints.  Wonder who author'd this striking similarity............?
Click to expand...


Well, there is some evidence for some of the stories in the Bible, as you said.  At least part of the Exodus story, for example, is based on real history,  although some  was made up after the children of Israel were taken to Babylon.

Other stories in the Bible, particularly in the OT are simply stories.  The notion that there could have actually been a universal flood, for example, is not something to be taken as historical fact.  There are remains of chariots, of course, but none at the bottom of the Red Sea.  Much of the Bible is simply tall tales and fables.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok wise guy, so you do realize their is no scientific evidence of the exodus right? Not a single shard. Not a single chariot has been found at the bottom of the red sea. No egyptian artifacts. Nothing left behind by the Jews in 40 years of desert roaming. How do you justify to the secular minded person that it ever did happen?
> 
> I have my justifications. What are yours?  Hear me now! all who have ears to hear or eyes to read. 8-ball will refuse to answer this question. It would take a true miracle for him to directly respond to this statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...........we can't find the Egyptian Army stuff in the Red or "Reed" Sea area?   Oh........here we go with the "Straw Man" defense.
> 
> Biblical archeology has been unearthing myriads of artifacts in the Middle East that substantiate both OT and NT historicity.
> 
> Not one little iota of substantiated evidence confirming Book of Mormon ancient N. American/S. American historicity is or has been found.
> 
> Faith?...........Faith needs to be based on evidences or sound data.  Both Jewish, Christian, and secular archeology has proven over and over again the accuracy of the OT and NT accounts.
> 
> You pick the chariots of the Red Sea exodus and it's "non find" as a defense for an entire religion with not one iota of creedence or support for it's book of faith............Namely the "book of Mormon".
> 
> One episode in the OT that archeological evidence hasn't unearthed, to defend an entire history of and you use that as your defense?
> 
> This is laughable if it wasn't so sad...................Truth.....You fill the perfect qualifications of a cultist.  You believe, because you "want" to believe...........Faith is based on evidences, or proofs.
> 
> The bible is the most published/printed piece of literary work in the world.
> 
> Wonder why?  I'm sure you have a good old Mormon defense for that statistic.
> 
> I trully believe that one day Truth, you will see the light, and it will be the kind of light that is substantiated by the Word of God.
> 
> Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God..."Not by burning bosums, dreams, nor asking the Mormon "g"od if "h"e is the real and true "G"od.
> 
> 
> Celestial sex(Mormon teaching)...................77 Virgins to ravage(Islamic teaching).?????????????????????????????????  Hmmm?...similar finger or foot prints.  Wonder who author'd this striking similarity............?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is some evidence for some of the stories in the Bible, as you said.  At least part of the Exodus story, for example, is based on real history,  although some  was made up after the children of Israel were taken to Babylon.
> 
> Other stories in the Bible, particularly in the OT are simply stories.  The notion that there could have actually been a universal flood, for example, is not something to be taken as historical fact.  There are remains of chariots, of course, but none at the bottom of the Red Sea.  Much of the Bible is simply tall tales and fables.
Click to expand...


Much of the OT is indeed myth and creation stories for an explanation of an unique people.  I suggest that much of the BoM "is simply tall tales and fables," but a story that I nevertheless enjoy reading.  JS has always gotten the short end when it comes to his credit and the BoM.


----------



## Sublimating

Why do Mormons try to convert Christians, I mean what do they think Christians need to do other have faith in Christ, repent and be baptized and born again of the holy spirit and follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Do they teach that there are some other requirements and if so what are they? 

I have more questions but I'll start with this one.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Go ahead and show the connections scientifically if you can, truth.  That is all anyone can ask for.  But please don't think lists make evidence.



I suggest you look up the definition of evidence.

Evidence doesn't have to be strong or overwhelming in order to be evidence. In fac,t evidence can be fairly weak. But weak evidence is evidence nonetheless.

Here I am not assessing any part of the list TS provided. Quite honestly, I don't particularly care about it. My decision to believe in Jesus Christ and His Church comes because of the Whisperings of the Holy Ghost and not due to archaelogy. I've seen more than enough in my own researching to convince me it's correct.

However, i hate when people pretend as though evidence doesnt exist simply because they don't believe it. It's dishonest. So I figured I'd speak up.


----------



## Avatar4321

nraforlife said:


> Y'all claim Joseph Smith as a Prophet. True? Turns out the bulk of his 'prophecy' turned out to be hot air. Sooooo then are you surprised that he ended up getting what God Says should be dealt to false prophets?



I've found his prophecies have been fairly accurate. How many people predicted where the beginning of the Civil War happened 30 years before it starts? How many people knew Stephen A Douglas would seek to become President and be crushed if he spoke evil of the Saints 20 years before it happened? Or prophecied that the Book of Enoch would decades before it was found? Or accurately predict their death?

Then, of course, there are the Book of Mormon prophecies. Which, while technically not made by Joseph, if he made the book up, he was pretty lucky with as accurate as they are.

I've also found that most people who say that his prophecies havent been fulfilled are generally mistaken as to what a prophecy, when a prophecy is conditional, and completely ignore when it's been fulfilled.

But hey. Belieive what you want. Ill trust what the Lord has told me and what I've read for myself.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Oh...........we can't find the Egyptian Army stuff in the Red or "Reed" Sea area?   Oh........here we go with the "Straw Man" defense.



Stop using straw men then.



> Biblical archeology has been unearthing myriads of artifacts in the Middle East that substantiate both OT and NT historicity.



Sighs. You don't get it do you? Archaelogy doesnt prove jack. It can't prove the resurrection and that's one of the center points of the Gospel.

No one disputes that the places mentioned in the Bible are real. Why would they? It's an ancient document. Finding sites doesnt prove it any more than finding the sites in the Oddysey prove that the greek gods existed.

No. Evidence of the scriptures must come from the Spirit of Truth. How else can you know the Doctrine of Christ if not by the whispering of the Holy Spirit? You think archaelogy can prove the Doctrine of Christ? I don't. You don't know the Doctrines until you have lived them and searched through them. You learn of the Spirit by the Spirit.



> Not one little iota of substantiated evidence confirming Book of Mormon ancient N. American/S. American historicity is or has been found.



Keep telling yourself that. Let's just ignore NHM and Bountiful. 



> Faith?...........Faith needs to be based on evidences or sound data.  Both Jewish, Christian, and secular archeology has proven over and over again the accuracy of the OT and NT accounts.



Show me the archaelogy that has proved the Resurrection. I dont think you can. Yet it is real. It's more real than anything archaelogy can every substantiate.



> You pick the chariots of the Red Sea exodus and it's "non find" as a defense for an entire religion with not one iota of creedence or support for it's book of faith............Namely the "book of Mormon".



Not one iota of creedence or support? I understand disagreeing with it. But why lie about it? You don't have to believe the evidence, but pretending it isnt there is just dishonest.



> One episode in the OT that archeological evidence hasn't unearthed, to defend an entire history of and you use that as your defense?



That one episode shows the complete inconsistancy in your argument. You want to say that it's true despite being archaelogy hasnt been unearth. Yet you want to say the Book of Mormon isn't true because Archaelogy hasnt been unearthed (completely untrue, but that's still your argument). 

You can't have it both ways. Arguments from silence don't prove anything is untrue, It just proves we dont have enough information.

But then as I've pointed out, you still have the NHM and Bountiful issues that you pretend don't exist. How does a 24 year old with no formal education describe a route through Arabia perfectly including names and descriptions of places that actually exist and that were completely unknown at the time it was written? I haven't heard a credible answer to that.



> This is laughable if it wasn't so sad...................Truth.....You fill the perfect qualifications of a cultist.  You believe, because you "want" to believe...........Faith is based on evidences, or proofs.



Faith is a gift from God the Father. It comes from knowing His will and having the courage to live it. It doesnt come from any sort of science.



> The bible is the most published/printed piece of literary work in the world.



Completely irrelevant. Besides, I dont read the Bible because it's a literary work. I read it because it contains the words of Christ.



> Wonder why?  I'm sure you have a good old Mormon defense for that statistic.



Doesnt take a rocket scientist to link the fact that Christian societies were the first ones to really use the printing press and the Bible was the book that most Christians would want to read. Not to mention that the Bible was made available to literate people for nearly 300 years more than the Book of Mormon.

Not to mention the Book of Mormon encourages it's readers to read the Bible. 

As I've said your point is completely irrelevant and easy to understand with some common sense analysis. 







> I trully believe that one day Truth, you will see the light, and it will be the kind of light that is substantiated by the Word of God.



And I believe that one day you will see the Light. Because you just aren't getting it right now. And it has nothing to do with your belief or lack of belief in the Book of Mormon and your complete reliance



> Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God..."Not by burning bosums, dreams, nor asking the Mormon "g"od if "h"e is the real and true "G"od.



You really should read Luke sometime.



> Celestial sex(Mormon teaching)...................77 Virgins to ravage(Islamic teaching).?????????????????????????????????  Hmmm?...similar finger or foot prints.  Wonder who author'd this striking similarity............?



What exactly is evil about sex?


----------



## Avatar4321

Sublimating said:


> Why do Mormons try to convert Christians, I mean what do they think Christians need to do other have faith in Christ, repent and be baptized and born again of the holy spirit and follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Do they teach that there are some other requirements and if so what are they?
> 
> I have more questions but I'll start with this one.



I think you've summed them up rather succinctly. Exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Repent of your sins. Be baptized by water and recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost as done in the NT.

But recieving the Holy Ghost is only the beginning of our walk with Christ. It seems silly to accept Christ and then when He wants to bless you with more, you tell Him "No, I have enough." Id like everything God wants to bless me with. And that is what the Church of Jesus Christ does. We invite people to walk closer to Christ. We are trying to help bad men become good and good men become better. Christ raises the standard of living for people.

If God wants to give you more scripture, why fight it? Why wouldnt you want every single revelation from God you can get your hands on? I want to know Christ. And I want to learn as much as i can from reading and through personal experiences with Him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You already have all blessings in Christ, Avatar, if you are a true believer.  No church or priesthood needs to mediate between man and god.  His grace is sufficient for each and every one of us.

Beforre you get started on grace, you better understand election and sanctification.


----------



## nraforlife

Avatar4321 said:


> ........................
> I've found his prophecies have been fairly accurate. How many people predicted where the beginning of the Civil War happened 30 years before it starts? ..............QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The prophecy given 25 December 1832 reads:
> 
> 1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
> 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
> 3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
> 4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
> 5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
> 6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
> 7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
> 8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen. (D&C 87:1-8) *
> 
> 
> this is what the JS 'prophecy' was referring to. Old JS was just indulging in a bit of newspaper fueled pontificating which turned out 99.9% wrongunless spun at more than 100,000,000 rpm
> 
> *On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office in order to run for the Senate where he could more effectively defend nullification[4], Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most northerners and half of the southerners in Congress.[5] The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and in November 1832 a state convention declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state.[6] In late February both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina were passed by Congress. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 11, 1833.*
> 
> Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sublimating

Avatar4321 said:


> Sublimating said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Mormons try to convert Christians, I mean what do they think Christians need to do other have faith in Christ, repent and be baptized and born again of the holy spirit and follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Do they teach that there are some other requirements and if so what are they?
> 
> I have more questions but I'll start with this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you've summed them up rather succinctly. Exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Repent of your sins. Be baptized by water and recieve the Gift of the Holy Ghost as done in the NT.
> 
> But recieving the Holy Ghost is only the beginning of our walk with Christ. It seems silly to accept Christ and then when He wants to bless you with more, you tell Him "No, I have enough." Id like everything God wants to bless me with. And that is what the Church of Jesus Christ does. We invite people to walk closer to Christ. We are trying to help bad men become good and good men become better. Christ raises the standard of living for people.
> 
> If God wants to give you more scripture, why fight it? Why wouldnt you want every single revelation from God you can get your hands on? I want to know Christ. And I want to learn as much as i can from reading and through personal experiences with Him.
Click to expand...


I would never refuse the blessings of Christ. I read everyday and pray. I also attend church services as much as my health allows. I've been doing great since I was born again but I ran into some Mormons who implied that I wasn't doing all that the father would have me do. Just curious...thanks.


----------



## Sublimating

JakeStarkey said:


> You already have all blessings in Christ, Avatar, if you are a true believer.  No church or priesthood needs to mediate between man and god.  His grace is sufficient for each and every one of us.
> 
> Beforre you get started on grace, you better understand election and sanctification.


Is this what Mormons teach...that Christians need another man or a priest?  Kind of like being Catholic...?


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........................
> I've found his prophecies have been fairly accurate. How many people predicted where the beginning of the Civil War happened 30 years before it starts? ..............QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The prophecy given 25 December 1832 reads:
> 
> 1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
> 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
> 3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
> 4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
> 5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
> 6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
> 7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
> 8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen. (D&C 87:1-8) *
> 
> 
> this is what the JS 'prophecy' was referring to. Old JS was just indulging in a bit of newspaper fueled pontificating which turned out 99.9% wrongunless spun at more than 100,000,000 rpm
> 
> *On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office in order to run for the Senate where he could more effectively defend nullification[4], Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most northerners and half of the southerners in Congress.[5] The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and in November 1832 a state convention declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state.[6] In late February both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina were passed by Congress. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 11, 1833.*
> 
> Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  How many other Americans were predicting Civil War in 1832 as the South was once again acting stupid?  JS was one of many talking about right then, not 29 years in the future.  Your context historically is wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sublimating said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already have all blessings in Christ, Avatar, if you are a true believer.  No church or priesthood needs to mediate between man and god.  His grace is sufficient for each and every one of us.
> 
> Beforre you get started on grace, you better understand election and sanctification.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what Mormons teach...that Christians need another man or a priest?  Kind of like being Catholic...?
Click to expand...


In an alternate universe sort of way as the Catholics, but I certainly don't doubt the sincerity of either LDS or Catholics.  Nice people, bad people, just like the rest of us.


----------



## Sublimating

JakeStarkey said:


> Sublimating said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already have all blessings in Christ, Avatar, if you are a true believer.  No church or priesthood needs to mediate between man and god.  His grace is sufficient for each and every one of us.
> 
> Beforre you get started on grace, you better understand election and sanctification.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what Mormons teach...that Christians need another man or a priest?  Kind of like being Catholic...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In an alternate universe sort of way as the Catholics, but I certainly don't doubt the sincerity of either LDS or Catholics.  Nice people, bad people, just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...


OK, so they believe in having priest... what do the priest do ...? Also someone told me Mormons don't like blacks ...?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The LDS relations about black were a bit slower than other denominations but eventually evolved.

Don't pretend that American white denominations were all hunky-dory with black attendance and clergy in those white denominations from the get-go.


----------



## Truthspeaker

nraforlife said:


> Y'all claim Joseph Smith as a Prophet. True? Turns out the bulk of his 'prophecy' turned out to be hot air. Sooooo then are you surprised that he ended up getting what God Says should be dealt to false prophets?



Says the man full of hot air with a reputation to boot. Would you like to discuss or merely accuse?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have been waiting for Avatar to post evidence rather than hot air myself.


----------



## Sky Dancer

I like the series Big Love.  It presents the Mormon faith in a pretty positive light most of the time.  Primetime soap opera about Buddhists would be pretty boring.


----------



## Eightball

Sky Dancer said:


> I like the series Big Love.  It presents the Mormon faith in a pretty positive light most of the time.  Primetime soap opera about Buddhists would be pretty boring.



In a positive light??????  How so?

If anything it shows the deep-rooted dicotomy of that faith.

People still holding to plural marriage as blessed by their early prophets........?  

The crazy ramifications of multiple spouses, and multiple pulls on the male spouse to meet the needs sexually, emotionally of the female spouses in total...........?

Of course this was amended by a special message from "holy father" to later prophets...................Just like the allowing of the Negroid race human being/Mormon finally being allowed to partake in their priesthood......?

Joseph Smith's prophecy about the Civil War.................What a "no brainer"................There wasn't an American many years before the Civil War, that did have premonitions that there would be a major split in our country over slavery, state's rights, and the extent of federal control.............

So Joseph Smith made what most Americans knew would be happening in the next few years..............."A Prophecy".  

My Lord!


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Joseph Smith's prophecy about the Civil War.................What a "no brainer"................There wasn't an American many years before the Civil War, that did have premonitions that there would be a major split in our country over slavery, state's rights, and the extent of federal control.............
> 
> So Joseph Smith made what most Americans knew would be happening in the next few years..............."A Prophecy".
> 
> My Lord!



Really? Which is why it was of course decried as ludicrous before the Civil war happened. 

And Joseph just so happened to describe exactly where and what conditions would be present when it started.

Or that it would be the first of the great wars that devestated the world in the last days. And, of course, it was with industrialization.

I think its obvious that we are facing a civil war soon if we dont turn away from the path we are currently on. The majority seems to think that's crazy. You honestly think everyone was just like "Oh wow, Josephs so obviously right that a civil war is going to start in South Carolina between the North and South." 

In reality, your excuse that "everyone knew" is already an admission that he was correct.


----------



## Liability

I have been remiss.

I have failed in my obligation to regularly bump this thread.

Belated bumpage!


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith's prophecy about the Civil War.................What a "no brainer"................There wasn't an American many years before the Civil War, that did have premonitions that there would be a major split in our country over slavery, state's rights, and the extent of federal control.............
> 
> So Joseph Smith made what most Americans knew would be happening in the next few years..............."A Prophecy".
> 
> My Lord!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Which is why it was of course decried as ludicrous before the Civil war happened.
> 
> And Joseph just so happened to describe exactly where and what conditions would be present when it started.
> 
> Or that it would be the first of the great wars that devestated the world in the last days. And, of course, it was with industrialization.
> 
> I think its obvious that we are facing a civil war soon if we dont turn away from the path we are currently on. The majority seems to think that's crazy. You honestly think everyone was just like "Oh wow, Josephs so obviously right that a civil war is going to start in South Carolina between the North and South."
> 
> In reality, your excuse that "everyone knew" is already an admission that he was correct.
Click to expand...


Your are so brainwashed............It's pitiful!  You can't think for yourself...............your straight LDS talking points.............without a bit of your own logic or reason.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JS was making a common prediction based on the nullification crisis, South Carolina's obstinancy, and Andrew Jackson's willingness to crush any rebellion against the Union.  Smith was predicting a short-term crisis in 1832, not one 29 years later.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> JS was making a common prediction based on the nullification crisis, South Carolina's obstinancy, and Andrew Jackson's willingness to crush any rebellion against the Union.  Smith was predicting a short-term crisis in 1832, not one 29 years later.



I.E..........His alleged prophecies were........"No Brainers"..........or out in "left field"?  ...............Kinda like trying to convince his "duped" cliental in New York that there was Spanish gold to be found in New York if they would only put they're confidence($$$$) in him and his father.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball, your contention is a possibility, but you can't prove it.  Other possibilities exist: JS was delusional, JS had bi-polarism (which is at times  characterized by hyper-sexuality), JS was a prophet.

My point here is this: this claim of Smith's in 1832 was a mainstream belief, nothing unusual at all.  If he had said this will happen in "April 1862 in the great and spacious bay known as Charleston," then we should all pay closer attention I would admit.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball, your contention is a possibility, but you can't prove it.  Other possibilities exist: JS was delusional, JS had bi-polarism (which is at times  characterized by hyper-sexuality), JS was a prophet.
> 
> My point here is this: this claim of Smith's in 1832 was a mainstream belief, nothing unusual at all.  If he had said this will happen in "April 1862 in the great and spacious bay known as Charleston," then we should all pay closer attention I would admit.



Beg to differ, Starkey........on one point of your post...........

Joseph Smith meets the total biblical criteria of a "false prophet".


----------



## amrchaos

Liability said:


> I have been remiss.
> 
> I have failed in my obligation to regularly bump this thread.
> 
> Belated bumpage!



I have a question for yu

Why are you bumping this thread?  Are you a mormon?

So far, it seems that Truthspeaker is doing fine in mainstreaming Mormonism with his posts.  I no longer see them as a bunch of cookie cutters and kids in white shirts and dress slacks riding around on bikes trying to spread the faith.

Now I see them as another group of crazy Christians!!   Right up there between the Baptists and the Catholics.  

Stop denouncing alcohol, Mormons!! 
_Some of us need a hard drink every now and then_​


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball, your contention is a possibility, but you can't prove it.  Other possibilities exist: JS was delusional, JS had bi-polarism (which is at times  characterized by hyper-sexuality), JS was a prophet.
> 
> My point here is this: this claim of Smith's in 1832 was a mainstream belief, nothing unusual at all.  If he had said this will happen in "April 1862 in the great and spacious bay known as Charleston," then we should all pay closer attention I would admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beg to differ, Starkey........on one point of your post...........
> 
> Joseph Smith meets the total biblical criteria of a "false prophet".
Click to expand...


According to your interp of scriptures, yes, I understand you believe that.


----------



## Liability

amrchaos said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been remiss.
> 
> I have failed in my obligation to regularly bump this thread.
> 
> Belated bumpage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for yu
> 
> Why are you bumping this thread?  Are you a mormon?
> 
> So far, it seems that Truthspeaker is doing fine in mainstreaming Mormonism with his posts.  I no longer see them as a bunch of cookie cutters and kids in white shirts and dress slacks riding around on bikes trying to spread the faith.
> 
> Now I see them as another group of crazy Christians!!   Right up there between the Baptists and the Catholics.
> 
> Stop denouncing alcohol, Mormons!!
> _Some of us need a hard drink every now and then_​
Click to expand...


No,  I am of above average IQ.

Huh?

Oh.  MorMon.  

Well, gee; that's different, isn't it?

Why am I bumping this thread?

Because it deserves bumpage.

I have always seen Mormons as an odd offshoot of the Christian faith.

I am not very religious, but I am not as disdainful of the religious beliefs of others as you seem to be (if we don't count Muslims, that is).

Islam is an *entirely* fucked-up fraudulently based "religion."


----------



## Truthspeaker

sublimating said:


> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> you already have all blessings in christ, avatar, if you are a true believer.  No church or priesthood needs to mediate between man and god.  His grace is sufficient for each and every one of us.
> 
> Beforre you get started on grace, you better understand election and sanctification.
> 
> 
> 
> is this what mormons teach...that christians need another man or a priest?  Kind of like being catholic...?
Click to expand...


no


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........................
> I've found his prophecies have been fairly accurate. How many people predicted where the beginning of the Civil War happened 30 years before it starts? ..............QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The prophecy given 25 December 1832 reads:
> 
> 1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
> 2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
> 3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
> 4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.
> 5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.
> 6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;
> 7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
> 8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen. (D&C 87:1-8) *
> 
> 
> this is what the JS 'prophecy' was referring to. Old JS was just indulging in a bit of newspaper fueled pontificating which turned out 99.9% wrongunless spun at more than 100,000,000 rpm
> 
> *On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office in order to run for the Senate where he could more effectively defend nullification[4], Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most northerners and half of the southerners in Congress.[5] The reductions were too little for South Carolina, and in November 1832 a state convention declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. Military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement were initiated by the state.[6] In late February both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina were passed by Congress. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 11, 1833.*
> 
> Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  How many other Americans were predicting Civil War in 1832 as the South was once again acting stupid?  JS was one of many talking about right then, not 29 years in the future.  Your context historically is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sorry, Jake,
> but to call first shots in south Carolina and the whole slaves vs. Masters thing is just too scarily accurate for me. Anything else anyone says about the matter is just subjective.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sublimating said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sublimating said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this what Mormons teach...that Christians need another man or a priest?  Kind of like being Catholic...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In an alternate universe sort of way as the Catholics, but I certainly don't doubt the sincerity of either LDS or Catholics.  Nice people, bad people, just like the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, so they believe in having priest... what do the priest do ...? Also someone told me Mormons don't like blacks ...?
Click to expand...


Our religion is growing faster in Africa than anywhere else. I think we really like black people


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith's prophecy about the Civil War.................What a "no brainer"................There wasn't an American many years before the Civil War, that did have premonitions that there would be a major split in our country over slavery, state's rights, and the extent of federal control.............
> 
> So Joseph Smith made what most Americans knew would be happening in the next few years..............."A Prophecy".
> 
> My Lord!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Which is why it was of course decried as ludicrous before the Civil war happened.
> 
> And Joseph just so happened to describe exactly where and what conditions would be present when it started.
> 
> Or that it would be the first of the great wars that devestated the world in the last days. And, of course, it was with industrialization.
> 
> I think its obvious that we are facing a civil war soon if we dont turn away from the path we are currently on. The majority seems to think that's crazy. You honestly think everyone was just like "Oh wow, Josephs so obviously right that a civil war is going to start in South Carolina between the North and South."
> 
> In reality, your excuse that "everyone knew" is already an admission that he was correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your are so brainwashed............It's pitiful!  You can't think for yourself...............your straight LDS talking points.............without a bit of your own logic or reason.
Click to expand...


 I've really missed the free entertainment I get from you 8-ball. You never cease to amaze me with your baseless comments. To predict that the south would specifically call on Great Britain is "obviously something everyone knew" 30 years in advance. Oh right, because the people were so progressive and so ready for equal rights as a whole back then right? 

Please gimme a break. Break me off a piece of that


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball, your contention is a possibility, but you can't prove it.  Other possibilities exist: JS was delusional, JS had bi-polarism (which is at times  characterized by hyper-sexuality), JS was a prophet.
> 
> My point here is this: this claim of Smith's in 1832 was a mainstream belief, nothing unusual at all.  If he had said this will happen in "April 1862 in the great and spacious bay known as Charleston," then we should all pay closer attention I would admit.



Ok so then we shouldn't pay much attention to prophecies in the Bible because they don't contain specific dates? this is what you are telling us to do!

Sorry, but I don't buy it. None of the Bible prophecies are narrowed down the way you would like them to be by month and year. So I'm going to be a watchful learner and not dismiss the prophecies like a foolish virgin.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball, your contention is a possibility, but you can't prove it.  Other possibilities exist: JS was delusional, JS had bi-polarism (which is at times  characterized by hyper-sexuality), JS was a prophet.
> 
> My point here is this: this claim of Smith's in 1832 was a mainstream belief, nothing unusual at all.  If he had said this will happen in "April 1862 in the great and spacious bay known as Charleston," then we should all pay closer attention I would admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beg to differ, Starkey........on one point of your post...........
> 
> Joseph Smith meets the total biblical criteria of a "false prophet".
Click to expand...


Which would be?........


----------



## Truthspeaker

amrchaos said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been remiss.
> 
> I have failed in my obligation to regularly bump this thread.
> 
> Belated bumpage!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for yu
> 
> Why are you bumping this thread?  Are you a mormon?
> 
> So far, it seems that Truthspeaker is doing fine in mainstreaming Mormonism with his posts.  I no longer see them as a bunch of cookie cutters and kids in white shirts and dress slacks riding around on bikes trying to spread the faith.
> 
> Now I see them as another group of crazy Christians!!   Right up there between the Baptists and the Catholics.
> 
> Stop denouncing alcohol, Mormons!!
> _Some of us need a hard drink every now and then_​
Click to expand...


That's funny. But we won't be able to acquiesce your request. Cheers


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball, your contention is a possibility, but you can't prove it.  Other possibilities exist: JS was delusional, JS had bi-polarism (which is at times  characterized by hyper-sexuality), JS was a prophet.
> 
> My point here is this: this claim of Smith's in 1832 was a mainstream belief, nothing unusual at all.  If he had said this will happen in "April 1862 in the great and spacious bay known as Charleston," then we should all pay closer attention I would admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so then we shouldn't pay much attention to prophecies in the Bible because they don't contain specific dates? this is what you are telling us to do!
> 
> Sorry, but I don't buy it. None of the Bible prophecies are narrowed down the way you would like them to be by month and year. So I'm going to be a watchful learner and not dismiss the prophecies like a foolish virgin.
Click to expand...


Nobody carries what you think about this, truthspeaker.  You want to defend the prophecy, but you refuse to do so in its historical context, something we are able to do far more clearly in this day and age.  Your interp is one of several possibilities, and does not fit the most logical one.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball, your contention is a possibility, but you can't prove it.  Other possibilities exist: JS was delusional, JS had bi-polarism (which is at times  characterized by hyper-sexuality), JS was a prophet.
> 
> My point here is this: this claim of Smith's in 1832 was a mainstream belief, nothing unusual at all.  If he had said this will happen in "April 1862 in the great and spacious bay known as Charleston," then we should all pay closer attention I would admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so then we shouldn't pay much attention to prophecies in the Bible because they don't contain specific dates? this is what you are telling us to do!
> 
> Sorry, but I don't buy it. None of the Bible prophecies are narrowed down the way you would like them to be by month and year. So I'm going to be a watchful learner and not dismiss the prophecies like a foolish virgin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody carries what you think about this, truthspeaker.  You want to defend the prophecy, but you refuse to do so in its historical context, something we are able to do far more clearly in this day and age.  Your interp is one of several possibilities, and does not fit the most logical one.
Click to expand...


Of course we disagree, but that's ok.

I think the historical context in which I view the prophecy was right on. But I think it's irrelevant anyway because of how far in advance he predicted it and what great detail he described about the events and how they would happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks, Truth, for ignoring my poor spirit on this one.  I believe you are wrong because of your faith leaning,  not because you less than honest from whence you reason.

I will point out that many thought it would begin in 1832 or the next year, and almost everyone believed it would be the clowns from South Kackalacky that would start it.

My contention is this: JS can claim no exclusivity to his prediction.


----------



## Tom Clancy

All hail Xenu!   ...oh forgot, this isn't the Scientology thread, can't tell the difference.


----------



## Zona

Keep in mind, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GB is a LDS convert, who found a way to redirect his alcoholic dependency from self-destruction to self-realization.  That's great, in my book.  Unfortunately, along the way, he found Cleon Skousen and the John Birch Society, pathways that I have been told lead to apostasy from Mormonism.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tom Clancy said:


> All hail Xenu!   ...oh forgot, this isn't the Scientology thread, can't tell the difference.



THANKS!.......i guess


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Keep in mind, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.



I'll second that thought!Yay Glenn Beck!


----------



## Tom Clancy

Hold on a second.. 

It says your from San Fran, is that correct? 

A Mormon living in San Francisco? That's like a Gay guy living in Alabama.

I'm serious.


----------



## Zona

Truthspeaker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll second that thought!Yay Glenn Beck!
Click to expand...


The mormons can claim him.  He represents well.


----------



## Dr.House

Zona said:


> Keep in mind, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.



And you're a moron...  

So close...


----------



## Zona

Dr.House said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a moron...
> 
> So close...
Click to expand...


Wow, thats a good one!  Wow, seriously, I bow down to your superior intellect.  This is an example of how bright you really are.  Seriously.  Wow.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks, Truth, for ignoring my poor spirit on this one.  I believe you are wrong because of your faith leaning,  not because you less than honest from whence you reason.
> 
> I will point out that many thought it would begin in 1832 or the next year, and almost everyone believed it would be the clowns from South Kackalacky that would start it.
> 
> My contention is this: JS can claim no exclusivity to his prediction.



Which, of course, was never claimed until after the prophecy was fulfilled in exactness.

Funny how the story changes from "No way it will happen" to "Everyone knew it would happen" when it actually does.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll second that thought!Yay Glenn Beck!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mormons can claim him.  He represents well.
Click to expand...


He certainly does. He is a good and honorable man. And he is a living testimony to the power of Christ bringing Redemption to the Soul.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, Glenn Beck is a mormon.  Nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a moron...
> 
> So close...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, thats a good one!  Wow, seriously, I bow down to your superior intellect.  This is an example of how bright you really are.  Seriously.  Wow.
Click to expand...


And how is anything you've written an example of how bright you are?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Truth, for ignoring my poor spirit on this one.  I believe you are wrong because of your faith leaning,  not because you less than honest from whence you reason.
> 
> I will point out that many thought it would begin in 1832 or the next year, and almost everyone believed it would be the clowns from South Kackalacky that would start it.
> 
> My contention is this: JS can claim no exclusivity to his prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, was never claimed until after the prophecy was fulfilled in exactness.
> 
> Funny how the story changes from "No way it will happen" to "Everyone knew it would happen" when it actually does.
Click to expand...


No one ever claimed such a thing, Avatar4321, as far as I know, but if you have "No way it will happen" I am willing to see the evidence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll second that thought!Yay Glenn Beck!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mormons can claim him.  He represents well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He certainly does. He is a good and honorable man. And he is a living testimony to the power of Christ bringing Redemption to the Soul.
Click to expand...


Is anyone questioning that he is a good man?  A loon of the JBS and Cleon Skousen and Freemen Institute persuasion, yes; a good man, no.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll second that thought!Yay Glenn Beck!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mormons can claim him.  He represents well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He certainly does. He is a good and honorable man. And he is a living testimony to the power of Christ bringing Redemption to the Soul.
Click to expand...


He may be a good and honorable man in his personal life, I don't really know.  He has learned to make money by spouting extreme and often absurd ideas.  In that regard, he is a poor representative of whatever groups he may belong to.


----------



## JakeStarkey

He is a great representative for the far right fringe whinge, a poor example for LDS, I would think.  On the positive side, I have heard that he is an absolute hoot to be around, is unaffected, and truly loves the United States.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tom Clancy said:


> Hold on a second..
> 
> It says your from San Fran, is that correct?
> 
> A Mormon living in San Francisco? That's like a Gay guy living in Alabama.
> 
> I'm serious.



There's nothing I do that is like a gay doing anything....But I see your point. It's wonderful isn't it. An island unto myself


----------



## Truthspeaker

I've done some listening to Glen Beck but I wouldn't say I'm a regular listener. What has he said that is so extreme?


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mormons can claim him.  He represents well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He certainly does. He is a good and honorable man. And he is a living testimony to the power of Christ bringing Redemption to the Soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He may be a good and honorable man in his personal life, I don't really know.  He has learned to make money by spouting extreme and often absurd ideas.  In that regard, he is a poor representative of whatever groups he may belong to.
Click to expand...


I know........"Extremes & Absurd Ideas"..........like following the U.S. Constitution.........extreme stuff like that..................

Skeptic.........Your a real winner...........


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Glenn does not understand the Constitution.  He understands John Birch society lunacy.  That is the guide to his understanding.


----------



## mal

Truthspeaker  1,214 
Avatar4321  384 
JakeStarkey  239 
froggy  204 
sky dancer  195 
Eightball  175 
Liability  119 
KittenKoder  95 
Skeptik  93 
ABikerSailor  83 
RetiredGySgt  55 
California Girl  54 
John Lemmon  49 
catzmeow  46 
Shogun  41 
HUGGY  40 
Intense  36 
Christopher  33 
TofuDog  30 
Zona  26 
BigBarry  24 
mudwhistle  24 
Si modo  24 
Dr.House  21 
Sunni Man  20 
eots  20 
Ralph  20 
Arawyn  19 
AllieBaba  17 
Godboy  17 
N4mddissent  16 
Ceasaro  15 
strollingbones  15 
Dr Grump  15 
TheSuaveOne  14 
necritan  13 
Rubber Hoser  13 
emilynghiem  13 
no1tovote4  12 
Sky Dancer  11 
Tom Clancy  11 
pare  11 
Agnapostate  10 
pegwinn  10 
chanel  9 
JenyEliza  9 
RodISHI  9 
Truthmatters  8 
THE LIGHT  8 
jillian  7 
amrchaos  7 
JW Frogen  7 
trueblue  7 
-Cp  6 
B94  5 
Luissa  5 
Maple  5 
wvulax  5 
Samson  5 
Dogbert  5 
Valerie  4 
xsited1  4 
REVxERIK  4 
Sublimating  4 
DavidS  4 
Neubarth  3 
rpfargone  3 
We Are They  3 
hvacjones  3 
Terry  3 
kyzr  3 
Screaming Eagle  3 
Bearman  3 
Said1  3 
hansom  2 
Dr Gregg  2 
midcan5  2 
geauxtohell  2 
morpheus  2 
tha malcontent  2 
OregonJayBird  2 
nraforlife  2 
Douger  2 
del  2 
Montrovant  2 
RadiomanATL  2 
mskafka  1 
Chimera  1 
Tony_S  1 
1soldier  1 
jungulator  1 
dilloduck  1 
caterpillar  1 
Mr Mustard  1 
Humongo  1 
actsnoblemartin  1 
Zoom-boing  1 
joeyc  1 
Wize Owl  1 
IDSSTING39  1 
Oscar Wao  1 
spymaster  1 
eagleseven  1 
Buster Beez  1 
GEORGE ORWELL  1 
editec  1 
Andrew2382  1 
Dante  1 
BrokenAngel  1 
Jesus Christ  1 
AquaAthena  1 
Steerpike  1 
barry1960  1 
hoMohammed  1 
Soggy in NOLA  1 
CommonSensor  1 
2Parties  1 
ItHappens  1 

---

Damn...



peace...


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> No, Glenn does not understand the Constitution.  He understands John Birch society lunacy.  That is the guide to his understanding.



Jake:  Respectfully.......

Beck has not misinterpretted constitutional issues, but has been unmercifully attacked by "progressives" of which, our President, most Democrats, and some Republicans fill that title.

As for the John Birch Society comments.........That's a throw-back to the Goldwater days.............Goldwater was accused similarly, but if he had been elected President instead of LBJ, the Vietnam war would have been over in short order, with much less American casualties.
*****
Also:  Since you think Beck is spouting incorrect Constitutional diatribe, could you please present some quotes that prove you comment/point?

We have a two paradigms going here in this nation.........a divide even more apparent than ever.  We have one side that see's the U.S. Constitution as something to be amended, or is "flexible" to the point of straying so far from the Founding Father's intent that it's ridiculous.

Then you have the other side that believes that the U.S. Constitution is applicable to nowadays as it was 10, 20, 50, 100, 200+ years ago.

Beck falls into this latter category.  

Did the John Birch Society propound the over throw of the U.S..?  

Core Principles Of The John Birch Society:


> Core Principles
> *Mission *
> To bring about less government, more responsibility, and &#8212; with God&#8217;s help &#8212; a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.
> 
> *Preserving Individual Rights & National Independence*
> "These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States &#8230; We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
> &#8212;
> *Declaration of Independence, 1776*
> The Declaration of Independence established the independence of both the original 13 American colonies and the United States of America that they together formed a decade later.
> 
> The Declaration proclaimed that our personal rights come from God, not from government.
> 
> The John Birch Society endorses the timeless principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Society also labors to warn against and expose the forces that seek to abolish U.S. independence, build a world government, or otherwise undermine our personal liberties and national independence.
> 
> *Restoring the Constitution*
> "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." &#8212; Declaration of Independence, 1776
> The Constitution of the United States of America instituted the government that secures our God-given rights.
> 
> The John Birch Society endorses the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our national government, and works toward educating and activating Americans to abide by the original intent of the Founding Fathers. We seek to awaken a sleeping and apathetic people concerning the designs of those who are working to destroy our constitutional Republic.



Pretty scarey huh?................


----------



## JakeStarkey

eightball, Glenn does not understand what progressivism is historically in the American experience, and, respectfully, apparently you do not either.  That's OK, because we decides these things by a majority vote, and I am not too worried about the electorate changing its collective will on Glenn and Cleon's conspiracy theory in American political philosophy or history.

Tell me, according to Mr. Welch, who was President Eisenhower's communist 'handler' while he was president?

You will be glad to know that the LDS church apparently considers belonging to the JBS as a first step to apostasy.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He certainly does. He is a good and honorable man. And he is a living testimony to the power of Christ bringing Redemption to the Soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He may be a good and honorable man in his personal life, I don't really know.  He has learned to make money by spouting extreme and often absurd ideas.  In that regard, he is a poor representative of whatever groups he may belong to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know........"Extremes & Absurd Ideas"..........like following the U.S. Constitution.........extreme stuff like that..................
> 
> Skeptic.........Your a real winner...........
Click to expand...


Right, and like this:



> 3. "When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." "The Glenn Beck Program,"
> 
> 4. "The only [Katrina victims] we're seeing on television are the scumbags." "The Glenn Beck Program,"



There's a lot more of course.  You can look here, or just tune in to Fox whenever he is on.  He's right sometimes, but he's good for a laugh sometimes, too.


----------



## Truthspeaker

tha malcontent said:


> Truthspeaker  1,214
> Avatar4321  384
> JakeStarkey  239
> froggy  204
> sky dancer  195
> Eightball  175
> Liability  119
> KittenKoder  95
> Skeptik  93
> ABikerSailor  83
> RetiredGySgt  55
> California Girl  54
> John Lemmon  49
> catzmeow  46
> Shogun  41
> HUGGY  40
> Intense  36
> Christopher  33
> TofuDog  30
> Zona  26
> BigBarry  24
> mudwhistle  24
> Si modo  24
> Dr.House  21
> Sunni Man  20
> eots  20
> Ralph  20
> Arawyn  19
> AllieBaba  17
> Godboy  17
> N4mddissent  16
> Ceasaro  15
> strollingbones  15
> Dr Grump  15
> TheSuaveOne  14
> necritan  13
> Rubber Hoser  13
> emilynghiem  13
> no1tovote4  12
> Sky Dancer  11
> Tom Clancy  11
> pare  11
> Agnapostate  10
> pegwinn  10
> chanel  9
> JenyEliza  9
> RodISHI  9
> Truthmatters  8
> THE LIGHT  8
> jillian  7
> amrchaos  7
> JW Frogen  7
> trueblue  7
> -Cp  6
> B94  5
> Luissa  5
> Maple  5
> wvulax  5
> Samson  5
> Dogbert  5
> Valerie  4
> xsited1  4
> REVxERIK  4
> Sublimating  4
> DavidS  4
> Neubarth  3
> rpfargone  3
> We Are They  3
> hvacjones  3
> Terry  3
> kyzr  3
> Screaming Eagle  3
> Bearman  3
> Said1  3
> hansom  2
> Dr Gregg  2
> midcan5  2
> geauxtohell  2
> morpheus  2
> tha malcontent  2
> OregonJayBird  2
> nraforlife  2
> Douger  2
> del  2
> Montrovant  2
> RadiomanATL  2
> mskafka  1
> Chimera  1
> Tony_S  1
> 1soldier  1
> jungulator  1
> dilloduck  1
> caterpillar  1
> Mr Mustard  1
> Humongo  1
> actsnoblemartin  1
> Zoom-boing  1
> joeyc  1
> Wize Owl  1
> IDSSTING39  1
> Oscar Wao  1
> spymaster  1
> eagleseven  1
> Buster Beez  1
> GEORGE ORWELL  1
> editec  1
> Andrew2382  1
> Dante  1
> BrokenAngel  1
> Jesus Christ  1
> AquaAthena  1
> Steerpike  1
> barry1960  1
> hoMohammed  1
> Soggy in NOLA  1
> CommonSensor  1
> 2Parties  1
> ItHappens  1
> 
> ---
> 
> Damn...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...



What's even more impressive is that you took the time to chart all the posts. That's amazing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> eightball, Glenn does not understand what progressivism is historically in the American experience, and, respectfully, apparently you do not either.  That's OK, because we decides these things by a majority vote, and I am not too worried about the electorate changing its collective will on Glenn and Cleon's conspiracy theory in American political philosophy or history.
> 
> Tell me, according to Mr. Welch, who was President Eisenhower's communist 'handler' while he was president?
> 
> You will be glad to know that the LDS church apparently considers belonging to the JBS as a first step to apostasy.



The church, to my knowledge, has no stance on political parties or ideals, much less a specific stance on the John Birch Society.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> He may be a good and honorable man in his personal life, I don't really know.  He has learned to make money by spouting extreme and often absurd ideas.  In that regard, he is a poor representative of whatever groups he may belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know........"Extremes & Absurd Ideas"..........like following the U.S. Constitution.........extreme stuff like that..................
> 
> Skeptic.........Your a real winner...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. "When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh shut up' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining." "The Glenn Beck Program,"
> 
> 4. "The only [Katrina victims] we're seeing on television are the scumbags." "The Glenn Beck Program,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a lot more of course.  You can look here, or just tune in to Fox whenever he is on.  He's right sometimes, but he's good for a laugh sometimes, too.
Click to expand...


I detect a lot of frustration from those quotes with Glen Beck. I think he thinks we understand what he really means when he says some things. There's a great degree of sarcasm which I think crosses the line, but at the same time I know what point he's trying to make.
but I agree he doesn't have to make such sarcastic comments to get his point across.


----------



## nraforlife

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion................



In that you would be wrong. The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.


----------



## Avatar4321

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that you would be wrong. The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
Click to expand...


Thanks for making his point


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> I detect a lot of frustration from those quotes with Glen Beck. I think he thinks we understand what he really means when he says some things. There's a great degree of sarcasm which I think crosses the line, but at the same time I know what point he's trying to make.
> but I agree he doesn't have to make such sarcastic comments to get his point across.



I'm not frustrated by his comments.  I'm amused by them.  The frustrating thing is that there are so many people who take him seriously.  

I really think he says outrageous things in order to get attention.  In the news business, attention = money.

He's still behind his mentor, Rush Limbaugh, who just signed a 400 million dollar contract to spout hype and nonsense, but he's no doubt crying all the way to the bank.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I detect a lot of frustration from those quotes with Glen Beck. I think he thinks we understand what he really means when he says some things. There's a great degree of sarcasm which I think crosses the line, but at the same time I know what point he's trying to make.
> but I agree he doesn't have to make such sarcastic comments to get his point across.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not frustrated by his comments.  I'm amused by them.  The frustrating thing is that there are so many people who take him seriously.
> 
> I really think he says outrageous things in order to get attention.  In the news business, attention = money.
> 
> He's still behind his mentor, Rush Limbaugh, who just signed a 400 million dollar contract to spout hype and nonsense, but he's no doubt crying all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...


I was talking about frustration from Beck, not from you. He exagerrates on purpose thinking that most people get it. But a lot of times they don't.


----------



## nraforlife

Avatar4321 said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that you would be wrong. The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for making his point
Click to expand...


Sorry friend but I made my own point- The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.


----------



## mal

Why are so many Mormons Cracker-Ass-Crackers?...



peace...


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I detect a lot of frustration from those quotes with Glen Beck. I think he thinks we understand what he really means when he says some things. There's a great degree of sarcasm which I think crosses the line, but at the same time I know what point he's trying to make.
> but I agree he doesn't have to make such sarcastic comments to get his point across.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not frustrated by his comments.  I'm amused by them.  The frustrating thing is that there are so many people who take him seriously.
> 
> I really think he says outrageous things in order to get attention.  In the news business, attention = money.
> 
> He's still behind his mentor, Rush Limbaugh, who just signed a 400 million dollar contract to spout hype and nonsense, but he's no doubt crying all the way to the bank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was talking about frustration from Beck, not from you. He exagerrates on purpose thinking that most people get it. But a lot of times they don't.
Click to expand...


I think you're correct that he exaggerates on purpose.  I still think he does so for ratings. Even so, he has quite a following of people who take what he says at face value.

But, that's an aside.  I'm afraid I'm risking derailing your thread.


----------



## Truthspeaker

This thread is a self-righting ship. However far off the track we go. We always come back.


----------



## Truthspeaker

nraforlife said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> In that you would be wrong. The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making his point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but I made my own point- The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
Click to expand...


Which lies are you referring to?


----------



## Truthspeaker

tha malcontent said:


> Why are so many Mormons Cracker-Ass-Crackers?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...



I do believe your question is a misinformed one. If there were such a thing as a bad question, this would be the perfect example. Here are the demographic statistics as of 2000. These numbers have since grown more "ethnic".
Percentage of Mormon population in their countries.

Tonga: 32.0% 
Samoa: 25.0% 
American Samoa: 25.0% 
Niue: 15.0% 
Kiribati: 6.0% 
Tahiti: 6.0% 
Cook Islands: 5.0% 
Marshall Islands: 4.0% 
Chile: 2.5% 
Palau: 2.0% 
USA: 1.9% 
Uruguay: 1.8% 
New Zealand: 1.5% 
Guatemala: 1.3% 
Honduras: 1.2% 
Bolivia: 1.1% 
Ecuador: 1.1% 
Peru: 1.1% 
Belize: 1.1% 



USA: 4,900,000 
Mexico: 800,000 
Brazil: 650,000 
Chile: 400,000 
Philippines: 389,000 
Peru: 300,000 
Argentina: 282,000 
United Kingdom: 180,000 
Guatemala: 166,000 
Canada: 151,000 


These stats do not include the 500,000 members of the church of African descent.


----------



## nraforlife

Truthspeaker said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for making his point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but I made my own point- The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which lies are you referring to?
Click to expand...


The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.


----------



## Eightball

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but I made my own point- The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which lies are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...


Been trying to ram that point home to "Truthspeaker" for months......

He can't see the difference between true biblical prophets, and J.S. Jr............Actually he/Truth, can't discern the difference with any and all LDS prophets up to the present.

NRA:  When you explore the teachings/doctrines of the Mormon church, it is such a convoluted mess of contradictions, and weird stuff.  It is so unbiblical in so many ways.

They don't want to face the facts about the BOM not being archeologically validated in it's recordings of North and South American accounts.

They think that J.S. Jr. is a martyr, when he was a criminal.  They only accepty their churchs' account of his death, and totally ignore, press accounts from Illinois that that contradict their account.

Even the Christian church puts a lot of creedence in the Jewish historical writer, Josephus, who lived during the time of shortly after the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ.  Josephus was not a Christian, but his accounts parallel the N.T..

Dead Sea Scrolls:  This is the most fantastic find!

A complete book of Isaiah was found and partial manuscripts of all the other O.T. books except for Ester.

In every case the nowaday translations when compared to the Dead Sea manuscripts indicate that God has omnipotently protected His "inspired" Word to this present day.

The Mormons claim that the bible is corrupted in many areas as man re-translating over the last few thousand years has changed the original message from God to man.  Thus we needed it straightened out through Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel Moroni.  

People wonder where the Ark of the Convenant is, as it was taken from the temple thousands of years ago...............The Mormons can't even find their holy gold plates that only date back to the early 1800's?   The Jews were able to keep the Ark for much longer and only lost it through plunder by enemies, and punishment from God for their disobedience.  Besides that, the Ark isn't necessary, as the "Perfect", Jesus Christ is the fullfillment of the Law(Hebrews/N.T.) in every way.

The Mormon church is classified as a "cult" by mainstream biblical Christianity.  How to the Mormons respond?  They are "victims" like their first prophet, J.S. Jr..  Everytime they come to the door of a house all primmed-up with white dress shirt, black slacks, and neck tie, they have already mentally prepared themselves as "victims" of non-Mormon mankind.  If you counter their claims with biblical facts they take the victim's route of course with you.  Your hopeless, as they have the truth.

Truthspeaker.........the moniker used by this LDS member is the epitome of exuded "pride".............Who or what true Christian, would take that moniker?  

Here is one reason.  The Mormon does not understand the unlying reason that folks come to Christ for salvation.............GRACE!  Yes, grace.   Grace=unmerited favor of God upon the helpless sinner, or fallen man.

The very work of grace produces humility, humbleness, and gratitude in the "true" Christian.

So when a biblical Christian like myself calls to their attention this dicotomy, I'm accused of being prideful, arrogant, mean-spirited, etc......   That's the Mormon's "fall-back" defense.  They just don't understand the underlying principles of God's grace.

They bought into a humanistic based religiosity, that promises "celestial sex" in heaven...................as a reward for being good, works-based, God fearing people.

One might even ask about the inequality of the man-woman relationship in the Mormon doctrine........................

How is it that the husband in a Mormon marriage carries the rights or responsibility to raise or "not raise" his earthly wife to a heavenly state?

Also there is a distinct parallet between the crazy teachings of Scientology, and Mormonism in the area of "progression" of the human species.  Both belief systems believe that earth is just one of many stopping points where God or some race of human beings has taken-up residence.

Scientologists believe that us/mankind actually came from other planets, and have just colonized this one called "earth".  Mormons believe that there are many Jesus'es or saviors for a myriad of planets.  I.E..  We are just one of many inhabited planets where a savior was sent to save that race or species.

Also, take note that the Mormon doctrine teaches that God "impregnated" Mary............in order for Jesus to be His seed and savior for the earth's race of human beings.

Also ask Mormons about "hell".   They also have skewed that.
******
All in all, Mormonism has grown by leaps and bounds because it is a human inspired religion that meets the needs of the "carnal" nature or side of man.  The "Spiritual" man who is indwelt with God the Holy Spirit, can see right through this false belief system.

It is works based to the hilt.  They/Mormons deny it, but they "know" that they go door to door in order to please their god, and also to attain to higher stature within their religions ranks.  Elders hold an iron sway over lesser members.  Members are encouraged to "not" do independent study of the bible without "oversight" from an elder or more "mature" Mormon.  Why?  Because "independent" study of the bible might reveal the hypocrisy and outright untruths that have been taught by elders to young/new members.

Why don't the elders tell about the celestial sex after death, or the Priesthoods........that Christ did away with at Calvary when He said, "It is finished!", and the curtain in the Holy temple was rent in two, and sinful man was given access to the Holy of Holies.........via Christ's atoning, death on the cross.

Ask a Mormon why the Cross is not venerated as the symbol of the Christians victory over death and sin, and the gateway to eternal life?

Instead they have the angel Moroni blowing a trumpet on top of their temples.

The cross is an abomination to fallen man, but represents everything to the true Christian.  The cross is not a pretty thing, but because of it, our God, Lord, and Savior gave access to the Holy of Holies for all mankind......................the Priesthood was abolished.............Now every true Christian is a royal priest, and a royal ambassador to lost mankind.
*****
Bottom line:  Cult members are brainwashed.  But to be brainwashed, you must accept what you hear, because you "want" it to be that way.  The bible doesn't present itself to mankind in a way that man "enjoys".  In fact man tends to run from the bible, as it presents man in a most undignified way............and if acknowledged, it humbles man to the point of grief, repentance, and then hopefully a reaching-out for salvation through Jesus Christ.

The Mormons on the surface talk the talk, and appear to walk the walk, but scratch the veneer of their church with the bible in your right hand as a compass and you will see the unGodlieness of it's teachings.


----------



## JakeStarkey

nra4life and 8ball, why play the game.  All religion comes down to faith not critical reasoning.  That's why Jefferson cut so much out of his redaction of the Bible.  In my opinion, I think Jesus is my Lord, I believe the Holy Bible is not His literal word, and I don't believe that JS Jr is a prophet.  Give others the same right to believe.  If TruthSpeaker were on your doorstep proslytyzing with a BoM in one hand and a couple of Danites at hand, that would be another matter, of course.


----------



## Truthspeaker

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but I made my own point- The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which lies are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...


You see you don't even understand what lies you're talking about:
1. Joseph never gazed at any crystals
2. The Book of Mormon was never claimed to have come from Joseph. 

there. Two misconceptions already dealt with


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> nra4life and 8ball, why play the game.  All religion comes down to faith not critical reasoning.  That's why Jefferson cut so much out of his redaction of the Bible.  In my opinion, I think Jesus is my Lord, I believe the Holy Bible is not His literal word, and I don't believe that JS Jr is a prophet.  Give others the same right to believe.  If TruthSpeaker were on your doorstep proslytyzing with a BoM in one hand and a couple of Danites at hand, that would be another matter, of course.



I actually appreciate that statement. My sentiments exactly. Especially since I'd never show up on his door, leastaways not with any Danites to boot. Not that there's many of those dinosaurs left.

Jesus is also my Lord. I believe men should worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. I am doing so myself.


----------



## nraforlife

Truthspeaker said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which lies are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see you don't even understand what lies you're talking about:
> 1. Joseph never gazed at any crystals
> 2. The Book of Mormon was never claimed to have come from Joseph.
> 
> there. Two misconceptions already dealt with
Click to expand...


Have a real c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n problem don'tcha or maybe you are just being obscurant.

crystal gazing, seer stone using same thing & its how yer boy Joey claimed to translate the BOM. As to yer point two its not what I said and you know it unless you are dummer than a rock.

BTW just how did Joey manage to fetch around the hundreds of pounds which the gold tablets must have weighed, eh?


----------



## nraforlife

BTW what is the deal with mormons and sanctuary cities for illegals in Utah? Are you people REALLY that disloyal to the USA.


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife, what is up with you, with your bitter hatefulness?  I am not any sort of Mormon, but you are being nonsensical.  You are the one who hates the first amendment with your bitter and hateful attacks.


----------



## Truthspeaker

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see you don't even understand what lies you're talking about:
> 1. Joseph never gazed at any crystals
> 2. The Book of Mormon was never claimed to have come from Joseph.
> 
> there. Two misconceptions already dealt with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have a real c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n problem don'tcha or maybe you are just being obscurant.
> 
> crystal gazing, seer stone using same thing & its how yer boy Joey claimed to translate the BOM. As to yer point two its not what I said and you know it unless you are dummer than a rock.
> 
> BTW just how did Joey manage to fetch around the hundreds of pounds which the gold tablets must have weighed, eh?
Click to expand...


First of all the "Gold" plates were only rumored to have been gold. The only description given by any of the witnesses was that the plates "had the appearance" of gold. The plates are likely to have been a gold-like substance called tumbaga, which is %40 percent the weight of gold. The book of mormon only describes the plates as plates of "ore". Nowhere did it say gold. The phrase "gold plates" is used to describe it's appearance more than it's elemental makeup.
Furthermore they still could have been made of gold. Lets say they were made of gold. The hundreds of pounds people think of based on the dimensions Joseph gave of 4x6x6 inches wide, thick and long are still inaccurate because they are assessing that to a solid gold block of the same size. 

The record was anything but a solid block. It was sheets of metal that created space, furthur reducing the weight. They were also engraved sheets and not solid sheets, further reducing the weight. Also overlooked is the fact that although heavy, it was very small and much easier to lift. 

Furthermore don't forget that Joseph Smith was the strongest guy in town. You think God wouldn't properly equip a servant of his to perform a task?

Furthermore one who truly believes in God believes in miracles. If God could endow Samson with the strength to kill a lion with his bare hands, and perform other herculean feats, what's the problem with providing Joseph the strength to lift the plates? Do you see my logic?

I'm also glad you clarified that Joseph merely translated the plates instead of being the originator of them You can hoodwink others but not me.

Class dismissed.


----------



## Truthspeaker

nraforlife said:


> BTW what is the deal with mormons and sanctuary cities for illegals in Utah? Are you people REALLY that disloyal to the USA.



I have no idea what you're talking about. While you're at it, why don't you attack the government of California who are FAR more guilty in this matter.


----------



## DiamondDave

I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character


----------



## Avatar4321

tha malcontent said:


> Why are so many Mormons Cracker-Ass-Crackers?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...



LoL. I don't even know what you are talking about mal


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> I think you're correct that he exaggerates on purpose.  I still think he does so for ratings. Even so, he has quite a following of people who take what he says at face value.
> 
> But, that's an aside.  I'm afraid I'm risking derailing your thread.



I think he points out the extremes to make a point about the consequences of what we face  because that's simply who he is. But I'd like someone to find out what he is lying about. Misinformed maybe. Saying something incorrectly, maybe. I don't think he or anyone else is perfect, but I dont think Glenn gets up and delibrately lies to people. Ive talked to him too many times off air to think that.


----------



## Avatar4321

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry friend but I made my own point- The general public understands your false religion quite well and simply refuses to be sucked in by the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which lies are you referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.
Click to expand...


Have you read the Book of Mormon?


----------



## Avatar4321

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see you don't even understand what lies you're talking about:
> 1. Joseph never gazed at any crystals
> 2. The Book of Mormon was never claimed to have come from Joseph.
> 
> there. Two misconceptions already dealt with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have a real c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-s-i-o-n problem don'tcha or maybe you are just being obscurant.
> 
> crystal gazing, seer stone using same thing & its how yer boy Joey claimed to translate the BOM. As to yer point two its not what I said and you know it unless you are dummer than a rock.
> 
> BTW just how did Joey manage to fetch around the hundreds of pounds which the gold tablets must have weighed, eh?
Click to expand...


That's fairly simple. Gold is a color.


----------



## Avatar4321

DiamondDave said:


> I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character



Having studied Joseph Smith very closely, I don't see how he is anyway a Shady character. I know there have been many claims to the contrary, but the evidence just isn't there.

He is supposedly a con artist that gets nothing but hardship for his troubles. He is supposedly brilliant yet stupid. He supposedly selfifsh yet so often gives up his own time and property to help others. The accusations and his actions just don't match up.

Perhaps if you had some specific instance we could discuss more indepth. But my studies just don't show anything that shady about him.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> nra4life and 8ball, why play the game.  All religion comes down to faith not critical reasoning.  That's why Jefferson cut so much out of his redaction of the Bible.  In my opinion, I think Jesus is my Lord, I believe the Holy Bible is not His literal word, and I don't believe that JS Jr is a prophet.  Give others the same right to believe.  If TruthSpeaker were on your doorstep proslytyzing with a BoM in one hand and a couple of Danites at hand, that would be another matter, of course.



JakeStarkey:  I highly venerate Jefferson.......but in the area of biblical/spiritual understanding knowledge..........He created an abomination..........when speaking of his infamous "Jeffersonian Bible".

Jefferson took the good old King James that even the Mormons will use when proselytizing Christians, and did a major "cut/paste" job on any bit of bible scripture that he didn't agree with........Actually is was more like, he did a "job" on any scripture that presented man as a sinner.  Jefferson, with big letter "P" pride, proceedced to play God, and change the bible to his comfort zone/liking.  That's basically it.

It was not an intellectual pursuit of truth, but an attempt to quench or muffle God's assessment of man as a fallen Adamic creature in need of Christ's attoning work at Calvary.
*****
The Jeffersonian bible is not different from the Jehovah's Witnesses "New World Translations" that has conveniently, and suspiciously removed many references in the N.T. to Jesus being God, in the flesh.   For instance, the impact of the famous John Chapter 1 verse 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.".

The Jehovah's Witness bible has changed that verse to, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Jehovah, and the word was "a" god.'.
******

The Mormons, deny will say, sure Jesus is God........but one with God........as in one God...........No!   They refute the trinitarian aspect of the Godhead because they don't understand the physical/anotomical/mind blowing chemistry of how Jesus can be God, God the Spirit can be God, and God the Father can be God, and all can be one in the same.  

This is where J.S. Jr. along with follow prophets, and other Christian cults, and non-Christian cults have attempted to bring the Godhead down to what their "finite" human minds can understand......

So we have many gods in Mormonism............Makes sense.........but the bible disagree's vehemently.  No, the word trinity is not in the bible.  It is a word used to describe the best man can of the mysterious makeup of the Godhead, that expresses itself in three distinct personality/forms, but all  our in unison or agreement of thought, choice, direction, etc..
*****
Now we have Thomas Jefferson........Born April 13th.........What a statesman!  What a great president!  What a man of all kinds of talents.  One of the best silversmiths of his time...........Actually his father, was a good silversmith to, and actually Jefferson Jr. apprenticed under his dad.

Great men who do great things for humanity and for the world........in unselfishness, and compassion..............doesn't mean they have a ticket to Paradise with God.............It just means they are good people.   God weighs man ultimately on another scale, that trumps "great works on earth".  He/God judges how man deals with His Son, Jesus.  It's as clear as that.  There is no grey ground when it comes to man and God............The bridgework to a restored relationship with God is through one Person........His Son.  His Son is the ultimate Passover Lamb............He is the end of human priesthoods........that were but a foreshadow of the real and eternal Priest............Jesus Christ.(Check Hebrews in the N.T.)  

God's righteousness is a "gift", not a "reward", as Mormonism, and so many other cults of of Christian flavoring, have promoted.

One does not depend on visions, dreams, burning bosoms, to "confirm" if they have received God's truth.   If one does, they open themselves to the realm of the great deceiver, Satan.  He has access to our dreams,  physical phenomena, our emotions, and minds, and can do an incredible job of faking the true God, when....................a seeker, or even a Christian doesn't rely first of all on the "manual", the Word of God........the bible.   

Now Mormons say that the bible is not accurrate anymore.  Why?  Has this omnipotent God who stopped the sun, who parted the Red Sea, who smited armies..........some how become weak and anemic?  Has this God of the O.T. become forgetful, and let His scripture become bastardized into untruths, and partial, uncomplete truths?

If the true God, has allowed that, then mankind is hopefully on his own.......as we can't trust this God to give us all we need to receive eternal life, and or a restored relationship with Him that was lost way back in Eden.

The Mormon religion like so many is based on an un-omnipotent Creator.   This Mormon creator, couldn't protect his written, inspired message to mankind through the thousands of years.  So naturally, we need a J.S. jr. type of religion to fill in the gaps, and the "uncomfortableness" of the repentance/salvation message, and the message of "grace" with a "works based" "reward" system of salvation.  

Only manmade religions expect "works/reward" in order to reach some sort of relational goal with their creator.

Only one belief system gives all credit to the Creator, and assesses mankind accurately.  Just one look at world or local news in convincing enough that man is not touched with Godly righteousness as a whole.  The only redeeming or different aspects usually are stories in the back session of every paper..........Mother Teresa, Franklin Graham, Billy Sunday, George Mueller, John Wesley, Hannah Whitall Smith., Moody.....etc.etc........Folks that taught a and called men, women and children to repentance, and salvation through Jesus Christ.

The "evidence" demands a verdict.   Jefferson, avoided the obvious as it apparently was too painful, and too unintellectual to comprehend or to admit.


----------



## DiamondDave

Avatar4321 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having studied Joseph Smith very closely, I don't see how he is anyway a Shady character. I know there have been many claims to the contrary, but the evidence just isn't there.
> 
> He is supposedly a con artist that gets nothing but hardship for his troubles. He is supposedly brilliant yet stupid. He supposedly selfifsh yet so often gives up his own time and property to help others. The accusations and his actions just don't match up.
> 
> Perhaps if you had some specific instance we could discuss more indepth. But my studies just don't show anything that shady about him.
Click to expand...


We can start with arrest record.. going with his 'translation change' slight of hand with the 'seer stones' after the original translation was taken away and he was asked to repeat what he did... his debunked and inaccurate claims in the archaeological timeline... he smells of a con artist at most every angle


----------



## Truthspeaker

DiamondDave said:


> I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character



Ok, South Park? Really? The encyclopedia of all wisdom?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which lies are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whopper that the BOM came from G-d to that crystal gazing con-artist Joe Smith would be a good place to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Been trying to ram that point home to "Truthspeaker" for months......
Click to expand...


And of course, you've failed since it isn't true. A fact that's been discussed for months and which you've ignored completely.



> He can't see the difference between true biblical prophets, and J.S. Jr............Actually he/Truth, can't discern the difference with any and all LDS prophets up to the present.



Because the only differences between living prophets with biblical prophets is that living prophets live now and continually call for the people to repent while biblical prophets lived at a time where you can ignore what they said if you don't like it. 



> NRA:  When you explore the teachings/doctrines of the Mormon church, it is such a convoluted mess of contradictions, and weird stuff.  It is so unbiblical in so many ways.



Probably because:

1) You don't interpret the Bible correctly
2) You don't understand Mormon doctrine



> They don't want to face the facts about the BOM not being archeologically validated in it's recordings of North and South American accounts.



Which, of course, is completely irrelevant as archaelogy doesn't prove theology. There isn't a single archaelogical site that proves the Resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the center of both of our faiths. But it happened nonetheless.

And, of course, you continue to ignore archaelogical evidence for the path leading through Arabia in 1 Nephi. I suppose that's because it's inconvenient. I mean after all, the Bible sites being discovered by archaelogy isn't much of a shocker. We all know it's an ancient document. But the Book of Mormon sites being discovered, well that causes some problems for you.

So please tell me how a 23 year old farmboy from the NY frontier described an accurate route through Arabia which included accurate names, directions, and descriptions of said location which was completely unknown to the western world until 160 years later.



> They think that J.S. Jr. is a martyr, when he was a criminal.  They only accepty their churchs' account of his death, and totally ignore, press accounts from Illinois that that contradict their account.



Exactly which crime was he executed for? And since when do mobs determine guilt and carry out death sentences?

BTW Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Our Lord and Savior condemned as a criminal and crucified by the Romans? Why exactly should we accept your argument and view of events when your viewpoint would condemn even Jesus, the one person who had no sin?



> Even the Christian church puts a lot of creedence in the Jewish historical writer, Josephus, who lived during the time of shortly after the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ.  Josephus was not a Christian, but his accounts parallel the N.T..



Which Christian Church would this be? You act like there is one. There isn't. There are countless Christian Churches teaching Countless different doctrines.

And my faith in Christ doesn't come from the writings of Josephus. It comes from the confirmation of the Holy Spirit that has testified to me that the writings of the Apostles are true.



> Dead Sea Scrolls:  This is the most fantastic find!
> 
> A complete book of Isaiah was found and partial manuscripts of all the other O.T. books except for Ester.



I completely agree.



> In every case the nowaday translations when compared to the Dead Sea manuscripts indicate that God has omnipotently protected His "inspired" Word to this present day.



The Word of God is Jesus Christ. The Bible merely contains His Word. 

And if you think God has protected the Bible, why do you deny that He would protect and bring forth the knowledge that He has given to others throughout the world?




> The Mormons claim that the bible is corrupted in many areas as man re-translating over the last few thousand years has changed the original message from God to man.  Thus we needed it straightened out through Joseph Smith's encounter with the angel Moroni.



Well, one has to ask: If we could have the Fullness of the Everlasting Gospel from the Bible alone, why does God promise in Revelation 14:6-7 to send an angel carrying the Gospel to all the people?

Since when has God stopped talking to man and ministering to Him? And more importantly, how does an unchanging God change?



> People wonder where the Ark of the Convenant is, as it was taken from the temple thousands of years ago...............The Mormons can't even find their holy gold plates that only date back to the early 1800's?   The Jews were able to keep the Ark for much longer and only lost it through plunder by enemies, and punishment from God for their disobedience.  Besides that, the Ark isn't necessary, as the "Perfect", Jesus Christ is the fullfillment of the Law(Hebrews/N.T.) in every way.



We can't find it? Really? Now you do remember that bearing false witness is wrong right?

The Plates, with the Sealed Portion, were returned to Moroni who has stewardship over them. They aren't lost. They are protected.

But then, that is why God provided 12 witnesses for the plates. 12 men who saw, touched, felt the plates. Some who also saw Moroni. Interesting, that 12 men should share their testimony of the plates. Appropriate considering that God also called 12 men to testify to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the greatest event of mankind. It would only be appropriate that the Book of Mormon, a type for Christ, would likewise have 12 witnesses testifying to the world that God has once again sent out the call to gather His covenant people into one.



> The Mormon church is classified as a "cult" by mainstream biblical Christianity.  How to the Mormons respond?  They are "victims" like their first prophet, J.S. Jr..  Everytime they come to the door of a house all primmed-up with white dress shirt, black slacks, and neck tie, they have already mentally prepared themselves as "victims" of non-Mormon mankind.  If you counter their claims with biblical facts they take the victim's route of course with you.  Your hopeless, as they have the truth.



And by what authority do these Mainstream "Biblical" Churches classify anyone in a cult? And what do they mean by cult? 

I would submit that what you mean is "Religious group we don't like" rather than the actual definition which would encompass every denomination, sect, and group of Christians that has every walked the earth.

As for being victims of non-mormon mankind, I have to once again refer you to the 9th commandment.



> Truthspeaker.........the moniker used by this LDS member is the epitome of exuded "pride".............Who or what true Christian, would take that moniker?



By what authority and standard do you get to proclaim who is a true Christian and who is not?



> Here is one reason.  The Mormon does not understand the unlying reason that folks come to Christ for salvation.............GRACE!  Yes, grace.   Grace=unmerited favor of God upon the helpless sinner, or fallen man.



Again, the 9th commandment. It's amazing that after months of discussion you won't ever accept that we being that we are saved through the grace of Jesus Christ.



> The very work of grace produces humility, humbleness, and gratitude in the "true" Christian.



Humility which, I presume, would make someone listen and understand what others say. Humility which would cause people to submit themselves before God and let Him be the judge on who true Christians are, Humility which would lead men to listen to the Holy Spirit.



> So when a biblical Christian like myself calls to their attention this dicotomy, I'm accused of being prideful, arrogant, mean-spirited, etc......   That's the Mormon's "fall-back" defense.  They just don't understand the underlying principles of God's grace.



I don't think anyone is calling you prideful, arrogant, or meanspirited because you think Truthspeaker chose a poor name. If anyone does think that, it's because you refuse to ever listen and discuss points. Even after you are shown to be wrong, you continue to pretend as if nothing is said.

Let's take the Grace issue. All you have to do is read any of the many sermons in the Book of Mormon and it's obvious that we believe that we are saved by the merits and Grace of Jesus Christ. Yet you continue to pretend that we believe otherwise. As if we have some great conspiracy where we are going to claim we believe in grace and have grace mentioned in all of our scriptures, but that somehow we don't really believe what we believe.



> They bought into a humanistic based religiosity, that promises "celestial sex" in heaven...................as a reward for being good, works-based, God fearing people.



Could you please point to a sermon where anyone has ever preached Celestial sex?

Or could you tell me what is bad about sex between a husband and wife?



> One might even ask about the inequality of the man-woman relationship in the Mormon doctrine........................



Inequality?

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

We have to share responsibility in family life. How is that inequal?

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Equality through Diversity

LDS.org - Liahona Article - Presiding Righteously in the Home

Im sure any one of those sermons and countless others could be cited to disprove such a ridiculous claim.



> How is it that the husband in a Mormon marriage carries the rights or responsibility to raise or "not raise" his earthly wife to a heavenly state?



Well, if you provide the source in context, I'm sure it could be explained to you.



> Also there is a distinct parallet between the crazy teachings of Scientology, and Mormonism in the area of "progression" of the human species.  Both belief systems believe that earth is just one of many stopping points where God or some race of human beings has taken-up residence.
> 
> Scientologists believe that us/mankind actually came from other planets, and have just colonized this one called "earth".  Mormons believe that there are many Jesus'es or saviors for a myriad of planets.  I.E..  We are just one of many inhabited planets where a savior was sent to save that race or species.



Ah a guilt by associate exercise. I would think that if your arguments had merit you wouldnt have to try to associate us with Scientologists to stigmatize us.

However, going to the route of the issue you are talking about, which of course is a caricature, what exactly do you believe? Do you believe that earth is the only planet God placed life on? Do you think we are the only humans in the universe? God has created so much and yet only earth is inhabited. Only earthlings will be saved. 

And what exactly is Christianity if it isnt God giving man the power to progress past our sinful natures and become reborn through the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Do you want to remain in your sins for all eternity? Or do you want to move onto the next stage of eternity? Are you actually suggesting that at death this is the end of us?



> Also, take note that the Mormon doctrine teaches that God "impregnated" Mary............in order for Jesus to be His seed and savior for the earth's race of human beings.



So you think that God is not the Father of Jesus Christ? That He didn't cause Mary, a virgin, to be with child? I am pretty confident the Bible says otherwise.

And there is no limit on the Atonement limiting it to this world. Again the 9th commandment would be wise to follow.



> Also ask Mormons about "hell".   They also have skewed that.



You mean the fact that we believe what was actually believed by the people who wrote the Bible and not the medeival fairytales we recieved as a culture.

Then yes, I suppose we do have a skewed view of hell.



> All in all, Mormonism has grown by leaps and bounds because it is a human inspired religion that meets the needs of the "carnal" nature or side of man.  The "Spiritual" man who is indwelt with God the Holy Spirit, can see right through this false belief system.



And you wonder why people seem to think you are arrogant...

Please tell me how it meets the carnal needs of man.



> It is works based to the hilt.  They/Mormons deny it, but they "know" that they go door to door in order to please their god, and also to attain to higher stature within their religions ranks.  Elders hold an iron sway over lesser members.  Members are encouraged to "not" do independent study of the bible without "oversight" from an elder or more "mature" Mormon.  Why?  Because "independent" study of the bible might reveal the hypocrisy and outright untruths that have been taught by elders to young/new members.



No. We go door to door because it's true. Because we've felt the love of God and want to share it with others. We want others to come and know the joy we feel. 

Lesser members? What lesser members?

So we are  told all the time by our leaders to study and ponder the scriptures, including the Bible, on our own because they are trying to get us to not do independent study but to rely on them completely? How on earth does that make any sense?

In fact, you know the opposite is true. There isn't a missionary who isn't asking and in some cases pleading with their investigators to read the scriptures. We want them to pray and learn for themselves that it's true. And the only way to learn the things of God is through the Spirit of God. 

I understand you don't believe in it. Believe me I really do. But please stop lying about things you know aren't true or start educating yourself before you start preaching against us. That's all I've ever asked.



> Why don't the elders tell about the celestial sex after death, or the Priesthoods........that Christ did away with at Calvary when He said, "It is finished!", and the curtain in the Holy temple was rent in two, and sinful man was given access to the Holy of Holies.........via Christ's atoning, death on the cross.



Because there is no doctrine of "Celestial sex". Nor has it ever been taught over the pulpit of any Church at any history of time. It's simply a sleazy and sensation way our adversaries use to cheapen the view of Eternal Marriage. However, you would think that someone who professes Christ would not have to resort to such tactics. 

As for the Priesthoods, they are explicitly mentioned in the _First_ Discussion. That's right. The very first discussion the elders will have with a prospective member or even someone just curious about the Church would include the restoration of the Priesthood. (Unless, of course, they are struggling with more central doctrines like God and Christ and they run out of time for that part. Then it's taught in the lesson immediately afterwards).

And the Priesthood wasn't done away with. You see the Apostles acting in the authority they are given throughout the Book of Acts. Paul mentions the various offices in the Priesthood multiple times. And in fact, goes in depth on the importance of the Melchesidek Priesthood and it's importance, in Hebrews.



> Ask a Mormon why the Cross is not venerated as the symbol of the Christians victory over death and sin, and the gateway to eternal life?



Because we use the resurrection to venerate Christ's victory over death and sin. And because many of the early converts were of puritan stock who were very adverse to having symbols and icons etc.



> Instead they have the angel Moroni blowing a trumpet on top of their temples.



Because Moroni has a message and we are trying to get people to notice there is something different and listen to it. The very Temples you are upset about are a testament to the Resurrection and life beyond death.



> The cross is an abomination to fallen man, but represents everything to the true Christian.  The cross is not a pretty thing, but because of it, our God, Lord, and Savior gave access to the Holy of Holies for all mankind......................the Priesthood was abolished.............Now every true Christian is a royal priest, and a royal ambassador to lost mankind.



I understand you believe that. But the Bible doesn't support your viewpoint. 

Maybe you should focus more on Christ and not on the method of His execution. I think that would be far more important in the long run.



> Bottom line:  Cult members are brainwashed.  But to be brainwashed, you must accept what you hear, because you "want" it to be that way.  The bible doesn't present itself to mankind in a way that man "enjoys".  In fact man tends to run from the bible, as it presents man in a most undignified way............and if acknowledged, it humbles man to the point of grief, repentance, and then hopefully a reaching-out for salvation through Jesus Christ.



I actually rather enjoy the Bible. I enjoy the Book of Mormon and any other volume of scripture as well. The power of the Spirit is overwhelming. When you feel the love God has for you, you cant help but love and enjoy His revelations whether to yourself or to others.



> The Mormons on the surface talk the talk, and appear to walk the walk, but scratch the veneer of their church with the bible in your right hand as a compass and you will see the unGodlieness of it's teachings.



I really think you should read your Bible more. Cause unless you have one that I don't (I have a KJV And NIV BTW) it just doesn't support what you claim. And you still don't have a clue what we actually believe. If you did, I don't think you'd be lying about it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

DiamondDave said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having studied Joseph Smith very closely, I don't see how he is anyway a Shady character. I know there have been many claims to the contrary, but the evidence just isn't there.
> 
> He is supposedly a con artist that gets nothing but hardship for his troubles. He is supposedly brilliant yet stupid. He supposedly selfifsh yet so often gives up his own time and property to help others. The accusations and his actions just don't match up.
> 
> Perhaps if you had some specific instance we could discuss more indepth. But my studies just don't show anything that shady about him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can start with arrest record.. going with his 'translation change' slight of hand with the 'seer stones' after the original translation was taken away and he was asked to repeat what he did... his debunked and inaccurate claims in the archaeological timeline... he smells of a con artist at most every angle
Click to expand...


Paul and many of the apostles and almost all Christians in the early days had pretty bad arrest records. And one other guy too.....hmmm.....what was his name again?.......Oh yeah! Jesus!


----------



## Avatar4321

DiamondDave said:


> We can start with arrest record.. going with his 'translation change' slight of hand with the 'seer stones' after the original translation was taken away and he was asked to repeat what he did... his debunked and inaccurate claims in the archaeological timeline... he smells of a con artist at most every angle



Arrest record? So being arrested and acquited multiple times makes one a Shady character?

Is Jesus likewise a shady character? I mean He was actually convicted.

debunked and inaccurate? How does someone with a 3rd grade education accurately describe a pathway through the Arabian Penninsula unknown to wester civilization?

The original translation was taken. He didn't retranslate it. He translated another part of the record and learned to keep a back up copy of everything he translated and to do what God says. I think it's a pretty good lesson. But I can understand skepticism.

But it seems to me that it's an odd thing to do. If the Book of Mormon was meant to be a fraud, why would he continue after he lost the first manucript? Moreover, how on earth did he manage to dictate the entire volume in a 2 month period if he was changing what he originally put in and yet manage to keep the book entirely consistant.

And of course, that doesn't take into account the other 11 witnesses to the Book of Mormon. 3 of which say they saw Moroni and took their testimony to their grave despite having falling out with Joseph and having every incentive to recant.

Take Oliver Cowdery. The man was excommunicated for the Church. He had a falling out with Joseph. Yet he continued to claim, even in his private letters, that he saw the plates. That it was real. He could have been a very promising politician but he wouldn't recant and it cost him an election for Governor. He later ends up going back to the Church after Joseph died and asking to rejoin the Church despite knowing that he has no exalted position of leadership in the Church anymore. And then dies reaffirming his testimony. How on earth do you con someone that good? Especially when, in order for the con story to work, he would have to be part of it. It doesn't make any sense.

And David Whitmer, he leaves the Church because of disputes with Joseph and never comes back. Yet he makes it a point to contact reporters and reaffirm his testimony before he dies.

And, of course, Martin Harris, who you probably don't have a high view of if you've watched Southpark. But here is a man who likewise has a falling out with Joseph but continues to testify that He saw the plates and the Angel. So much so that he eventually does move out to Utah and rejoins the Saints after Joseph's death.

I've read about these men's lives. Much more than a mere 20 minute cartoon could possibly tell. And their actions and decisions make absolutely no sense it they are involved in some scam. 

You can read one of Oliver's accounts for yourself here. This is the account of the Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. 



> These were days never to be forgottento sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, Interpreters, the history or record called The Book of Mormon.
> 
> To notice, in even few words, the interesting account given by Mormon and his faithful son, Moroni, of a people once beloved and favored of heaven, would supersede my present design; I shall therefore defer this to a future period, and, as I said in the introduction, pass more directly to some few incidents immediately connected with the rise of this Church, which may be entertaining to some thousands who have stepped forward, amid the frowns of bigots and the calumny of hypocrites, and embraced the Gospel of Christ.
> 
> No men, in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up His Church, and especially when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> After writing the account given of the Saviors ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easy to be seen, as the prophet said it would be, that darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. On reflecting further it was as easy to be seen that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. For the question might be asked, have men authority to administer in the name of Christ, who deny revelations, when His testimony is no less than the spirit of prophecy, and His religion based, built, and sustained by immediate revelations, in all ages of the world when He has had a people on earth? If these facts were buried, and carefully concealed by men whose craft would have been in danger if once permitted to shine in the faces of men, they were no longer to us; and we only waited for the commandment to be given Arise and be baptized.
> 
> This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon Him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us His will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the Gospel of repentance. What joy! what wonder! what amazement! While the world was racked and distractedwhile millions were groping as the blind for the wall, and while all men were resting upon uncertainty, as a general mass, our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the blaze of day; yes, moreabove the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature! Then his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words, I am thy fellow-servant, dispelled every fear. We listened, we gazed, we admired! Twas the voice of an angel from glory, twas a message from the Most High! And as we heard we rejoiced, while His love enkindled upon our souls, and we were wrapped in the vision of the Almighty! Where was room for doubt? Nowhere; uncertainty had fled, doubt had sunk no more to rise, while fiction and deception had fled forever!
> 
> But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!
> 
> I shall not attempt to paint to you the feelings of this heart, nor the majestic beauty and
> glory which surrounded us on this occasion; but you will believe me when I say, that earth, nor men, with the eloquence of time, cannot begin to clothe language in as interesting and sublime a manner as this holy personage. No; nor has this earth power to give the joy, to bestow the peace, or comprehend the wisdom which was contained in each sentence as they were delivered by the power of the Holy Spirit! Man may deceive his fellow-men, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till naught but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind. The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel, the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Saviors goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry; and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that day which shall never cease.Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 (October 1834), pp. 1416


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having studied Joseph Smith very closely, I don't see how he is anyway a Shady character. I know there have been many claims to the contrary, but the evidence just isn't there.
> 
> He is supposedly a con artist that gets nothing but hardship for his troubles. He is supposedly brilliant yet stupid. He supposedly selfifsh yet so often gives up his own time and property to help others. The accusations and his actions just don't match up.
> 
> Perhaps if you had some specific instance we could discuss more indepth. But my studies just don't show anything that shady about him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can start with arrest record.. going with his 'translation change' slight of hand with the 'seer stones' after the original translation was taken away and he was asked to repeat what he did... his debunked and inaccurate claims in the archaeological timeline... he smells of a con artist at most every angle
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paul and many of the apostles and almost all Christians in the early days had pretty bad arrest records. And one other guy too.....hmmm.....what was his name again?.......Oh yeah! Jesus!
Click to expand...


Comparing the 12 Apostles of the bible arrest records or reasons for arrest versus JS Jr. is like comparing apples to oranges.  You know it to.  What a lame comparison/argument.  That's the best you can do?

The 12 Apostles were all arrested on various occassions for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ................and receiving lashes, stones, beheadings, crucifixions, etc..............for telling the Jewish and Roman authorities that they wouldn't quit preaching even after receiving jail and torture.

JS Jr.  Breaks into a Newspaper office, attempts to destroy the paper's printing press for printing negative-Mormon stories about his friendly little band of followers and himself.

He is summarily jailed, and a mob comes to drag him out of jail and do who know's what............running him out of town on a rail, tar and feather him, or kill him...................Anyway this brave apostle of god gets hold of a hand gun snuck into his cell, and instead of going to his death like a true martyr he shoots it out with the crowd, and in doing so is fatally shot.  Wow, what a testimony of trusting into God his life.

Now the Mormon rewriters of documented historical accounts on this episode that ended JS's life, have made him into a poor, poor, martyr.
********
Now put the testimonies of the biblical apostles against JS jr. Brigham Young.........and many of their close associates........and there is absolutely no comparison.  What you observe is cowardice,,,,,,,,,a lack of true conviction to God...........and basically criminal behavior.
*****
*Also Mormon apologists..............Answer this one:  Why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand that the American Flag be removed from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City?*


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can start with arrest record.. going with his 'translation change' slight of hand with the 'seer stones' after the original translation was taken away and he was asked to repeat what he did... his debunked and inaccurate claims in the archaeological timeline... he smells of a con artist at most every angle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul and many of the apostles and almost all Christians in the early days had pretty bad arrest records. And one other guy too.....hmmm.....what was his name again?.......Oh yeah! Jesus!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Comparing the 12 Apostles of the bible arrest records or reasons for arrest versus JS Jr. is like comparing apples to oranges.  You know it to.  What a lame comparison/argument.  That's the best you can do?
> 
> The 12 Apostles were all arrested on various occassions for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ................and receiving lashes, stones, beheadings, crucifixions, etc..............for telling the Jewish and Roman authorities that they wouldn't quit preaching even after receiving jail and torture.
> 
> JS Jr.  Breaks into a Newspaper office, attempts to destroy the paper's printing press for printing negative-Mormon stories about his friendly little band of followers and himself.
> 
> He is summarily jailed, and a mob comes to drag him out of jail and do who know's what............running him out of town on a rail, tar and feather him, or kill him...................Anyway this brave apostle of god gets hold of a hand gun snuck into his cell, and instead of going to his death like a true martyr he shoots it out with the crowd, and in doing so is fatally shot.  Wow, what a testimony of trusting into God his life.
> 
> Now the Mormon rewriters of documented historical accounts on this episode that ended JS's life, have made him into a poor, poor, martyr.
> ********
> Now put the testimonies of the biblical apostles against JS jr. Brigham Young.........and many of their close associates........and there is absolutely no comparison.  What you observe is cowardice,,,,,,,,,a lack of true conviction to God...........and basically criminal behavior.
> *****
> *Also Mormon apologists..............Answer this one:  Why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand that the American Flag be removed from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City?*
Click to expand...


Jesus was not charged with preaching his gospel. They had to arraign him on a false charge the Romans would understand. Cmon....You know better than that. Of course it was the REAL reason he was charged but not on paper. Just like Joseph Smith. Really he was arrested because of the gospel but that's not gonna fly in any court, just like it didn't fly with Pilate. The Jews had to get him convicted under another name. That name was insurrection against Ceasar, claiming he was a king and causing a disturbance of the peace. Their initial charge of blasphemy was only good enough in the courts of the high priests but was no crime to the pagan Roman officers. You see it is EXACTLY the same. You DO know better than to claim otherwise.

As to President Teddy asking for the flag to be taken down, I'd say that is more of a rumor than a fact. I've never heard of that and if it's true, who cares what Teddy thinks?


----------



## nraforlife

Truthspeaker said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, South Park? Really? The encyclopedia of all wisdom?
Click to expand...


Nah, but they DO have a knack for deflating the ballons of the pompous and blow-hardly sorts, even at the risk of ritual beheading.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul and many of the apostles and almost all Christians in the early days had pretty bad arrest records. And one other guy too.....hmmm.....what was his name again?.......Oh yeah! Jesus!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the 12 Apostles of the bible arrest records or reasons for arrest versus JS Jr. is like comparing apples to oranges.  You know it to.  What a lame comparison/argument.  That's the best you can do?
> 
> The 12 Apostles were all arrested on various occassions for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ................and receiving lashes, stones, beheadings, crucifixions, etc..............for telling the Jewish and Roman authorities that they wouldn't quit preaching even after receiving jail and torture.
> 
> JS Jr.  Breaks into a Newspaper office, attempts to destroy the paper's printing press for printing negative-Mormon stories about his friendly little band of followers and himself.
> 
> He is summarily jailed, and a mob comes to drag him out of jail and do who know's what............running him out of town on a rail, tar and feather him, or kill him...................Anyway this brave apostle of god gets hold of a hand gun snuck into his cell, and instead of going to his death like a true martyr he shoots it out with the crowd, and in doing so is fatally shot.  Wow, what a testimony of trusting into God his life.
> 
> Now the Mormon rewriters of documented historical accounts on this episode that ended JS's life, have made him into a poor, poor, martyr.
> ********
> Now put the testimonies of the biblical apostles against JS jr. Brigham Young.........and many of their close associates........and there is absolutely no comparison.  What you observe is cowardice,,,,,,,,,a lack of true conviction to God...........and basically criminal behavior.
> *****
> *Also Mormon apologists..............Answer this one:  Why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand that the American Flag be removed from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus was not charged with preaching his gospel. They had to arraign him on a false charge the Romans would understand. Cmon....You know better than that. Of course it was the REAL reason he was charged but not on paper. Just like Joseph Smith. Really he was arrested because of the gospel but that's not gonna fly in any court, just like it didn't fly with Pilate. The Jews had to get him convicted under another name. That name was insurrection against Ceasar, claiming he was a king and causing a disturbance of the peace. Their initial charge of blasphemy was only good enough in the courts of the high priests but was no crime to the pagan Roman officers. You see it is EXACTLY the same. You DO know better than to claim otherwise.
> 
> As to President Teddy asking for the flag to be taken down, I'd say that is more of a rumor than a fact. I've never heard of that and if it's true, who cares what Teddy thinks?
Click to expand...


The Sanhedrin told Pilate that Jesus was causing a stir with the people by claiming to be the King of the Jews..............Then by saying that "Caesar is our only king", they put Pilate in a bind.

Pilate would not indict or complete the Jewish charges against Jesus of causing unrest, and or riotous mobs, as he/Pilate knew of no problems with Jesus in this area.

When Pilate asked Jesus if he was a King, He/Jesus answered in the affirmative..........He said His kingdom is not of this world..........

Pilate also told Jesus that he had the power of life or death over Jesus...............Jesus countered, "You could have no such power unless My Father granted it so.".   I.E.  this arrest, and trial was all God's plan............It was God's will that this would happen.  Jesus prayed till drops of blood came out of the pores of his face and dripped to the ground.  He travailed as He was fully human, yet He affirmed God's will at the end of the prayer with, "Thy will be done.".

The Father is the Gardner, Jesus is the root and main stalk, and trully born again believers are the branches that bear the fruit, as their individual lives are supplied by the root or stalk.

J.S. Jr. didn't "abide" in Jesus Christ...........His teachings, his life bear witness of this.

To be part of that divine vine, is to "abide" in Christ...........To abide in Christ is to have His life within.  The Holy Spirit testifies in every true born again person's life that they are now God's property, and not their own.  The Lordship of Christ is the natural desire of every believer, and the greatest fruits of that Spirit is Love.  Not a sappy, syrupy love, but a love for the "lost", a love for one's enemy, or for those that sin against us.  When one is saved by "grace" they have no bragging rights to their new identity in Christ.  It is a gift, undeserved, yet the Father gives it, as His nature is one of passion, and love for His lost creation.

There has been but one sinless man since Adam and Eve's pre-fall.  That is Jesus Christ.  Big difference:  Adam and Eve were made from the dust of earth, and God breathed life into that dust and they were made.  Actually, Eve came from Adam's rib, but she was never the less created.

Christ the second Adam as Paul the Apostle calls Him, was perfect from before the foundations of the world or the universe.  He is the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, the I AM..   Yes the same one who said "Tell them I AM sends you" to Moses.................and we know who that was........in the burning bush,  don't we?

Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, James, Barnabus, Steven, Phillip, and on and on..........pro-claimed Jesus the Messiah, the I AM, God in the flesh.

""If you know Me" you know the Father"
*******
So sad how Mormon humanistic and anti-biblical teaching has twisted the nature of Christ from what is clearly revealed in the bible to one of a myriad of Jesus's who have and will inhabit a myriad of other planets like  our own, and be saviors of those planets.  

Folks........I could swear that Mormon theology came from George Lucas..................It would fill the theaters................  Picture this.........go to heaven and have sex sex sex, with fair Mormon maidens and beget zillions of little spirit babies...............And these little spirit babies will get the call to come to earth and become some humans in-womb child.   Ain't that just beautiful, Hollywoodish...........interpretation of the bible?

Mohammed offers 77 fresh usda choice/prime virgins for good Muslims.............Joseph Smith Jr. and his concocted religion offer "Cellestial Sex" to every diceased, good, hard working, good tithing, Mormon husband.     Plus...........He can choose to raise or not raise his earthly Mormon wife from the dead.   

Folks.........As said before, don't taste the meal, until you scratch the surface and read the real recipe.  The LDS church is built upon one anti-biblical stance upon another.  Don't be fooled by their American flag, Apple Pie, monogonous marriage theme........and Family home evenings..............It's all a big old veil covering the dubious ones they venerate as "true" latter day prophets.

King Follet Funeral Sermon speach by your prophet..............Care to elaborate Truthspeaker? http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/kingfolletsermon.htm 

Avatar:  Just cant get his or her's head out of the LDS sandbox.  He/she will defend the church and ignore the obvious and go down with the Titanic..........and believe me...........Avatar........I really pray that you would take a big chance and look at literature other than what your elders tell you is ok.

Please read any definition of a cult, and a cult member.  It is an eye opener.  Just type it in any good search engine.


----------



## Eightball

*King Follet Sermon: *  Folks........If you have the time........this sermon by a LDS prophet Joseph Smith Jr. will reveal to all who are seeking the biblical God and Christ.............how skewed, and anti-Christian, the LDS churchs' doctrinal foundations are.  

Also take note, that the BOM or Book of Mormon has gone through 3,000-4,000 textual changes since it's 1830 beginning.  The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm just the opposite with the Holy bible.



> *Chapter XIV*
> 
> *CONFERENCE OF THE CHURCH, APRIL, 1844 (CONTINUED)&#8212;THE KING FOLLETT SERMON&#8212;THE CHARACTER OF GOD&#8212;RELIGIOUS FREEDOM&#8212;GOD AN EXALTED MAN&#8212;ETERNAL LIFE TO KNOW GOD AND JESUS CHRIST&#8212;EVERLASTING BURNINGS&#8212;MEANING OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES&#8212;A COUNCIL OF THE GODS&#8212;MEANING OF THE WORD CREATE&#8212;THE IMMORTAL INTELLIGENCE&#8212;THE RELATION OF MAN TO GOD&#8212;OUR GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY&#8212;THE UNPARDONABLE SIN&#8212;THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN&#8212;THE SECOND DEATH.*
> 
> Sunday, April 7, 1844.&#8212;[Conference Report Continued.]
> 
> At quarter past three, p.m., the President having arrived, the choir sang a hymn, Elder Amasa Lyman offered prayer.
> 
> President Joseph Smith delivered the following discourse before about twenty thousand Saints, being the funeral sermon of Elder King Follett. Reported by Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock and William Clayton.
> 
> Beloved Saints: I will call [for] the attention of this congregation while I address you on the subject of the dead. The decease of our beloved brother, Elder King Follett, who was crushed in a well by the falling of a tub of rock, has more immediately led me to this subject. I have been requested to speak by his friends and relatives, but inasmuch as there are a great many in this congregation who live in this city as well as elsewhere, who have lost friends, I feel disposed to speak on the subject in general, and offer you my ideas, so far as I have ability, and so far as I shall be inspired by the Holy Spirit to dwell on this subject.
> 
> I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony may carry conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say. Pray that the Lord may strengthen my lungs, stay the winds, and let the prayers of the Saints to heaven appear, that they may enter into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, for the effectual prayers of the righteous avail much. There is strength here, and I verily believe that your prayers will be heard.
> 
> Before I enter fully into the investigation of the subject which is lying before me, I wish to pave the way and bring up the subject from the beginning, that you may understand it. I will make a few preliminaries, in order that you may understand the subject when I come to it. I do not calculate or intend to please your ears with superfluity of words or oratory, or with much learning; but I calculate [intend] to edify you with the simple truths from heaven.
> 
> *The Character of God*
> 
> In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning&#8212;to the morn of creation. There is the starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Eloheim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of the world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right.
> 
> There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or His existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.
> 
> If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into more lofty spheres and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.
> 
> I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in their own hearts, what kind of a being God is? Ask yourselves; turn your thoughts into your hearts, and say if any of you have seen, heard, or communed with Him? This is a question that may occupy your attention for a long time. I again repeat the question&#8212;What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen Him, heard Him, or communed with Him? Here is the question that will, peradventure, from this time henceforth occupy your attention. The scriptures inform us that "This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
> 
> If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is,&#8212;if he will search diligently his own heart&#8212;if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.
> 
> My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true, God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world&#8212;a false teacher, be hailed as a friend, and no man would seek my life. But if all religious teachers were honest enough to renounce their pretensions to godliness when their ignorance of the knowledge of God is made manifest, they will all be as badly off as I am, at any rate; and you might just as well take the lives of other false teachers as that of mine. If any man is authorized to take away my life because he thinks and says I am a false teacher, then, upon the same principle, we should be justified in taking away the life of every false teacher, and where would be the end of blood? And who would not be the sufferer?
> 
> *The Privilege of Religious Freedom*
> 
> But meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong. Every man has a natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet. If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood.
> 
> I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is. I am going to inquire after God; for I want you all to know Him, and to be familiar with Him; and if I am bringing you to a knowledge of Him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am His servant; for I speak as one having authority.
> 
> *God An Exalted Man*
> 
> I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.
> 
> God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible,&#8212;I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
> 
> In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
> 
> These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.
> 
> *Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ*
> 
> I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power&#8212; to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious&#8212;in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life&#8212;to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.
> 
> *The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings*
> 
> These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.
> 
> When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel&#8212;you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry "treason" and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.
> 
> I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible&#8212;Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith&#8212;in, by, through, and everything else. Roch&#8212;the head, Sheit&#8212;grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.
> 
> I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the doctors and lawyers of the scriptures. I have done so hitherto without explanation, to let the lawyers flutter and everybody laugh at them. Some learned doctors might take a notion to say the scriptures say thus and so; and we must believe the scriptures; they are not to be altered. But I am going to show you an error in them.
> 
> I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jacobus, the son of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James. Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity and never get the keys. In the 21st. of the fourth chapter of Matthew, my old German edition gives the word Jacob instead of James.
> 
> The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, "If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason." How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains. The Latin says Jacobus, which means Jacob; the Hebrew says Jacob, the Greek says Jacob and the German says Jacob, here we have the testimony of four against one. I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony, were it not to back up the word rosh&#8212;the head, the Father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.
> 
> *A Council of the Gods*
> 
> In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer.
> 
> When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.
> 
> Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and I will associate myself with him.
> 
> *Meaning of the Word Create*
> 
> You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos&#8212;chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.
> 
> *The Immortal Intelligence*
> 
> I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man; but it is impossible for me to say much on this subject, I shall therefore just touch upon it, for time will not permit me to say all. It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead,&#8212;namely, the soul&#8212;the mind of man&#8212;the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don't believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. I will make a man appear a fool before I get through; if he does not believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.
> 
> We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, "God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam's spirit, and so became a living body."
> 
> The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth,
> 
> I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.
> 
> I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man&#8212;on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man&#8212;the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.
> 
> Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.
> 
> The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.
> 
> This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them, and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know that it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.
> 
> *The Relation of Man to God*
> 
> I want to talk more of the relation of man to God. I will open your eyes in relation to the dead. All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our bodies. God reveals them to us in view of no eternal dissolution of the body, or tabernacle. Hence the responsibility, the awful responsibility, that rests upon us in relation to our dead; for all the spirits who have not obeyed the Gospel in the flesh must either obey it in the spirit or be damned. Solemn thought!&#8212;dreadful thought! Is there nothing to be done?&#8212;no preparation&#8212;no salvation for our fathers and friends who have died without having had the opportunity to obey the decrees of the Son of Man? Would to God that I had forty days and nights in which to tell you all! I would let you know that I am not a "fallen prophet."
> 
> *Our Greatest Responsibility*
> 
> What promises are made in relation to the subject of the salvation of the dead? and what kind of characters are those who can be saved, although their bodies are mouldering and decaying in the grave? When His commandments teach us, it is in view of eternity; for we are looked upon by God as though we were in eternity; God dwells in eternity, and does not view things as we do.
> 
> The greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead. The apostle says, "They without us cannot be made perfect"; for it is necessary that the sealing power should be in our hands to seal our children and our dead for the fulness of the dispensation of times&#8212;a dispensation to meet the promises made by Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world for the salvation of man.
> 
> Now, I will speak of them. I will meet Paul half way. I say to you, Paul, you cannot be perfect without us. It is necessary that those who are going before and those who come after us should have salvation in common with us; and thus hath God made it obligatory upon man. Hence, God said, "I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."
> 
> *The Unpardonable Sin*
> 
> I have a declaration to make as to the provisions which God hath made to suit the conditions of man&#8212;made from before the foundation of the world. What has Jesus said? All sins, and all blasphemies, and every transgression, except one, that man can be guilty of, may be forgiven; and there is a salvation for all men, either in this world or the world to come, who have not committed the unpardonable sin, there being a provision either in this world or the world of spirits. Hence God hath made a provision that every spirit in the eternal world can be ferreted out and saved unless he has committed that unpardonable sin which cannot be remitted to him either in this world or the world of spirits. God has wrought out a salvation for all men, unless they have committed a certain sin; and every man who has a friend in the eternal world can save him, unless he has committed the unpardonable sin. And so you can see how far you can be a savior.
> 
> A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.
> 
> A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.
> 
> I know the scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost; but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself.
> 
> The contention in heaven was&#8212;Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he would save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him. (Book of Moses&#8212;Pearl of Great Price, Ch. 4:1-4; Book of Abraham, Ch. 3:23-28.)
> 
> *The Forgiveness of Sins*
> 
> All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
> 
> When a man begins to be an enemy to this work, he hunts me, he seeks to kill me, and never ceases to thirst for my blood. He gets the spirit of the devil&#8212;the same spirit that they had who crucified the Lord of Life&#8212;the same spirit that sins against the Holy Ghost. You cannot save such persons; you cannot bring them to repentance; they make open war, like the devil, and awful is the consequence.
> 
> I advise all of you to be careful what you do, or you may by-and-by find out that you have been deceived. Stay yourselves; do not give way; don't make any hasty moves, you may be saved. If a spirit of bitterness is in you, don't be in haste. You may say, that man is a sinner. Well, if he repents, he shall be forgiven. Be cautious: await. When you find a spirit that wants bloodshed,&#8212;murder, the same is not of God, but is of the devil. Out of the abundance of the heart of man the mouth speaketh.
> 
> The best men bring forth the best works. The man who tells you words of life is the man who can save you. I warn you against all evil characters who sin against the Holy Ghost; for there is no redemption for them in this world nor in the world to come.
> 
> I could go back and trace every object of interest concerning the relationship of man to God, if I had time. I can enter into the mysteries; I can enter largely into the eternal worlds; for Jesus said, "In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." (John 14:2). Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor. 15:41). What have we to console us in relation to the dead? We have reason to have the greatest hope and consolation for our dead of any people on the earth; for we have seen them walk worthily in our midst, and seen them sink asleep in the arms of Jesus; and those who have died in the faith are now in the celestial kingdom of God. And hence is the glory of the sun.
> 
> You mourners have occasion to rejoice, speaking of the death of Elder King Follett; for your husband and father is gone to wait until the resurrection of the dead&#8212;until the perfection of the remainder; for at the resurrection your friend will rise in perfect felicity and go to celestial glory, while many must wait myriads of years before they can receive the like blessings; and your expectations and hopes are far above what man can conceive; for why has God revealed it to us?
> 
> I am authorized to say, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that you have no occasion to fear; for he is gone to the home of the just. Don't mourn, don't weep. I know it by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that is within me; and you may wait for your friends to come forth to meet you in the morn of the celestial world.
> 
> Rejoice, O Israel! Your friends who have been murdered for the truth's sake in the persecutions shall triumph gloriously in the celestial world, while their murderers shall welter for ages in torment, even until they shall have paid the uttermost farthing. I say this for the benefit of strangers.
> 
> I have a father, brothers, children, and friends who have gone to a world of spirits. They are only absent for a moment. They are in the spirit, and we shall soon meet again. The time will soon arrive when the trumpet shall sound. When we depart, we shall hail our mothers, fathers, friends, and all whom we love, who have fallen asleep in Jesus. There will be no fear of mobs, persecutions, or malicious lawsuits and arrests; but it will be an eternity of felicity.
> 
> A question may be asked&#8212;"Will mothers have their children in eternity?" Yes! Yes! Mothers, you shall have your children; for they shall have eternal life, for their debt is paid. There is no damnation awaiting them for they are in the spirit. But as the child dies, so shall it rise from the dead, and be for ever living in the learning of God. It will never grow [in the grave]; it will still be the child, in the same precise form [when it rises] as it appeared before it died out of its mother's arms, but possessing all the intelligence of a God. Children dwell in the mansions of glory and exercise power, but appear in the same form as when on earth. Eternity is full of thrones, upon which dwell thousands of children, reigning on thrones of glory, with not one cubit added to their stature.
> 
> I will leave this subject here, and make a few remarks on the subject of baptism. The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use; they are necessarily and inseparably connected. An individual must be born of water and the spirit in order to get into the kingdom of God. In the German, the text bears me out the same as the revelations which I have given and taught for the past fourteen years on that subject. I have the testimony to put in their teeth. My testimony has been true all the time. You will find it in the declaration of John the Baptist. (Reads from the German.) John says, "I baptize you with water, but when Jesus comes, who has the power (or keys) He shall administer the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost." Great God! Where is now all the sectarian world? And if this testimony is true, they are all damned as clearly as anathema can do it. I know the text is true. I call upon all you Germans who know that it is true to say, Eye. (Loud shouts of "Aye.")
> 
> Alexander Campbell, how are you going to save people with water alone? For John said his baptism was good for nothing without the baptism of Jesus Christ. "Therefore, not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit." (Heb. 6:1-3).
> 
> There is one God, one Father, one Jesus, one hope of our calling, one baptism. All these three baptisms only make one. Many talk of baptism not being essential to salvation; but this kind of teaching would lay the foundation of their damnation. I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me, if they can.
> 
> I have now preached a little Latin, a little Hebrew, Greek, and German; and I have fulfilled all. I am not so big a fool as many have taken me to be. The Germans know that I read the German correctly.
> 
> *The Second Death*
> 
> Hear it, all ye ends of the earth&#8212;all ye priests, all ye sinners, and all men. Repent! Repent! Obey the gospel. Turn to God; for your religion won't save you, and you will be damned. I do not say how long. There have been remarks made concerning all men being redeemed from hell; but I say that those who sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world to come; they shall die the second death. Those who commit the unpardonable sin are doomed to Gnolom&#8212;to dwell in hell, worlds without end. As they concocted scenes of bloodshed in this world, so they shall rise to that resurrection which is as the lake of fire and brimstone. Some shall rise to the everlasting burnings of God; for God dwells in everlasting burnings and some shall rise to the damnation of their own filthiness, which is as exquisite a torment as the lake of fire and brimstone.
> 
> I have intended my remarks for all, both rich and poor, bond and free, great and small. I have no enmity against any man. I love you all; but I hate some of your deeds. I am your best friend, and if persons miss their mark it is their own fault. If I reprove a man, and he hates me, he is a fool; for I love all men, especially these my brethren and sisters.
> 
> I rejoice in hearing the testimony of my aged friends. You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.
> 
> I cannot lie down until all my work is finished. I never think any evil, nor do anything to the harm of my fellow-man. When I am called by the trump of the archangel and weighed in the balance, you will all know me then. I add no more. God bless you all. Amen.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Comparing the 12 Apostles of the bible arrest records or reasons for arrest versus JS Jr. is like comparing apples to oranges.  You know it to.  What a lame comparison/argument.  That's the best you can do?



Yeah, what a totally lame argument. I mean how on earth could the Apostles being falsely arrested multiple times and in some cases falsely convicted possibly compare to Joseph Smith being falsely accused, arrested, and aquited most times. It's completely uncomparable.



> The 12 Apostles were all arrested on various occassions for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ................and receiving lashes, stones, beheadings, crucifixions, etc..............for telling the Jewish and Roman authorities that they wouldn't quit preaching even after receiving jail and torture.



And that is somehow different than being arrested and put through horrible conditions for preaching the Restoration of The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Got you.



> JS Jr.  Breaks into a Newspaper office, attempts to destroy the paper's printing press for printing negative-Mormon stories about his friendly little band of followers and himself.



Could you tell me where Joseph exactly broke into any building?

Could also tell me what exactly you know about Nuisance law in Illinois during the 1840s?

And could you also tell me what authority the Mayor has in dealing with Nuisances?



> He is summarily jailed, and a mob comes to drag him out of jail and do who know's what............running him out of town on a rail, tar and feather him, or kill him...................Anyway this brave apostle of god gets hold of a hand gun snuck into his cell, and instead of going to his death like a true martyr he shoots it out with the crowd, and in doing so is fatally shot.  Wow, what a testimony of trusting into God his life.



I would hardly call blindly firing 3 shots down a corridor to distract a mob who has just murdered your brother in order to get out the window and save the lives of your other friends as a "Shoot out".

Nor would I call a mob murdering two people in cold blood and injuring another with multiple shots to each of them as anything other than an execution.

When exactly have mobs been authorized to sentence people to death?

And why was he killed? Because he was a Mormon.



> Now the Mormon rewriters of documented historical accounts on this episode that ended JS's life, have made him into a poor, poor, martyr.



And why would we have to rewrite anything? Why not just read the account of the eye witnesses? Do you have another definition of a martyr than the english dictionary does?


Doctrine and Covenants 135

But I guess it's easy just to pretend that those darn mormons are lying about everything. Can't possibly look at it from another perspective than yours.




> Now put the testimonies of the biblical apostles against JS jr. Brigham Young.........and many of their close associates........and there is absolutely no comparison.  What you observe is cowardice,,,,,,,,,a lack of true conviction to God...........and basically criminal behavior.



Cowardice?

Joseph, Hyrum, Sidney, Parley and all the other leaders were cowards to turn themselves over to the Missouri government in order to prevent the Saints from being massacred by the Missouri Extermination act.

I'm sure Joseph and Hyrum are cowards for turning themselves over to the Government of Illinois even though they knew the mobs would kill them. 

Tell me something. What kind of con man would put himself through the sheer torture Joseph was put through? He was jailed multiple time in horrid conditions, murdered, tarred and feathered, beaten, had his children killed because He said that He saw Jesus Christ. 

Do you know what it's like to be mobbed. I do. It's not exactly an experience I'd like to go through again. And I certainly wouldn't go through it for a lie.



> *Also Mormon apologists..............Answer this one:  Why did President Theodore Roosevelt demand that the American Flag be removed from the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City?*



Well, this is a new one. But answer me this question back first:

How on earth does it change what Joseph Smith saw or didn't see?


----------



## Avatar4321

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, South Park? Really? The encyclopedia of all wisdom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, but they DO have a knack for deflating the ballons of the pompous and blow-hardly sorts, even at the risk of ritual beheading.
Click to expand...


Actually, they have a knack for caricatures which are rather amusing but sometimes are accurate and sometimes inaccurate.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> The Sanhedrin told Pilate that Jesus was causing a stir with the people by claiming to be the King of the Jews..............Then by saying that "Caesar is our only king", they put Pilate in a bind.
> 
> Pilate would not indict or complete the Jewish charges against Jesus of causing unrest, and or riotous mobs, as he/Pilate knew of no problems with Jesus in this area.
> 
> When Pilate asked Jesus if he was a King, He/Jesus answered in the affirmative..........He said His kingdom is not of this world..........
> 
> Pilate also told Jesus that he had the power of life or death over Jesus...............Jesus countered, "You could have no such power unless My Father granted it so.".   I.E.  this arrest, and trial was all God's plan............It was God's will that this would happen.  Jesus prayed till drops of blood came out of the pores of his face and dripped to the ground.  He travailed as He was fully human, yet He affirmed God's will at the end of the prayer with, "Thy will be done.".
> 
> The Father is the Gardner, Jesus is the root and main stalk, and trully born again believers are the branches that bear the fruit, as their individual lives are supplied by the root or stalk.
> 
> J.S. Jr. didn't "abide" in Jesus Christ...........His teachings, his life bear witness of this.
> 
> To be part of that divine vine, is to "abide" in Christ...........To abide in Christ is to have His life within.  The Holy Spirit testifies in every true born again person's life that they are now God's property, and not their own.  The Lordship of Christ is the natural desire of every believer, and the greatest fruits of that Spirit is Love.  Not a sappy, syrupy love, but a love for the "lost", a love for one's enemy, or for those that sin against us.  When one is saved by "grace" they have no bragging rights to their new identity in Christ.  It is a gift, undeserved, yet the Father gives it, as His nature is one of passion, and love for His lost creation.
> 
> There has been but one sinless man since Adam and Eve's pre-fall.  That is Jesus Christ.  Big difference:  Adam and Eve were made from the dust of earth, and God breathed life into that dust and they were made.  Actually, Eve came from Adam's rib, but she was never the less created.
> 
> Christ the second Adam as Paul the Apostle calls Him, was perfect from before the foundations of the world or the universe.  He is the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, the I AM..   Yes the same one who said "Tell them I AM sends you" to Moses.................and we know who that was........in the burning bush,  don't we?
> 
> Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, James, Barnabus, Steven, Phillip, and on and on..........pro-claimed Jesus the Messiah, the I AM, God in the flesh.
> 
> ""If you know Me" you know the Father"



Joseph also proclaimed that Jesus is the Messiah, the Great I Am, God in the Flesh. But for some reason that doesn't matter to you.

Joseph's only "crime" was having the courage to tell the world that He saw God and recieved revelation from Him.



> 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: *That He lives! *
> 
> 23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father
> 
> 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24)



That was the central message throughout every sermon ever given.



> So sad how Mormon humanistic and anti-biblical teaching has twisted the nature of Christ from what is clearly revealed in the bible to one of a myriad of Jesus's who have and will inhabit a myriad of other planets like  our own, and be saviors of those planets.



Which, of course, is completely false as it has _never_ been revealed what happens on other planets. 



> Folks........I could swear that Mormon theology came from George Lucas..................It would fill the theaters................  Picture this.........go to heaven and have sex sex sex, with fair Mormon maidens and beget zillions of little spirit babies...............And these little spirit babies will get the call to come to earth and become some humans in-womb child.   Ain't that just beautiful, Hollywoodish...........interpretation of the bible?



Which is also completely false. 

Heaven has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with being sealed as Families for all Eternity. I have no clue whether sex will occur in Heaven. But honestly, I can't think of a good reason it shouldn't. It is the highest sacrament. It is the act that brings us closest to God because of us literally being able to be participants with God in the Holy act of creating life.

I don't know why you want to cheapen such a Holy Act or why you think it's somehow wrong. But regardless, it's not accurate to claim that's all Heaven or even if it occurs in Heaven when the Lord hasn't revealed such things to us.



> Mohammed offers 77 fresh usda choice/prime virgins for good Muslims.............Joseph Smith Jr. and his concocted religion offer "Cellestial Sex" to every diceased, good, hard working, good tithing, Mormon husband.     Plus...........He can choose to raise or not raise his earthly Mormon wife from the dead.



Clearly you have no concept of delagation or stewardship. I just wish for once you would be honest.



> Folks.........As said before, don't taste the meal, until you scratch the surface and read the real recipe.  The LDS church is built upon one anti-biblical stance upon another.  Don't be fooled by their American flag, Apple Pie, monogonous marriage theme........and Family home evenings..............It's all a big old veil covering the dubious ones they venerate as "true" latter day prophets.



That's a rather lame argument. People eat things all the time that they don't know the recipes too. And many many times they are very good and tasty things. I don't know how to make donuts, but they sure as heck are enjoyable.

Amazing how we can testify that what we have in the Bible is true and we are "anti Biblical". Amazing how anyone can be fooled by our American flag when we have more members outside the United States. Apple pie has nothing to do with it.

As for the family, it's not covering anything. The Family is central to the Creator's plan. He designed it so that children coming into the world would have the best support while they grow up.



> King Follet Funeral Sermon speach by your prophet..............Care to elaborate Truthspeaker?



I rather like the King Follet Sermon. The irony of it all is that Joseph used the Bible to prove this points.



> Avatar:  Just cant get his or her's head out of the LDS sandbox.  He/she will defend the church and ignore the obvious and go down with the Titanic..........and believe me...........Avatar........I really pray that you would take a big chance and look at literature other than what your elders tell you is ok.



You really don't listen do you? I've read everything you've said multiple times. It's bullcrap. I've gone to your sources. I've searched in-depth. I've never taken just one side of things and ignored the other like you have.

You can't tell me we believe things we don't when I've seen the original sources _in context_. You can't tell me you understand what I believe when you are sprouting off this complete nonsense that my "elders" tell me what books I cannot read when they have encouraged me since I was young to read _everything_ and to continually seek knowledge. 

You can't claim we aren't allowed encouraged to think and look at all knowledge when every six months at our General Conferences the leaders always speak about learning for yourself from the Spirit and through study the truth. They have always taught that there big worry is people would stop searching and wouldn't find out for themselves. Take Brigham Young's comments for one:



> We are duty bound to study, learn, and live by eternal principles.
> While the inhabitants of the earth are bestowing all their ability, both mental and physical, upon perishable objects, those who profess to be Latter-day Saints, who have the privilege of receiving and understanding the principles of the holy gospel, are in duty bound to study and find out, and put in practice in their lives, those principles that are calculated to endure, and that tend to a continual increase in this, and in the world to come (DNW, 20 July 1854, 1).
> 
> Not only does the religion of Jesus Christ make the people acquainted with the things of God, and develop within them moral excellence and purity, but it holds out every encouragement and inducement possible, for them to increase in knowledge and intelligence, in every branch of mechanism, or in the arts and sciences, for all wisdom, and all the arts and sciences in the world are from God, and are designed for the good of his people (DBY, 247).
> 
> Every art and science known and studied by the children of men is comprised within the Gospel. Where did the knowledge come from which has enabled man to accomplish such great achievements in science and mechanism within the last few years? We know that knowledge is from God, but why do they not acknowledge him? Because they are blind to their own interests, they do not see and understand things as they are. Who taught men to chain the lightning? Did man unaided of himself discover that? No, he received the knowledge from the Supreme Being. From him, too, has every art and science proceeded, although the credit is given to this individual, and that individual. But where did they get the knowledge from, have they it in and of themselves? No, they must acknowledge that, if they cannot make one spear of grass grow, nor one hair white or black [see Matthew 5:36] without artificial aid, they are dependent upon the Supreme Being just the same as the poor and the ignorant. Where have we received the knowledge to construct the labor-saving machinery for which the present age is remarkable? From Heaven. Where have we received our knowledge of astronomy, or the power to make glasses to penetrate the immensity of space?  From [God] has every astronomer, artist and mechanician that ever lived on the earth obtained his knowledge (DBY, 246).
> 
> The greatest difficulty we have to meet is what may be termed ignorance, or want of understanding in the people (DBY, 247).
> 
> The religion embraced by the Latter-day Saints, if only slightly understood, prompts them to search diligently after knowledge [see D&C 88:118]. There is no other people in existence more eager to see, hear, learn, and understand truth (DBY, 247).
> 
> Put forth your ability to learn as fast as you can, and gather all the strength of mind and principle of faith you possibly can, and then distribute your knowledge to the people (DBY, 247).
> 
> Let us train our minds until we delight in that which is good, lovely and holy, seeking continually after that intelligence which will enable us effectually to build up Zion,  seeking to do the will of the Lord all the days of our lives, improving our minds in all scientific and mechanical knowledge, seeking diligently to understand the great design and plan of all created things, that we may know what to do with our lives and how to improve upon the facilities placed within our reach (DBY, 247).
> 
> We are called to grow in grace and knowledge for eternity.
> This is our labor, our business, and our callingto grow in grace and in knowledge from day to day and from year to year (DBY, 248).
> 
> I shall not cease learning while I live, nor when I arrive in the spirit-world; but shall there learn with greater facility; and when I again receive my body, I shall learn a thousand times more in a thousand times less time; and then I do not mean to cease learning, but shall still continue my researches (DBY, 248).
> 
> We shall never see the time when we shall not need to be taught, nor when there will not be an object to be gained. I never expect to see the time that there will not be a superior power and a superior knowledge, and, consequently, incitements to further progress and further improvements (DBY, 248).
> 
> Could we live to the age of Methuselah  and spend our lives in searching after the principles of eternal life, we would find, when one eternity had passed to us, that we had been but children thus far, babies just commencing to learn the things which pertain to the eternities of the Gods (DBY, 249).
> 
> We might ask, when shall we cease to learn? I will give you my opinion about it: never, never (DBY, 249).
> 
> Experience has taught us that it requires time to acquire certain branches of mechanism, also principles and ideas that we wish to become masters of. The closer people apply their minds to any correct purpose the faster they can grow and increase in the knowledge of the truth. When they learn to master their feelings, they can soon learn to master their reflections and thoughts in the degree requisite for attaining the objects they are seeking. But while they yield to a feeling or spirit that distracts their minds from a subject they wish to study and learn, so long they will never gain the mastery of their minds (DBY, 250).
> 
> A firm, unchangeable course of righteousness through life is what secures to a person true intelligence (DBY, 245).
> 
> We should educate ourselves and our children in the learning of the world and the things of God.
> Teach the children, give them the learning of the world and the things of God; elevate their minds, that they may not only understand the earth we walk upon, but the air we breathe, the water we drink, and all the elements pertaining to the earth (DBY, 251).
> 
> See that your children are properly educated in the rudiments of their mother tongue, and then let them proceed to higher branches of learning; let them become more informed in every department of true and useful learning than their fathers are. When they have become well acquainted with their language, let them study other languages, and make themselves fully acquainted with the manners, customs, laws, governments and literature of other nations, peoples, and tongues. Let them also learn all the truth pertaining to the arts and sciences, and how to apply the same to their temporal wants. Let them study things that are upon the earth, that are in the earth, and that are in the heavens (DBY, 252).
> 
> Every accomplishment, every polished grace, every useful attainment in mathematics, music, and in all science and art belongs to the Saints, and they should avail themselves as expeditiously as possible of the wealth of knowledge the sciences offer to every diligent and persevering scholar (DBY, 252).
> 
> I am happy to see our children engaged in the study and practice of music. Let them be educated in every useful branch of learning, for we, as a people, have in the future to excel the nations of the earth in religion, science and philosophy (DBY, 256).
> 
> There are hundreds of young men here who can go to school, which is far better than to waste their time. Study languages, get knowledge and understanding; and while doing this, get wisdom from God, and forget it not, and learn how to apply it, that you may be good with it all the days of your lives (DBY, 252).
> 
> Go to school and study.  I want to have schools to entertain the minds of the people and draw them out to learn the arts and sciences. Send the old children to school, and the young ones also; there is nothing I would like better than to learn chemistry, botany, geology, and mineralogy, so that I could tell what I walk on, the properties of the air I breathe, what I drink, etc. (DBY, 253).
> 
> We should be a people of profound learning.
> We should be a people of profound learning pertaining to the things of the world. We should be familiar with the various languages, for we wish to send missionaries to the different nations and to the islands of the sea. We wish missionaries who may go to France to be able to speak the French language fluently, and those who may go to Germany, Italy, Spain, and so on to all nations, to be familiar with the languages of those nations (DBY, 254).
> 
> We also wish them to understand the geography, habits, customs, and laws of nations and kingdoms.  This is recommended in the revelations given to us [see D&C 88:7880; 93:53]. In them we are taught to study the best books, that we may become as well acquainted with the geography of the world as we are with our gardens, and as families with the peopleso far at least as they are portrayed in printas we are with our families and neighbors (DBY, 25455).
> 
> We are in a great school, and we should be diligent to learn, and continue to store up the knowledge of heaven and of earth, and read good books, although I cannot say that I would recommend the reading of all books, for it is not all books which are good. Read good books, and extract from them wisdom and understanding as much as you possibly can, aided by the Spirit of God (DBY, 248).
> 
> I would advise you to read books that are worth reading; read reliable history, and search wisdom out of the best books you can procure (DBY, 256).
> 
> How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature, and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us! How delightful this would be, and what a boundless field of truth and power is open for us to explore! We are only just approaching the shores of the vast ocean of information that pertains to this physical world, to say nothing of that which pertains to the heavens, to angels and celestial beings, to the place of their habitation, to the manner of their life, and their progress to still higher degrees of perfection (DBY, 255).
> 
> The revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ to the human family are all the learning we can ever possess. Much of this knowledge is obtained from books which have been written by men who have contemplated deeply on various subjects, and the revelations of Jesus have opened their minds, whether they knew it or acknowledged it or not (DBY, 25758).
> 
> Our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are factsthey are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible [see Abraham 3:24; D&C 131:7]. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it.  If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth (DBY, 25859).
> 
> We have the privilege of searching out the wisdom of God.
> It is the privilege of man to search out the wisdom of God pertaining to the earth and the heavens. Real wisdom is a real pleasure; real wisdom, prudence, and understanding, is a real comfort (DBY, 262).
> 
> The person that applies his heart to wisdom, and seeks diligently for understanding, will grow to be mighty in Israel (DBY, 261).
> 
> Let wisdom be sown in your hearts, and let it bring forth a bountiful harvest. It is more profitable to you than all the gold and silver and other riches of earth. Let wisdom spring up in your hearts, and cultivate it (DBY, 261).
> 
> As we prepare materials to build a house or temple, so man can prepare himself for the reception of eternal wisdom. We go where the materials for a house are, and prepare them to answer our purpose; so we may go to where eternal wisdom dwells and there diligently seek to possess it, for its price is above rubies [see Job 28:18] (DBY, 26162).
> 
> After all our endeavors to obtain wisdom from the best books, etc, there still remains an open fountain for all; If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God [see James 1:5] (DBY, 261).
> 
> If you live so as to possess the Holy Ghost,  you will at once see the difference between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God, and you can weigh things in the balance and estimate them at their true worth (DBY, 323).
> 
> Let every Latter-day Saint constantly practice himself in the performance of every good word and work, to acknowledge God to be God, to be strict in keeping his laws, and learning to love mercy, eschew [avoid] evil and delight in constantly doing that which is pleasing to God (DBY, 261).
> 
> There is only one Source whence men obtain wisdom, and that is God, the Fountain of all wisdom; and though men may claim to make their discoveries by their own wisdom, by meditation and reflection, they are indebted to our Father in Heaven for all (DBY, 25960).
> (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young)





> Please read any definition of a cult, and a cult member.  It is an eye opener.  Just type it in any good search engine.



I have. Multiple times. It would encompass anyone who practices religion. Including yourself.


----------



## Liability

"Cult" has meaning.  Used incorrectly, it has no meaning.

May bumpage.


----------



## Truthspeaker

nraforlife said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the Mormon episode of South Park did a pretty decent ~30 minute synopsis of much of the hokey things around the Mormon religion... Smith was a pretty shady character
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, South Park? Really? The encyclopedia of all wisdom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, but they DO have a knack for deflating the ballons of the pompous and blow-hardly sorts, even at the risk of ritual beheading.
Click to expand...


What's a ballon?

I see the heads of the south park creators are still intact, despite leaving us.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> "Cult" has meaning.  Used incorrectly, it has no meaning.
> 
> May bumpage.



Unfortunately, people have no problem changing the definition to fit the circumstance. Much like they will change the definition of Christian or any other word for an agenda.


----------



## blu

Neubarth said:


> Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.
> 
> Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.
> 
> I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.
> 
> Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.  I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases.  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.
> 
> Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!
> 
> Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.



all religions are bad shit insane when trying to defend tehir myths. never understood why scientologists get so much flack when a billion christians worship a zombie


----------



## Skeptik

blu said:


> all religions are bad shit insane when trying to defend tehir myths. never understood why scientologists get so much flack when a billion christians worship a zombie



A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Cult" has meaning.  Used incorrectly, it has no meaning.
> 
> May bumpage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, people have no problem changing the definition to fit the circumstance. Much like they will change the definition of Christian or any other word for an agenda.
Click to expand...


# followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices
# fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season"
# followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader
# a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; "it was a satanic cult"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> all religions are bad shit insane when trying to defend tehir myths. never understood why scientologists get so much flack when a billion christians worship a zombie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.
Click to expand...


Remember that it takes more credulity to believe in atheism than religion.


----------



## blu

Skeptik said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> all religions are bad shit insane when trying to defend tehir myths. never understood why scientologists get so much flack when a billion christians worship a zombie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.
Click to expand...


didnt jesus rise from the dead? what do you think a zombie is?


----------



## froggy

blu said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> all religions are bad shit insane when trying to defend tehir myths. never understood why scientologists get so much flack when a billion christians worship a zombie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> didnt jesus rise from the dead? what do you think a zombie is?
Click to expand...


Jesus is real and a zombie isn't.


----------



## blu

froggy said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didnt jesus rise from the dead? what do you think a zombie is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus is real and a zombie isn't.
Click to expand...


definition of zombie: "a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force"

was/is jesus not a zombie?


----------



## blu

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> all religions are bad shit insane when trying to defend tehir myths. never understood why scientologists get so much flack when a billion christians worship a zombie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember that it takes more credulity to believe in atheism than religion.
Click to expand...


yes because science over stories that make no sense and are provably false takes more credulity


----------



## Avatar4321

blu said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> all religions are bad shit insane when trying to defend tehir myths. never understood why scientologists get so much flack when a billion christians worship a zombie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> didnt jesus rise from the dead? what do you think a zombie is?
Click to expand...


Rising from the dead alive and rising from the dead undead are not the same.


----------



## JohnOneOne

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 18+ year study (as of 01/2010) in support and explanation of their wording of this verse entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, we invite you to visit:

www dot goodcompanionbooks dot com

Agape, JohnOneOne.



Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> nra4life and 8ball, why play the game.  All religion comes down to faith not critical reasoning.  That's why Jefferson cut so much out of his redaction of the Bible.  In my opinion, I think Jesus is my Lord, I believe the Holy Bible is not His literal word, and I don't believe that JS Jr is a prophet.  Give others the same right to believe.  If TruthSpeaker were on your doorstep proslytyzing with a BoM in one hand and a couple of Danites at hand, that would be another matter, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey:  I highly venerate Jefferson.......but in the area of biblical/spiritual understanding knowledge..........He created an abomination..........when speaking of his infamous "Jeffersonian Bible".
> 
> Jefferson took the good old King James that even the Mormons will use when proselytizing Christians, and did a major "cut/paste" job on any bit of bible scripture that he didn't agree with........Actually is was more like, he did a "job" on any scripture that presented man as a sinner.  Jefferson, with big letter "P" pride, proceedced to play God, and change the bible to his comfort zone/liking.  That's basically it.
> 
> It was not an intellectual pursuit of truth, but an attempt to quench or muffle God's assessment of man as a fallen Adamic creature in need of Christ's attoning work at Calvary.
> *****
> The Jeffersonian bible is not different from the Jehovah's Witnesses "New World Translations" that has conveniently, and suspiciously removed many references in the N.T. to Jesus being God, in the flesh.   For instance, the impact of the famous John Chapter 1 verse 1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.".
> 
> The Jehovah's Witness bible has changed that verse to, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with Jehovah, and the word was "a" god.'.
> ******
> 
> The Mormons, deny will say, sure Jesus is God........but one with God........as in one God...........No!   They refute the trinitarian aspect of the Godhead because they don't understand the physical/anotomical/mind blowing chemistry of how Jesus can be God, God the Spirit can be God, and God the Father can be God, and all can be one in the same.
> 
> This is where J.S. Jr. along with follow prophets, and other Christian cults, and non-Christian cults have attempted to bring the Godhead down to what their "finite" human minds can understand......
> 
> So we have many gods in Mormonism............Makes sense.........but the bible disagree's vehemently.  No, the word trinity is not in the bible.  It is a word used to describe the best man can of the mysterious makeup of the Godhead, that expresses itself in three distinct personality/forms, but all  our in unison or agreement of thought, choice, direction, etc..
> *****
> Now we have Thomas Jefferson........Born April 13th.........What a statesman!  What a great president!  What a man of all kinds of talents.  One of the best silversmiths of his time...........Actually his father, was a good silversmith to, and actually Jefferson Jr. apprenticed under his dad.
> 
> Great men who do great things for humanity and for the world........in unselfishness, and compassion..............doesn't mean they have a ticket to Paradise with God.............It just means they are good people.   God weighs man ultimately on another scale, that trumps "great works on earth".  He/God judges how man deals with His Son, Jesus.  It's as clear as that.  There is no grey ground when it comes to man and God............The bridgework to a restored relationship with God is through one Person........His Son.  His Son is the ultimate Passover Lamb............He is the end of human priesthoods........that were but a foreshadow of the real and eternal Priest............Jesus Christ.(Check Hebrews in the N.T.)
> 
> God's righteousness is a "gift", not a "reward", as Mormonism, and so many other cults of of Christian flavoring, have promoted.
> 
> One does not depend on visions, dreams, burning bosoms, to "confirm" if they have received God's truth.   If one does, they open themselves to the realm of the great deceiver, Satan.  He has access to our dreams,  physical phenomena, our emotions, and minds, and can do an incredible job of faking the true God, when....................a seeker, or even a Christian doesn't rely first of all on the "manual", the Word of God........the bible.
> 
> Now Mormons say that the bible is not accurrate anymore.  Why?  Has this omnipotent God who stopped the sun, who parted the Red Sea, who smited armies..........some how become weak and anemic?  Has this God of the O.T. become forgetful, and let His scripture become bastardized into untruths, and partial, uncomplete truths?
> 
> If the true God, has allowed that, then mankind is hopefully on his own.......as we can't trust this God to give us all we need to receive eternal life, and or a restored relationship with Him that was lost way back in Eden.
> 
> The Mormon religion like so many is based on an un-omnipotent Creator.   This Mormon creator, couldn't protect his written, inspired message to mankind through the thousands of years.  So naturally, we need a J.S. jr. type of religion to fill in the gaps, and the "uncomfortableness" of the repentance/salvation message, and the message of "grace" with a "works based" "reward" system of salvation.
> 
> Only manmade religions expect "works/reward" in order to reach some sort of relational goal with their creator.
> 
> Only one belief system gives all credit to the Creator, and assesses mankind accurately.  Just one look at world or local news in convincing enough that man is not touched with Godly righteousness as a whole.  The only redeeming or different aspects usually are stories in the back session of every paper..........Mother Teresa, Franklin Graham, Billy Sunday, George Mueller, John Wesley, Hannah Whitall Smith., Moody.....etc.etc........Folks that taught a and called men, women and children to repentance, and salvation through Jesus Christ.
> 
> The "evidence" demands a verdict.   Jefferson, avoided the obvious as it apparently was too painful, and too unintellectual to comprehend or to admit.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

blu said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> A zombie?  That has to go down as one of the most absurd statements on this thread, and there have been some doozies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that it takes more credulity to believe in atheism than religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes because science over stories that make no sense and are provably false takes more credulity
Click to expand...


You can't prove religion false, though, is the point.  You can't prove a god does not exist.  And do not give partial definitions if you want to talk about objective science.  It's hypocritical.

Zombie | Define Zombie at Dictionary.com
the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose. ...
dictionary.reference.com/browse/zombie -

Jesus was not a zombie.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Too many wholes in JW developmental theology as well as the general narrative of the sect for me to even discuss it here, so I will withdraw from this part of the discussion.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Too many wholes in JW developmental theology as well as the general narrative of the sect for me to even discuss it here, so I will withdraw from this part of the discussion.



Why not start your own thread, the truth about Jehova's Witnesses?  This one has proved interesting enough.


----------



## blu

JakeStarkey said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that it takes more credulity to believe in atheism than religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes because science over stories that make no sense and are provably false takes more credulity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't prove religion false, though, is the point.  You can't prove a god does not exist.  And do not give partial definitions if you want to talk about objective science.  It's hypocritical.
Click to expand...


logic fail. religion != god. I can prove that at least one thing in the bible is wrong, meaning the rest of the book is invalid too, meaning I can prove that religion false.


----------



## JakeStarkey

blu said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes because science over stories that make no sense and are provably false takes more credulity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove religion false, though, is the point.  You can't prove a god does not exist.  And do not give partial definitions if you want to talk about objective science.  It's hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> logic fail. religion != god. I can prove that at least one thing in the bible is wrong, meaning the rest of the book is invalid too, meaning I can prove that religion false.
Click to expand...


Fail in logic.  Because a scripture may be incorrect has nothing to do with proving religion wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

blu said:


> logic fail. religion != god. I can prove that at least one thing in the bible is wrong, meaning the rest of the book is invalid too, meaning I can prove that religion false.



That's incorrect. Your presuming, like many Christians falsely presume, that in order to be valid, the Bible has to be perfect without error. This is based on a faulty assumption that the Bible is all there is and all there ever will be and despite being touched by imperfect humans will not contain a single flaw.

The problem with that is that humans are flawed. Anything we touch will be less than perfect, no matter how well written or preserved.

God doesn't want us to trust blindly in a Book. He has given us the Bible and many other Books to help us in our journey. But He is always trying to teach us to rely on Him and the Holy Spirit. Some people are afraid of this. Others don't realize this because they don't study the scriptures indepth to understand. Even more our honestly seeking the truth but just don't know where to find it.

This is one of the beauties of Mormonism. We accept the Truth about scripture. We see that is a tool to strengthen our faith in God, but that we are to learn for ourselves from God the things which we study and learn. Without personal revelation mankind cannot be saved. After all, how can you say you know God if all you've done is read about Him in a Book and you've never talked to Him, or followed His counsel, or even sought to know Him?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar, I like your touch of antinomianism; however, I truly think you should let Blu know that you believe in prophets and priesthood today who guide your faith.


----------



## Skeptik

blu said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes because science over stories that make no sense and are provably false takes more credulity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove religion false, though, is the point.  You can't prove a god does not exist.  And do not give partial definitions if you want to talk about objective science.  It's hypocritical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> logic fail. religion != god. I can prove that at least one thing in the bible is wrong, meaning the rest of the book is invalid too, meaning I can prove that religion false.
Click to expand...


Religion = god?  No, not even close.  God created us, but we created religion.  The Bible is just a collection of books written a long time ago, and then copied, recopied, translated and re-translated.  It would be a miracle if there were no errors in it.

Further, even if it could be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible was written by charlatans, that would have no effect at all on Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any of thousands of other religions.  

Now, go and make a sacrifice to the Pacha Mama. (Mother Earth god of the Quechua).


----------



## blu

Skeptik said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove religion false, though, is the point.  You can't prove a god does not exist.  And do not give partial definitions if you want to talk about objective science.  It's hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logic fail. religion != god. I can prove that at least one thing in the bible is wrong, meaning the rest of the book is invalid too, meaning I can prove that religion false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion = god?  No, not even close.  God created us, but we created religion.  The Bible is just a collection of books written a long time ago, and then copied, recopied, translated and re-translated.  It would be a miracle if there were no errors in it.
> 
> Further, even if it could be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible was written by charlatans, that would have no effect at all on Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any of thousands of other religions.
> 
> Now, go and make a sacrifice to the Pacha Mama. (Mother Earth god of the Quechua).
Click to expand...


what? "!=" means "not equal"


----------



## Skeptik

blu said:


> what? "!=" means "not equal"




Oh! It does?  I didn't know that.  I thought &#8800; meant not equal.

I guess we're really in agreement, then.


----------



## Foxfyre

Skeptik said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove religion false, though, is the point.  You can't prove a god does not exist.  And do not give partial definitions if you want to talk about objective science.  It's hypocritical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logic fail. religion != god. I can prove that at least one thing in the bible is wrong, meaning the rest of the book is invalid too, meaning I can prove that religion false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Religion = god?  No, not even close.  God created us, but we created religion.  The Bible is just a collection of books written a long time ago, and then copied, recopied, translated and re-translated.  It would be a miracle if there were no errors in it.
> 
> Further, even if it could be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible was written by charlatans, that would have no effect at all on Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any of thousands of other religions.
> 
> Now, go and make a sacrifice to the Pacha Mama. (Mother Earth god of the Quechua).
Click to expand...


Agree 100% that God created us, but we created religion.

Agree that the Bible has been copied and edited and translated and retranslated over a very long period and there was no way that some human error has not incorporated itself into it.

Disagree 100% that the "Bible is just a collection of books written a long time ago."  The Bible is a collection of amazing manuscripts that give us a glimpse into the history, thoughts, perceptions, understandings, concepts, hopes, dreams, fears of a people who lived a long time ago but who had a up close and personal relationship with the living God.  Within its pages we find pure history, poetry, symbolism, metaphor, songs, law, prophecy, instruction, allegory, and imagery.   They have contributed a huge amount of the understanding that we have of the living God.


----------



## Skeptik

Here's an interesting study that supports the Mormon belief that we humans are really spirits who have lived before, and are here to experience mortal life:

Babies know the difference between good and evil at six months, study reveals




> At the age of six months babies can barely sit up - let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk.
> 
> But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code - and can tell the difference between good and evil.



Of course, the scientific study does not mention a spirit that has already experienced good and evil being in control of that small, new body.  

But, that is one explanation of the results, is it not?


----------



## froggy

Joseph Smith Polygamy Sex LDS Mormon

Joey the adulterer


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Joseph Smith Polygamy Sex LDS Mormon
> 
> Joey the adulterer



You do realize that you can't commit adultery with someone you are married to right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith Polygamy Sex LDS Mormon
> 
> Joey the adulterer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that you can't commit adultery with someone you are married to right?
Click to expand...


Actually . . . go study the case of Rachel and Andrew Jackson.,

In other words, yes, Joseph was an adulterer because he was married to Emma.  The other relationships, like the FLDS today, were only carnal relationships, no different than Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Tony Alamo.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith Polygamy Sex LDS Mormon
> 
> Joey the adulterer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that you can't commit adultery with someone you are married to right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually . . . go study the case of Rachel and Andrew Jackson.,
> 
> In other words, yes, Joseph was an adulterer because he was married to Emma.  The other relationships, like the FLDS today, were only carnal relationships, no different than Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Tony Alamo.
Click to expand...


Which, of course, brings up the huge point of there being absolutely no evidence of any carnal relationships.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that you can't commit adultery with someone you are married to right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually . . . go study the case of Rachel and Andrew Jackson.,
> 
> In other words, yes, Joseph was an adulterer because he was married to Emma.  The other relationships, like the FLDS today, were only carnal relationships, no different than Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Tony Alamo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, of course, brings up the huge point of there being absolutely no evidence of any carnal relationships.
Click to expand...


Dead wrong.  This is not an issue whatsoever.  Joseph had sexual relationships with women not his wife.  Major temple-going LDS historians, far more learned than you on this subject, such as Richard Bushman (_Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling _) and Todd Compton (_Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith  _), have clearly documented beyond a shadow of a doubt this fact of JS's life.

Here is a great, short site to read: "http://www.lds-mormon.com/isl.shtml".

Todd Compton
In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
from the publisher:

"Beginning in the 1830s, at least thirty-three women married Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. These were passionate relationships which also had some longevity, except in cases such as that of two young sisters, one of whom was discovered by Joseph's first wife, Emma, in a locked bedroom with the prophet. Emma remained a steadfast opponent of polygamy throughout her life."

"The majority of Smith's wives were younger than he, and one-third were between fourteen and twenty years of age. Another third were already married, and some of the husbands served as witnesses at their own wife's polyandrous wedding. In addition, some of the wives hinted that they bore Smith children--most notably Sylvia Sessions's daughter Josephine--although the children carried their stepfather's surname.""For all of Smith's wives, the experience of being secretly married was socially isolating, emotionally draining, and sexually frustrating. Despite the spiritual and temporal benefits, which they acknowledged, they found their faith tested to the limit of its endurance. After Smith's death in 1844, their lives became even more "lonely and desolate." One even joined a convent. The majority were appropriated by Smith's successors, based on the Old Testament law of the Levirate, and had children by them, though they considered these guardianships unsatisfying. Others stayed in the Midwest and remarried, while one moved to California. But all considered their lives unhappy, except for the joy they found in their children and grandchildren."

Todd Compton, Ph.D., classics, UCLA, is the editor of Hugh Nibley's Mormonism and Early Christianity, a contributor to The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, and has been published in the American Journal of Philology, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Classical Quarterly, and the Journal of Popular Culture, among others. He currently plays electric violin in the Mark Davis Group, which performs at coffee houses and music clubs in the Los Angeles area, and is the assistant systems manager for Paul, Hastings, Jaofski, and Walker. He lives in Santa Monica, California.


----------



## JakeStarkey

More from Compton.

 Did JS have carnal relations with women not his wife:

Compton writes:
"Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."

- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

- In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

- Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

joseph smithIn total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.

- Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

- Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)

- Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?

- Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)

- Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

- In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: LDS History)

- Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
(Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)

- Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). ("Mormon Polygamy: A History" by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually . . . go study the case of Rachel and Andrew Jackson.,
> 
> In other words, yes, Joseph was an adulterer because he was married to Emma.  The other relationships, like the FLDS today, were only carnal relationships, no different than Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Tony Alamo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, brings up the huge point of there being absolutely no evidence of any carnal relationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dead wrong.  This is not an issue whatsoever.  Joseph had sexual relationships with women not his wife.  Major temple-going LDS historians, far more learned than you on this subject, such as Richard Bushman (_Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling _) and Todd Compton (_Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith  _), have clearly documented beyond a shadow of a doubt this fact of JS's life.
> 
> Here is a great, short site to read: "http://www.lds-mormon.com/isl.shtml".
> 
> Todd Compton
> In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith
> from the publisher:
> 
> "Beginning in the 1830s, at least thirty-three women married Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. These were passionate relationships which also had some longevity, except in cases such as that of two young sisters, one of whom was discovered by Joseph's first wife, Emma, in a locked bedroom with the prophet. Emma remained a steadfast opponent of polygamy throughout her life."
> 
> "The majority of Smith's wives were younger than he, and one-third were between fourteen and twenty years of age. Another third were already married, and some of the husbands served as witnesses at their own wife's polyandrous wedding. In addition, some of the wives hinted that they bore Smith children--most notably Sylvia Sessions's daughter Josephine--although the children carried their stepfather's surname.""For all of Smith's wives, the experience of being secretly married was socially isolating, emotionally draining, and sexually frustrating. Despite the spiritual and temporal benefits, which they acknowledged, they found their faith tested to the limit of its endurance. After Smith's death in 1844, their lives became even more "lonely and desolate." One even joined a convent. The majority were appropriated by Smith's successors, based on the Old Testament law of the Levirate, and had children by them, though they considered these guardianships unsatisfying. Others stayed in the Midwest and remarried, while one moved to California. But all considered their lives unhappy, except for the joy they found in their children and grandchildren."
> 
> Todd Compton, Ph.D., classics, UCLA, is the editor of Hugh Nibley's Mormonism and Early Christianity, a contributor to The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, and has been published in the American Journal of Philology, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Classical Quarterly, and the Journal of Popular Culture, among others. He currently plays electric violin in the Mark Davis Group, which performs at coffee houses and music clubs in the Los Angeles area, and is the assistant systems manager for Paul, Hastings, Jaofski, and Walker. He lives in Santa Monica, California.
Click to expand...


Your post proves that he in fact MARRIED them. None of what is posted here has anything to say about out of marriage. Joseph Smith believed that a man could be married to more then one woman. The Church believed it until 1890 or so. He married every woman he ever took to bed. And there is no evidence he took to bed every woman he married.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> More from Compton.
> 
> Did JS have carnal relations with women not his wife:
> 
> Compton writes:
> "Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)
> 
> - In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
> 
> - Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)
> 
> joseph smithIn total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.
> 
> - Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
> William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)
> 
> - Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)
> 
> 4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?
> 
> - Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
> 
> - In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: LDS History)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
> (Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)
> 
> - Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). ("Mormon Polygamy: A History" by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3



And again you are claiming he was not married when your own pasted material tells us he WAS married to each of the women.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that you can't commit adultery with someone you are married to right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually . . . go study the case of Rachel and Andrew Jackson.,
> 
> In other words, yes, Joseph was an adulterer because he was married to Emma.  The other relationships, like the FLDS today, were only carnal relationships, no different than Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Tony Alamo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which, of course, brings up the huge point of there being absolutely no evidence of any carnal relationships.
Click to expand...


Fail.  I know this is a common belief among converts of the last twenty years or so.  This is not what LDS were taught before that.  JS had sexual relations with many women.  The evidence allows no other reasonable conclusion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thanks, Gunny.  I will simply contend that he was legally married to one woman.  Compton would argue that JS's relationships were justified under D&C 132.  I will mildly point out other religious leaders in the U.S. have justified their own carnal relationships similarly.

The point is that JS had sexual relations with many women who were not Emma.  That is indisputable.  And the "pasted" materials are from the most renowned LDS temple-going historian on the planet.  His work is absolutely accepted by the official leaders of the LDS church.  The evidence is conclusive, and Avatar has to come to a resolution with that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks, Gunny.  I will simply contend that he was legally married to one woman.  Compton would argue that JS's relationships were justified under D&C 132.  I will mildly point out other religious leaders in the U.S. have justified their own carnal relationships similarly.
> 
> The point is that JS had sexual relations with many women who were not Emma.  That is indisputable.



And I won't argue that is not true. The simple fact is he introduced to the Church that Plural marriages were the norm and acceptable and that was accepted until around 1890 when a New Prophet decreed otherwise. He married every woman he slept with. Under his religious beliefs he was doing an acceptable thing. In fact we have information that suggests he believes it was commanded for him to marry other women.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I agree that is the general defense of most (not all) Mormons who follow the teaching of Joseph the Prophet in the Restoration of the Last Days.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> I agree that is the general defense of most (not all) Mormons who follow the teaching of Joseph the Prophet in the Restoration of the Last Days.



The FLDS are not Mormons. The Church revoked the right to plural marriages through the Prophet leading the Church. The FLDS did not crop up until the 1930's. They have no right to claim the Mormon religion. They are violating its basic tenants.

Just because a person uses the same holy books as the Roman Catholic church and some of their rituals, if they violate the basic tenants of said Church they are not Catholics. Same with Mormons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormons are anyone who follows the teachings of Joseph Smith.  The term is not defined by you or the LDS church or anyone else.  The term is what it is.  So, yes, the FLDS, the Wightites, the Bickertonites, the Smithites, Temple Lot, RLDS, Community of Christ ~ all are Mormons, along with literally the hundreds of other Mormon schismatic organizations.

The LDS are merely one of so many Mormon sects.

Here is a great work to read: _Scattering Of The Saints: Schism Within Mormonism _by Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (Paperback - Sept. 10, 2007)


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Mormons are anyone who follows the teachings of Joseph Smith.  The term is not defined by you or the LDS church or anyone else.  The term is what it is.  So, yes, the FLDS, the Wightites, the Bickertonites, the Smithites, Temple Lot, RLDS, Community of Christ ~ all are Mormons, along with literally the hundreds of other Mormon schismatic organizations.
> 
> The LDS are merely one of so many Mormon sects.
> 
> Here is a great work to read: _Scattering Of The Saints: Schism Within Mormonism _by Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (Paperback - Sept. 10, 2007)



Here is the definition from Webster:

Mormon - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


> 1 : the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith
> 2 : latter-day saint; especially : *a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*



Which of those on your list are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  None.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's a rather poor, limited definition of Mormonism.

This is a better one, in my opinion.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
Mormon

*Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of a sect closely related to it (e.g., the Community of Christ). *The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received an angelic vision telling him of the location of golden plates containing God's revelation; this he published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Smith and his followers accepted the Bible as well as the Mormon sacred scriptures but diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity, especially in their assertion that God exists in three distinct entities as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mormons also believe that faithful members of the church will inherit eternal life as gods. Other unique doctrines include the belief in preexisting souls waiting to be born and in salvation of the dead through retroactive baptism. The church became notorious for its practice of polygamy, though it was officially sanctioned only between 1852 and 1890. Smith and his followers migrated from Palmyra, N.Y., to Ohio, Missouri, and finally Illinois, where Smith was killed by a mob in 1844. In 1846  47, under Brigham Young, the Mormons made a 1,100-mi (1,800-km) trek to Utah, where they founded Salt Lake City. In the early 21st century, the church had a worldwide membership of nearly 10 million, swelled yearly by the missionary work that church members, both men and women, are encouraged to perform.

For more information on Mormon, visit Britannica.com.
Mormon: Definition from Answers.com


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> That's a rather poor, limited definition of Mormonism.
> 
> This is a better one, in my opinion.
> 
> Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
> Mormon
> 
> *Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of a sect closely related to it (e.g., the Community of Christ). *The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received an angelic vision telling him of the location of golden plates containing God's revelation; this he published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Smith and his followers accepted the Bible as well as the Mormon sacred scriptures but diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity, especially in their assertion that God exists in three distinct entities as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mormons also believe that faithful members of the church will inherit eternal life as gods. Other unique doctrines include the belief in preexisting souls waiting to be born and in salvation of the dead through retroactive baptism. The church became notorious for its practice of polygamy, though it was officially sanctioned only between 1852 and 1890. Smith and his followers migrated from Palmyra, N.Y., to Ohio, Missouri, and finally Illinois, where Smith was killed by a mob in 1844. In 1846  47, under Brigham Young, the Mormons made a 1,100-mi (1,800-km) trek to Utah, where they founded Salt Lake City. In the early 21st century, the church had a worldwide membership of nearly 10 million, swelled yearly by the missionary work that church members, both men and women, are encouraged to perform.
> 
> For more information on Mormon, visit Britannica.com.
> Mormon: Definition from Answers.com



Of course you prefer this definition, since it meets your preference.  I prefer to use a definition of the term which does not generalize and cause confusion about which group of people is being discussed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather poor, limited definition of Mormonism.
> 
> This is a better one, in my opinion.
> 
> Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
> Mormon
> 
> *Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of a sect closely related to it (e.g., the Community of Christ). *The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received an angelic vision telling him of the location of golden plates containing God's revelation; this he published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Smith and his followers accepted the Bible as well as the Mormon sacred scriptures but diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity, especially in their assertion that God exists in three distinct entities as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mormons also believe that faithful members of the church will inherit eternal life as gods. Other unique doctrines include the belief in preexisting souls waiting to be born and in salvation of the dead through retroactive baptism. The church became notorious for its practice of polygamy, though it was officially sanctioned only between 1852 and 1890. Smith and his followers migrated from Palmyra, N.Y., to Ohio, Missouri, and finally Illinois, where Smith was killed by a mob in 1844. In 1846 &#8211; 47, under Brigham Young, the Mormons made a 1,100-mi (1,800-km) trek to Utah, where they founded Salt Lake City. In the early 21st century, the church had a worldwide membership of nearly 10 million, swelled yearly by the missionary work that church members, both men and women, are encouraged to perform.
> 
> For more information on Mormon, visit Britannica.com.
> Mormon: Definition from Answers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you prefer this definition, since it meets your preference.  I prefer to use a definition of the term which does not generalize and cause confusion about which group of people is being discussed.
Click to expand...


OK, then you are Mormon, not Christian.  Do you see how inadequate your comment is above?  Then should we call all those who follow JS and the Restoration as "the Latter Day Saints."  Believe me, I know the Community of Christ would prefer that term to 'Mormons'.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a rather poor, limited definition of Mormonism.
> 
> This is a better one, in my opinion.
> 
> Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
> Mormon
> 
> *Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of a sect closely related to it (e.g., the Community of Christ). *The Mormon religion was founded by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have received an angelic vision telling him of the location of golden plates containing God's revelation; this he published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon. Smith and his followers accepted the Bible as well as the Mormon sacred scriptures but diverged significantly from orthodox Christianity, especially in their assertion that God exists in three distinct entities as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Mormons also believe that faithful members of the church will inherit eternal life as gods. Other unique doctrines include the belief in preexisting souls waiting to be born and in salvation of the dead through retroactive baptism. The church became notorious for its practice of polygamy, though it was officially sanctioned only between 1852 and 1890. Smith and his followers migrated from Palmyra, N.Y., to Ohio, Missouri, and finally Illinois, where Smith was killed by a mob in 1844. In 1846  47, under Brigham Young, the Mormons made a 1,100-mi (1,800-km) trek to Utah, where they founded Salt Lake City. In the early 21st century, the church had a worldwide membership of nearly 10 million, swelled yearly by the missionary work that church members, both men and women, are encouraged to perform.
> 
> For more information on Mormon, visit Britannica.com.
> Mormon: Definition from Answers.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you prefer this definition, since it meets your preference.  I prefer to use a definition of the term which does not generalize and cause confusion about which group of people is being discussed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, then you are Mormon, not Christian.  Do you see how inadequate your comment is above?  Then should we call all those who follow JS and the Restoration as "the Latter Day Saints."  Believe me, I know the Community of Christ would prefer that term to 'Mormons'.
Click to expand...


No, we are also Christians.  I think the use of the term depends on the context in which you refer to Mormons.  I would actually prefer LDS to avoid confusion when talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  When you are discussing Christians in general, Mormons are to be included, yes.  When you are talking about the FLDS I prefer to use FLDS rather than Mormon to avoid confusion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

But that is the issue.  

FLDS follow their interp of JS and the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.  To them, you stopped in 1890.  To them, they picked up the mantle.  To them, they are 'real' Mormons.

And, of course, Mormons are a subset of Christianity, as are all the sects that follow JS subsets of Mormonism.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> But that is the issue.
> 
> FLDS follow their interp of JS and the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.  To them, you stopped in 1890.  To them, they picked up the mantle.  To them, they are 'real' Mormons.
> 
> And, of course, Mormons are a subset of Christianity, as are all the sects that follow JS subsets of Mormonism.



Mormons, real ones, don't follow their interpretation of anything.  The Mormons believe in living prophets, not in human interpretation of scriptures or of anything else.  

That is the one thing that sets them apart from other Christian sects.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is the issue.
> 
> FLDS follow their interp of JS and the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.  To them, you stopped in 1890.  To them, they picked up the mantle.  To them, they are 'real' Mormons.
> 
> And, of course, Mormons are a subset of Christianity, as are all the sects that follow JS subsets of Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, real ones, don't follow their interpretation of anything.  The Mormons believe in living prophets, not in human interpretation of scriptures or of anything else.
> 
> That is the one thing that sets them apart from other Christian sects.
Click to expand...


And the Prophet spoke in 1890 and forbade polygamy. No Mormon after that can claim to be a Mormon and support Polygamy as the Prophet, who speaks for God has said God Forbade it.


----------



## Skeptik

RetiredGySgt said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that is the issue.
> 
> FLDS follow their interp of JS and the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.  To them, you stopped in 1890.  To them, they picked up the mantle.  To them, they are 'real' Mormons.
> 
> And, of course, Mormons are a subset of Christianity, as are all the sects that follow JS subsets of Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, real ones, don't follow their interpretation of anything.  The Mormons believe in living prophets, not in human interpretation of scriptures or of anything else.
> 
> That is the one thing that sets them apart from other Christian sects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Prophet spoke in 1890 and forbade polygamy. No Mormon after that can claim to be a Mormon and support Polygamy as the Prophet, who speaks for God has said God Forbade it.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Mormons by definition do not practice polygamy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Exactly wrong, guys.  Many Mormons (followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, of which the LDS is only a sect) disagree with you guys.  In other words, the LDS church does not control  the definition of who is a "Mormon".  Yes, many Mormons do believe in it and practice it.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Exactly wrong, guys.  Many Mormons (followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, of which the LDS is only a sect) disagree with you guys.  In other words, the LDS church does not control  the definition of who is a "Mormon".  Yes, many Mormons do believe in it and practice it.



LDS is synonymous with Mormon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, LDS is a sect in Mormonism.  In the west of Texas, "mormon" is the normal appellation for the FLDS.  It is for almost any congregation of Mormons of any sect.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> No, LDS is a sect in Mormonism.  In the west of Texas, "mormon" is the normal appellation for the FLDS.  It is for almost any congregation of Mormons of any sect.



They probably use  a lot of incorrect words and expressions in West Texas.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nah, they are using the term appropriately.

For instance, Chrisitanity > Protestantism (reformed, lutheran, anglican, dissenting) and Catholicism (Roman, Orthodox, Eastern, Conservative), and so forth.

Mormonism > LDS, FLDS, Temple Lot, Hendrickite, plus several hundreds of Mormon denominations since 1830.

This is not about 'legitimacy' or who is the rightful descendants of Joseph Smith.  You will probably be horrified to learn that the U.S. court in the Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS Church the lawful descendant of Joseph Smith's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints.

My point is only about using correct terminology.  We see what happens when the right and the left here try to "frame" arguments by claiming only their definitions are correct.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Nah, they are using the term appropriately.
> 
> For instance, Chrisitanity > Protestantism (reformed, lutheran, anglican, dissenting) and Catholicism (Roman, Orthodox, Eastern, Conservative), and so forth.
> 
> Mormonism > LDS, FLDS, Temple Lot, Hendrickite, plus several hundreds of Mormon denominations since 1830.
> 
> This is not about 'legitimacy' or who is the rightful descendants of Joseph Smith.  You will probably be horrified to learn that the U.S. court in the Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS Church the lawful descendant of Joseph Smith's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints.
> 
> My point is only about using correct terminology.  We see what happens when the right and the left here try to "frame" arguments by claiming only their definitions are correct.



By your definition, the Protestant sects are really Catholic, as they follow the same Bible.  the RLDS and FLDS sects split from the LDS in much the same way that the Protestants split off from the Catholic church, and for much the same reasons, disagreement over doctrine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Almost there.  The Protestants and Catholics are Christian (I will include Mormons, too).  The Community of Christ, Restoration branches, LDS, FLDS, and so forth are Mormon or Latter Day Saint if you prefer.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Almost there.  The Protestants and Catholics are Christian (I will include Mormons, too).  The Community of Christ, Restoration branches, LDS, FLDS, and so forth are Mormon or Latter Day Saint if you prefer.



OK, if you're willing to put Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons together as the Community of Christ, then you do have a point.  

The mainstream LDS don't claim the FLDS nor the RLDS as being of the same faith, any more than the Catholics see the Baptists as being fellow Catholics, and for the same reason.

But, you're right.  When you boil it all down, all Christian faiths believe in the divinity of Christ, and in trying, as best we can as imperfect beings, to follow His example.  They're all of the Community of Christ, regardless of differences in doctrine.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Exactly wrong, guys.  Many Mormons (followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, of which the LDS is only a sect) disagree with you guys.  In other words, the LDS church does not control  the definition of who is a "Mormon".  Yes, many Mormons do believe in it and practice it.



Mormon has a very strict definition. It's defined as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

And membership in the Church is also very clearly defined. You must be baptized by one in authority to baptize in the Church. You are a member as long as you live unless you are excommunicated or formally request to be withdrawn. 

Any other sect, fails the test because they A) were never baptized or B) were excommunicated. 

Your attempts to obscur the meaning of the word for whatever reasons, have failed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost there.  The Protestants and Catholics are Christian (I will include Mormons, too).  The Community of Christ, Restoration branches, LDS, FLDS, and so forth are Mormon or Latter Day Saint if you prefer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, if you're willing to put Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons together as the Community of Christ, then you do have a point.
> 
> The mainstream LDS don't claim the FLDS nor the RLDS as being of the same faith, any more than the Catholics see the Baptists as being fellow Catholics, and for the same reason.
> 
> But, you're right.  When you boil it all down, all Christian faiths believe in the divinity of Christ, and in trying, as best we can as imperfect beings, to follow His example.  They're all of the Community of Christ, regardless of differences in doctrine.
Click to expand...


Well, I appreciate the concept, and I agree as you define it.  The current-day Community of Christ is the renamed Reorganized Latter Day Saints Church, you know.

But, yes, all believers of Christ are in the community of Christ.  All believers in JS and the BoM are Mormons, of which there are and have been several hundred denominations.  The more I think of it, the more I like substituting Latter Day Saints for Mormons as the inclusive title for all latter day believers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly wrong, guys.  Many Mormons (followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, of which the LDS is only a sect) disagree with you guys.  In other words, the LDS church does not control  the definition of who is a "Mormon".  Yes, many Mormons do believe in it and practice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormon has a very strict definition. It's defined as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
> 
> And membership in the Church is also very clearly defined. You must be baptized by one in authority to baptize in the Church. You are a member as long as you live unless you are excommunicated or formally request to be withdrawn.
> 
> Any other sect, fails the test because they A) were never baptized or B) were excommunicated.
> 
> Your attempts to obscur the meaning of the word for whatever reasons, have failed.
Click to expand...


You have shanked your drive into the wild.

The term "Mormons" has been applied to all the denominations who have followed JS and believed in the BoM.  The RLDS hated the word, preferring Latter Day Saints.

No, you don't get to define the word in terms of the SLC church.  Its lawyers tried to get the name trademarked and the courts threw it out.

I know what you are saying, but it just isn't so.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly wrong, guys.  Many Mormons (followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, of which the LDS is only a sect) disagree with you guys.  In other words, the LDS church does not control  the definition of who is a "Mormon".  Yes, many Mormons do believe in it and practice it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormon has a very strict definition. It's defined as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
> 
> And membership in the Church is also very clearly defined. You must be baptized by one in authority to baptize in the Church. You are a member as long as you live unless you are excommunicated or formally request to be withdrawn.
> 
> Any other sect, fails the test because they A) were never baptized or B) were excommunicated.
> 
> Your attempts to obscur the meaning of the word for whatever reasons, have failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have shanked your drive into the wild.
> 
> The term "Mormons" has been applied to all the denominations who have followed JS and believed in the BoM.  The RLDS hated the word, preferring Latter Day Saints.
> 
> No, you don't get to define the word in terms of the SLC church.  Its lawyers tried to get the name trademarked and the courts threw it out.
> 
> I know what you are saying, but it just isn't so.
Click to expand...


The word has been misapplied in many instances.   That is the main point.  The word actually refers to, according to the account, a prophet in the Book of Mormon and is the first definition given by Websters.

You do not get to define it either.  I will stick to Websters second definition, which strictly says that a Mormon is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  To refer to the Mormons when talking about the FLDS is misapplying the definition and only causes confusion between which religion is actually being discussed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Webster's is only one of several definitions, and it is certainly not binding.

The lawful descendent of the JS church, by federal court decision in 1893, is the now Community of Christ is not the current CoJCoL-d-S.  That is the law.

'Mormon' is the historially correct title for all sects and denominations that follow and uphold JS and the Book of the Mormon.  The LDS Church, the largest denomination of Mormonism, is only one sect of Mormonism.

Yeah, the FLDS are "Mormon", no different than the LDS or any other group.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> Webster's is only one of several definitions, and it is certainly not binding.
> 
> The lawful descendent of the JS church, by federal court decision in 1893, is the now Community of Christ is not the current CoJCoL-d-S.  That is the law.
> 
> 'Mormon' is the historially correct title for all sects and denominations that follow and uphold JS and the Book of the Mormon.  The LDS Church, the largest denomination of Mormonism, is only one sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Yeah, the FLDS are "Mormon", no different than the LDS or any other group.



So according to you... Baptists of all types are Catholics? In fact using your definition ANY Christian group that broke with the Catholic Church are still Catholics. Thanks for proving you are a dumb ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RetiredGySgt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Webster's is only one of several definitions, and it is certainly not binding.
> 
> The lawful descendent of the JS church, by federal court decision in 1893, is the now Community of Christ is not the current CoJCoL-d-S.  That is the law.
> 
> 'Mormon' is the historially correct title for all sects and denominations that follow and uphold JS and the Book of the Mormon.  The LDS Church, the largest denomination of Mormonism, is only one sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Yeah, the FLDS are "Mormon", no different than the LDS or any other group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you... Baptists of all types are Catholics? In fact using your definition ANY Christian group that broke with the Catholic Church are still Catholics. Thanks for proving you are a dumb ass.
Click to expand...


I see why you lose discussions, RGS.  You are unable to perform derivative and comparative analysis.  Your analogy is false.  Mormons and Baptists and Catholics are part of Christianity.  Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Conservative are part of Catholicism.  Primitive, Conservative, Southern Baptist, Two-Seed, and twelve other sects are part of the Baptist faith.  LDS and FLDS and CoC are part of Mormonism.

Let this matter go while you are behind.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JakeStarkey said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Webster's is only one of several definitions, and it is certainly not binding.
> 
> The lawful descendent of the JS church, by federal court decision in 1893, is the now Community of Christ is not the current CoJCoL-d-S.  That is the law.
> 
> 'Mormon' is the historially correct title for all sects and denominations that follow and uphold JS and the Book of the Mormon.  The LDS Church, the largest denomination of Mormonism, is only one sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Yeah, the FLDS are "Mormon", no different than the LDS or any other group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So according to you... Baptists of all types are Catholics? In fact using your definition ANY Christian group that broke with the Catholic Church are still Catholics. Thanks for proving you are a dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see why you lose discussions, RGS.  You are unable to perform derivative and comparative analysis.  Your analogy is false.  Mormons and Baptists and Catholics are part of Christianity.  Orthodox and Roman Catholic and Conservative are part of Catholicism.  Primitive, Conservative, Southern Baptist, Two-Seed, and twelve other sects are part of the Baptist faith.  LDS and FLDS and CoC are part of Mormonism.
> 
> Let this matter go while you are behind.
Click to expand...


Wrong, you have claimed anyone that believed in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith were automatically Mormons. Using your definition and claims, since Baptists believe in the Bible and Jesus then they must be catholic as it had it first. In fact Mormons must be Catholics as well as they also believe in the Bible and Jesus. Using your bullshit definition everyone that is a Christian is also a Catholic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Won't argue with someone who convolutes logic, but thanks for proving my point.  Your analogy is false, mine is obviously correct.  I have nothing against Mormons or their faith, just against your reasoning.  That's OK, though.  Most historians, including LDS historians, use "Mormon" and "Mormonism" to define all followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Webster's is only one of several definitions, and it is certainly not binding.
> 
> The lawful descendent of the JS church, by federal court decision in 1893, is the now Community of Christ is not the current CoJCoL-d-S.  That is the law.
> 
> 'Mormon' is the historially correct title for all sects and denominations that follow and uphold JS and the Book of the Mormon.  The LDS Church, the largest denomination of Mormonism, is only one sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Yeah, the FLDS are "Mormon", no different than the LDS or any other group.



Of course it is only one of several.  Here are a few more for you:
Mormon - definition of Mormon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


> 1. (Christian Churches, other) a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded in 1830 at La Fayette, New York, by Joseph Smith (1805-44)



Mormon | Define Mormon at Dictionary.com


> the popular name given to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.



It seems more prevalent than your definition.

Here is another example of what you seem to be willing to accept with your post here.  Lets say that people were discussing some of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church regarding gays.  You would be OK with the discussion only making reference to the Baptist Church as a whole and never mentioning the specific church?  Would it not be important to you to distinguish this independent church by its full name so that people would not assume that you were discussing all Baptist churches?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Christopher said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Webster's is only one of several definitions, and it is certainly not binding.
> 
> The lawful descendent of the JS church, by federal court decision in 1893, is the now Community of Christ is not the current CoJCoL-d-S.  That is the law.
> 
> 'Mormon' is the historially correct title for all sects and denominations that follow and uphold JS and the Book of the Mormon.  The LDS Church, the largest denomination of Mormonism, is only one sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Yeah, the FLDS are "Mormon", no different than the LDS or any other group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is only one of several.  Here are a few more for you:
> Mormon - definition of Mormon by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. (Christian Churches, other) a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded in 1830 at La Fayette, New York, by Joseph Smith (1805-44)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mormon | Define Mormon at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> the popular name given to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems more prevalent than your definition.
> 
> Here is another example of what you seem to be willing to accept with your post here.  Let&#8217;s say that people were discussing some of the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church regarding gays.  You would be OK with the discussion only making reference to the Baptist Church as a whole and never mentioning the specific church?  Would it not be important to you to distinguish this independent church by its full name so that people would not assume that you were discussing all Baptist churches?
Click to expand...


The definition is not definitive and not used that way by historians.  Too many Mormon denominations exist  That's exactly why historians refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints Church or the (Wightites) Church of Jesus Christ, all branches of Mormonism.


----------



## froggy

Professor Gene Sessions, a Mormon, historian and authority on the massacre has concluded:

"... some 50 Mormons taking orders from local ecclesiastical leaders actually went out and tricked these 120 people out of their encampment with a white flag and then proceeded to murder them in cold blood with the exception of 17 small children. ... 

"It's an awful story, you can't put a smilie face on it. This was cold-blooded murder of innocent people. Occasionally someone will come up to me and say, 'Well don't you think they deserved it?' And, no I don't think they deserved it. I don't care how many of the stories you believe about whatever the immigrants did to get killed, nothing they did came anywhere close to justifying the murder of little children and the oldest child saved was six-years and 11 months old. Everyone older than that was murdered. In fact most of the murdered people were women and children. So there's no justification. Even if you wanted to make some justification for killing the men, it breaks down pretty fast. It's just- there's no justification for the murder of these people. ..."

"I also believe without any question, even though the Paiutes might deny loudly that they were involved, that there indeed were. At the beginning of the attack; at the beginning of the week somewhere in the neighborhood of three hundred Paiutes--there may have been only a handful left by the end of the week when the actual murders took place--but they were involved from the beginning and anyone who suggests otherwise is just missing enormous amounts of evidence." 14

It was ordered by the church's prophet and president, Brigham Young. Author Will Bagley implicates Young directly in the massacre. Bagley's book "Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows " has generated considerable controversy since it was first published in 2002-OCT. He concludes that Brigham Young knew that the attack was imminent and, according to legend, sent the message "Brethren, do your duty." Bagley provides some circumstantial evidence in support of this assertion.


----------



## Avatar4321

What exactly is your question Froggy?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Froggy is pointing out that alternative narrative are suggested.  

Sessions has adopted the current LDS story to the point that local LDS leaders caused the tragedy in southern Utah, while vastly overstating the number of Native Americans involved ~ the clan structure of native culture in the south probably could not have put together a war party of more than a dozen members.

Bagley insists that the massacre was masterminded by Brigham Young, aided and abetted by counselor George A. Smith, and carried out by the latter day saints militia in the south.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Froggy is pointing out that alternative narrative are suggested.
> 
> Sessions has adopted the current LDS story to the point that local LDS leaders caused the tragedy in southern Utah, while vastly overstating the number of Native Americans involved ~ the clan structure of native culture in the south probably could not have put together a war party of more than a dozen members.
> 
> Bagley insists that the massacre was masterminded by Brigham Young, aided and abetted by counselor George A. Smith, and carried out by the latter day saints militia in the south.



That's not really a question or accurate with any sort of look at what actually happen. I don't see how someone who tells them to leave them be is a mastermind behind some plot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The contention is that the letter was one of 'plausible deniability.'

Somebody a few years made a good point: does anybody who knows Brigham Young possibly that a wagon train could be eliminated by Mormon leadership and Mormon militia without BY's knowledge and permission?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you to know that there is soon to be published an 18+ year study (as of 01/2010) in support and explanation of their wording of this verse entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, we invite you to visit:

www dot goodcompanionbooks dot com

Agape, JohnOneOne.



I completely disagree with so many tenets of "Jehovah's Witness"-ism on so many levels but I respect their fervor and general good intentions. I don't think I would take any of my time to debate our ways being better than theirs because their minds are made up just like ours are. They'll just have to wait till the last day to be shown their errors. 

But it doesn't matter what religion you subscribe to as much as what is in your heart.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> More from Compton.
> 
> Did JS have carnal relations with women not his wife:
> 
> Compton writes:
> "Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)
> 
> - In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
> 
> - Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)
> 
> joseph smithIn total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.
> 
> - Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
> William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)
> 
> - Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)
> 
> 4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?
> 
> - Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
> 
> - In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: LDS History)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
> (Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)
> 
> - Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). ("Mormon Polygamy: A History" by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3



I've already said that it is no problem for a man to have sex with his wife. No matter how many of them he has. Surely then we would have to call Abraham and many of the other biblical patriarchs adulterers as well by your ideal. 

It was commanded and ispired of God at their times and in the times of Joseph Smith. End of debate.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Mormons are anyone who follows the teachings of Joseph Smith.  The term is not defined by you or the LDS church or anyone else.  The term is what it is.  So, yes, the FLDS, the Wightites, the Bickertonites, the Smithites, Temple Lot, RLDS, Community of Christ ~ all are Mormons, along with literally the hundreds of other Mormon schismatic organizations.
> 
> The LDS are merely one of so many Mormon sects.
> 
> Here is a great work to read: _Scattering Of The Saints: Schism Within Mormonism _by Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (Paperback - Sept. 10, 2007)



Sorry dude, 
your dog and pony show of Shrutism does not make you seem authoritative on who's a sect and who's the mother ship. 

All those who break off the mother ship and have formation dates after the Church of Jesus Christ are uniquivocally and indisputably the breakoffs and obviously unauthoritative sects completely separated and unsanctioned by the mother church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the official name of the Church Joseph Smith founded in 1830. All other names after that are just that....after that.

Capish?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> More from Compton.
> 
> Did JS have carnal relations with women not his wife:
> 
> Compton writes:
> "Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)
> 
> - In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
> 
> - Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)
> 
> joseph smithIn total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.
> 
> - Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
> William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)
> 
> - Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)
> 
> 4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?
> 
> - Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
> 
> - In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: LDS History)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
> (Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)
> 
> - Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). ("Mormon Polygamy: A History" by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already said that it is no problem for a man to have sex with his wife. No matter how many of them he has. Surely then we would have to call Abraham and many of the other biblical patriarchs adulterers as well by your ideal.
> 
> It was commanded and ispired of God at their times and in the times of Joseph Smith. End of debate.
Click to expand...


Adultery was against the law of the land.  Your argument thus is bogus.  You certainly have no proof whatsoever that it was "inspired [sic] of God . . . in the times of Joseph Smith."  That's the point.  You lose.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are anyone who follows the teachings of Joseph Smith.  The term is not defined by you or the LDS church or anyone else.  The term is what it is.  So, yes, the FLDS, the Wightites, the Bickertonites, the Smithites, Temple Lot, RLDS, Community of Christ ~ all are Mormons, along with literally the hundreds of other Mormon schismatic organizations.
> 
> The LDS are merely one of so many Mormon sects.
> 
> Here is a great work to read: _Scattering Of The Saints: Schism Within Mormonism _by Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (Paperback - Sept. 10, 2007)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dude,
> your dog and pony show of Shrutism does not make you seem authoritative on who's a sect and who's the mother ship.
> 
> All those who break off the mother ship and have formation dates after the Church of Jesus Christ are uniquivocally and indisputably the breakoffs and obviously unauthoritative sects completely separated and unsanctioned by the mother church.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the official name of the Church Joseph Smith founded in 1830. All other names after that are just that....after that.
> 
> Capish?
Click to expand...


You argument is so absurdly false.  The official church of Joseph Smith was awarded to the Community of Christ (then the RLDS) in the Temple Lot Case (1893).

Don't you know _any _of your church's history.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Exactly wrong, guys.  Many Mormons (followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration, of which the LDS is only a sect) disagree with you guys.  In other words, the LDS church does not control  the definition of who is a "Mormon".  Yes, many Mormons do believe in it and practice it.



It's pretty logical to assume that the ORIGINAL church of the original name has the right to define who they are. Breakoff's of said church who have abandoned said name would be utterly unauthoritative in defining another group's name. Case closed.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> But that is the issue.
> 
> FLDS follow their interp of JS and the Book of Mormon, D&C, etc.  To them, you stopped in 1890.  To them, they picked up the mantle.  To them, they are 'real' Mormons.
> 
> And, of course, Mormons are a subset of Christianity, as are all the sects that follow JS subsets of Mormonism.



Of course....That's the whole point you're missing. Our church has always been founded on prophets and apostles, with Christ being the Chief Cornerstone. Their "interpretation" is an interpretation that is a clear and separate break from our original church. This is not even debatable. 

Their argument is that the church's prophetic leadership was to be genetic through Joseph Smith's line. But Joseph NEVER EVER, said that. Christ certainly said nothing about prophets being required to come from a certain genealogy. You see their major fail?

Who cares what argument they think they're bringing to the table. It is thrown out because we have not deviated from Joseph's teachings. They have. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's black and white.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.

Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Professor Gene Sessions, a Mormon, historian and authority on the massacre has concluded:
> 
> "... some 50 Mormons taking orders from local ecclesiastical leaders actually went out and tricked these 120 people out of their encampment with a white flag and then proceeded to murder them in cold blood with the exception of 17 small children. ...
> 
> "It's an awful story, you can't put a smilie face on it. This was cold-blooded murder of innocent people. Occasionally someone will come up to me and say, 'Well don't you think they deserved it?' And, no I don't think they deserved it. I don't care how many of the stories you believe about whatever the immigrants did to get killed, nothing they did came anywhere close to justifying the murder of little children and the oldest child saved was six-years and 11 months old. Everyone older than that was murdered. In fact most of the murdered people were women and children. So there's no justification. Even if you wanted to make some justification for killing the men, it breaks down pretty fast. It's just- there's no justification for the murder of these people. ..."
> 
> "I also believe without any question, even though the Paiutes might deny loudly that they were involved, that there indeed were. At the beginning of the attack; at the beginning of the week somewhere in the neighborhood of three hundred Paiutes--there may have been only a handful left by the end of the week when the actual murders took place--but they were involved from the beginning and anyone who suggests otherwise is just missing enormous amounts of evidence." 14
> 
> It was ordered by the church's prophet and president, Brigham Young. Author Will Bagley implicates Young directly in the massacre. Bagley's book "Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows " has generated considerable controversy since it was first published in 2002-OCT. He concludes that Brigham Young knew that the attack was imminent and, according to legend, sent the message "Brethren, do your duty." Bagley provides some circumstantial evidence in support of this assertion.



Exactly! "ACCORDING TO LEGEND".

Legend has it that Zeus is the father of Kratos in God of War, along with Perseus and Hercules too!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Froggy is pointing out that alternative narrative are suggested.
> 
> Sessions has adopted the current LDS story to the point that local LDS leaders caused the tragedy in southern Utah, while vastly overstating the number of Native Americans involved ~ the clan structure of native culture in the south probably could not have put together a war party of more than a dozen members.
> 
> Bagley insists that the massacre was masterminded by Brigham Young, aided and abetted by counselor George A. Smith, and carried out by the latter day saints militia in the south.



Anyone who has truly heard the teachings of Brigham Young knows that he was not capable of such an atrocity. 
Never mind the circumstances being impossible for him to know and respond to the Arkansas party nuisance. His response, which was slower than snail mail speed was thus, "Let them alone, do not meddle with them."

It was received a week after the murderers dealt with the Arkansas wagon train.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The contention is that the letter was one of 'plausible deniability.'
> 
> Somebody a few years made a good point: does anybody who knows Brigham Young possibly that a wagon train could be eliminated by Mormon leadership and Mormon militia without BY's knowledge and permission?



You didn't gramaticize your sentence properly. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

But let it be known. Independant people can perform independant acts and contrary to many a belief, Brigham Young was not an omnipotent dictator. He could not control all the actions of his fellow man.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> More from Compton.
> 
> Did JS have carnal relations with women not his wife:
> 
> Compton writes:
> "Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)
> 
> - In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
> 
> - Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)
> 
> joseph smithIn total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.
> 
> - Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
> William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)
> 
> - Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)
> 
> 4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?
> 
> - Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
> 
> - In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: LDS History)
> 
> - Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
> (Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)
> 
> - Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). ("Mormon Polygamy: A History" by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already said that it is no problem for a man to have sex with his wife. No matter how many of them he has. Surely then we would have to call Abraham and many of the other biblical patriarchs adulterers as well by your ideal.
> 
> It was commanded and ispired of God at their times and in the times of Joseph Smith. End of debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adultery was against the law of the land.  Your argument thus is bogus.  You certainly have no proof whatsoever that it was "inspired [sic] of God . . . in the times of Joseph Smith."  That's the point.  You lose.
Click to expand...


Try again...
It doesn't matter to have "proof" as you call it. This is a matter of faith entirely. "proof" as you would call it, would require God to appear to you and tell you that he has sanctioned it. 
Sorry I just don't have that proof. All else by humans is commentary unless you are of the correct belief. Spiritual proof by the power of the Holy Ghost is the only proof you will have on this matter. It is the strongest proof there is actually. It is pointless to debate this. Our minds are made up on the matter.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are anyone who follows the teachings of Joseph Smith.  The term is not defined by you or the LDS church or anyone else.  The term is what it is.  So, yes, the FLDS, the Wightites, the Bickertonites, the Smithites, Temple Lot, RLDS, Community of Christ ~ all are Mormons, along with literally the hundreds of other Mormon schismatic organizations.
> 
> The LDS are merely one of so many Mormon sects.
> 
> Here is a great work to read: _Scattering Of The Saints: Schism Within Mormonism _by Newell G. Bringhurst and John C. Hamer (Paperback - Sept. 10, 2007)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dude,
> your dog and pony show of Shrutism does not make you seem authoritative on who's a sect and who's the mother ship.
> 
> All those who break off the mother ship and have formation dates after the Church of Jesus Christ are uniquivocally and indisputably the breakoffs and obviously unauthoritative sects completely separated and unsanctioned by the mother church.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the official name of the Church Joseph Smith founded in 1830. All other names after that are just that....after that.
> 
> Capish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You argument is so absurdly false.  The official church of Joseph Smith was awarded to the Community of Christ (then the RLDS) in the Temple Lot Case (1893).
> 
> Don't you know _any _of your church's history.
Click to expand...


First of all if you knew the Book of Mormon at all you would know we would never follow the church of a man. Jesus is quoted in 3 Nephi chapter 17 responding to the queries as to what they should name his church. He said, "Why should your hearts be troubled concerning this matter?

 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses name then it be Moses church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. 
 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses name then it be Moses church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. 


You see? The courts of earth have no authority in this matter? That is the reason why the FLDS fell away in their understanding. They think that the key to salvation was Joseph Smith! They became the church of a man in that instant.

Followers of Christ would recognize who the key to their salvation really is. Joseph Smith himself vehemently proclaimed this fact. 
Judgment rules in favor of Christ's church, not Joseph's Church:


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.
> 
> Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.



Thank you for your concession.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.
> 
> Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your concession.
Click to expand...


You conceded because you know secular law in the affair of man transcends your church comments.  Remember that one of your Articles of Faith state thats you follow the laws of man.

You can't win on this.  JS was an adulterer before the law and in the eyes of God.  Tough place to be.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.
> 
> Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your concession.
Click to expand...


Your faith, while not commendable, is understandable in its operation.  You allow faith to overwhelm the evidence and objective evaluation that clearly reveals, at the best, a fallen prophet.  You put bias before clear sight.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.
> 
> Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conceded because you know secular law in the affair of man transcends your church comments.  Remember that one of your Articles of Faith state thats you follow the laws of man.
> 
> You can't win on this.  JS was an adulterer before the law and in the eyes of God.  Tough place to be.
Click to expand...


Oh gimme a break please!

While it is true that we agree with being law abiding citizens, we do not preach blind obedience. When a law of the land is in conflict with the law of God we are to follow the law of God. This is explained by all of our prophets, in the Doctrine and Covenants and in the Bible many times. It's no big secret.

You can opine about Joseph Smith all you want but you're not going to convince me to your side of the road. Isn't freedom of thought great?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.
> 
> Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your faith, while not commendable, is understandable in its operation.  You allow faith to overwhelm the evidence and objective evaluation that clearly reveals, at the best, a fallen prophet.  You put bias before clear sight.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is at best, flowery.


----------



## JakeStarkey

My opinion is based on informed, objective information, yours is based on faith.

And that, my friend, is why the physical and metaphysical really mix.

I wish you all the best in your faith.


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.
> 
> Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your faith, while not commendable, is understandable in its operation.  You allow faith to overwhelm the evidence and objective evaluation that clearly reveals, at the best, a fallen CON MAN.  You put bias before clear sight.
Click to expand...


Here i fixed your misstatement, and capitalized the correction just to show i fixed it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> My opinion is based on informed, objective information, yours is based on faith.
> 
> And that, my friend, is why the physical and metaphysical really mix.
> 
> I wish you all the best in your faith.



So you think, so you think. But you know what I think?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your LDS church, Truthspeaker, is only one denomination of Mormons.
> 
> Better get over your tantrum because that is not going to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your concession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your faith, while not commendable, is understandable in its operation.  You allow faith to overwhelm the evidence and objective evaluation that clearly reveals, at the best, a fallen prophet.  You put bias before clear sight.
Click to expand...


But to be a fallen prophet....Would he have had to be a TRUE PROPHET first?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your concession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your faith, while not commendable, is understandable in its operation.  You allow faith to overwhelm the evidence and objective evaluation that clearly reveals, at the best, a fallen CON MAN.  You put bias before clear sight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here i fixed your misstatement, and capitalized the correction just to show i fixed it.
Click to expand...


Were any of us to go back and attempt to fix any of your statements it would take a miracle. Being entirely wrong in your thought process is one thing. But your level of grammar and spelling????????.........
As Simon Cowell would say


----------



## Liability

A completely random bump.

Or IS it completely random?

I see another thread getting one word posts to pile on the number of "views."

So misguided.

I think I'll try that.

Here.

Taking the random out of random bumpage!


----------



## Liability

This


----------



## Liability

Thread


----------



## Liability

needs


----------



## Liability

*major*


----------



## Liability

*bumpage!*


----------



## Sky Dancer

Truthspeaker--

Do you always identify with being a Mormon or are you ever just a human being?  Just looking for the real person in there.


----------



## Liability

Sky Dancer said:


> Truthspeaker--
> 
> Do you always identify with being a Mormon or are you ever just a human being?  Just looking for the real person in there.



Mormons ARE real people, too!

That's a song I think we might get Kermit to sing someday!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth is a good guy.  He shouldn't rewrite my messages, but he is a homer for his faith is all.

So let me rewrite what I wrote and Truth edited: JS at the *best *is a fallen prophet and at the *worst *a delusional conman.  Is that better, Truth?


----------



## Liability

Why are there so many 
songs about Mormons and
what's on the golden slabs?

Mormons are People
this is no delusion
Mormons have feelings too

what's so amazing
about a thread about Lists
that makes someone post there at all?

Someday we'll find out
the Mormon connection: that
Huggy's just silly and small.​


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sky Dancer said:


> Truthspeaker--
> 
> Do you always identify with being a Mormon or are you ever just a human being?  Just looking for the real person in there.



Have you ever heard me refer to myself as a "Mormon"? Remember it was originally a derogotory label that was slapped on us by haters of our religion. Somehow the nickname stuck but I don't like being called a "Mormon". The reason I don't like it is because it is a label. 

People like to label everything so that they can understand it. People think they understand "mormons" because of the stereotypes that go along with that name. Well as has been proven in this thread, there is much people have to learn in order to truly understand us. 

Label someone "gay" so you can think he's effeminate and liberal in all his ways.
Label someone "black" so you can think he's a scumbag and a criminal and not worthy to date your daughter.
Label someone "liberal" and they must be a fan of Bill Clinton.
Label someone "conservative" and he must be a fan of George Bush.
Label someone "mormon" and he must have lots of wives.
Label someone a "Catholic" and they must believe in priests who molest little boys.
Label someone "Asian", well of course they have to be a brainiac.
Label someone a "hippie" and they must smoke weed.
Label someone a "mexican" and they must be an illegal gang member.

You see I hate labels. Because people think they can judge someone based on the label. 
I love knowledge.
I think of myself as


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth is a good guy.  He shouldn't rewrite my messages, but he is a homer for his faith is all.
> 
> So let me rewrite what I wrote and Truth edited: JS at the *best *is a fallen prophet and at the *worst *a delusional conman.  Is that better, Truth?



Well not quite. You see he's such a polarizing character with such an extreme impact worldwide that he is one of two extremes. The greatest prophet of our generation or the greatest con-man of our generation. There really is no middle ground if you understand what his teachings were.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Liability said:


> Why are there so many
> songs about Mormons and
> what's on the golden slabs?
> 
> Mormons are People
> this is no delusion
> Mormons have feelings too
> 
> what's so amazing
> about a thread about Lists
> that makes someone post there at all?
> 
> Someday we'll find out
> the Mormon connection: that
> Huggy's just silly and small.​



Came up with that all on your own did ya?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I think of you as a Latter Day Saint who happens to be of the Mormon persuasion and follows Mormonism, which is the way of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Sometimes, Truthspeaker, labels are merely objective definitions for classification and division.

I certainly imply nothing negative about "Mormonism" or "Mormons."  Those who do such I begin to wonder if they understand Christ and Christianity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are there so many
> songs about Mormons and
> what's on the golden slabs?
> 
> Mormons are People
> this is no delusion
> Mormons have feelings too
> 
> what's so amazing
> about a thread about Lists
> that makes someone post there at all?
> 
> Someday we'll find out
> the Mormon connection: that
> Huggy's just silly and small.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Came up with that all on your own did ya?
Click to expand...


What I don't understand is that atheists don't recognize they are the biggest faith holders in the world.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I think of you as a Latter Day Saint who happens to be of the Mormon persuasion and follows Mormonism, which is the way of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Sometimes, Truthspeaker, labels are merely objective definitions for classification and division.
> 
> I certainly imply nothing negative about "Mormonism" or "Mormons."  Those who do such I begin to wonder if they understand Christ and Christianity.



You see but you are still labeling and trying to grasp the situation. There is so much more to each individual than you think. the label is so empty to me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then you are having trouble with comprehension.  That's OK.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Then you are having trouble with comprehension.  That's OK.



We'll see who has comprehension issues at the last day.

In the meantime, do unto others as you would have done unto you.


----------



## JoLouis

Sorry, but mormonism is the autistic child of the religious community. Cute but with a very tenuous grasp on reality.
Most mormons are born into it, and therefore breast fed it since birth, so it's hard not to grow up with those beliefs. But very few people are ever converted to it. You know why? Because it makes very little sense to the normal person.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoLouis said:


> Sorry, but mormonism is the autistic child of the religious community. Cute but with a very tenuous grasp on reality.
> Most mormons are born into it, and therefore breast fed it since birth, so it's hard not to grow up with those beliefs. But very few people are ever converted to it. You know why? Because it makes very little sense to the normal person.



May want to check those figures, you are wrong about conversions.


----------



## JoLouis

Why? What kind of figures do you have? 
If there are around 12 million mormons worldwide, I would say that the conversion rate out of 6 billion+ people is pretty minimal.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Sorry, but mormonism is the autistic child of the religious community. Cute but with a very tenuous grasp on reality.
> Most mormons are born into it, and therefore breast fed it since birth, so it's hard not to grow up with those beliefs. But very few people are ever converted to it. You know why? Because it makes very little sense to the normal person.



Most are born into it?

I don't see how the math supports you. The Church of Jesus Christ has been growing at a steady 2% rate due to convert baptisms that are aprox. 250K-275L a year. That's actually on the low side. Some years have been much higher.

Some of the fastest growing areas of the Church are in Africa and Latin America. Are you suggesting that people from Utah have been immigrating to these areas and reproducing in order to grow the Church in these locations? The idea is absurd.

Many people convert to the Church. In fact, most people I know are either direct converts or children of direct converts.

If it makes little sense to people, then why do you have to argue points that are blatantly false? There is power in the Church of Jesus Christ. The Power of the Holy Spirit. The power of God working in the hearts of men. Study it. If it makes so little sense, try to understand why people might believe it. Then atleast you wont look completely ignorant.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Why? What kind of figures do you have?
> If there are around 12 million mormons worldwide, I would say that the conversion rate out of 6 billion+ people is pretty minimal.



Closer to 13 millions. But then your whole analysis is faulty because the total amount of people in the population is irrelevant to the calculations.

The question is of the 13 million, now many were born to it, and how many people converted? Given the aprox 250K-250K a year, or a conservative growth rate of 2% a year, the figures show that most of the 13 million would be converts. Especially since the highest rates of the growth are occuring in nations that didn't have significant Mormon populations 10-15 years ago.


----------



## JoLouis

I'm saying that 200k is a tiny number compared to the number of people on this planet. Infinitesimal even. And that most are in Africa and Latin America speaks for itself (very uneducated, in other words, mostly still on the ignorant side).

Born into it, I mean into a family of mormons. Sorry if you're hard of English.

I don't doubt that there's a massive amount of power in the Jesus movement, why else do you think that the US supports Israel except to hasten the supposed coming of the next Jesus.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are there so many
> songs about Mormons and
> what's on the golden slabs?
> 
> Mormons are People
> this is no delusion
> Mormons have feelings too
> 
> what's so amazing
> about a thread about Lists
> that makes someone post there at all?
> 
> Someday we'll find out
> the Mormon connection: that
> Huggy's just silly and small.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Came up with that all on your own did ya?
Click to expand...


I'm just droppin by to sling gang signs  WAZZUP??? BITCHES????


----------



## LANMaster

I voted Christian, though I do not believe the title fits your faith.

I have several Mormon friends.  All of whom are respectable and good citizens.
I voted for Mitt Romney in the '08 primary.
So please know that I consider Mormons good people of a warm and friendly faith.

But Jesus is Jehova.  I am concerned that your faith is based on a guy (Joseph Smith) that could not be anything short of a total lunatic.  
Of course some might say that of Jesus Christ Himself, but I believe the King James Bible account.  I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Himself. ... just as Jesus said He was..

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider you a friend.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Almost every Mormon, whether LDS or FLDS or whatever, have been neat people.  That their faith is not "the one true gospel" is immaterial.


----------



## Avatar4321

LANMaster said:


> I voted Christian, though I do not believe the title fits your faith.
> 
> I have several Mormon friends.  All of whom are respectable and good citizens.
> I voted for Mitt Romney in the '08 primary.
> So please know that I consider Mormons good people of a warm and friendly faith.
> 
> But Jesus is Jehova.  I am concerned that your faith is based on a guy (Joseph Smith) that could not be anything short of a total lunatic.
> Of course some might say that of Jesus Christ Himself, but I believe the King James Bible account.  I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Himself. ... just as Jesus said He was..
> 
> That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider you a friend.



How does Joseph Smith telling people that Jesus is Jehovah and that he has seen Him make Joseph a total lunatic or deny that Jesus is who He said He was?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> I'm saying that 200k is a tiny number compared to the number of people on this planet. Infinitesimal even. And that most are in Africa and Latin America speaks for itself (very uneducated, in other words, mostly still on the ignorant side).
> 
> Born into it, I mean into a family of mormons. Sorry if you're hard of English.
> 
> I don't doubt that there's a massive amount of power in the Jesus movement, why else do you think that the US supports Israel except to hasten the supposed coming of the next Jesus.



So in otherwords, you have absolutely nothing to support anything you've said and don't even have the decency to admit that you are wrong when you say most mormons are born into it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

LANMaster said:


> I voted Christian, though I do not believe the title fits your faith.
> 
> I have several Mormon friends.  All of whom are respectable and good citizens.
> I voted for Mitt Romney in the '08 primary.
> So please know that I consider Mormons good people of a warm and friendly faith.
> 
> But Jesus is Jehova.  I am concerned that your faith is based on a guy (Joseph Smith) that could not be anything short of a total lunatic.
> Of course some might say that of Jesus Christ Himself, but I believe the King James Bible account.  I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Himself. ... just as Jesus said He was..
> 
> That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider you a friend.



We also consider Jesus to be JEHOVAH. That may have just rocked your world


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> I'm saying that 200k is a tiny number compared to the number of people on this planet. Infinitesimal even. And that most are in Africa and Latin America speaks for itself (very uneducated, in other words, mostly still on the ignorant side).
> 
> Born into it, I mean into a family of mormons. Sorry if you're hard of English.
> 
> I don't doubt that there's a massive amount of power in the Jesus movement, why else do you think that the US supports Israel except to hasten the supposed coming of the next Jesus.



I served my mission in africa and your statement has just revealed you to be the uneducated one. First off, Africans speak an average of 3 completely different languages fluently. 2nd off they are some of the brightest people I have ever met. They don't need schools in order to be intelligent. Your incredibly racist statement is rife with holes in it. Africa is a poor continent to be sure, but don't let that fool you. they're smart but unfortunately leadership is very selfish and greedy in most african countries and most governments are designed to keep the population from having wealth or weapons so that they can hoard all of both to themselves. They are not stupid because they don't decide to fight their governments with sticks and stones while the guards have automatic and semiautomatic weapons. They are just deprived.

I know those people inside and out. They're as smart as they come. and when one of them decides to join the church, you better believe there was a lot of thought that went into it before they decided to jump in.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoLouis has not been to the major cities in South America or Africa.  The middle classes on both continents are bettered educate than our middle class, speak more languages, and have a more inclusive world outlook.


----------



## JoLouis

Shitspeaker, I don't doubt that Africans are some of the most intelligent people you know!!!! 

Jake, Africans are more intelligent than Americans? You bet! 

Avatar, what's it like to have your whole life be an epic fail?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Shitspeaker, I don't doubt that Africans are some of the most intelligent people you know!!!!
> 
> Jake, Africans are more intelligent than Americans? You bet!
> 
> Avatar, what's it like to have your whole life be an epic fail?



You and I must define Epic fail much differently.


----------



## LANMaster

Truthspeaker said:


> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted Christian, though I do not believe the title fits your faith.
> 
> I have several Mormon friends.  All of whom are respectable and good citizens.
> I voted for Mitt Romney in the '08 primary.
> So please know that I consider Mormons good people of a warm and friendly faith.
> 
> But Jesus is Jehova.  I am concerned that your faith is based on a guy (Joseph Smith) that could not be anything short of a total lunatic.
> Of course some might say that of Jesus Christ Himself, but I believe the King James Bible account.  I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Himself. ... just as Jesus said He was..
> 
> That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider you a friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also consider Jesus to be JEHOVAH. That may have just rocked your world
Click to expand...


Amen!   Perhaps I am confusing your faith with another.   Apologies if that is the case.


----------



## LANMaster

Avatar4321 said:


> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted Christian, though I do not believe the title fits your faith.
> 
> I have several Mormon friends.  All of whom are respectable and good citizens.
> I voted for Mitt Romney in the '08 primary.
> So please know that I consider Mormons good people of a warm and friendly faith.
> 
> But Jesus is Jehova.  I am concerned that your faith is based on a guy (Joseph Smith) that could not be anything short of a total lunatic.
> Of course some might say that of Jesus Christ Himself, but I believe the King James Bible account.  I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Himself. ... just as Jesus said He was..
> 
> That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider you a friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does Joseph Smith telling people that Jesus is Jehovah and that he has seen Him make Joseph a total lunatic or deny that Jesus is who He said He was?
Click to expand...


Okay .... you have opened up a can of worms that I had hoped would not be.
Joseph Smith's telling that Jesus is Jehova, or even seeing Jesus Christ does not make him a kook, IMHO.   But there are many other actions of his that do, which bring all of his outlandish claims into question.

If you would like for me to lay them all out for you here, I will.  But I do not think that is productive for either of us.  I did not post here in this thread to start a religious whizzing match.  Indeed, I compliment your faith, and the people in it.
I was merely responding to post #1 in this thread, as I am new.  I am sure that I have missed the vast bulk of discussion in here.

Just wait till I get started on Catholicism!


----------



## LANMaster

JakeStarkey said:


> Almost every Mormon, whether LDS or FLDS or whatever, have been neat people.  That their faith is not "the one true gospel" is immaterial.



I can live with that.


----------



## JoLouis

If mormonism is the true gospel, then why do you have to go door to door trying to convince people? Seems to me that if your god is there and so great, it wouldn't need anyone to go door to door trying to convince people of its existence.


----------



## LANMaster

I think the Gospel is the true Gospel.


----------



## Truthspeaker

LANMaster said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted Christian, though I do not believe the title fits your faith.
> 
> I have several Mormon friends.  All of whom are respectable and good citizens.
> I voted for Mitt Romney in the '08 primary.
> So please know that I consider Mormons good people of a warm and friendly faith.
> 
> But Jesus is Jehova.  I am concerned that your faith is based on a guy (Joseph Smith) that could not be anything short of a total lunatic.
> Of course some might say that of Jesus Christ Himself, but I believe the King James Bible account.  I believe that Jesus Christ IS God, Himself. ... just as Jesus said He was..
> 
> That doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider you a friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does Joseph Smith telling people that Jesus is Jehovah and that he has seen Him make Joseph a total lunatic or deny that Jesus is who He said He was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay .... you have opened up a can of worms that I had hoped would not be.
> Joseph Smith's telling that Jesus is Jehova, or even seeing Jesus Christ does not make him a kook, IMHO.   But there are many other actions of his that do, which bring all of his outlandish claims into question.
> 
> If you would like for me to lay them all out for you here, I will.  But I do not think that is productive for either of us.  I did not post here in this thread to start a religious whizzing match.  Indeed, I compliment your faith, and the people in it.
> I was merely responding to post #1 in this thread, as I am new.  I am sure that I have missed the vast bulk of discussion in here.
> 
> Just wait till I get started on Catholicism!
Click to expand...


Well this discussion has been going strong for a year and a half now. I doubt that you could bring up much about Joseph Smith that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. But I would welcome a friendly discussion on the matter for a change rather than the usual bozo know-it-all who comes in here thinking he knows everything about "Mormons", Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon despite not actually being a member of the church.

As you get to know me better I don't combat people on their beliefs. Only instruct as to what our ACTUAL beliefs are. You can get the difference between myth and fact from me regarding "Mormonism".

And let's not get started on Catholicism. It would be a total waste of time and useless knowledge of their faulty doctrine and traditions in my opinion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> If mormonism is the true gospel, then why do you have to go door to door trying to convince people? Seems to me that if your god is there and so great, it wouldn't need anyone to go door to door trying to convince people of its existence.



This idea of yours has been brought up before. Indeed, God can do all things for us if he felt like it. But that's the big test in life, to see if we will do and act for ourselves. What will we choose? What will we do? Will we obey the commandment to spread the gospel throughout the world. 

You may think we're delusional but that is the reasoning behind preaching door to door or in any other way.


----------



## Truthspeaker

LANMaster said:


> I think the Gospel is the true Gospel.



The Gospel is the good news of Christ and his redemption. People make up their own minds which version of the news to watch. Just like CNN or FOX. Certainly one station is better than the other, the key is not what somebody else tells you but what the Spirit of God tells you in your heart.


----------



## LANMaster

Truthspeaker said:


> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does Joseph Smith telling people that Jesus is Jehovah and that he has seen Him make Joseph a total lunatic or deny that Jesus is who He said He was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay .... you have opened up a can of worms that I had hoped would not be.
> Joseph Smith's telling that Jesus is Jehova, or even seeing Jesus Christ does not make him a kook, IMHO.   But there are many other actions of his that do, which bring all of his outlandish claims into question.
> 
> If you would like for me to lay them all out for you here, I will.  But I do not think that is productive for either of us.  I did not post here in this thread to start a religious whizzing match.  Indeed, I compliment your faith, and the people in it.
> I was merely responding to post #1 in this thread, as I am new.  I am sure that I have missed the vast bulk of discussion in here.
> 
> Just wait till I get started on Catholicism!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well this discussion has been going strong for a year and a half now. I doubt that you could bring up much about Joseph Smith that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. But I would welcome a friendly discussion on the matter for a change rather than the usual bozo know-it-all who comes in here thinking he knows everything about "Mormons", Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon despite not actually being a member of the church.
> 
> As you get to know me better I don't combat people on their beliefs. Only instruct as to what our ACTUAL beliefs are. You can get the difference between myth and fact from me regarding "Mormonism".
> 
> And let's not get started on Catholicism. It would be a total waste of time and useless knowledge of their faulty doctrine and traditions in my opinion.
Click to expand...


  Sounds good.   And it is a pleasure to meet you. 

I expect that you know a lot more about Mormonism than I do.

So perhaps you can tell me if the following are true, false, out of context or misleading about the faith;  I am not disrespecting your faith.   Please do not get that impression.
These are some of the things that I have read about Mormonism, and I would like to know if they are accurate, out of context, or perhaps dead wrong.


Is it true that your faith teaches that Jesus was married?  Perhaps to multiple women?
Is it true that your faith proclaims that we can all become Gods?
Is it true that Mormons believe that there are 4 inspired words of God, and not just the Bible?
Is it true that Mormons believe that God the Father has not always been the one supreme being in the universe, but that God attained that status through righteous living?
Is it true that Mormons believe there are differing levels of heaven based on how one lives his life?
Is is true that Mormons think that Jesus was created by Mary having a sexual relationship with God?
Do Mormons believe that salvation can be attained by works or deeds?
Do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God?
Do Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are Brothers????
Do Mormons believe that spiritual death can only be avoided through works?

I do not pretend to know very much about Mormonism, and I certainly expect to find that some of the things listed above are utterly ridiculous, so please pardon my ignorance on the subject.

cheers.


----------



## Avatar4321

LANMaster said:


> Okay .... you have opened up a can of worms that I had hoped would not be.
> Joseph Smith's telling that Jesus is Jehova, or even seeing Jesus Christ does not make him a kook, IMHO.   But there are many other actions of his that do, which bring all of his outlandish claims into question.
> 
> If you would like for me to lay them all out for you here, I will.  But I do not think that is productive for either of us.  I did not post here in this thread to start a religious whizzing match.  Indeed, I compliment your faith, and the people in it.
> I was merely responding to post #1 in this thread, as I am new.  I am sure that I have missed the vast bulk of discussion in here.
> 
> Just wait till I get started on Catholicism!



I wasn't trying to open a can of worms. Just trying to have conversation. I love it. It's a discussion I like having. And I don't blame you for not believing Joseph, He said on occasions that if hadn't lived through everything himself, he wouldn't believe himself.

I appreciate your compliments. I am not trying to make enemies.


----------



## Liability

Can of worms June bump!


----------



## Avatar4321

LANMaster said:


> Sounds good.   And it is a pleasure to meet you.
> 
> I expect that you know a lot more about Mormonism than I do.



I'm not TS and can't speak for him or to your knowledge base, But id be happy to answer any of your questions.



> So perhaps you can tell me if the following are true, false, out of context or misleading about the faith;  I am not disrespecting your faith.   Please do not get that impression.
> These are some of the things that I have read about Mormonism, and I would like to know if they are accurate, out of context, or perhaps dead wrong.



Ill try to help




> [*]Is it true that your faith teaches that Jesus was married?  Perhaps to multiple women?



The answer is, we don't know. There is and has been some speculation to that end. I don't know if Christ was married. Or to whom. But it makes sense that if Christ fullfilled all righteousness and kept all the commandments of His father, that He would have fulfilled the commandment to cleave unto one's wife and multiply and replenish the earth, which is that first commandment given to man, even before the commandment not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good or evil.

But as we have no direct revelation to the point, it's just speculation. 




> [*]Is it true that your faith proclaims that we can all become Gods?



Of course, this is what the Bible teaches. The scriptures are clear that those who recieve the word are gods. Christ himself used it to argue for His Divinity (Ps 82:6;John 10:32-39). Paul mentioned in Romans that we are Joint Heirs with Christ and will recieve all the Father has along with Christ. Peter stated that we have been called to be partakers of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). John spoke in Revelation about the righteous recieving thrones and dominions. He also spoke in one of his Epistles about what we will be when Christ comes:



> 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
> 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and *it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him*; for we shall see him as he is.
> 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. (1 John 3:1-3, emphasis added)



The Atonement is meant to cleanse us, to purify us, to empower us to become like Christ. and What is Christ if He is not God?

In addition to what is found in the Bible, we have other revelations that flesh a few more details out. Not much. But everything there is to understand better is good.

The Early Church Fathers, who wrote after the death of the Original Apostles, spoke of the doctrine of Deification. It's common in Christianity anciently and some modern sources mention it in passing. CS Lewis mentioned it in Mere Christianity. Orthodox and some Catholics acknowledge it. And some protestants acknowledge it too. Though I am not sure how many. I've never done a survey.



> [*]Is it true that Mormons believe that there are 4 inspired words of God, and not just the Bible?



I think our 9th article of faith sums that question up nicely:



> We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God



We don't believe God is done speaking with the world. We don't believe that He has changed his methods and is now silent in the world. Quite the opposite. We boldly proclaim that God speaks to man. That all men may learn for themselves from God the truth He revealed, that He lives, cares for them. Man must live off more than bread alone, but on _every_ word that proceeds from the mouth of God.



> [*]Is it true that Mormons believe that God the Father has not always been the one supreme being in the universe, but that God attained that status through righteous living?



Honestly, we don't know enough about God the Father's mortal existance. Little has been revealed. We just know that He has a body of Flesh and blood and that Christ learned how to do the things He did by watching His Father.

Man and God aren't some foreign species. We are the same species. We just are in the early stages of our Development.



> [*]Is it true that Mormons believe there are differing levels of heaven based on how one lives his life?



Christ said there were many mansions in His Father's House. Paul pointed out different we are resurrected in different levels of glory. John saw the final judgment where we were judged by our works and who we had become.

However, the limited knowledge have concerning it comes in modern revelation found here:

Doctrine and Covenants 76



> [*]Is is true that Mormons think that Jesus was created by Mary having a sexual relationship with God?



No. We believe that Mary was a Virgin when she concieved and when she gave birth as the scriptures say. We also believe that God the Father literally is the Father of Jesus Christ.

There have been many who try to take obsure quotes out of context to say otherwise. But they have to infer a sexual relation and ignore all the quotes that say the exact opposite. I think there are just some who like sensationalizing things and have their own minds in the gutter.



> [*]Do Mormons believe that salvation can be attained by works or deeds?



No. We can only be saved through the merits of Jesus Christ.



> [*]Do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God?



Yes. He was.



> [*]Do Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are Brothers????



We believe that everyone are brothers and sisters. We lived with God before the world was and that we are literally His children in the Spirit. Christ was among us. Satan was among us before his rebellion and fall. Job mentions Satan being among the sons of God.



> [*]Do Mormons believe that spiritual death can only be avoided through works?



No. Spiritual death can only be overcome with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We enter into a covenant relationship with Him and use that gift He has freely given to become born again of the Spirit. And we grow line upon line, precept upon precept, through the mercy of the Lord.



> I do not pretend to know very much about Mormonism, and I certainly expect to find that some of the things listed above are utterly ridiculous, so please pardon my ignorance on the subject.
> 
> cheers.



Some are. Others are only ridiculous outside of the true context. Context is everything. Words mean something. There is nothing to be ashamed of with ignorance. But we all must make a choice to remain in ignorance or learn. I am glad you are following the other.


----------



## LANMaster

Avatar .... I truly want to thank you for candidly and honestly answering my questions.   I do not agree with many of those things that you affirmed, but I am now less ignorant about your faith since you took the time to answer point by point.

Sincere thanks.   Green rep points to ya!


----------



## JoLouis

Truthspeaker said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mormonism is the true gospel, then why do you have to go door to door trying to convince people? Seems to me that if your god is there and so great, it wouldn't need anyone to go door to door trying to convince people of its existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This idea of yours has been brought up before. Indeed, God can do all things for us if he felt like it. But that's the big test in life, to see if we will do and act for ourselves. What will we choose? What will we do? Will we obey the commandment to spread the gospel throughout the world.
> 
> You may think we're delusional but that is the reasoning behind preaching door to door or in any other way.
Click to expand...


Delusional is thinking that some invisible god you've never seen tells you to spread some bogus message. ... Oh wait, that's you!


----------



## Liability

The religiously biased, bigoted and narrow-minded (like JoLu) have been drawn to this thread.  Funny stuff.

A nearly at 4000 bump!


----------



## HUGGY

Liability said:


> The religiously biased, bigoted and narrow-minded (like JoLu) have been drawn to this thread.  Funny stuff.
> 
> A nearly at 4000 bump!



I thought jackals only came out after dark!  Isn't it 7:38 PM in NY?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Delusional is thinking that some invisible god you've never seen tells you to spread some bogus message. ... Oh wait, that's you!



And what is bogus about it? Why is it you have to resort to ridicule instead of actual intelligent arguments?

And what is wrong with being honest, humble, faithful, patient, full of love, kindness, etc?


----------



## Avatar4321

4000


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> 4000



BRAVO!  

Now we're into the five thousands.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional is thinking that some invisible god you've never seen tells you to spread some bogus message. ... Oh wait, that's you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is bogus about it? Why is it you have to resort to ridicule instead of actual intelligent arguments?
> 
> And what is wrong with being honest, humble, faithful, patient, full of love, kindness, etc?
Click to expand...


I have know Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other faiths and no faiths that are like this.

And no question exists that Atheism requires more Faith than a believer.


----------



## JoLouis

Avatar4321 said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional is thinking that some invisible god you've never seen tells you to spread some bogus message. ... Oh wait, that's you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is bogus about it? Why is it you have to resort to ridicule instead of actual intelligent arguments?
> 
> And what is wrong with being honest, humble, faithful, patient, full of love, kindness, etc?
Click to expand...


What's bogus about my comments? Your god is invisible and no one has ever seen it. And, sorry to say, but the mormon message is one of the most whacked out theories out there. Golden plates, mythical planets like kolob, Joseph Smith seemed to be a complete donkey...

Nothing wrong with honesty... What's your point? Non-mormons can't be nice?

I'm agnostic, atheists are just as bad a religioners, they're convinced of something that they have no hope of proving.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoLouis said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional is thinking that some invisible god you've never seen tells you to spread some bogus message. ... Oh wait, that's you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is bogus about it? Why is it you have to resort to ridicule instead of actual intelligent arguments?
> 
> And what is wrong with being honest, humble, faithful, patient, full of love, kindness, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's bogus about my comments? Your god is invisible and no one has ever seen it. And, sorry to say, but the mormon message is one of the most whacked out theories out there. Golden plates, mythical planets like kolob, Joseph Smith seemed to be a complete donkey...
> 
> Nothing wrong with honesty... What's your point? Non-mormons can't be nice?
> 
> I'm agnostic, atheists are just as bad a religioners, they're convinced of something that they have no hope of proving.
Click to expand...


Simply not true as I recall God has shown himself several times to mortal men. Further when one prays in honesty one gets an answer. It may not be the answer they were looking for but they will get an answer.

People of faith know God exists. They know it because he answers their prayers. They know it because they have felt his presence. They know it because they have been shown the way. Further everyone knows it because Jesus WAS seen by many people. His resurrection witnessed by many.  His word listened to and accepted by billions over the years.

One need only honestly seek to accept Jesus as their savior and believe in God and they will know as well. People convert because they do these things and get the answer from God himself.

I am a convert. I prayed for guidance and was shown the way to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and that he restored the true Church on Earth.

I seldom attend services and am probably a "jack" Mormon but I still know to this day 31 years later that these things are true. I know because God let me know. I know because Jesus let me know. I know because I prayed and was answered.

All one need be is honest and pray for an answer.

Having said all that, I do not believe that what man run church you belong to matters. God requires that you accept Jesus as your savior and be baptized in his name. That is the requirement to be saved. We are all sinners and will always be beset by sin and temptation. The key is to not PRACTICE sin. So long as one does not practice sin one can be forgiven. Ones works matter as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RGS, that is a great testimony.  I believe you don't understand the relation of election, sanctification, and justification, but you don't have to because you have taken Jesus as your savior.  I believe you don't understand the relation of the atonement, crucifixion, and the resurrection, but you don't have to because you have taken Jesus as your savior.  Truthspeaker and Avatar row in the same boat with you, and it's a good place to be.


----------



## JoLouis

God has shown himself to mortal men? Like who?
Thinking that god answers your prayers and talks to you is delusional. I mean, like, you're not (hopefully) hurting anyone, so everything is still good, but you live in a fantasy world. And as long as you all stay pretty much in Utah, nobody is really going to give a fuck about what you think or how many beehive women you marry anyways.
I could probably POSSIBLY agree that a guy named Jesus existed and was all preachy in everyone face, but the earliest accounts from the bible were written around 300 year or so after the facts, so who really knows what happened? Maybe he was even gay?


----------



## Liability

JoLouis said:


> God has shown himself to mortal men? Like who?
> Thinking that god answers your prayers and talks to you is delusional. I mean, like, you're not (hopefully) hurting anyone, so everything is still good, but you live in a fantasy world. And as long as you all stay pretty much in Utah, nobody is really going to give a fuck about what you think or how many beehive women you marry anyways.
> I could probably POSSIBLY agree that a guy named Jesus existed and was all preachy in everyone face, but the earliest accounts from the bible were written around 300 year or so after the facts, so who really knows what happened? Maybe he was even gay?



YoLoser:

Your scholarship is seriously suspect.   Many church accounts have the original Gospels being written by some of Jesus' disciples (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).  They were contemporaries, obviously, of the Jesus.  And they didn't live for hundreds of years.  Ergo, they first Gospels were probably written within the first century of the life of Jesus.  See, for example:  Who wrote the Gospels and When are the Gospels written


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoLouis said:


> God has shown himself to mortal men? Like who?
> Thinking that god answers your prayers and talks to you is delusional. I mean, like, you're not (hopefully) hurting anyone, so everything is still good, but you live in a fantasy world. And as long as you all stay pretty much in Utah, nobody is really going to give a fuck about what you think or how many beehive women you marry anyways.
> I could probably POSSIBLY agree that a guy named Jesus existed and was all preachy in everyone face, but the earliest accounts from the bible were written around 300 year or so after the facts, so who really knows what happened? Maybe he was even gay?



Believing in prayer and that God answers prayers is not delusional. No where did I say God spoke to me either. Believing that the vast majority of the people on this planet are delusional is , well, delusional.

By the way? The Mormon church put an end to Polygamy in 1890. You might want to actually learn something about a group you are going to make outrageous claims about. Further more MOST Mormons do NOT live in Utah.


----------



## JoLouis

Liability: I'm talking about carbon dating the documents involved, it's been done. Not some suspect "church accounts" that deduces whatever. Stop being so gullible and open your eyes.
So Sarge, you have no examples of Himself showing Himself to mortal men? Then why say it?
Praying is relatively harmless, go for it. But to think that someone is answering you back is delusional. That most of the world thinks like that only shows what a little way we've come as a species since the caveman.
Sorry Holmes, but Utah still has polygamists who are mormons. The National Geographic did a cover story on it not long ago.


----------



## Liability

JoLouis said:


> Liability: I'm talking about carbon dating the documents involved, it's been done. Not some suspect "church accounts" that deduces whatever. Stop being so gullible and open your eyes.
> So Sarge, you have no examples of Himself showing Himself to mortal men? Then why say it?
> Praying is relatively harmless, go for it. But to think that someone is answering you back is delusional. That most of the world thinks like that only shows what a little way we've come as a species since the caveman.
> Sorry Holmes, but Utah still has polygamists who are mormons. The National Geographic did a cover story on it not long ago.



Carbon dating SOME documents is not the same as carbon dating the documents, SoLow.

Stop being such an asswipe and open your mind.


----------



## JoLouis

Your the foolish one, do you really think that if anything was written by Paul... that they wouldn't let anyone carbon date it to help prove its provenance?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Sounds good.   And it is a pleasure to meet you.


\
Likewise 



> I expect that you know a lot more about Mormonism than I do.


I sure hope so



> So perhaps you can tell me if the following are true, false, out of context or misleading about the faith;  I am not disrespecting your faith.   Please do not get that impression.
> These are some of the things that I have read about Mormonism, and I would like to know if they are accurate, out of context, or perhaps dead wrong.


Finally someone looking for the truth instead of a bible bash





> [*]Is it true that your faith teaches that Jesus was married?


Yes. If you would like an explanation for any of these short answers I would be happy to oblige.


> Perhaps to multiple women?


probably. Either way is fine by me.


> [*]Is it true that your faith proclaims that we can all become Gods?


Yes


> [*]Is it true that Mormons believe that there are 4 inspired words of God, and not just the Bible?


No. Although almost true. We believe that when a someone speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost they are as inspired as scripture. Consequently when someone writes under said authority it also becomes like scripture. The official cannon of Scripture for our church are The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pear of Great Price. But the word of God is not limited to such things alone.




> [*]Is it true that Mormons believe that God the Father has not always been the one supreme being in the universe, but that God attained that status through righteous living?


Yes.


> [*]Is it true that Mormons believe there are differing levels of heaven based on how one lives his life?


Yes


> [*]Is is true that Mormons think that Jesus was created by Mary having a sexual relationship with God?


Absolutely NO



> [*]Do Mormons believe that salvation can be attained by works or deeds?


No. Jesus chooses to save those with his grace who try their hardest.



> [*]Do Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God?


Yes



> [*]Do Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are Brothers????


Yes. Everyone has the same relationship with Jesus and Satan. Brothers or sisters, children of God from the premortal life.



> [*]Do Mormons believe that spiritual death can only be avoided through works?



No. Grace of Christ required.



> I do not pretend to know very much about Mormonism, and I certainly expect to find that some of the things listed above are utterly ridiculous, so please pardon my ignorance on the subject.


On the contrary. You have heard much. All are incredibly valid questions and not ridiculous in the least. Thank you for having the stones to ask.



> cheers.



Root Beer!


----------



## Liability

JoLouis said:


> Your the foolish one, do you really think that if anything was written by Paul... that they wouldn't let anyone carbon date it to help prove its provenance?



MoLoser:

You seem to believe that your baseless assertions carry any weight.

In that, of course, you're wrong.

Other than the fact that you have a mighty high opinion of your own opinions, you seem both unwilling and/or unable to back up what you spew.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker has done a much better job in answering questions than usual; however, two corrections to his answers are made below.

Quote:  # Is is true that Mormons think that Jesus was created by Mary having a sexual relationship with God?  Absolutely NO   *Research this to discover the General Authorities who believed this in the 19th century.  The Journal of Discourse is a good place to begin.  You will find a good site on line.*

Quote:  # Do Mormons believe that salvation can be attained by works or deeds?  No. Jesus chooses to save those with his grace who try their hardest.  *Understand that LDS do not understand accurately the principles of justification, sanctification, election in relationship to good works.*


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delusional is thinking that some invisible god you've never seen tells you to spread some bogus message. ... Oh wait, that's you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what is bogus about it? Why is it you have to resort to ridicule instead of actual intelligent arguments?
> 
> And what is wrong with being honest, humble, faithful, patient, full of love, kindness, etc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's bogus about my comments? Your god is invisible and no one has ever seen it. And, sorry to say, but the mormon message is one of the most whacked out theories out there. Golden plates, mythical planets like kolob, Joseph Smith seemed to be a complete donkey...
> 
> Nothing wrong with honesty... What's your point? Non-mormons can't be nice?
> 
> I'm agnostic, atheists are just as bad a religioners, they're convinced of something that they have no hope of proving.
Click to expand...

Well Jo, to each their own. You keep believing what you want to believe and I'll keep my faith. So what point are you trying to drive home? What is your purpose on this thread?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker has done a much better job in answering questions than usual; however, two corrections to his answers are made below.
> 
> Quote:  # Is is true that Mormons think that Jesus was created by Mary having a sexual relationship with God?  Absolutely NO   *Research this to discover the General Authorities who believed this in the 19th century.  The Journal of Discourse is a good place to begin.  You will find a good site on line.*
> 
> Quote:  # Do Mormons believe that salvation can be attained by works or deeds?  No. Jesus chooses to save those with his grace who try their hardest.  *Understand that LDS do not understand accurately the principles of justification, sanctification, election in relationship to good works.*



Sorry Jake, but I'll do the correcting of my own religion. 
Just because you think that people in the Journal of Discourses said that Jesus was conceived of a sexual encounter between God and Mary doesn't mean that it is authoritative. Leaders have made erroneous statements before. Hence they are human. I don't care who said it, The Bible and the Book of Mormon are clear on the issue. Mary was a VIRGIN. Mary would not be a virgin if God impregnated her with physical sex. It is impossible. The impregnation occured by the power of the Holy Ghost descending on her womb and for lack of a better word "magically" unified the egg and the sperm to form a child. While there is no such thing as real magic, all things that would appear to be so are done by the laws of the universe with the elements of the universe, most of which we don't understand.

btw, the journal of discourses needs to be read with guidance of the spirit of God. It is not doctrine. Much of it is doctrine, much of it is speculation on issues which at the time had not been revealed.


As to your belief on salvation it is nothing but an assertion that you think your faith is better than ours. We'll see at the last day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You, Truthspeaker, are making erroneous statements.  Let folks read what your Apostles and Seventies from the past have said.  You are not authoritative, you speak your mind and nothing else.  You are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## JoLouis

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker has done a much better job in answering questions than usual; however, two corrections to his answers are made below.
> 
> Quote:  # Is is true that Mormons think that Jesus was created by Mary having a sexual relationship with God?  Absolutely NO   *Research this to discover the General Authorities who believed this in the 19th century.  The Journal of Discourse is a good place to begin.  You will find a good site on line.*
> 
> Quote:  # Do Mormons believe that salvation can be attained by works or deeds?  No. Jesus chooses to save those with his grace who try their hardest.  *Understand that LDS do not understand accurately the principles of justification, sanctification, election in relationship to good works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Jake, but I'll do the correcting of my own religion.
> Just because you think that people in the Journal of Discourses said that Jesus was conceived of a sexual encounter between God and Mary doesn't mean that it is authoritative. Leaders have made erroneous statements before. Hence they are human. I don't care who said it, The Bible and the Book of Mormon are clear on the issue. Mary was a VIRGIN. Mary would not be a virgin if God impregnated her with physical sex. It is impossible. The impregnation occured by the power of the Holy Ghost descending on her womb and for lack of a better word "magically" unified the egg and the sperm to form a child. While there is no such thing as real magic, all things that would appear to be so are done by the laws of the universe with the elements of the universe, most of which we don't understand.
> 
> btw, the journal of discourses needs to be read with guidance of the spirit of God. It is not doctrine. Much of it is doctrine, much of it is speculation on issues which at the time had not been revealed.
> 
> 
> As to your belief on salvation it is nothing but an assertion that you think your faith is better than ours. We'll see at the last day.
Click to expand...


Did you guys ever consider that Jesus' father might have prematurely ejaculated just before penetrating Mary and some of the semen got into her? 
(And no, this is not from personal experience like some of you are dying to say, lol)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoLouis said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker has done a much better job in answering questions than usual; however, two corrections to his answers are made below.
> 
> Quote:  # Is is true that Mormons think that Jesus was created by Mary having a sexual relationship with God?  Absolutely NO   *Research this to discover the General Authorities who believed this in the 19th century.  The Journal of Discourse is a good place to begin.  You will find a good site on line.*
> 
> Quote:  # Do Mormons believe that salvation can be attained by works or deeds?  No. Jesus chooses to save those with his grace who try their hardest.  *Understand that LDS do not understand accurately the principles of justification, sanctification, election in relationship to good works.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Jake, but I'll do the correcting of my own religion.
> Just because you think that people in the Journal of Discourses said that Jesus was conceived of a sexual encounter between God and Mary doesn't mean that it is authoritative. Leaders have made erroneous statements before. Hence they are human. I don't care who said it, The Bible and the Book of Mormon are clear on the issue. Mary was a VIRGIN. Mary would not be a virgin if God impregnated her with physical sex. It is impossible. The impregnation occured by the power of the Holy Ghost descending on her womb and for lack of a better word "magically" unified the egg and the sperm to form a child. While there is no such thing as real magic, all things that would appear to be so are done by the laws of the universe with the elements of the universe, most of which we don't understand.
> 
> btw, the journal of discourses needs to be read with guidance of the spirit of God. It is not doctrine. Much of it is doctrine, much of it is speculation on issues which at the time had not been revealed.
> 
> 
> As to your belief on salvation it is nothing but an assertion that you think your faith is better than ours. We'll see at the last day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you guys ever consider that Jesus' father might have prematurely ejaculated just before penetrating Mary and some of the semen got into her?
> (And no, this is not from personal experience like some of you are dying to say, lol)
Click to expand...


Did you ever think your an idiot?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> You, Truthspeaker, are making erroneous statements.  Let folks read what your Apostles and Seventies from the past have said.  You are not authoritative, you speak your mind and nothing else.  You are entitled to your opinion.



Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
I am brushed up on my doctrine.


----------



## LANMaster

Thanks for your response TS.
What bothers me is that most of those assertions about Mormonism come from sites calling themselves "Christian".      The truth is always better than flinging mud at other faiths.

We still disagree on several points, but we agree that Christ is the center of our faiths, and that, IMO, is the critical factor.

I was raised Catholic.  Much of my family still is.   Christ is the center of that faith as well, but I disagree with many of their "tradition supremacy" above the Bible.

The myth that Mary was a perpetual virgin flies directly in the face of what the Bible QUITE CLEARLY says about Jesus' brothers and sisters.   Mary was blessed to be given the birth of Jesus, but she was not a deity, and not deserving of our worship or prayers.

Many of the Apostles were married, so why are non-castrated Priests supposed to be celibate?   The Bible is clear on church leaders either being married or being Eunichs (castrated).   So for the church to require celibacy among the clergy is probably why the church has such extreme sexual immorality issues .... IMHO.  Nothing wrong with celibacy, but if the clergy is to remain single in their dedication to purity, then the NT prescribes them to become Eunichs.

I could go on and on about Catholicism and their direct contradictions to the Bible .... just as I believe that I can WRT the Mormon church.   But what good does that do?

Faith is a deeply personal issue.   Ridiculing another's faith is also against the teaching of Christ.
This, I believe, is my own faith's greatest sin.  We are not to follow Apollos, Peter, or Paul, but Christ, and Christ alone.

Proclaiming that any faith is an abomonation is counter productive to the cause of the Gospel.  Proclaiming that someone is destined for hell is no different.  My heart was not softened by someone pontifficating that their faith was the only way to salvation.  I do not believe that proclaiming "my brand of Christianity is the only way of salvation" would actually draw anyone in to my way of thinking.....I say this knowing that Jesus IS the only way.

Without love added to that truth, there is no benefit for the Kingdom.

No slick advertising slogans contribute to Christ's Lingdom .... only the conviction of the Holy Spirit within an individual can bring them to a loving relationship with the King.

As Christians, we do a poor job of allowing the Holy Spirit to do what we openly say that only HE can do.  It is our greatest hypocrisy.   The Holy Spirit needs no help from us and our self-righteous, pius convicting.

Sharing the Gospel is our great commission, but beating people over the head with that Gospel, is akin to Moses striking the rock in the wilderness a second time after God specifically gave him different instructions.

I think many, M A N Y Christians will be shocked to learn that their efforts did more to estrange people from God, than to enrich the Kingdom.   And it is the saddest part of this entire journey.

I listen to posters like JoLouis in this forum, and I cannot help but wonder what "so-called Christian" was responsible for the hardening of his heart, and that makes me ashamed. 

I wonder how the Westboro Baptists feel they will be treated by God when they find themselves in the position of defending their assertion that God hates homosexuals.   I think there must be a special place in hell for those who misrepresent our loving God in such a way, and lead so many people far, far away from the knowledge of our God.

I'm no universalist.  I believed John's accurate quote of Jesus Christ in John 14:6.  There is only one way.  So how am I reconciling with those who would openly condemning others and using that passage as evidence of someone elses salvation status?   Easy .... God wants everyone to come to him.  Friom the mass murderer to the Alter Boy.  From the fanatical Muslim to the staunchest Atheist.

Any and all are no less worthy than the salvation I have been given.  Without love, my words are worse than having no effect .... they have a negative effect.

So bless you Mormons.    We worship an awesome God.   We should be grateful that He would have anything at all to do with any of us .... especially someone as filthy as I.

  L8R


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Truthspeaker, are making erroneous statements.  Let folks read what your Apostles and Seventies from the past have said.  You are not authoritative, you speak your mind and nothing else.  You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
> I am brushed up on my doctrine.
Click to expand...


You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.


----------



## LANMaster

JoLouis said:


> Did you guys ever consider that Jesus' father might have prematurely ejaculated just before penetrating Mary and some of the semen got into her?
> (And no, this is not from personal experience like some of you are dying to say, lol)



   You like to make humor like that, because you think it weakens our faith.
You must have had a rough childhood. 
I truly hope that you find peace.  I suspect that you will.

Usually the most staunch Atheists become the greatest Evangelizers when their heart is illuminated by the Holy Spirit.
And while I may be able to reflect Christ's love, I cannot produce it.  I can't prove God is real to you, and it would be foolish for me to try.
That is up to God to make happen.  And you won't truly recognize His power until the miracle happens to you, personally.
.... but once it does .... there will be no way for you to deny the fact.  You couldn't deny His reality if you wanted to, because you never could want to.

The arms that catch you, may catch you by surprise.   I wish you no harm, only the joy that comes from finding out that God is not only real, but that he would have a desire to love us.

Until then, I'm sure you can do better with the rhetoric.  You didn't say anything about Mary's hair or perhaps that she was wearing glasses.   Come on already. At least be a little creative in your bigoted intolerance.


----------



## LANMaster

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Truthspeaker, are making erroneous statements.  Let folks read what your Apostles and Seventies from the past have said.  You are not authoritative, you speak your mind and nothing else.  You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
> I am brushed up on my doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
Click to expand...


This is interesting.   So many people of similar faiths tear at each other like 2 hungry dogs, fighting for food, only to find that both are injured, and the cat ended up getting the meal. 

I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.  Some of my brothers are of mid-trib or post-trib rapture belief.
ALL can cite Biblical reference for their firm belief .... and ALL make a good case for that belief.
But it is hardly something over which one of us will lose salvation.  So while the discussion is always a good one, arguing and fomenting anger are tools of Satan in this destructive behavior.
We can doctrinally disagree, and still come together and celebrate the core belief that we share.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nobody here is really fomenting, LANMaster, except a couple of folks deficient in core spirituality.  Your coments are interesting, but don't think Truth and I hate each other.  He simply does not like that I can interpret LDS history and doctrine as well or better than he.  But none of that is important at all, really.  I don't believe in the Rapture, so I just try to live today the right way in case I am called home tomorrow.


----------



## Truthspeaker

LANMaster said:


> Thanks for your response TS.
> What bothers me is that most of those assertions about Mormonism come from sites calling themselves "Christian".      The truth is always better than flinging mud at other faiths.
> 
> We still disagree on several points, but we agree that Christ is the center of our faiths, and that, IMO, is the critical factor.
> 
> I was raised Catholic.  Much of my family still is.   Christ is the center of that faith as well, but I disagree with many of their "tradition supremacy" above the Bible.
> 
> The myth that Mary was a perpetual virgin flies directly in the face of what the Bible QUITE CLEARLY says about Jesus' brothers and sisters.   Mary was blessed to be given the birth of Jesus, but she was not a deity, and not deserving of our worship or prayers.
> 
> Many of the Apostles were married, so why are non-castrated Priests supposed to be celibate?   The Bible is clear on church leaders either being married or being Eunichs (castrated).   So for the church to require celibacy among the clergy is probably why the church has such extreme sexual immorality issues .... IMHO.  Nothing wrong with celibacy, but if the clergy is to remain single in their dedication to purity, then the NT prescribes them to become Eunichs.
> 
> I could go on and on about Catholicism and their direct contradictions to the Bible .... just as I believe that I can WRT the Mormon church.   But what good does that do?
> 
> Faith is a deeply personal issue.   Ridiculing another's faith is also against the teaching of Christ.
> This, I believe, is my own faith's greatest sin.  We are not to follow Apollos, Peter, or Paul, but Christ, and Christ alone.
> 
> Proclaiming that any faith is an abomonation is counter productive to the cause of the Gospel.  Proclaiming that someone is destined for hell is no different.  My heart was not softened by someone pontifficating that their faith was the only way to salvation.  I do not believe that proclaiming "my brand of Christianity is the only way of salvation" would actually draw anyone in to my way of thinking.....I say this knowing that Jesus IS the only way.
> 
> Without love added to that truth, there is no benefit for the Kingdom.
> 
> No slick advertising slogans contribute to Christ's Lingdom .... only the conviction of the Holy Spirit within an individual can bring them to a loving relationship with the King.
> 
> As Christians, we do a poor job of allowing the Holy Spirit to do what we openly say that only HE can do.  It is our greatest hypocrisy.   The Holy Spirit needs no help from us and our self-righteous, pius convicting.
> 
> Sharing the Gospel is our great commission, but beating people over the head with that Gospel, is akin to Moses striking the rock in the wilderness a second time after God specifically gave him different instructions.
> 
> I think many, M A N Y Christians will be shocked to learn that their efforts did more to estrange people from God, than to enrich the Kingdom.   And it is the saddest part of this entire journey.
> 
> I listen to posters like JoLouis in this forum, and I cannot help but wonder what "so-called Christian" was responsible for the hardening of his heart, and that makes me ashamed.
> 
> I wonder how the Westboro Baptists feel they will be treated by God when they find themselves in the position of defending their assertion that God hates homosexuals.   I think there must be a special place in hell for those who misrepresent our loving God in such a way, and lead so many people far, far away from the knowledge of our God.
> 
> I'm no universalist.  I believed John's accurate quote of Jesus Christ in John 14:6.  There is only one way.  So how am I reconciling with those who would openly condemning others and using that passage as evidence of someone elses salvation status?   Easy .... God wants everyone to come to him.  Friom the mass murderer to the Alter Boy.  From the fanatical Muslim to the staunchest Atheist.
> 
> Any and all are no less worthy than the salvation I have been given.  Without love, my words are worse than having no effect .... they have a negative effect.
> 
> So bless you Mormons.    We worship an awesome God.   We should be grateful that He would have anything at all to do with any of us .... especially someone as filthy as I.
> 
> L8R



Now there's an honest heart. I appreciate your sentiments whole heartedly. Sure we have our disagreements. But in the end, what is important at the last day is to have what Christ described in the beatitudes. He didn't say "Blessed are the Baptists", or "blessed are the Mormons" for they shall inherit the earth. He described qualities people needed to have. Charity first and foremost, "...for he that is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him."  Even if he was erroneous in some of his beliefs. For we will all need to be forgiven of something at the last day because of our sinful nature. Here is one of my fondest Joseph Smith quotes in response to a reporter asking him  this question:

Reporter: Isn't it true according to Joe Smith that only "Mormons" are going to go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell?

Joseph: (sarcastically responding) YES! And a great many of THEM(meaning mormons) too if they don't shape up and repent of their sins!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Truthspeaker, are making erroneous statements.  Let folks read what your Apostles and Seventies from the past have said.  You are not authoritative, you speak your mind and nothing else.  You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
> I am brushed up on my doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
Click to expand...


Curious that you would make such an assertion. 

Care to tell us where the Journal of Discourses claims that it is binding anywhwere?


----------



## Truthspeaker

LANMaster said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
> I am brushed up on my doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is interesting.   So many people of similar faiths tear at each other like 2 hungry dogs, fighting for food, only to find that both are injured, and the cat ended up getting the meal.
> 
> I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.  Some of my brothers are of mid-trib or post-trib rapture belief.
> ALL can cite Biblical reference for their firm belief .... and ALL make a good case for that belief.
> But it is hardly something over which one of us will lose salvation.  So while the discussion is always a good one, arguing and fomenting anger are tools of Satan in this destructive behavior.
> We can doctrinally disagree, and still come together and celebrate the core belief that we share.
Click to expand...


LANmaster,
Jake and I do not fight each other, certainly not regarding our differing faiths, and certainly not like dogs.
My beef with him is that he claims that we believe things that we actually don't. He claims to know more about our religion than I do. I tell him that he is wrong and where. He seems to see things differently but we're not tearing at each other.

I'm just trying to make sure people ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND what we believe in spite of the likes of Jake.


----------



## JoLouis

If God was inspiring the translation process of the Book of Mormon, why were 4,000 changes necessary?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
> I am brushed up on my doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curious that you would make such an assertion.
> 
> Care to tell us where the Journal of Discourses claims that it is binding anywhwere?
Click to expand...


Read the facings of the GAs endorsements and study the sermons, and that is all  one can come away with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting.   So many people of similar faiths tear at each other like 2 hungry dogs, fighting for food, only to find that both are injured, and the cat ended up getting the meal.
> 
> I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.  Some of my brothers are of mid-trib or post-trib rapture belief.
> ALL can cite Biblical reference for their firm belief .... and ALL make a good case for that belief.
> But it is hardly something over which one of us will lose salvation.  So while the discussion is always a good one, arguing and fomenting anger are tools of Satan in this destructive behavior.
> We can doctrinally disagree, and still come together and celebrate the core belief that we share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LANmaster,
> Jake and I do not fight each other, certainly not regarding our differing faiths, and certainly not like dogs.
> My beef with him is that he claims that we believe things that we actually don't. He claims to know more about our religion than I do. I tell him that he is wrong and where. He seems to see things differently but we're not tearing at each other.
> 
> I'm just trying to make sure people ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND what we believe in spite of the likes of Jake.
Click to expand...


And I am trying to get folks to see clearly in spite of Truthspeaker.  I don't question his devotion to goodness and Christ at all.  Really, Truth is a great guy, LANMaster.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoLouis said:


> If God was inspiring the translation process of the Book of Mormon, why were 4,000 changes necessary?



Do you know how many millions of changes have occurred with the Bible and its myriad translations, JoLouis?  Sometimes _tu quoque _is not the way to go.


----------



## LANMaster

JakeStarkey said:


> Nobody here is really fomenting, LANMaster, except a couple of folks deficient in core spirituality.  Your coments are interesting, but don't think Truth and I hate each other.  He simply does not like that I can interpret LDS history and doctrine as well or better than he.  But none of that is important at all, really.  I don't believe in the Rapture, so I just try to live today the right way in case I am called home tomorrow.



LOL   I guess you don't like that I can interpret the Bible better than you.  
BTW, righteous living does not make one saved.  Else the thief on the cross would not be meeting Christ in Paradise.
Salvation is salvation, period.  The crown are a bonus. but I will be casting mine at the feet of Christ.
All of the workers earn the same salvation, whether they work all day or only the last hour.

I don't think you hate each other.  Clearly he interprets your faith's doctrines differently than you.   And because of that, you believe that you interpret the doctrine better?
I have studied the Bible since I was a child.   I could quote scripture to noobs all day long knowing that I was right on the money .....  but God knows my heart.  A saved noob is far more in tune with the will of God than any unsaved lifetime scholar.

Please know that I do not judge your salvation in the least.  Not my job.  I am woefully unqualified to judge anyone's salvation.  Just making a point about who is "better" than someone else regarding their faith.


----------



## LANMaster

Truthspeaker said:


> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting.   So many people of similar faiths tear at each other like 2 hungry dogs, fighting for food, only to find that both are injured, and the cat ended up getting the meal.
> 
> I believe in the pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.  Some of my brothers are of mid-trib or post-trib rapture belief.
> ALL can cite Biblical reference for their firm belief .... and ALL make a good case for that belief.
> But it is hardly something over which one of us will lose salvation.  So while the discussion is always a good one, arguing and fomenting anger are tools of Satan in this destructive behavior.
> We can doctrinally disagree, and still come together and celebrate the core belief that we share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LANmaster,
> Jake and I do not fight each other, certainly not regarding our differing faiths, and certainly not like dogs.
> My beef with him is that he claims that we believe things that we actually don't. He claims to know more about our religion than I do. I tell him that he is wrong and where. He seems to see things differently but we're not tearing at each other.
> 
> I'm just trying to make sure people ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND what we believe in spite of the likes of Jake.
Click to expand...



I in no way itended to imply that either of you are dogs.  Please accept my apology if my analogous comment sounded in that context.

Nobody has ever misunderstood Christianity.  That just never happens.


----------



## JakeStarkey

LANMaster, I suspect your analogy is off.  Neither one of us is questioning each other's salvation, merely each other's interpretations of LDS doctrine and history.  You may interpret the Bible than me, who knows, but you are dead on in the concept that only God knows the sinner's heart.  That's why I have such hope for the unbeliever.


----------



## LANMaster

JoLouis said:


> If God was inspiring the translation process of the Book of Mormon, why were 4,000 changes necessary?



I don't wish to defend a book in which I do not believe .... but what if the changes (of which you refer) were themselves God inspired?

In the Nicea council, (325AD) there were many Bible Books being used by the new Christian church for hundreds of years.   
Some of those were doctrinally flawed, such as the Book of Thomas and other parts of the Apocrypha.   
These were deemed not God-inspired because they had factual errors.  It happens.  Men writhe things that are not God inspired, which was the REASON for the council in the first place.

You guys should all read the Anti-Nicene Fathers.   Especially you, Jake. .... no offense intended.
In it you will find Epistles written by such early church fathers as Clement, born in 30AD (2 years before Christ's death, and smack dab in the middle of Christ's earthy ministry)
Clement died in 100AD.  His references to completed New Testament manuscripts used in the church teachings is unmistakable.
Move on to Mathete's letter to Diognetus, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillipians, the encyclical epistle of the church at Smyrna regarding the martyrdom of Polycarp.
Ignatius' many epistles (who was also born in 30AD .. died in 107AD)
Barnabus who travelled with Paul who wrote the majority of the NT.

While many of these weren't truly contemporaries with Jesus Christ, Himself, they were DEFINITELY contemporaries of the Apostles, including the Actual Authors of the 4 Gospels.

These writings, among others, affirm the accuracy of the NT. and the timeliness with which they were written.  Far, far closer to the time of Christ than you may be willing to acknowledge.

More than anything else, the Dead Sea SCrolls affirmed that the manuscripts (copies of actual scriptures) were made to a near PERFECT replica of the originals ... and subsequent copies.   Jews in History were known for their careful attention to verbatum transfer and translation of God's Holy Scriptures.


----------



## LANMaster

JakeStarkey said:


> LANMaster, I suspect your analogy is off.  Neither one of us is questioning each other's salvation, merely each other's interpretations of LDS doctrine and history.  You may interpret the Bible than me, who knows, but you are dead on in the concept that only God knows the sinner's heart.  That's why I have such hope for the unbeliever.



Amen to that, Brother.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curious that you would make such an assertion.
> 
> Care to tell us where the Journal of Discourses claims that it is binding anywhwere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the facings of the GAs endorsements and study the sermons, and that is all  one can come away with.
Click to expand...


I already did and you have a different interpretation than i do.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> If God was inspiring the translation process of the Book of Mormon, why were 4,000 changes necessary?



Because when it was literally translated it was done without punctuation and paragraphing. Diction was also cumbersome at times because the ancient language used worded things oddly sometimes ie, "The more part of them were converted" as originally used to read. Now it reads, The greater part of them were converted. 

those are the only such changes made. And granted there would be thousands of them in a 500 hundred page book. punctuation and paragraphing were the bulk of the changes.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I have studied the Bible intensely for more than five decades.  I love it, its stories, its timeliness and its "timelessness".  The story of the Prodigal Son has always been my favorite.  So, quietly and gently, LANMaster, I suggest you apply your talents and your humility in studying the Book of Mormon carefully as well.  You will find truth in it that is timeless and timely.  God reveals as He will to those He desires in His own ways.


----------



## JoLouis

Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jo, you are mistaking religious institutions (organized churches) as supposedly authoritative in God's word.  They are not, merely help sakes.  Many make this mistake in Christianity, but that does not invalidate their belief in the Christ.

Why are you concerned with nonessentials?


----------



## JoLouis

Jake, so the pope, the dalai lama, muslims, the bible and the book of mormons et al are all full of shit and don't really represent god?


----------



## Liability

JakeStarkey said:


> I have studied the Bible intensely for more than five decades.  I love it, its stories, its timeliness and its "timelessness".  The story of the Prodigal Son has always been my favorite.  So, quietly and gently, LANMaster, I suggest you apply your talents and your humility in studying the Book of Mormon carefully as well.  You will find truth in it that is timeless and timely.  God reveals as He will to those He desires in His own ways.



It is not every day I agree with old Jake here.  But if I can paraphrase my understanding of what he's just said:  it is possible that God tolerates (or encourages) the creation of different religions to provide people with different opportunities to "come to God" via words and thinking they can grasp and to which they might be able to relate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Liability said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have studied the Bible intensely for more than five decades.  I love it, its stories, its timeliness and its "timelessness".  The story of the Prodigal Son has always been my favorite.  So, quietly and gently, LANMaster, I suggest you apply your talents and your humility in studying the Book of Mormon carefully as well.  You will find truth in it that is timeless and timely.  God reveals as He will to those He desires in His own ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not every day I agree with old Jake here.  But if I can paraphrase my understanding of what he's just said:  it is possible that God tolerates (or encourages) the creation of different religions to provide people with different opportunities to "come to God" via words and thinking they can grasp and to which they might be able to relate.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with that at all. All man made churches are, well, run by man and man is fallible. We are bound to get things wrong, especially the longer we are at it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?



First because forever and ever is not over with. Second, It was not promised that the house itself would stand forever and ever. That is a misinterpretation of the promise. It applies to the ressurection and the next life in which all things are renewed again.


----------



## LANMaster

JakeStarkey said:


> I have studied the Bible intensely for more than five decades.  I love it, its stories, its timeliness and its "timelessness".  The story of the Prodigal Son has always been my favorite.  So, quietly and gently, LANMaster, I suggest you apply your talents and your humility in studying the Book of Mormon carefully as well.  You will find truth in it that is timeless and timely.  God reveals as He will to those He desires in His own ways.



I can appreciate that view.   In your position, I would expect nothing less.   
Your faith wouldn't be much to talk about if you didn't believe it were the truth...and the whole truth.



God does reveal Himself to people as He desires.

I have also been asked to study the Pilars of Islam ... sorry ... not interested.  
I know it is not an accurate comparisson, as we both believe in Christ, but you get the picture.   When God does reach a person, while intellect is not stifled, one doesn't continue searching for the truth once they truly believe that they have already found it, as I believe that I have, you believe that you have, and perhaps JoLouis also believes that he has.

The best we can do is to follow the truth that we know and try to share Christ's love to those who are lost.

Cheers   ... and Coke is better than rootbeer.   PC's are better than Mac


----------



## JoLouis

LAN, you have just exposed yourself as a know nothing troll: "PC's are better than MAC". No half way intelligent person could ever come to that conclusion. Cheaper? Sure. More widely used, sure. Better? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, not in a million fucking years pal.


----------



## JoLouis

Truth, you're 0 for 2.

Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!


----------



## LANMaster

JoLouis said:


> LAN, you have just exposed yourself as a know nothing troll: "PC's are better than MAC". No half way intelligent person could ever come to that conclusion. Cheaper? Sure. More widely used, sure. Better? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, not in a million fucking years pal.



I cannot think of a better way to prove both of my points ... thanks


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Truth, you're 0 for 2.



Jo how am I   o for 2? Which hanging slider or fastball down the middle did I miss? Description please?



> Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven?


Several reasons:
1. The plates were in danger and Josephs family was being constantly mobbed by thieves trying to steal the plates.
2. Once the plates were finished their true purpose was fulfilled. The purpose was not to broadcast the existence but to bring about the Book of Mormon and test the faith of those who actually read it. 
3. To help prove that at the last day, the book was true, not in the first few moments. God doesn't show people physical proof on spiritual matters. He shows spiritual proof for spiritual matters. When the plates are brought forth again it will be much to the chagrin of all the naysayers who refused to not only excercise faith but to even listen or read the book.



> Do they not belong with man?


Not right now. The Book of Mormon belongs with man. The information on the plates is far more important than the plates themselves.



> Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth?


Absolutely not. Proof is not in viewing the plates. Proof is in the information on the plates. Science could prove that the plates existed til they were blue in the face but it wouldn't prove Joseph Smith a prophet. They could always explain it away calling Joseph a treasure seeker or something like that.



> God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!


This is rich. How little you know about the 10 commandments. Sure they were in possession of the High Priest, but no one was allowed to view or touch them except the prophet or Highest Priesthood leader, least of all the public. Sound familar. Similar restriction of viewing with the Book of Mormon.

btw even if one of the jews snuck in to the temple to see the commandments, all he would have seen was the ark of the covenant. The tablets were inside. And if he touched the ark, it wouldn't have ended well with him. Didn't you see Indiana Jones?


----------



## LANMaster

Ever get in an argument with a bowl of mashed potatoes that thinks that it is sliced carrots?
Oh ... sure .... they're both vegetables, but who is to say the bowl of carrots is wrong?
.... or was it mashed potatoes.    Maybe I'm being converted!  

Damn you bowl of mashed potatoes!!!   or carrots .... or whatever you are .... mocking me!  



Hey .... you guys want to see something TRULY awesome?

Check out [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKMw1ndl-EY&feature=related"]this[/ame] part 1 of 4 of Louie Giglio on the size of the universe.
If you like part 1, you'll want to see parts 2, 3, and 4.


Here's some news ..... The company I work for (been here 7 years) was just sold and they want to bring in their own creative group.    So I am out of a job in a shrinking market area.
Bummer, eh?
I truly have faith that My Lord has something better in store for me, even though this has been the best job that I have ever had.  
His will be done in my life.

Jo may never understand what a comfort that faith brings.   And I will testify to whatever his mission becomes for me is ... perhaps he wants me to pack up and leave.  Mission work perhaps?   I honestly do not know.  I will look for new employment, but I will be listening even more carefully for His still small voice directing me to do His will in my life.

 

Everyone should know this kind of joy and comfort when faced with such uncertainty.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, Truthspeaker, are making erroneous statements.  Let folks read what your Apostles and Seventies from the past have said.  You are not authoritative, you speak your mind and nothing else.  You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
> I am brushed up on my doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
Click to expand...


Could you point to the General Conference where the Journal fo Discource was adopted as binding scripture?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> If God was inspiring the translation process of the Book of Mormon, why were 4,000 changes necessary?



Because translations and printing involve humans and humans make mistakes.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> I have studied the Bible intensely for more than five decades.  I love it, its stories, its timeliness and its "timelessness".  The story of the Prodigal Son has always been my favorite.  So, quietly and gently, LANMaster, I suggest you apply your talents and your humility in studying the Book of Mormon carefully as well.  You will find truth in it that is timeless and timely.  God reveals as He will to those He desires in His own ways.



I agree. The Prodigal Son is a very powerful Parable. Most people don't see all the meanings involved though. I am not sure I do yet.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Why did the Nauvoo House not stand forever and ever?



Last time I checked it was still standing.

Joseph Smith Historic Sites - The Nauvoo House

Course, forever isn't dont yet.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Jo, you are mistaking religious institutions (organized churches) as supposedly authoritative in God's word.  They are not, merely help sakes.  Many make this mistake in Christianity, but that does not invalidate their belief in the Christ.
> 
> Why are you concerned with nonessentials?



Because he's never studied the doctrine and doesn't have any sort of intellectual basis to criticize the principles taught.

Shame though. I think it would benefit all people to read more, even if they don't believe it. Having knowledge about others can only benefit ourselves in life.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> LAN, you have just exposed yourself as a know nothing troll: "PC's are better than MAC". No half way intelligent person could ever come to that conclusion. Cheaper? Sure. More widely used, sure. Better? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, not in a million fucking years pal.



Better in that case is a matter of opinion. Apparently having an opinion different than you makes people a stupid troll. That tells me much more about you than anyone else.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Truth, you're 0 for 2.
> 
> Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!



Because there were portions not translated. Mobs were a big enough problem without there being gold plates in anyones possession as it was. 

Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Why did He ascend to heaven? Why didnt He show himself to everyone? Instead, He called 12 eye witnesses to testify to the world that He rose from the dead.

Likewise, He called 12 witnesses to see the plates and testify before the world that they did. Because the Book of Mormon is a type for Jesus Christ. The best evidence for it's veracity is the book itself. 

Here we have a 500+ page book that was dictated in a process that took roughly two months. It's internally consistant with itself and with the Bible.  Weaves a complex narrative. Includes ancient poetic form, along with names, phrases, and places ancient in origin and unknown in the Frontier of the United States at the time. It describes an accurate path through Arabia that was unknown to the time and contains accurate names and descriptions of the locations along the path. 

Such is impressive by itself alone, but it also contains a promise that those who read and study it, then go to the Lord in Humble and Sincere prayer, will recieve knowledge from the Holy Ghost that it's true. And I've seen countless people do this very thing and recieve revelation from the Lord that it is true. I've experienced it myself. There is power in the words that change people's lives.

I recommend taking the challenge.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our prophets and apostles have spoken and already said the same thing about the Journal of Discourses. Where do you think I got the idea from? The Journal of Discourses has known errors in it. Some things were taught as doctrine but then proven as nothing more than speculation after later revelations. sorry Jake,
> I am brushed up on my doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you point to the General Conference where the Journal fo Discource was adopted as binding scripture?
Click to expand...


Can you point to the JD and BY and other GAs statements that it was not binding on the Saints.  The membership understood it as such, and what the leadership today has to say about it means nothing at all in relation to how the leadership and membership then thought about it.


----------



## JoLouis

Avatar4321 said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, you're 0 for 2.
> 
> Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there were portions not translated. Mobs were a big enough problem without there being gold plates in anyones possession as it was.
> 
> Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Why did He ascend to heaven? Why didnt He show himself to everyone? Instead, He called 12 eye witnesses to testify to the world that He rose from the dead.
> 
> Likewise, He called 12 witnesses to see the plates and testify before the world that they did. Because the Book of Mormon is a type for Jesus Christ. The best evidence for it's veracity is the book itself.
> 
> Here we have a 500+ page book that was dictated in a process that took roughly two months. It's internally consistant with itself and with the Bible.  Weaves a complex narrative. Includes ancient poetic form, along with names, phrases, and places ancient in origin and unknown in the Frontier of the United States at the time. It describes an accurate path through Arabia that was unknown to the time and contains accurate names and descriptions of the locations along the path.
> 
> Such is impressive by itself alone, but it also contains a promise that those who read and study it, then go to the Lord in Humble and Sincere prayer, will recieve knowledge from the Holy Ghost that it's true. And I've seen countless people do this very thing and recieve revelation from the Lord that it is true. I've experienced it myself. There is power in the words that change people's lives.
> 
> I recommend taking the challenge.
Click to expand...


Seriously though, you guys will believe ANYTHING.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> If God was inspiring the translation process of the Book of Mormon, why were 4,000 changes necessary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because translations and printing involve humans and humans make mistakes.
Click to expand...


God inspired Book of Mormon, and 4,000 human screw-ups in 100+ years?  Seems the Mormon "g"od  is rather weak and anemic and very much non-omnipotent.

Bible:  Dead Sea Isaiah scroll is an exact match of present day bible translations..............Question:  Who's God is omnipotent and is capable of protecting His message to mankind?  In 100+ years, the Mormon/LDS god has lacked control over his "inspired word", as LDS scribes have made 4,000+ errors in that translation.

In 2,000 years from the Dead Sea scrolls to present, evidence indicates that the bible is "dead on".   Check it out for yourselves.  Nearly all of the OT books were found at Qumran, except for Ruth.........and they hadn't differed from present day KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, or RSV.........

Clear and substantiated evidence "does" demand a verdict..................


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been proven inaccurate many times on LDS doctrine and policy, Truthspeaker.  The Journal of Discourses were considered in its day binding.  Today it is not.  Thus, logic follows, what is said to be binding today may not be in the future.  Your opinion is your own, but it certainly much of the time does not reflect what the church was teaching then and at times what it is teaching now.  No, you are not authorative, or very knowledgable, at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you point to the General Conference where the Journal fo Discource was adopted as binding scripture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you point to the JD and BY and other GAs statements that it was not binding on the Saints.  The membership understood it as such, and what the leadership today has to say about it means nothing at all in relation to how the leadership and membership then thought about it.
Click to expand...


Statements and revelations need to be presented the Church and adopted in order to be authortative. We have four such adopted standard works. The Bible, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

Journal of Discourses has never been adopted. Nor has it ever been editted to make sure what was said is an accurate portrayal of what the speakers actually said. In fact, much of it is in short hand. That's the problem with living in a time where video recorders did not exist.

Ironically, I could point to statements in the JoD itself where Brigham spells out His statements should be editted by him for correctness and presented before the Church in order to be binding. No attempt was ever made with the Journal of Discources.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, you're 0 for 2.
> 
> Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because there were portions not translated. Mobs were a big enough problem without there being gold plates in anyones possession as it was.
> 
> Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Why did He ascend to heaven? Why didnt He show himself to everyone? Instead, He called 12 eye witnesses to testify to the world that He rose from the dead.
> 
> Likewise, He called 12 witnesses to see the plates and testify before the world that they did. Because the Book of Mormon is a type for Jesus Christ. The best evidence for it's veracity is the book itself.
> 
> Here we have a 500+ page book that was dictated in a process that took roughly two months. It's internally consistant with itself and with the Bible.  Weaves a complex narrative. Includes ancient poetic form, along with names, phrases, and places ancient in origin and unknown in the Frontier of the United States at the time. It describes an accurate path through Arabia that was unknown to the time and contains accurate names and descriptions of the locations along the path.
> 
> Such is impressive by itself alone, but it also contains a promise that those who read and study it, then go to the Lord in Humble and Sincere prayer, will recieve knowledge from the Holy Ghost that it's true. And I've seen countless people do this very thing and recieve revelation from the Lord that it is true. I've experienced it myself. There is power in the words that change people's lives.
> 
> I recommend taking the challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously though, you guys will believe ANYTHING.
Click to expand...


If it's true. Why not? Why limit yourself?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> God inspired Book of Mormon, and 4,000 human screw-ups in 100+ years?  Seems the Mormon "g"od  is rather weak and anemic and very much non-omnipotent.
> 
> Bible:  Dead Sea Isaiah scroll is an exact match of present day bible translations..............Question:  Who's God is omnipotent and is capable of protecting His message to mankind?  In 100+ years, the Mormon/LDS god has lacked control over his "inspired word", as LDS scribes have made 4,000+ errors in that translation.
> 
> In 2,000 years from the Dead Sea scrolls to present, evidence indicates that the bible is "dead on".   Check it out for yourselves.  Nearly all of the OT books were found at Qumran, except for Ruth.........and they hadn't differed from present day KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, or RSV.........
> 
> Clear and substantiated evidence "does" demand a verdict..................



You are in denial if you can't see human error in the Bible. The scriptures aren't meant to be perfected or worshiped as the ultimate authority in life. They are designed to record the testimonies of those who have personal experiences with God and taught His plan to the children of men. They are meant to instruct, edify, and lead people to trust in God and His Holy Spirit more than in the flesh and in our own understanding.

The Pharisees studied the scriptures, yet relied on their own understanding and ignored the living Oracle of the day, which was Christ Himself. 

You have sited 5 different English versions of the Bible. If they were all correct, there would be no point in people reinventing the wheel. We would need one. 

Oh, and a copy matching a copy of a manuscript doesn't mean that it's identical to the Originals, _which we don't have_.

You don't need perfect scriptures to lead to a Perfect God. Until you understand that it is upon God that we must trust, you will never reach your full potential. You'll grow to a point, but then you will be stopped. God has alot more for us than simply what's in the Bible. There are things He has not revealed to man that He wants to show us, but which we are unprepared to recieve. 

It's amazing that despite reading the Bible about God's constant communication with man, you seem to think He has changed and ceased speaking.


----------



## JoLouis

Avatar4321 said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there were portions not translated. Mobs were a big enough problem without there being gold plates in anyones possession as it was.
> 
> Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Why did He ascend to heaven? Why didnt He show himself to everyone? Instead, He called 12 eye witnesses to testify to the world that He rose from the dead.
> 
> Likewise, He called 12 witnesses to see the plates and testify before the world that they did. Because the Book of Mormon is a type for Jesus Christ. The best evidence for it's veracity is the book itself.
> 
> Here we have a 500+ page book that was dictated in a process that took roughly two months. It's internally consistant with itself and with the Bible.  Weaves a complex narrative. Includes ancient poetic form, along with names, phrases, and places ancient in origin and unknown in the Frontier of the United States at the time. It describes an accurate path through Arabia that was unknown to the time and contains accurate names and descriptions of the locations along the path.
> 
> Such is impressive by itself alone, but it also contains a promise that those who read and study it, then go to the Lord in Humble and Sincere prayer, will recieve knowledge from the Holy Ghost that it's true. And I've seen countless people do this very thing and recieve revelation from the Lord that it is true. I've experienced it myself. There is power in the words that change people's lives.
> 
> I recommend taking the challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, you guys will believe ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's true. Why not? Why limit yourself?
Click to expand...


It's not true, which makes you a self-deluded sucker. If god did exist do you really think he'd need a bunch of you whackos to go door to door? Or would it be a self evident fact, like looking at a tree.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoLouis does not understand that it takes far more faith to not believe in God than to believe in God.

JL is one of the original true believers.


----------



## JoLouis

JakeStarkey said:


> JoLouis does not understand that it takes far more faith to not believe in God than to believe in God.
> 
> JL is one of the original true believers.



Buddy, you have it ass backwards. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no proof, I never said that I am certain that there is no god, just that no one's proven it yet. And every time Av opens his mouth, whacked out stuff pours out.


----------



## Eightball

JoLouis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis does not understand that it takes far more faith to not believe in God than to believe in God.
> 
> JL is one of the original true believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buddy, you have it ass backwards. Faith is the belief in something for which there is no proof, I never said that I am certain that there is no god, just that no one's proven it yet. And every time Av opens his mouth, whacked out stuff pours out.
Click to expand...


JL:

Faith...........you exercise it in your life every day.............

Example:  You sit down in a chair...............?  Faith:  You just put your "trust/faith/confidence" in the one who built the chair.  The chair-builder is someone you have "never" met, his/her furniture factory you have most likely never visited, but never the less you put your confidence-"faith" in the competence of that "chair builder" that you will not end up with your fanny on the floor, with a broken-badly-built chair.

Unless you buy your chair in a box like at IKEA or Walmart and put it together yourself, you have just put your "blind" trust in some else's ability to build a safe/strong chair.

Now you can say, "Oh, but I bought knowing that this manufacturer makes good, strong stuff"...........but, that's only your "trust" in evidences that you have heard about, or possibly furniture you tested at the furniture store.  

Not once, have you met the "chair builder", but have made your decision based on possibly trying examples of that builder's product.
******
Now, with Christianity, it is truly "faith" that is based on trust too.  

Obviously, there are no people living nowadays who have seen Jesus, were at his crucifixion, were witnesses to the empty tomb, nor his subsequent ressurrection, but the bible contains eye-witness reports from a myriad of authors of different backgrounds.

Witnesses: A doctor(Luke), tax collector(Matthew), Peter(Fisherman), Mary Magdalene(former adultress), Nicodemus(Religious Pharisee), and the witnesses go on and on to come to a very large count.

Josephus:  He was not a Christian, but was a Jewish witness who wrote much about this "Jesus thing" called "The Way", or Christ-Ones(Christians).  It was turning the Roman empire upside down.  It pushed people like Emperor Nero to place the blame of Rome's massive fires on the Christians that lived in Rome around 64 A.D..  Fortunately, the Roman populous at the time didn't whole-heartedly "buy" into his scheme, but Nero didn't stop his crusade of condemning Christians to prison, torture, and death.

Something had literally "touched" these folks from Jerusalem and throughout Asia minor, all the way to Spain.  

To believe or be a Christian was a guaranteed sentence of persecution from the Jewish Sanhedrin, to the non-believing gentile populations elsewhere.  

Paul was beheaded in Rome.........Peter was crucified upside down, as he claimed that being crucified like his Lord, and Savior, Jesus was not worthy of he/Peter..........

Thomas who was a skeptic, wasn't present when the ressurrected Jesus visited the much-harried disciples who were still awaiting Jesus' special gift(Holy Spirit) that was to come on Pentecost, after His ascension.  Christ made a special visit back in that upper room, just for Thomas, but no doubt it impacted all present.

He told Thomas to physically touch his crucifixion scars to "prove" that He was truly that same Jesus that Thomas and the rest of his fellow disciples has spent the last 3 years with.

You see, JL, Thomas couldn't accept the ressurrection unless he physically, and saw, the evidences, or he just wouldn't/couldn't accept that this Jesus was really the bonafide, validated, one he/Thomas had been with for so long.

Thomas' Rebuke By Jesus:  JL.......This is the crux of what I'm getting at in rebuttle/response to your comment on "faith".

Jesus' rebuke to Thomas was this............"Thomas, you have now believed in Me as your God, Lord, and Savior because you have "seen and touched", but............................Blessed our those who will believe and have not "seen" as you.
******
J.L.  You exercise "faith" as all of us do, in that which you cannot see, every day  of your life.  I exercise faith everyday that my automobile will get me to work, that my marriage will stay strong, that my grown children and their families will be safe.

The world that has no faith in "God" has no assurrances except in their own physicality, existence, and power of decision.  Yet, they all go on believing that they will have many "tomorrows" before them.  That is a type of faith, yet you and I know that life can let us down, and that "faith" we had in tomorrows is gone in many cases.  

Just a few weeks ago, our neighbors experienced a tragic loss of the wife, a very young Mom to cancer.  No doubt when the husband first said "I do" in that marriage ceremony, there was no doubt in their minds that they would grow old together as a married couple.  Their future was bright, their lives would be filled with children, many holiday dinners, vacations,,,,,,,,,,,etc...

This world/earthly life of ours is filled with opportunities, yet also many disappointments.............It's unavoidable.   Just as we all know that old age, and death is a guaranteed inevitability.

So what is faith?  Well, it's a hope based on a confidence in something or someone or someones.  Just as you place your confidence on the sun rising every morning, or your chair holding your weight while you use it..........So the Christian, has placed their confidence/trust/faith, in the "promises" laid-down in the bible.

Paul the apostle of Jesus, said that "He is the "same" yesterday, today, and tomorrow".........I.E.. The God that protected and disciplined the children of Israel is the same God who spoke to Mary and Joseph, in advance of the virgin birth of Christ in Mary's wombs by the work of God's Spirit(Holy Spirit).  He is also the same God that when imparting His life into every person who is defined as a Christian have become "unique" human creatures within this mammoth human population on this terrestrial ball we call earth.

True Christians are indeed "different".  No doubt or possibly you have known friends who were once one way in life, and then became strangely, but interestingly different in a positive way and attributed it to become a Christian.

JL:  The evidence is here today.  Just as "Doubting Thomas" needed evidence in certain ways to believe that Jesus truly beat death, and the grave as the one and only first Pioneer to lead others who placed their trust in His life and had that life imparted into their secular, unbelieving souls; faith again was the instrument of make that complete.

The bible says that faith in God in not something that us humans can conjure, but is a result of God's Spirit working on our Adamic souls that have never experienced this new, and completed life.

Why JL do you think the world or the non-Christian world looks and looks for "kicks" in any and everything.   Cars, vacations, lotteries, property, prestige through job positions, ..............Man for eons has been trying to make an identity for him/herself through "things".......Yet you and I know that things don't last an eternity, cause the moment that medical finding comes to us that we have cancer, or our spouse is deathly sick or it's one of our children, or a parent, or relative, we start to wonder about life, and what makes it important...........

I owned a Porsche 968 for a number of years.  I had fun driving it, and even competed in autocross competiton with it, yet the thrill that I got was momentary, and after awhile, it wasn't that much fun anymore.  

Faith in things...........the world.........we all do..........it's part and partial of getting through each day.  We place our confidences in thousands of manmade things everyday in order to finish up that day successfully........Yet, at anytime those things can let us down.........as they are really transitory in nature.  They will rust, erode, or just plain wear-out.

The Christian faith, or confidence is placed in Someone, who has preserved for us a very adequate recording of His life, His Nature, His character, so that we can exercise "confidence" in believing that He is the ultimate "builder".  He didn't let-down His followers, and He has promised to not them down for eternity.  In fact He promises a special place or dwelling for every true believer in Him.  

He even calls those who believe in Him, brothers/sisters........

He even promises to continually be the believer's advocate(attorney) before the throne of God the Father.  

Why an advocate?  Because, His life is imparted into every person who truly places their faith in Him/Jesus.  And because each human being who receives His life, is also accepted by God the Father, and receives as an incredible gift, God the Holy Spirit to guide, counsel, and interpret the Spiritual nature of God's written Word, the bible.

So this faith that is based on 2,000+ years of many God-inspired authors in 66 books, that were deemed by early Christian elders to comprise the complete or necessary expressions of God's plan, nature, identity, and man's role in relationship to Him has changed millions of lives throughout the world.

China, has a growing underground bible church that totally scares the Chinese authorities.  Why?  It poses no threat upon society, as it expresses in it's followers ethical, loving, forgiving, hopeful, and servantude type lives, that can only enhance a nation's populous.

As the bible states, the Christian life versus the non-Christian life is not unlike oil and water.  They can't mix under any circumstances.

The non-mix element is that this love and concern and wholeness that comes to a Christian's life, is wholly foreign to the non-Christian.

It's as though the non-Christian has this vacuum or space within their very inner being that is looking, looking, and looking for that final "rest" that will get them off the perpetual treadmill of life that seems to have no ultimate meaning.

Christ fullfilled the "meaning of life" hole in mankind.  Yet God is the ultimate gentleman, and will not enter a soul where it is not invited.

God has been calling His estranged creation back into the safe sheep-fold that is His possession through His Son's incredible work of redeeming mankind at the cross and through His ressurrection.

Jesus wasn't just a nice man, or a great O.T. teacher.  That's the world's way of blowing off Christianity as they don't want to allow their souls to be transparently open to this real, bonafide life offered freely through the willful act of attrition, repentance, acceptance, and faith in what He/Jesus really did for them 2,000 years ago.

JL: Faith is based on belief in evidences.  

Just as we have no living witnesses to Christ's life living today, we have no witnesses to Bhudda's, Abraham Lincoln, Mohammed, George Washington, Plato, Aristotle, yet without a doubt most will accept or exercise faith in the previous existence of these.

The main difference is that Christ is the only one that defied death, and through that defiance and victory has offered to impart His ressurrected life to all who might believe in Him.
*******


----------



## JoLouis

Eightball, you're a major simpleton.  I sit in a chair because I can touch it and lean on it and sit on it for real. You can see it, touch... too. So could everyone in the world see my chair... I wouldn't have to go door to door with my chair trying to explain to people that my chair is real and if they would just have blind faith in it, that they could sit down too!

Sorry, but you're eye witnesses are doubtfull. The earliest parts of the bible were written several generations after Jesus' death. So not only is it an oral history written down later on, none of the stuff in it can be verified. To say that you can't disprove it either would point to the weakest of your argument.
Sorry, your post is way too long for me to respond to the rest.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JL, your evidence is non-existent.  Have you or anyone else looked in all of creation in the split _nth _second and not seen God?  Thus it takes far more faith to believe in God, of whom billions testify, than a few hundred thousand simpletons claim does not.  Your opinion is laughable.


----------



## JoLouis

Jake, billions testify to your god? The one that comes from kolob? You sure about that?

And I'd like to see you prove any of the big things in the bible. Please, go ahead.


----------



## Eightball

JoLouis said:


> Eightball, you're a major simpleton.  I sit in a chair because I can touch it and lean on it and sit on it for real. You can see it, touch... too. So could everyone in the world see my chair... I wouldn't have to go door to door with my chair trying to explain to people that my chair is real and if they would just have blind faith in it, that they could sit down too!
> 
> Sorry, but you're eye witnesses are doubtfull. The earliest parts of the bible were written several generations after Jesus' death. So not only is it an oral history written down later on, none of the stuff in it can be verified. To say that you can't disprove it either would point to the weakest of your argument.
> Sorry, your post is way too long for me to respond to the rest.



Oh dear Joe........all of the N.T. gospels and epistles were written by eyewitnesses of Christ..........Not generations later.  Just check out the dates of the various letters that Paul, Peter, John, James, Mark, Matthew, Luke, wrote.  They all wrote their letters in their elder, senior years of life.  

Please don't throw out blanket statements like "generations later"...Bible scholars and secular historians totally disagree with your assessment.

As for the chair.........You didn't get the premise of my example.

You sit in the chair because it doesn't collapse. That's fine, but there had to be a "First Time" you tried the chair................................Afterwards you were convinced.

So it was wil those who record Christ's life, minstery, and teachings....... The saw, touched, heard, experienced ...........and are telling you and me about it.  Just remember that this collection of men and women were from every aspect of life..........They all came together in a bond or fellowship of unity, because of Christ's imparted life in them.  They also were all avid seekers of the Truth, and questioned Christ in so many ways throughout the 4 gospels.  They weren't "pushovers".........At times they doubted, and many walked away from Christ, when He allegorically said, "If you are to follow Me, you must drink my blood, and eat my flesh.".  

The blood of Christ represented his life giving blood.........that was the Passover Lamb's blood that only pushed the sins of a nation/Israel forward for one more year until Passover was celebrated at the temple again and onward.  Christ's reference to His flesh allegorically meant that one must totally embrace, consume Christ in everyway.  To many, they only wanted to see things in legalistic ways, and could not or would not accept the deeper, and correct meaning.

Christ even said that He spoke in parables that those who truly sought Him would receive the message, and those that were hardened in heart would defy.

Your chair is safe to sit in because you "tried" it; but you initially exercised faith upon sitting in it the first time.....You can't escape that.

So every person who put's that step forward of believing in Christ is also making that step, based on "others" experience, and testimony.....namely the biblical authors and their accounts.

Interestingly, those that have taken that first "sit" have much to say to you and the unbelieving world, as to the reality of Christ in their lives.  In fact the reality shows most profoundly in the positive radical changes in their lives........As Christ's life gradually sanctifies the new Christian fullfillment of life, and the end of a vacuu-ous search for meaning of life ceasing to be an issue.

So the chair scenario is applicable.  

Also remember that the bible was inspired by God..........through God-inspired authors..........Therefore the words in the bible are Spiritually understood, and that's why the unbeliever struggles with it, and basically casts it aside as a boring read.

Christ Himself said that when one become a true Christian by receiving Christ's Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, they receive a means of discerning the bible in ways that no non-Christian can understand.

The H.S. is working on you J.L. as well as every man and woman on this earth.  It is the desire of God that none be lost, but all come to a saving knowledge of Christ, that will engender a desire to seek Him out, and receive His life through God's gracious gift of forgiveness.

Christians will never be understood by those that are not Christians.......Yet many will be very intrigued by the radical positive changes in lives...........As people who were drudges of society, become model citizens, who live by sensitive consciences, and live by a higher calling, that is not a burden, but an incredible adventure.

No, your chair needed it's first sit-down, and it required your trust for you to place your fanny on it.

So you see, you actually "assumed" it was safe on the first sit-down, yet you didn't know for sure...........based on evidences.........like watching it being built, knowing the workmanship characteristics of the maker.............did you?

So you rail on the Christian for put their trust in Christ who is thoroughly described, revealed, in nature, ethics, you name in the bible, but...............oh it's a long time ago, so it's probably not true.

It's amazing how more people believe in Plato's writings about Atlantis, and other great writings, of history of his time...................
YET! The oldest manuscripts of Plato are copies that have thousands of years of gap from when he first wrote his great works.  Yes, the venerated Plato's oldest  writings are copies made eons after he first wrote them, but they are not questioned..........cause they don't affect the pride and illness mankind's psyche as the bible does.............
******
Christ/God says in the bible that man will "avoid" Him at all cost, because His message cuts like a knife to the very deepest depths of a man's soul, and brings either anger leading to denial/rebellion or conviction leading to repentance, contriteness of heart, and a new clean start at life.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoLouis said:


> Jake, billions testify to your god? The one that comes from kolob? You sure about that?
> 
> And I'd like to see you prove any of the big things in the bible. Please, go ahead.



Poor try, JoLouis.  OK, I am not LDS or any type of Mormonism's sects.  I am talking about God, not Kolob, or your weird world.  You can neither quality or quantify your faith in atheism, JoLouis.


----------



## JoLouis

JakeStarkey said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, billions testify to your god? The one that comes from kolob? You sure about that?
> 
> And I'd like to see you prove any of the big things in the bible. Please, go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor try, JoLouis.  OK, I am not LDS or any type of Mormonism's sects.  I am talking about God, not Kolob, or your weird world.  You can neither quality or quantify your faith in atheism, JoLouis.
Click to expand...


I'm not an atheist, they're also convinced of something they have no hope of ever proving. I'm agnostic: anything in the universe is possible, but god is not yet proven.
I'm also a vegetarian, so if billions of slobs eat meat, then I'm wrong? (I'll give up the answer to that one: the meat eaters are the ones who are wrong and harming themselves and the planet no matter how badly vegetarians are outnumbered.)

I'm still waiting for you to prove something major from the bible...


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoLouis said:


> Jake, so the pope, the dalai lama, muslims, the bible and the book of mormons et al are all full of shit and don't really represent god?



I hope you really don't believe what you wrote, because I certainly don't think it and pray you don't.  All people, whether they admit or realize, reach for that which is greater than us.  You did, too, so don't limit yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoLouis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, billions testify to your god? The one that comes from kolob? You sure about that?
> 
> And I'd like to see you prove any of the big things in the bible. Please, go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor try, JoLouis.  OK, I am not LDS or any type of Mormonism's sects.  I am talking about God, not Kolob, or your weird world.  You can neither quality or quantify your faith in atheism, JoLouis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not an atheist, they're also convinced of something they have no hope of ever proving. I'm agnostic: anything in the universe is possible, but god is not yet proven.
> I'm also a vegetarian, so if billions of slobs eat meat, then I'm wrong? (I'll give up the answer to that one: the meat eaters are the ones who are wrong and harming themselves and the planet no matter how badly vegetarians are outnumbered.)
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to prove something major from the bible...
Click to expand...


Agnosticism is spiritual cowardice, the easy way.  I don't have to prove anything from the Bible.  Why would I?


----------



## JoLouis

JakeStarkey said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor try, JoLouis.  OK, I am not LDS or any type of Mormonism's sects.  I am talking about God, not Kolob, or your weird world.  You can neither quality or quantify your faith in atheism, JoLouis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not an atheist, they're also convinced of something they have no hope of ever proving. I'm agnostic: anything in the universe is possible, but god is not yet proven.
> I'm also a vegetarian, so if billions of slobs eat meat, then I'm wrong? (I'll give up the answer to that one: the meat eaters are the ones who are wrong and harming themselves and the planet no matter how badly vegetarians are outnumbered.)
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to prove something major from the bible...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agnosticism is spiritual cowardice, the easy way.  I don't have to prove anything from the Bible.  Why would I?
Click to expand...


Cuz you can't, that's why.
I don't see why I'm a coward because I don't see any proof (or need) of a god. You're the coward, you've given up searching and have settled for some shit that doesn't even make any sense. Like: "Jesus died for your sins", that doesn't even make any sense.


----------



## JakeStarkey

See, JoLouis, you ascribe to me your own weakness and cowardice.

Go to, fellow, go to.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, billions testify to your god? The one that comes from kolob? You sure about that?
> 
> And I'd like to see you prove any of the big things in the bible. Please, go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor try, JoLouis.  OK, I am not LDS or any type of Mormonism's sects.  I am talking about God, not Kolob, or your weird world.  You can neither quality or quantify your faith in atheism, JoLouis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not an atheist, they're also convinced of something they have no hope of ever proving. I'm agnostic: anything in the universe is possible, but god is not yet proven.
> I'm also a vegetarian, so if billions of slobs eat meat, then I'm wrong? (I'll give up the answer to that one: the meat eaters are the ones who are wrong and harming themselves and the planet no matter how badly vegetarians are outnumbered.)
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to prove something major from the bible...
Click to expand...


You may find it surprising to note, that while we are not vegetarians in Mormonism, our code of health tells us to eat meat sparingly. Eating healthy has been part of our doctrine since the 1830's


----------



## Truthspeaker

Btw joe louis would have gotten knocked out if he faced rocky marciano


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JoLouis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, billions testify to your god? The one that comes from kolob? You sure about that?
> 
> And I'd like to see you prove any of the big things in the bible. Please, go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor try, JoLouis.  OK, I am not LDS or any type of Mormonism's sects.  I am talking about God, not Kolob, or your weird world.  You can neither quality or quantify your faith in atheism, JoLouis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not an atheist, they're also convinced of something they have no hope of ever proving. I'm agnostic: anything in the universe is possible, but god is not yet proven.
> I'm also a vegetarian, so if billions of slobs eat meat, then I'm wrong? (I'll give up the answer to that one: the meat eaters are the ones who are wrong and harming themselves and the planet no matter how badly vegetarians are outnumbered.)
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to prove something major from the bible...
Click to expand...


Scientific FACT, man is an omnivore. Meat is required as part of his diet. Those that fail to eat meat have to jump through hoops to get all the needed nutrients, vitamins and such that are required for a normal person to maintain a healthy body.

IDIOT.


----------



## Liability

Omnivore Bump!


----------



## JoLouis

Truth: and Mike Tyson would have had Marciano as a snack.

RGS: scientific fact that man is a carnivore? You should you want to toss away your credibility on that statement? Learn something about nutrition first. Second, learn how factory animal farming is way worse than just growing vegetables, ex: you can feed 40 people on what it takes to feed a cow. 
Also, I think the hormones in the meat is making you cranky. Or is that from being in a homo army for so long?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, you guys will believe ANYTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's true. Why not? Why limit yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not true, which makes you a self-deluded sucker. If god did exist do you really think he'd need a bunch of you whackos to go door to door? Or would it be a self evident fact, like looking at a tree.
Click to expand...


God says differently. 

So should I believe God whom I've had experience dealing with. 

Or should I believe you who admit that he hasnt read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.

Not a tough choice there.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, billions testify to your god? The one that comes from kolob? You sure about that?
> 
> And I'd like to see you prove any of the big things in the bible. Please, go ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor try, JoLouis.  OK, I am not LDS or any type of Mormonism's sects.  I am talking about God, not Kolob, or your weird world.  You can neither quality or quantify your faith in atheism, JoLouis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not an atheist, they're also convinced of something they have no hope of ever proving. I'm agnostic: anything in the universe is possible, but god is not yet proven.
> I'm also a vegetarian, so if billions of slobs eat meat, then I'm wrong? (I'll give up the answer to that one: the meat eaters are the ones who are wrong and harming themselves and the planet no matter how badly vegetarians are outnumbered.)
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to prove something major from the bible...
Click to expand...


Get off your butt and talk with Him and you'll have more than enough evidence before you realize it.

But if you are going to pretend that no one can know because you don't know, then you will never learn anything.

The Book of Mormon provides a way to learn for yourself whether it's true or not. I suggest that if you want to know, and not remain agnostic in ignorance, you should take the challenge. If you're right, you lose nothing, you gain valuable knowledge about the beliefs of someone else. If I'm right, you have everything to gain from your endevours.

It's up to you. But I highly doubt God is going to accept the "I saw no evidence and decided that there is no point searching for it" excuse.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Agnosticism is spiritual cowardice, the easy way.  I don't have to prove anything from the Bible.  Why would I?



Especially when God can prove His word to all men.

Anyone who doesn't know God is because they are keeping themselves from knowing Him. Because God is there waiting for all to come to Him with open arms.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Cuz you can't, that's why.
> I don't see why I'm a coward because I don't see any proof (or need) of a god. You're the coward, you've given up searching and have settled for some shit that doesn't even make any sense. Like: "Jesus died for your sins", that doesn't even make any sense.



Jo, let's be honest here. You aren't seeking anything. You haven't read the Bible. You haven't read the Book of Mormon. You have no clue what we teach and have already decided it makes no sense. If you actually studied it, you would learn.

But you aren't willing to. What are you afraid of?

I didn't always know God existed. I had doubts at one point. But I realized that if I was ever going to find out I was going to have to make an effort and trust that God will reveal Himself to me if and when He chose. He did. I didn't settle for anything. I simply because God when He speak. I still search, because no matter how much of the truth we have, there is more we don't and God has so much more information that He is ready to pour out upon His people when they have been prepared.

There is nothing that is impossible to know. You just have to be willing to search it out.


----------



## k2skier

Avatar4321 said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's true. Why not? Why limit yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true, which makes you a self-deluded sucker. If god did exist do you really think he'd need a bunch of you whackos to go door to door? Or would it be a self evident fact, like looking at a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says differently.
> 
> So should I believe God whom I've had experience dealing with.
> 
> Or should I believe you who admit that he hasn't read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Not a tough choice there.
Click to expand...


MAN says differently. 

So should I believe MAN whom I've had experience dealing with. 

Or should I believe you who admit that he hasnt read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.

Not a tough choice there


LDS and Christianity are bottom up faiths; man created their Deity and dogma, not the other way around. Just because you repeat a lie for over 2,000 years doesn't make it true.


----------



## Avatar4321

k2skier said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true, which makes you a self-deluded sucker. If god did exist do you really think he'd need a bunch of you whackos to go door to door? Or would it be a self evident fact, like looking at a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God says differently.
> 
> So should I believe God whom I've had experience dealing with.
> 
> Or should I believe you who admit that he hasn't read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Not a tough choice there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MAN says differently.
> 
> So should I believe MAN whom I've had experience dealing with.
> 
> Or should I believe you who admit that he hasnt read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Not a tough choice there
> 
> 
> LDS and Christianity are bottom up faiths; man created their Deity and dogma, not the other way around. Just because you repeat a lie for over 2,000 years doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...


I know you were trying to be cleaver by copying and pasting what I said and changing a few words, but you do realize that by doing so the passage no longer makes sense.

If any of you lack wisdom, let Him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given unto you. 

When the Spirit of God touches your soul, when He enlightens your understanding and expands the light and view in your mind, you cannot deny you. You can try to tell us that we created God, but We didn't. He reveals His will to mankind now as He always has. People are just too stubborn to listen, even those who have faith. It's very frustrating.


----------



## JoLouis

Avatar4321 said:


> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's true. Why not? Why limit yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true, which makes you a self-deluded sucker. If god did exist do you really think he'd need a bunch of you whackos to go door to door? Or would it be a self evident fact, like looking at a tree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says differently.
> 
> So should I believe God whom I've had experience dealing with.
> 
> Or should I believe you who admit that he hasnt read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Not a tough choice there.
Click to expand...


you're a self-deluded imbecile. Please don't respond to any more of my post, you're a waste of the alphabet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> Truth: and Mike Tyson would have had Marciano as a snack.
> 
> RGS: scientific fact that man is a carnivore? You should you want to toss away your credibility on that statement? Learn something about nutrition first. Second, learn how factory animal farming is way worse than just growing vegetables, ex: you can feed 40 people on what it takes to feed a cow.
> Also, I think the hormones in the meat is making you cranky. Or is that from being in a homo army for so long?



Mike Tyson would have everyone for a snack if it were allowed in the rules. He ate Holyfield for a snack


----------



## Truthspeaker

> LDS and Christianity are bottom up faiths; man created their Deity and dogma, not the other way around. Just because you repeat a lie for over 2,000 years doesn't make it true.



You're certainly right that repetition does not create truth. The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoLouis said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true, which makes you a self-deluded sucker. If god did exist do you really think he'd need a bunch of you whackos to go door to door? Or would it be a self evident fact, like looking at a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God says differently.
> 
> So should I believe God whom I've had experience dealing with.
> 
> Or should I believe you who admit that he hasnt read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Not a tough choice there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a self-deluded imbecile. Please don't respond to any more of my post, you're a waste of the alphabet.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take much effort to simply hurl an insult at a person who has been respectful to you if not at least civil. Someone is not going to cease responding to you simply because you command it.

Get real here. What are you on this thread for? What's your angle? Why mess with us deluded religioners if you're the smart one and we're all crazy? Wouldn't you rather do more amusing things like go to a club, call a would-be friend, a would-be girlfriend or watch some porn?


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoLouis, act like an adult in conversation, please.  Give the grace to others that you apparently want given to you.  That's the mature way.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoLouis said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoLouis said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not true, which makes you a self-deluded sucker. If god did exist do you really think he'd need a bunch of you whackos to go door to door? Or would it be a self evident fact, like looking at a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God says differently.
> 
> So should I believe God whom I've had experience dealing with.
> 
> Or should I believe you who admit that he hasnt read a thing on any of this and doens't know what he's talking about.
> 
> Not a tough choice there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you're a self-deluded imbecile. Please don't respond to any more of my post, you're a waste of the alphabet.
Click to expand...


You don't like the idea of actually seeking for yourself. 

What is wrong with the people when people would rather remain in ignorance than do the work necessary to gain knowledge?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321, now be nice because you and Truth have been silly at times as true believers.

Exhibit 1: you two were both preaching the "less than valiant" spirits nonsense about blacks and the priesthood some time ago.  That is completely out of step with LDS teachings.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321, now be nice because you and Truth have been silly at times as true believers.
> 
> Exhibit 1: you two were both preaching the "less than valiant" spirits nonsense about blacks and the priesthood some time ago.  That is completely out of step with LDS teachings.



I don't teach that so I have no clue what you're talking about.

And I am being nice. I am just mourning because people refuse to put out any effort to learn. It makes me sad.

I understand not believing. I just don't get why people would want to remain in ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I will take your word for it because I don't wish to go all the way back to find it.

Many people are ignorant for many reasons, one of those an unwillingness to look at all credible evidence.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> I will take your word for it because I don't wish to go all the way back to find it.
> 
> Many people are ignorant for many reasons, one of those an unwillingness to look at all credible evidence.



From what I have seen an open mind helps people look at credible evidence fairly, however, regarding learning about God and religion I think many times it takes an open heart before people will be willing to learn about it.


----------



## Christopher

Abraham said:


> Mormons repent! Thy end is near!



We are repenting all the time.  Just as every other follower of Christ should.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Abraham speaks the language of one who knows not Christ, but he is fortunate that the has time.

Abraham, turn your heart to Jesus Christ, who will hear your prayers and give you grace and forgiveness.


----------



## Eightball

Demon Seed said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons repent! Thy end is near!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are repenting all the time.  Just as every other follower of Christ should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the time? You guys sure are some badass dudes!
Click to expand...


I believe that the bible says that repentance is done once through faith in Christ's forgiving work on the cross..........From thence onward a true born again Christian - Meaning one who has received Christ's life via the Holy Spirit.........when they fall into sin are to confess it, and move on with life, knowing that they were forgiven from sins past, present, and future at the Cross.

Repentance is not something one does constantly, unless their lives are lived the way of the Old Testament Jews, who placed their sins on a sacrificed lamb in the temple ceremony once a year.

Christ said on the cross, "It is finished!".   Repent, and be saved........thats what the Apostles yelled from the valleys to the rooftops to Jews and gentiles alike.
******
In some ways, cults do their door to door thing, as they are constantly working-out their salvation through works.........They don't realize it that way, but the missions requirements, and the door to door proselytizing, is "required" to be in good standing with their god.

The bible says that good standing is "reckoned" upon us individually by God be an act of "faith"/"Belief" in His "finished" work through His Son.  

J.W.'s work their fool lives to death on Saturdays going door to door trying to get people to become part of their cult.  

Every read or looked at the stats of the lives of these folks.........They are living in constant fear and insecurity about their lives.......They have to obey Watch Tower to the nth degree or they aren't sure about their destiny.

Talk about legalism..............J.W.'s can't call God, God........He must be Jehovah.................They can't have a Christmas tree, nor salute the American flag..............They interpret this as idol worship..........

Christ came to do away with this crazy treadmill of repentance, works, sin, repentance, forgiveness through works..........and on and on and on.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I disagree with you 8-ball on repenting.  That is a daily audit between you and the Lord.  That is NT Christianity and that is common sense.  That also keeps one humble and not a better-than-you (except here on the forum!).


----------



## Jack Fate

I know Mormons mean well.  I live in a heavy Mormon area.  They are always willing to help.  They are no different than anyone else who thinks their denomination will save them.  We all have to come to the same place, bowing at the feet of Jesus before we are able to be saved.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> I disagree with you 8-ball on repenting.  That is a daily audit between you and the Lord.  That is NT Christianity and that is common sense.  That also keeps one humble and not a better-than-you (except here on the forum!).



John the Baptist called out, "Repent"..........Repent means to turn away from that old sinful life.........So Repenting is a mind change........a diametrically opposite direction from before.....an acknowledgement of ones bankrupt state of being before a Holy, Merciful, Loving, and Gracious Creator.

Now that the self-acknowledged "sinner" is in a repentant condition, they call on Christ to take their sins and save them from their terrible condition.   Christ receives all that call on Him and they are added to the "Book of Life".........and become one of His.  

Now as for the daily life of the Christian who has the indwelling Holy Spirit..........they/we/me will still sin..........as we can fall into the carnal side or what Paul referred too as the "flesh". (Romans 7).  This is a condition where the Holy Spirit indwelled person, "chooses" to walk after the world, for their identity and meaning of life, even though they are "new creatures, new creations in Christ Jesus". (Also from Paul's N.T. epistles).

Christians are referred to as a Holy Priesthood of believers.........Also as Royal Ambassadors of Christ.

In essence, you can say that the true born again believer does have to turn away from the "flesh" or the walk that reflects a lack of knowing their new identity in Christ...........In other words worldly Christians...........who though "saved" fall into sinful habits/lifestyles.

Actually, Paul said that a Christian who doesn't abide in Christ is abiding in the flesh/world/self for meaning of life............and this state of being is most miserable..........Yet they are saved...

As for repentance........biblical references.........it normally refers to non-Christians turning to Christ for salavation for the "first" time........

Yes, the Fleshly Christian, or Carnal Christian who is abiding in other than Christ's life by an act of their will, must also by an act of their will turn back and acknowledg their wrongful direction that is in disobedience to Christ and God.........Yet, the original useage of repentance is more commonly used in regards to the unsaved turning away from their old sinful life, and turning to God.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Scripture don't cut it, 8-ball, only one's relationship with Jesus Christ.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Jack Fate said:


> I know Mormons mean well.  I live in a heavy Mormon area.  They are always willing to help.  They are no different than anyone else who thinks their denomination will save them.  We all have to come to the same place, bowing at the feet of Jesus before we are able to be saved.



We don't believe that our denomination will save us. We believe that Jesus saves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know Mormons mean well.  I live in a heavy Mormon area.  They are always willing to help.  They are no different than anyone else who thinks their denomination will save them.  We all have to come to the same place, bowing at the feet of Jesus before we are able to be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe that our denomination will save us. We believe that Jesus saves.
Click to expand...


After you have performed all the important priesthood work that have eternal consequences?


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Scripture don't cut it, 8-ball, only one's relationship with Jesus Christ.



Unfounded angle/take on Christianity Stark........

Only part that is biblical, is the relationship with Jesus.

How does one get to that point Stark?

Without knowledge that explains and gives the sinner an intelligent choice, it is indeed difficult to know about Jesus..........The bible clearly reveals the nature of Jesus, and what He came to do and what is our responsibility to have a relationship with Him.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"........Not a bad idea.


----------



## HUGGY

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture don't cut it, 8-ball, only one's relationship with Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfounded angle/take on Christianity Stark........
> 
> Only part that is biblical, is the relationship with Jesus.
> 
> How does one get to that point Stark?
> 
> Without knowledge that explains and gives the sinner an intelligent choice, it is indeed difficult to know about Jesus..........The bible clearly reveals the nature of Jesus, and what He came to do and what is our responsibility to have a relationship with Him.
> 
> "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"........Not a bad idea.
Click to expand...


If you can "hear" god you are bat shit crazy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Huggy, I feel sad that you can't 'hear' God.

Remember that it takes far more faith to prove God does not exist than to believe  in God.  

You can't do it philosophically because the premise always collapses.  

And you can't do it physically, because you can't search the universe in a _nth _second to verify God is not there.

I feel sad for all atheists and agnostics.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture don't cut it, 8-ball, only one's relationship with Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfounded angle/take on Christianity Stark........
> 
> Only part that is biblical, is the relationship with Jesus.
> 
> How does one get to that point Stark?
> 
> Without knowledge that explains and gives the sinner an intelligent choice, it is indeed difficult to know about Jesus..........The bible clearly reveals the nature of Jesus, and what He came to do and what is our responsibility to have a relationship with Him.
> 
> "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"........Not a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can "hear" god you are bat shit crazy.
Click to expand...


So you're suggesting that anyone who hears God is crazy because you don't understand it?

Tell me, if an all powerful being can't talk to us, who can?


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture don't cut it, 8-ball, only one's relationship with Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfounded angle/take on Christianity Stark........
> 
> Only part that is biblical, is the relationship with Jesus.
> 
> How does one get to that point Stark?
> 
> Without knowledge that explains and gives the sinner an intelligent choice, it is indeed difficult to know about Jesus..........The bible clearly reveals the nature of Jesus, and what He came to do and what is our responsibility to have a relationship with Him.
> 
> "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"........Not a bad idea.
Click to expand...


You need to stop exalting the Bible above God. The scriptures are meant to point to the Father and the Son, not to replace them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The scriptures are meant to point to the nature and existence of God, not replace God.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> The scriptures are meant to point to the nature and existence of God, not replace God.



Thats a "no brainer"........Never said otherwise in any word or form on this or any forum.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know Mormons mean well.  I live in a heavy Mormon area.  They are always willing to help.  They are no different than anyone else who thinks their denomination will save them.  We all have to come to the same place, bowing at the feet of Jesus before we are able to be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe that our denomination will save us. We believe that Jesus saves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you have performed all the important priesthood work that have eternal consequences?
Click to expand...


Here's the saving process:

1. Without doing any works whatsoever, everyone will receive salvation from death and receive a perfected resurrected body just like Jesus did. 
2. After the millenium where Christ reigns personally upon the earth, the final battle of Gog and Magog and after final judgment, all will have had a chance to receive the full gospel of Jesus Christ. 
3. Judgments will be passed out by Christ at the bar of God. 
4. None shall be judged ignorantly.
5. All the ordinances and commandments will have been known and set down by Christ.
6. Obedience to Christs law are part of requirements for salvation in Christs Celestial Kingdom.
7. Salvation in other kingdoms of glory and happiness are assured by all except the very few sons of perdition who have chosen to abandon salvation to live with Satan.

I hope that clarifies.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures are meant to point to the nature and existence of God, not replace God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a "no brainer"........Never said otherwise in any word or form on this or any forum.
Click to expand...


Yes you have, and unequivically so. You have constantly said the Bible is an infallible book and therefore, since the book itself is perfect, it forms your belief system which is this:

If it's not in the Bible, it's not doctrine.

Since the book has a finite number of pages, even if it WERE perfect, it would still be limiting God's words to the words in those pages. 

But then again, the Bible never does say that no other scriptures were ever to be admitted.

You also fail to realize just how human the scholars and committees in charge of putting the Bible together really were.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Better tell the unitiated about the difference of salvation v. exaltation very clearly, TruthSpeaker.

Those who don't know about this need guidance on understanding the difference.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Better tell the unitiated about the difference of salvation v. exaltation very clearly, TruthSpeaker.
> 
> Those who don't know about this need guidance on understanding the difference.



Great point Jakey

The bottom line is this. 
Exaltation is getting to become like God and inherit all that he has. Salvation simply means living in a paradise for the rest of eternity. Salvation is great, but Exhaltation is greater. Ultimately, people will go where they WANT to go.


----------



## Jack Fate

Joseph Smith fails the test of a prophet of God.  Therefore, Mormonism is a false religion.  Jesus is the final Old Testament Prophet.  Everything is revealed in Jesus Christ.  Mormonism is no more from God than Islam is.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Jack Fate said:


> Joseph Smith fails the test of a prophet of God.  Therefore, Mormonism is a false religion.  Jesus is the final Old Testament Prophet.  Everything is revealed in Jesus Christ.  Mormonism is no more from God than Islam is.



Which test are you referring to which Joseph failed? What qualifications are you claiming that he hasn't met?
Your post is lacking depth and just reeks of accusations rather than thoughtful evaluation.

I have my reasons for disliking Islam, but what is YOUR problem with Islam, to digress?


----------



## Jack Fate

Truthspeaker said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith fails the test of a prophet of God.  Therefore, Mormonism is a false religion.  Jesus is the final Old Testament Prophet.  Everything is revealed in Jesus Christ.  Mormonism is no more from God than Islam is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which test are you referring to which Joseph failed? What qualifications are you claiming that he hasn't met?
> Your post is lacking depth and just reeks of accusations rather than thoughtful evaluation.
> 
> I have my reasons for disliking Islam, but what is YOUR problem with Islam, to digress?
Click to expand...


I dislike Islam because Mohammed was a false prophet.  Here is some "depth" for ya.

Joseph Smith as a Prophet


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures are meant to point to the nature and existence of God, not replace God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a "no brainer"........Never said otherwise in any word or form on this or any forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you have, and unequivically so. You have constantly said the Bible is an infallible book and therefore, since the book itself is perfect, it forms your belief system which is this:
> 
> If it's not in the Bible, it's not doctrine.
> 
> Since the book has a finite number of pages, even if it WERE perfect, it would still be limiting God's words to the words in those pages.
> 
> But then again, the Bible never does say that no other scriptures were ever to be admitted.
> 
> You also fail to realize just how human the scholars and committees in charge of putting the Bible together really were.
Click to expand...


You have it so screwed up......I don't even know where to start.

Yes........the bible has proven itself over and over.............Yes.....It reveals to us the nature of God, and His message which in the N.T. is very clearly revealed.

Don't you understand................to know who your praying to, and to know if He is the real true God..........You need information.........

The bible is that information packet...........It was inspired by God, and when a person who is seeking God reads it, the H.S. works through the bible to lead a person to the great conclusion...........I am a sinner..........God is Holy, and does not sin...........God made everything...........He's in charge.............I can be reconciled to Him through faith in His Son Jesus who is revealed in the bible.

How can you dish this book that has been proven to be transcribed correctly over the last 2,000 years evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet hang onto the BOM as a superior book to the bible, when it has gone through 4,000 + changes in a century and a half?
******
The bible is not worshipped..........it is the compass, the information given to us so that we can exercise saving faith unto our salvation.


----------



## Jack Fate

Every Mormon and Jehovah's Witness I've ever dealt will continually pick apart the bible and promote their "holy" books.  They are taught to do that.  It's only logical.  If they are taught the bible then they will learn the truth and leave.  Can't have that.


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures are meant to point to the nature and existence of God, not replace God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a "no brainer"........Never said otherwise in any word or form on this or any forum.
Click to expand...


Which is why you always advocate looking to the Bible over listening to the Spirit.


----------



## Jack Fate

Avatar4321 said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures are meant to point to the nature and existence of God, not replace God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a "no brainer"........Never said otherwise in any word or form on this or any forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is why you always advocate looking to the Bible over listening to the Spirit.
Click to expand...


The Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word and vice versa.


----------



## Avatar4321

Jack Fate said:


> Joseph Smith fails the test of a prophet of God.  Therefore, Mormonism is a false religion.  Jesus is the final Old Testament Prophet.  Everything is revealed in Jesus Christ.  Mormonism is no more from God than Islam is.



First, Jesus isnt an Old Testament Prophet. He is clearly in the New Testament.

Second, Acts clearly mentions prophets after Christ's ascension. Paul mentions that Apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church. Revelation foretold the coming of two prophets to Jerusalem prior to the coming of Christ. There is no evidence that prophets ceased with Christ. The Bible points the exact opposite.

Third, The Spirit of Prophecy is a testimony of Jesus Christ. If we are to accept that prophets have ceased, that means no one has the a testimony of Jesus Christ. I can promise you that there are many people who have recieved testimonies of Jesus Christ. They are touched with the Spirit of Prophecy and know from the Father that Jesus truely is the Messiah and the Son of God.

Fourth, Jesus instructed us in the Sermon on the Mount how to discern between true prophets and false ones. This instruction would be completely pointless if there were no true prophets. "By their fruits ye shall know them"

And what are their fruits? They would be the fruits of the Spirit Paul described:



> 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> 
> 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22-23)



I would argue that Joseph's fruits invite the fruits of the Spirit and are good. The levels of rich knowledge and goodness found in the Revelations of the Restoration are just to good to dismiss, and complex to believe they are coincidences.


----------



## Avatar4321

Jack Fate said:


> Every Mormon and Jehovah's Witness I've ever dealt will continually pick apart the bible and promote their "holy" books.  They are taught to do that.  It's only logical.  If they are taught the bible then they will learn the truth and leave.  Can't have that.



We study the Bible indepth all the time. We spend twice as much time on the Bible as we do any other works of revelation. We simply aren't going to pretend it's something that it doesn't claim to be. We aren't going to pretend God is silent. We aren't going to pretend that He hasn't called Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, etc to bring us to a unity of faith. We aren't going to pretend that God's word to us now is less important than His word to our ancestors. 

We aren't saved by Noah's revelations to build the Ark.

We aren't saved by Moses revelation of the Law of Moses.

We aren't saved by Isaiah's revelations to the children of Israel. 

We aren't saved by Peter's revelations, or by Pauls revelations.

We have to recieve our own. Because our day and age is different from theirs. We don't face the same problems they did. And only by the grace of God can we recieve that revelation. 

You say you believe in an unchanging God. He revealed His word from heaven to the living in the past. Why do you seem to think that He has stopped? The scriptures say nothing. In fact, they often rebuked those who claimed that revelation had ceased. Don't the scriptures state that the people marveled because Jesus and the Twelve spoke as ones with authority, and not like the scribes and pharisees? 

The scribes and the pharisees weren't wrong for looking to the scriptures, they were wrong for ignoring the revelation occuring in their time and listening to the Spirit of God.

Where are the Apostles and Prophets? Where are those with authority to speak from God? How can you claim authority when you deny the Spirit of Revelation and Prophecy which is the very testimony of Jesus Christ?

There are Apostles sent by God that live today. The Lord calls prophets, pastors, teachers, Evangelists, Bishops, Deacons, Priests to teach His plan to His people. Why on earth would you settle for part of the word of God when He will reveal so much more to you if you give Him the chance?


----------



## Avatar4321

Jack Fate said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a "no brainer"........Never said otherwise in any word or form on this or any forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why you always advocate looking to the Bible over listening to the Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word and vice versa.
Click to expand...


No. It testifies of the Word fo God. And the scriptures teach us that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not the Bible.

The Bible contains the Word of God. It contains the words of good men and the words of bad men. It also contains the words of an ass rebuking his master on the roadside.

The Book of Mormon also contains the Word of God. It testifies of the Divinity and Mission of Jesus Christ. It teaches the words He spake when He appeared to the people in America after His resurrection. It proves that the words of the Bible are true. It shows the world that Jesus truely is the Christ. That the Lord remembers the Covenants He has made with the House of Israel.

And the Testimonies of Judah and Joseph will run together. They show to the world that God has worked with more than one nation. He has spoken to all people. He is the God of all people. That He hasn't ceased His work and will not cease until He returns.

Look around you. You can see the work of God amongst the people in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. You can see how he has inspired men to be industrious. To create technology. We live in a world where travel and communication are easier and greater than ever before. You think this is mere coincidence? That the hand of God isn't in this?

You think the United States of America was set up as a land of Freedom by pure chance? The hand of the Almighty was in it. All the Founders acknowledged it. Do you think the New World was discovered by coincidence? Columbus readily admits that it was the Holy Spirit that inspired him to travel west. 

Do you think the Industrial Revolution was an accident? Or the Reformation which Martin Luther began? You think it's just a coincidence that the Printing Press was invented when it was?

The Lord had His hands in it all from the Beginning. And everything He has done is calculated to redeem His people. Yet, we are supposed to believe that God didn't ever talk to anyone the people in Palestine. That He has never revealed His Word except to them?

The Lord spoke to those in America. He wanted His word to them to shine as a Second witness. Thus we have the Book of Mormon which was translated by the power of God. Somehow we are supposed to believe that an impoverished farmboy who could barely dictate a coherent letter wrote the Book of Mormon when even His family knew that it was beyond His skills? Not only that, but we are supposed to think that he somehow managed to get 11 other witnesses to testify to that record, and to get them to uphold their testimonies at the cost of their lives or after they had fallen out with Joseph. We are supposed to believe that these men gave up social and political standing in their communities for a testimony they knew was false?

Look at Oliver Cowdery. He was the Second Elder of the Church. He helped translate the Book of Mormon. He was present when the Aaronic and Melchesidek Priesthood was restored. He was there when Elijah came and restored the sealing keys. Yet, after having a disagreement with Joseph and leaving the Church, he still testified that He saw these things. He could have been the Governor of Wisconsin, but lost the race because he wouldnt deny that He had witnessed the angel and the plates or any of the other experiences. He wrote private letters to others discussing these things as though they really happened long after he left the Church and recieved no benefit for it. He eventually resubmitted himself to baptism despite knowing he wouldn't have the same position and authority in the Church. Does this sound like a man who was lying? And if he wasnt lying how the heck did anyone convince him that he actually saw what He saw? And this is a brief summary of Oliver's life and story. And there are still 10 other witnesses, some of who were martyred for their faith.

You can't explain it. No one can. But we are simply supposed to discount it because it's absurd. What is so absurd about the ministering of angels? Why is it absurd that God speaks or that He continues His work in the last days to prepare for His return? 

Is there any age of the world where the need for God to speak and to act is greater than it is this day? Can anyone deny how pervasive wickedness in the world? Can anyone deny the attrocious acts that man does? Or that we have the capacity to destroy our entire race? 

The only real difference between us is that you say you believe the Bible, but you don't understand it. Because the Bible points to coming to God and learning for ourselves. It doesn't make the claim that it's all there is. In fact, There are verses that say the exact opposite.  



> 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (John 21:25)



Does that sound like it contains all there is? Sounds like the exact opposite to me.

Peter and Paul even admits there was alot that the people werent ready for and that they didnt teach them:



> 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (1 Cor. 3:2)





> 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
> 
> 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.(Hebrews 5:12-13)





> 1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
> 
> 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:1-2)



Here we have 3 separate places in the scriptures where the Apostles tell the people they are teaching them the milk of the Gospel and that they need to do this to grow before they reach the meat. We also have Christ's own words:



> 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
> 
> 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
> 
> 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13:10-12)



If we follow Christ, we are to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom. And the more we recieve, the more we will be given. 

And you think the Bible is all the knowledge God has for man? Seriously? I've god 3 other volumes of scriptures and I still don't think I have everything God has for man. In fact, Im quote confident that there are many great and important things that God hasnt revealed to me yet because I am not prepared for them.

This turned out to me alot longer than I expected. But I seriously don't understand why you think that God has changed and stopped speaking. I don't know why you think the Bible says everything when it specifically states that it doesn't. I don't know why people have such a hard time letting God and letting God teach them more. I dont even know why I have that trouble. But I just have hope that someday we all will let go and learn.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why you always advocate looking to the Bible over listening to the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word and vice versa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It testifies of the Word fo God. And the scriptures teach us that the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not the Bible.
> 
> The Bible contains the Word of God. It contains the words of good men and the words of bad men. It also contains the words of an ass rebuking his master on the roadside.
> 
> The Book of Mormon also contains the Word of God. It testifies of the Divinity and Mission of Jesus Christ. It teaches the words He spake when He appeared to the people in America after His resurrection. It proves that the words of the Bible are true. It shows the world that Jesus truely is the Christ. That the Lord remembers the Covenants He has made with the House of Israel.
> 
> And the Testimonies of Judah and Joseph will run together. They show to the world that God has worked with more than one nation. He has spoken to all people. He is the God of all people. That He hasn't ceased His work and will not cease until He returns.
> 
> Look around you. You can see the work of God amongst the people in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. You can see how he has inspired men to be industrious. To create technology. We live in a world where travel and communication are easier and greater than ever before. You think this is mere coincidence? That the hand of God isn't in this?
> 
> You think the United States of America was set up as a land of Freedom by pure chance? The hand of the Almighty was in it. All the Founders acknowledged it. Do you think the New World was discovered by coincidence? Columbus readily admits that it was the Holy Spirit that inspired him to travel west.
> 
> Do you think the Industrial Revolution was an accident? Or the Reformation which Martin Luther began? You think it's just a coincidence that the Printing Press was invented when it was?
> 
> The Lord had His hands in it all from the Beginning. And everything He has done is calculated to redeem His people. Yet, we are supposed to believe that God didn't ever talk to anyone the people in Palestine. That He has never revealed His Word except to them?
> 
> The Lord spoke to those in America. He wanted His word to them to shine as a Second witness. Thus we have the Book of Mormon which was translated by the power of God. Somehow we are supposed to believe that an impoverished farmboy who could barely dictate a coherent letter wrote the Book of Mormon when even His family knew that it was beyond His skills? Not only that, but we are supposed to think that he somehow managed to get 11 other witnesses to testify to that record, and to get them to uphold their testimonies at the cost of their lives or after they had fallen out with Joseph. We are supposed to believe that these men gave up social and political standing in their communities for a testimony they knew was false?
> 
> Look at Oliver Cowdery. He was the Second Elder of the Church. He helped translate the Book of Mormon. He was present when the Aaronic and Melchesidek Priesthood was restored. He was there when Elijah came and restored the sealing keys. Yet, after having a disagreement with Joseph and leaving the Church, he still testified that He saw these things. He could have been the Governor of Wisconsin, but lost the race because he wouldnt deny that He had witnessed the angel and the plates or any of the other experiences. He wrote private letters to others discussing these things as though they really happened long after he left the Church and recieved no benefit for it. He eventually resubmitted himself to baptism despite knowing he wouldn't have the same position and authority in the Church. Does this sound like a man who was lying? And if he wasnt lying how the heck did anyone convince him that he actually saw what He saw? And this is a brief summary of Oliver's life and story. And there are still 10 other witnesses, some of who were martyred for their faith.
> 
> You can't explain it. No one can. But we are simply supposed to discount it because it's absurd. What is so absurd about the ministering of angels? Why is it absurd that God speaks or that He continues His work in the last days to prepare for His return?
> 
> Is there any age of the world where the need for God to speak and to act is greater than it is this day? Can anyone deny how pervasive wickedness in the world? Can anyone deny the attrocious acts that man does? Or that we have the capacity to destroy our entire race?
> 
> The only real difference between us is that you say you believe the Bible, but you don't understand it. Because the Bible points to coming to God and learning for ourselves. It doesn't make the claim that it's all there is. In fact, There are verses that say the exact opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that sound like it contains all there is? Sounds like the exact opposite to me.
> 
> Peter and Paul even admits there was alot that the people werent ready for and that they didnt teach them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
> 
> 2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:1-2)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we have 3 separate places in the scriptures where the Apostles tell the people they are teaching them the milk of the Gospel and that they need to do this to grow before they reach the meat. We also have Christ's own words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
> 
> 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
> 
> 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13:10-12)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we follow Christ, we are to know the Mysteries of the Kingdom. And the more we recieve, the more we will be given.
> 
> And you think the Bible is all the knowledge God has for man? Seriously? I've god 3 other volumes of scriptures and I still don't think I have everything God has for man. In fact, Im quote confident that there are many great and important things that God hasnt revealed to me yet because I am not prepared for them.
> 
> This turned out to me alot longer than I expected. But I seriously don't understand why you think that God has changed and stopped speaking. I don't know why you think the Bible says everything when it specifically states that it doesn't. I don't know why people have such a hard time letting God and letting God teach them more. I dont even know why I have that trouble. But I just have hope that someday we all will let go and learn.
Click to expand...


Avatar:  Respectfully........I understand what your saying, but putting the Holy Spirit ahead of scripture, and not validating it's message against scripture is running the possibility of going astray from God's will.

Faith or belief is engendered in us because we first hear or read the God-inspired scriptures from lay-Christians, preachers, or even just picking up a Gideon bible in a motel and thumbing through the pages.

So our hearts are "pricked" with whatever the H.S. sees fit to do in us after receiving some God-inspired biblically accurate message.  Thence repentance might follow, leading to a cry for salvation(help) to that one who inspired those convicting words to us(God/Christ).

When we depend solely on the H.S. for guidance without validating what we "perceive" to be from the H.S. we are indeed walking on "shakey" ground that can lead to error.

Avatar:  Remember than even when the Apostle Paul spoke to the Bereans, they didn't receive his words without going to the scriptures and making sure he/Paul wasn't bringing and incorrect or error'd message to them.   

What was Paul's response to the Bereans doing this?  Did Paul feel rejected as Christ's apostle?  Was Paul affronted by this Berean action?  Far from it; in fact Paul "commended them".  

Paul said and many other Apostles and prophets.............that we must "test" the words of those that claim to be "mouth pieces" for God.
****
Again Respectfully Avatar:  When persons of your church come to my door and tell me this or that about God or Christ, or even the H.S., or even about when to pray about something...........If I communicate to them that I want to check the bible to make sure that is what I should do, I immediately hit a "log jam" with them.  I am informed that the bible isn't necessary to "validate" but should "just pray" and ask God if what ever message your church representatives have brought to me is correct or incorrect.

This contradicts what I've clearly read in the epistles of the bible.  

Everytime a prophet in the OT was condemned or identified by the people or God directly as in error, or a false prophet, it was inconjunction with God's mandates to man.  

So the 12 apostles of God that go back to Jesus' time were intrusted both with orally, and by written word......letting all future generations know the "will" of God, and the gospel of Jesus Christ as the salvation of humanity.

And because God is "omnipotent"..........That means almighty.........i.e. He can't be thwarted from doing what He intendes to do........we have this beautiful piece called the Holy Bible..........To this day being on the best sellers list above all other authored books of the past or present.

Again, the Dead Sea scrolls that are roughly 2,000 years old contain portions or complete books of the bible, except for the book of Ruth.

The Isaiah scroll is complete, and has been compared to are present day recognized translations and has shown that these present day bibles translations are "dead on".   

Now that is 2,000 years of copying/scribing/retranslating from language to language, and no errors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does that say about our present day bibles???????  It says that the God of Moses, Abraham, Peter, Martin Luther, and 21st century man is still accurate, and excellent for teaching, reproof, edification, etc.....

Christ said on the cross, it is finished.  upon His death, the veil that guarded the Holy of Holies from sinful man was rent in two.

This again was no accident.  The ripped-in-two veil was God's message that His Son's life had allowed access to Him by sinful man through His Son's life's offering of flesh and blood in our sinful place.

As said clearly in Hebrews, Jesus is now our advocate before the Father.  He has bridged the vast canyon between us and our Maker, that started back in Eden fall.
*******
So Respectfully Avatar:  We get back to the H.S. versus scripture.

There is an old saying about the donkey and the cart.  The cart goes nowhere without the donkey.  So goes our faith as Christians.  If we depend solely on dreams, burning bosoms, feelings, visions in order to "validate" what is the "will of God", we are in putting the cart ahead of the donkey, or leaving the donkey out of the scenario totally.

Avatar:  Jesus clearly lays out in the book of John, what the H.S.'s responsiblity will be when He/Jesus ascends to heaven and sends Him/H.S. in His stead.  Jesus said that the H.S. will be a "tutor", that will help the believer/Christian to understand the scriptures that are their and our guide to the life of the believer.

Since the scriptures are authored or inspired by God, they must be interpreted, or understood Spiritually too.

This is why the non-Christian when they read the bible will in most cases lay it down after a few minutes of labored reading.  Without the indwelling H.S. in the reader's soul, the bible is just a "good" book, or an accumulation of historical data, and often "pooh pooh'd" as non-relevant.

What the Mormon missionary at my or anyone's door should incourage, is this;  "Please pray about what we've said, but in conjunction with that, look in your KJV, NASB, NIV, bible and find/see if what we've told you about our church and our beliefs are confirmed or not by the Word of God.".

The whole dividing point between biblical Christianity and the LDS faith boils down to "authority" of scripture.  Authority of scripture(the bible).

Also, one must study the life of the messenger........The LDS faith must put up their Apostles, and especially their founder's life against the lives of Christ's 12 apostles(Judas is no longer the 12th, but Paul became the replacement/12th on his way to Damascus, Syria).

Which people stand the test of time..........Christ's 12 or the LDS founder and their apostles that followed.

The inspired statements of the LDS apostles, as well as the Journal of Discourses, the "Pearl of Great Price" must be put up against the bible that has been proven to be accurate though disputed by Mormon scholars alone.

We must also think about the "nature" of God.  How powerful is He?

Which belief system, LDS faith or biblical/Christian faith projects the accurate/legitimate character, of God?

As Author Josh Macdowell's book, "Evidence Demands A Verdict", we must unbiasedly look at the evidences, and the character of those who represent both the early church and O.T. times and put them against those who represent the founding peoples of the LDS/Mormon faith.


----------



## Avatar4321

by the way, since our bumper's been slacking lately, Bump


----------



## Samson

Avatar4321 said:


> by the way, since our bumper's been slacking lately, Bump



Yeah this oughta rake in those July Membership $$$$



Fuck, if I didn't know any better, I'd see this crappy thread and run.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Samson said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the way, since our bumper's been slacking lately, Bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah this oughta rake in those July Membership $$$$
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, if I didn't know any better, I'd see this crappy thread and run.
Click to expand...


Then the quality of membership would be doubled. Too bad you didn't run. I have been much remiss lately but I just don't have the time these days to scour through all of 8-ball's ramblings. Nonetheless, I will do it sometime this week.


----------



## Hister

Is it true that Joseph Smith liked little boys? I heard that somewhere...


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by the way, since our bumper's been slacking lately, Bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah this oughta rake in those July Membership $$$$
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck, if I didn't know any better, I'd see this crappy thread and run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then the quality of membership would be doubled. Too bad you didn't run. I have been much remiss lately but I just don't have the time these days to scour through all of 8-ball's ramblings. Nonetheless, I will do it sometime this week.
Click to expand...


REMISS??????  You've been in a damn coma.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister said:


> Is it true that Joseph Smith liked little boys? I heard that somewhere...



Nah, he had a fascination for the souls of the young domestic maids in his wife's employ.  Continually.


----------



## Liability

bumpity bumpity bump.

Another long overdue bumpage takes its place.

A bit untimely?  Yes.  

But better late than never.

Bump.


----------



## Hister

Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister said:


> Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...



Hister, go study scientific discovery and improvements by the LDS.  Your comment was ignorant of the actual facts.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...



Funny you should say that:

Richard G. Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should say that:
> 
> Richard G. Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


They figured out how to steal Howard Hughes fortune...


----------



## LANMaster

Busy thread ..... everyone behaving?


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should say that:
> 
> Richard G. Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


So the guy wrote books about jesus, yawn. What did he discover? Did not mention that he did anything Thanks for proving my point, mormons are a bunch of simpletons.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should say that:
> 
> Richard G. Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the guy wrote books about jesus, yawn. What did he discover? Did not mention that he did anything Thanks for proving my point, mormons are a bunch of simpletons.
Click to expand...


A nuclear engineer is a simpleton?

I am pretty sure that nuclear engineers split atoms for a living.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should say that:
> 
> Richard G. Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the guy wrote books about jesus, yawn. What did he discover? Did not mention that he did anything Thanks for proving my point, mormons are a bunch of simpletons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A nuclear engineer is a simpleton?
> 
> I am pretty sure that nuclear engineers split atoms for a living.
Click to expand...


My point was that no mormon invented anything of any worth, so he worked as a nuclear engineer, he didn't invent the field, he gave up to go recruit more mormons or whatever. He all you got?


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> My point was that no mormon invented anything of any worth, so he worked as a nuclear engineer, he didn't invent the field, he gave up to go recruit more mormons or whatever. He all you got?



The TV is worthless? I suppose in the view of some...


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that no mormon invented anything of any worth, so he worked as a nuclear engineer, he didn't invent the field, he gave up to go recruit more mormons or whatever. He all you got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TV is worthless? I suppose in the view of some...
Click to expand...


Ha! Ok, that it? Like I said...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister, waht up, man?  Mormons, including the LDS, are no better and no worse than anyone else, so why are you flogging a dead horse.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Hister, waht up, man?  Mormons, including the LDS, are no better and no worse than anyone else, so why are you flogging a dead horse.



Good question. Just haven't figured out what exactly he is looking for. What is acceptable?

The idea that there aren't intelligent accomplished Mormon's is simply absurd.


----------



## Luissa

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should say that:
> 
> Richard G. Scott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the guy wrote books about jesus, yawn. What did he discover? Did not mention that he did anything Thanks for proving my point, mormons are a bunch of simpletons.
Click to expand...

 I would put money on the mormon guy I take care of, being ten times smarter than you.
And I might remind you, that Ken Jennings who won more money than anyone else on Jeopardy was a mormon.


----------



## Hister

I was just wondering if any mormons had discovered anything major, or if they were basically all just goobers, like they appear to be when they come to my door.
Ok, so the TV guy, I looked it up, interesting... But the Jeopardy guy, gimme a break, he knew a lot (I like the show and watched him win), but c'mon, that's hardly Nobel quality.
Buncha goobers.... I guess?


----------



## hjmick

Hister said:


> I was just wondering if any mormons had discovered anything major, or if they were basically all just goobers, like they appear to be when they come to my door.
> Ok, so the TV guy, I looked it up, interesting... But the Jeopardy guy, gimme a break, he knew a lot (I like the show and watched him win), but c'mon, that's hardly Nobel quality.
> Buncha goobers.... I guess?



John Browning... Alvino Rey... Philo T. Farnsworth...


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> I was just wondering if any mormons had discovered anything major, or if they were basically all just goobers, like they appear to be when they come to my door.
> Ok, so the TV guy, I looked it up, interesting... But the Jeopardy guy, gimme a break, he knew a lot (I like the show and watched him win), but c'mon, that's hardly Nobel quality.
> Buncha goobers.... I guess?



If you ever have heart problems, you might want to thank this Mormon:

Russell M. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A native of Salt Lake City, Utah, Nelson studied at LDS Business College while in his mid-teens and then worked as an assistant secretary at a bank.[2] He did undegraduate studies and then received an M.D. degree from the University of Utah in August 1947. Shortly thereafter, he began working with the team of doctors which created the first heart-lung machine. In 1951, the machine was used in the first open-heart operation on a human being. Four years later, Nelson was the first doctor in Utah to perform successful open-heart surgery using a heart-lung machine.
> 
> Nelson served a two-year term of medical duty in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, being stationed in Korea, Japan, and at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Later he worked for a year at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. During this time in Massachusetts he also received training from Harvard Medical School.[3]
> 
> He received a Ph.D. degree from the University of Minnesota in 1954.
> 
> Nelson returned to Salt Lake City in 1955 and was initially on the academic staff of the College of Medicine at the University of Utah, where in November of that year he performed the first cardiac operation in Utah utilizing cardiopulmonary bypass. That operation was performed at the Salt Lake General Hospital (SLGH) on an adult with an atrial septa defect.
> 
> In March 1956, Nelson performed the first successful pediatric cardiac operation at the SLGH, a total repair of tetralogy of Fallot in a four-year-old girl. In 1959, he joined the staff of the Salt Lake Clinic, became associated with the LDS Hospital, and continued to make major contributions to the development of the thoracic specialty both in the clinical sciences and as the second director of the residency program.
> 
> Nelson's surgical volume was sufficiently large that it was a critical component of the residents' experience. He was an innovative and facile surgeon responsible for many improvements in cardiac operations. He also established a research laboratory at LDS Hospital.
> 
> By the late 1960s, Nelson's experience with artificial aortic valve implantation was such that he was able to report a large series of patients with an exceptionally low operative mortality.
> 
> In a unique combination of spiritual and professional obligations, Nelson performed heart surgery on LDS Church president Spencer W. Kimball.


----------



## Hister

a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
A doctor? No biggie.
So that's it I guess?
Gooberdom.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hister said:


> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.



You will find that Most of the LDS on this board are fairly low key and hard to piss off. But you will also find I am quite capable of defending myself. Your name is quite interesting, tell us the entomology of it and why you chose it. Goober boy.


----------



## Hister

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that Most of the LDS on this board are fairly low key and hard to piss off. But you will also find I am quite capable of defending myself. Your name is quite interesting, tell us the entomology of it and why you chose it. Goober boy.
Click to expand...


I suspect that you already know, please tell us, SargeantGay.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.



No biggie? I'm willing to bet you'd disagree if you were having serious heart problems.

So what exactly do you think would be significant?


----------



## hjmick

Hister said:


> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.



Oh no, there are many, many more I just listed three that I could remember off the top of my head. I'm not Mormon so I'm not really up on the who's who...

But why continue to beat around the bush? Why not just come out and say you hate Mormons? That's what this is really about.


----------



## Avatar4321

hjmick said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, there are many, many more I just listed three that I could remember off the top of my head. I'm not Mormon so I'm not really up on the who's who...
> 
> But why continue to beat around the bush? Why not just come out and say you hate Mormons? That's what this is really about.
Click to expand...


I can't figure out what he wants. He wanted a Mormon who split atoms. I show him a nuclear engineer. He wants examples of Mormons who have discovered and developed things. I give him the Television, New heart surgery techniques. Not enough yet. Just not sure what he wants here.

Doesn't matter though. We could have the smartest people in the world. Doesn't mean our faith is true. The only way to learn whether Jesus is the Christ, Whether He rose from the dead. Whether the Book of Mormon is true or if Joseph Smith was a Prophet is to study it out and learn it directly from God. You have to learn the way Peter did, from the Father.

It's just one of those things of life.

I don't think he hates Mormons though. I just think he is highly skeptical and finds it completely irrational. I don't blame him for that. When you don't know anything about us, it be pretty easy to say we are absurd. When you look into what we actually believe and try to understand it, you will find that it's very rational. We just accept different premises.


----------



## Christopher

Avatar4321 said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no, there are many, many more I just listed three that I could remember off the top of my head. I'm not Mormon so I'm not really up on the who's who...
> 
> But why continue to beat around the bush? Why not just come out and say you hate Mormons? That's what this is really about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't figure out what he wants. He wanted a Mormon who split atoms. I show him a nuclear engineer. He wants examples of Mormons who have discovered and developed things. I give him the Television, New heart surgery techniques. Not enough yet. Just not sure what he wants here.
> 
> Doesn't matter though. We could have the smartest people in the world. Doesn't mean our faith is true. The only way to learn whether Jesus is the Christ, Whether He rose from the dead. Whether the Book of Mormon is true or if Joseph Smith was a Prophet is to study it out and learn it directly from God. You have to learn the way Peter did, from the Father.
> 
> It's just one of those things of life.
> 
> I don't think he hates Mormons though. I just think he is highly skeptical and finds it completely irrational. I don't blame him for that. When you don't know anything about us, it be pretty easy to say we are absurd. When you look into what we actually believe and try to understand it, you will find that it's very rational. We just accept different premises.
Click to expand...


I think he is just having difficulty coming to terms with his false perception of Mormons.


----------



## Hister

Just wanted to know whether mormons are all goobers like the ones who come to my door. And aside from maybe like, 2 guys (who didn't do all that much, dude didn't actually invent the tv, just one component...), it's total gooberdom.
Geez, mormons and mormon lovers are sure a touchy bunch.


----------



## Christopher

Hister said:


> Just wanted to know whether mormons are all goobers like the ones who come to my door. And aside from maybe like, 2 guys (who didn't do all that much, dude didn't actually invent the tv, just one component...), it's total gooberdom.
> Geez, mormons and mormon lovers are sure a touchy bunch.



So, you believe that there are only two Mormons who are not "goobers"?  Do you actually think that is based on reality?


----------



## Hister

Christopher said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to know whether mormons are all goobers like the ones who come to my door. And aside from maybe like, 2 guys (who didn't do all that much, dude didn't actually invent the tv, just one component...), it's total gooberdom.
> Geez, mormons and mormon lovers are sure a touchy bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe that there are only two Mormons who are not "goobers"?  Do you actually think that is based on reality?
Click to expand...


Why? What's the reality? That's exactly what I was asking.


----------



## Luissa

Hister said:


> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.



The fact that every Mormon in this thread pawned you, proves that you are full of shit.


----------



## Luissa

Hister said:


> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.



I just got neg'd by Hister for defending Mormons, and I might add I am not even a christian.

This is his comment:


> pawned me? try making some sense


Someone who says gooberdom, really shouldn't talk.


----------



## Hister

Luissa said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just got neg'd by Hister for defending Mormons, and I might add I am not even a christian.
> 
> This is his comment:
> 
> 
> 
> pawned me? try making some sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone who says gooberdom, really shouldn't talk.
Click to expand...


pawned me means traded me in for cash. goober lover.


----------



## Avatar4321

Luissa said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that every Mormon in this thread pawned you, proves that you are full of shit.
Click to expand...


Didn't know were were trying to pawn anyone. I didn't make a single cent off any of this.


----------



## Luissa

Hister said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just got neg'd by Hister for defending Mormons, and I might add I am not even a christian.
> 
> This is his comment:
> 
> 
> 
> pawned me? try making some sense
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Someone who says gooberdom, really shouldn't talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> pawned me means traded me in for cash. goober lover.
Click to expand...


It is a slang term, moron.


----------



## Hister

Geez, I was just asking if there were any inventor or discoverers of anything from the mormon crowd. Sounds like a simple enough question. You 'tards are all defensive because you're frustrated that there are none, ok, maybe ONE guy who may have helped in the development of the tv. So you attack me. Mormons and their supporters sure are a mature crowd.


----------



## Liability

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that Most of the LDS on this board are fairly low key and hard to piss off. But you will also find I am quite capable of defending myself. Your name is quite interesting, tell us the entomology of it and why you chose it. Goober boy.
Click to expand...


One of Nostradamus' "prophesies" (one usually associated with WWII, coincidentally) made mention of a "Hister."  Since the rise of Adolf Hitler, the name "Hister" is presumed, by those who place stock in Nostradumas' prophesies, to mean "Hitler."

It must be true.  I saw it on the History Channel.


----------



## Liability

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> a gun maker and a TV host, LOL.
> A doctor? No biggie.
> So that's it I guess?
> Gooberdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find that Most of the LDS on this board are fairly low key and hard to piss off. But you will also find I am quite capable of defending myself. Your name is quite interesting, tell us the entomology of it and why you chose it. Goober boy.
Click to expand...


One of Nostradamus' "prophesies" (one usually associated with WWII, coincidentally) made mention of a "Hister."  Since the rise of Adolf Hitler, the name "Hister" is presumed, by those who place stock in Nostradamus' prophesies, to mean "Hitler."

It must be true.  I saw it on the History Channel.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Geez, I was just asking if there were any inventor or discoverers of anything from the mormon crowd. Sounds like a simple enough question. You 'tards are all defensive because you're frustrated that there are none, ok, maybe ONE guy who may have helped in the development of the tv. So you attack me. Mormons and their supporters sure are a mature crowd.



Not attacking you at all. Just tired of you raising the bar every time your questions are answered.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister just has issues with Mormons being as screwed up, silly, and generally frustrating as all other American groups.

You are right that he keeps raising the bar.


----------



## Liability

This thread is slacking.

I hate when that happens.

BUMP!

I say again, "BUMP!"

Don't make me repeat that.

Get to it.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I was just asking if there were any inventor or discoverers of anything from the mormon crowd. Sounds like a simple enough question. You 'tards are all defensive because you're frustrated that there are none, ok, maybe ONE guy who may have helped in the development of the tv. So you attack me. Mormons and their supporters sure are a mature crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not attacking you at all. Just tired of you raising the bar every time your questions are answered.
Click to expand...


Didn't raise any bar, all you had was the tv guy, a doctor, and a gun maker, I was just curious, that's all, now you can all go back to spinning wool.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Hister just has issues with Mormons being as screwed up, silly, and generally frustrating as all other American groups.
> 
> You are right that he keeps raising the bar.



I know. And honestly, I don't blame him. I don't think I'd believe it if it werent for my personal experiences. It just seems like the constant raising the bar is a bit dishonest.

My only request from anyone is to honestly look at Mormonism. Read the Book of Mormon. Try to see things from our perspective. Actually ponder the principles and what we teach. I don't think that's unreasonable.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I was just asking if there were any inventor or discoverers of anything from the mormon crowd. Sounds like a simple enough question. You 'tards are all defensive because you're frustrated that there are none, ok, maybe ONE guy who may have helped in the development of the tv. So you attack me. Mormons and their supporters sure are a mature crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not attacking you at all. Just tired of you raising the bar every time your questions are answered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't raise any bar, all you had was the tv guy, a doctor, and a gun maker, I was just curious, that's all, now you can all go back to spinning wool.
Click to expand...


You asked if any Mormons have ever done something like Split an atom. I provided you a prominent nuclear engineer.

You then said you meaned invented something significant. I pointed out the Television.

Yet that apparently wasnt good enough.

But if that's not raising the bar fine. I hope your question was sufficiently answered.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hister just has issues with Mormons being as screwed up, silly, and generally frustrating as all other American groups.
> 
> You are right that he keeps raising the bar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. And honestly, I don't blame him. I don't think I'd believe it if it werent for my personal experiences. It just seems like the constant raising the bar is a bit dishonest.
> 
> My only request from anyone is to honestly look at Mormonism. Read the Book of Mormon. *Try to see things from our perspective*. Actually ponder the principles and what we teach. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Click to expand...


You mean like that your god is an alien from another planet that nobody knows where it is? That's why I wanted to know basically if there were any intelligent people who believe in that.


----------



## Hister

Being a nuclear engineer is a far cry for inventing something worthwhile, which is what I meant by splitting the atom.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister, I say this gently but firmly: you are inconsistent in your statements.

No one cares what you believe or not believe about religion.

You questions were generously answered, and you kept raising the bar.

Please be honest with yourself as well as with us.


----------



## Hister

No Jake, I just kept asking: that's it? And it's not much. Gooberdom for sure.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are the goober, Hister, because you could not stay consistent.

That's what bias such as your does, buddy: it outs you.


----------



## Hister

Jake:


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is a very good description of yourself, Hister.

Please come out and play with us anytime.


----------



## Hister

JakeStarkey said:


> That is a very good description of yourself, Hister.
> 
> Please come out and play with us anytime.



So name calling is allowed in mormonism?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister, you want to play, you have to pay. If you are nice instead of being silly, then your feelings don't get hurt.


----------



## Avatar4321

I love it how Jake, a vocal non-mormon, is somehow representative of what is allowed or not allowed in Mormonism.

Though to be faired. God gives us free will so we can choose what we want to do. We can listen to Him or not. If we chose to ignore God, it really doesn't mean God is somehow wrong. It just means we won't get the blessings we otherwise could have recieved for following the Lord.

It always bothers me when people say I can't do something. Because I've made the choice voluntarily. I believe in Christ because of my experiences with Him. I believe the Book of Mormon because God has revealed to me that it's true and I've seen the good that comes from it. I believe the Bible for the same reasons.

God is active in the world. And I've seen Him act in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You might not believe me. Honestly, I completely understand that. We've had different experiences. It would be foolish to think we all have the same experiences to judge by. All I can do is offer to lift you up. All I can do is share what I've experienced and invite you or anyone else to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and take the challenge God has given to read it and ask Him whether it's true or not. After that it's between you and God.

I think God wants us to share who we are, even if we differ. He wants us to lift up one another. And if I can't persuade you that my way is better, than I want to lift you up in your way. I want you to be closer to God, even if we disagree on theology. I want to be friends, though I readily admit, my behavior isn't condusive to that all the time.

I didn't intend this post to be long. Hope I didn't bore too much


----------



## Hister

Av, so people who can't read can't find your god?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister, you are not making sense.  The Mormons also rely on person to person testimony, so, yes, the illiterate also have a chance with Mormonism to hear the word.

Why are you trolling the LDS.  Were you excommunicated?  Did you commit adultery?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Do you have to be somewhat of a retard to be a mormon? It's not like anyone of them has ever split the atom or anything...



My mission president invented Teflon. So think of us whenever you are flipping your eggs in your non-stick pans.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Geez, I was just asking if there were any inventor or discoverers of anything from the mormon crowd. Sounds like a simple enough question. You 'tards are all defensive because you're frustrated that there are none, ok, maybe ONE guy who may have helped in the development of the tv. So you attack me. Mormons and their supporters sure are a mature crowd.



ok mister maturity,
 nobody here is frustrated. We're just wondering why you are putting yourself through this embarrasing expose of your personality disorder.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's very well put, I think, Truthspeaker.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Av, so people who can't read can't find your god?



Of course they can find God.  The Lord blessings the efforts we make to find Him. 

And those who can't read can be taught. And I hope they are.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Av, so people who can't read can't find your god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can find God.  The Lord blessings the efforts we make to find Him.
> 
> And those who can't read can be taught. And I hope they are.
Click to expand...


If some mormons marry several wives, there can't be enough girls to go around. What do all the single guys do? Turn gay?


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Av, so people who can't read can't find your god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can find God.  The Lord blessings the efforts we make to find Him.
> 
> And those who can't read can be taught. And I hope they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If some mormons marry several wives, there can't be enough girls to go around. What do all the single guys do? Turn gay?
Click to expand...


The issue hasn't really ever come up.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can find God.  The Lord blessings the efforts we make to find Him.
> 
> And those who can't read can be taught. And I hope they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If some mormons marry several wives, there can't be enough girls to go around. What do all the single guys do? Turn gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue hasn't really ever come up.
Click to expand...


Now you're just playing (?) dumb. Last year there was a National Geographic issue that talked about that and said that a lot of the young single males were forced out of the polygamy community, so they wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Avatar4321

Not playing dumb. They aren't Mormons. 

I suppose all Jews are responsible for what Christians do? 

Or all Catholics are responsible for what Protestants do?

Are Hindu's responsible for what Buddhists do?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints are, regardless of Avatar alleges, of course Mormon.  The LDS have tried to corral the title "Mormon" and the courts shot that down.  A "Mormon" is any person who follows Joseph Smith as a prophet of the restoration and believes that the Book of Mormon as true, revealed scripture.  To suggest one denomination in Mormonism are the only "Mormons" makes reason stare and is simply not supported by the professional occupations in the U.S.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Av, so people who can't read can't find your god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can find God.  The Lord blessings the efforts we make to find Him.
> 
> And those who can't read can be taught. And I hope they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If some mormons marry several wives, there can't be enough girls to go around. What do all the single guys do? Turn gay?
Click to expand...


The Church does not recognize plural marriages and has not  since about 1890. You get kicked out if you have multiple wives.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> The Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints are, regardless of Avatar alleges, of course Mormon.  The LDS have tried to corral the title "Mormon" and the courts shot that down.  A "Mormon" is any person who follows Joseph Smith as a prophet of the restoration and believes that the Book of Mormon as true, revealed scripture.  To suggest one denomination in Mormonism are the only "Mormons" makes reason stare and is simply not supported by the professional occupations in the U.S.



No a Mormon is someone who is baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who hasn't been excommunicated or voluntarily left. 

Heaven forbid i actually look at the dictionary definition.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The dictionary definitions vary on this, and you know that, Avatar.  Don't be duplicitous, please.

A member of the LDS church (Hq'd in SLC) is only one type of Mormon, for there have been hundreds of denominations within Mormonism since 1831.  The Temple Lot Case (1893) awarded the legal church status of Joseph Smith's organization to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (now the Community of Christ), not the Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If any church has a legal right to the word it would be the Community of Christ.

Let's stay with the facts, Avatar.


----------



## JBeukema

When I hear Mormon, I think of the slaughter of innocent children so they might go to heaven.

But that's probably just because of the historical facts regarding the religion.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E4M39FRIGc"][/ame]


----------



## JBeukema

I wonder whether they've a church at Mountain Meadows.

Is that anything like putting real Mosque actually AT Ground Zero?


----------



## JBeukema

RetiredGySgt said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can find God.  The Lord blessings the efforts we make to find Him.
> 
> And those who can't read can be taught. And I hope they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If some mormons marry several wives, there can't be enough girls to go around. What do all the single guys do? Turn gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Church does not recognize plural marriages and has not  since about 1890. You get kicked out if you have multiple wives.
Click to expand...



So they've abandoned the Word of God as given to Joseph Smith (although he couldn't translate the template twice or remember what he made up the first time)?

Why have they ejected Gd, choosing Satan instead?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> If some mormons marry several wives, there can't be enough girls to go around. What do all the single guys do? Turn gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Church does not recognize plural marriages and has not  since about 1890. You get kicked out if you have multiple wives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So they've abandoned the Word of God as given to Joseph Smith (although he couldn't translate the template twice or remember what he made up the first time)?
> 
> Why have they ejected Gd, choosing Satan instead?
Click to expand...


You are a bigot. A hater. Do not try to debate this with anyone that is actually in the church, you look like a fool. Plural marriages were ordered by Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Church. In 1890 the then Prophet ordered them no more. Prophets act on God's word.

One of God's orders is to obey the laws of the Country you are in. By 1890 it was clear the church was always going to be in the United States. The laws of this country are clear. No Plural marriages. Thus God ordered the Prophet to do away with them with in the Church.

Next time perhaps you should actually LEARN about what it is you are going to attack, so you do not look like a fool and an idiot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

A non-Mormon actually can defend the LDS Church or any organization when necessary, for a non-member, if s/he be honest and without bias, has no axe to grind.


----------



## Hister

Sorry sarge, but plural marriages are still going on in the US and Canada. But from what I could tell, the women were extremely ugly, so it didn't seem like such a bonus to have to fuck them all once and a while.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister, you know very well those marriages are not authorized in the mainstream Mormon church headquartered in Salt Lake.  They have not been since 1890.  You are talking about smaller, crazy outfits of Mormonism.


----------



## Hister

JakeStarkey said:


> Hister, you know very well those marriages are not authorized in the mainstream Mormon church headquartered in Salt Lake.  They have not been since 1890.  You are talking about smaller, crazy outfits of Mormonism.



They are considered part of the mormon flock, probably secretly okayed by the mormon pope.  Now go wipe the shit off your lips.


----------



## Liability

Potent Mormon thread bumpacy is required.

Bumpity bumpity bump.

No slacking.

Get to it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hister, you know very well those marriages are not authorized in the mainstream Mormon church headquartered in Salt Lake.  They have not been since 1890.  You are talking about smaller, crazy outfits of Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are considered part of the mormon flock, probably secretly okayed by the mormon pope.  Now go wipe the shit off your lips.
Click to expand...


No they aren't.

This is exactly why I dislike it when people dishonestly try to claim they are mormon when they aren't. It confuses people rather that lets them know the truth that these people have either been excommunicated or never been Mormon.


----------



## Avatar4321

JBeukema said:


> When I hear Mormon, I think of the slaughter of innocent children so they might go to heaven.
> 
> But that's probably just because of the historical facts regarding the religion.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E4M39FRIGc



And who was slaughtering innocent children to get to heaven?

is there something about mormonism that just requires people to make stuff up about us?


----------



## Liability

Avatar4321 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear Mormon, I think of the slaughter of innocent children so they might go to heaven.
> 
> But that's probably just because of the historical facts regarding the religion.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E4M39FRIGc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who was slaughtering innocent children to get to heaven?
> 
> is there something about mormonism that just requires people to make stuff up about us?
Click to expand...


Apparently.  That last one is a very weird whopper, though.  Clearly, some folks will say anything that pops into their so-called "mind."


----------



## JBeukema

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are a bigot. A hater.



You foll;ow God or Satan, according to the teachings of the Prophets and the Messiah.

If they believe that Smith was given the word of God, then to turn their backs on that Word is to turn their backs on God, thus choosing the god of this world.





> Do not try to debate this with anyone that is actually in the church, you look like a fool. Plural marriages were ordered by Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Church. In 1890 the then Prophet ordered them no more. Prophets act on God's word.




So God can't make up his mind? If the LORD is perfect and his words are perfect, why would he recant them?

Or did God suddenly decide a harem in which 1/3 of the girls were children was suddenly a bad thing?





> One of God's orders is to obey the laws of the Country you are in.



So the Law of Man is more important than the Law of God? That doesn't sound like something God would say, but like something the Deciever would say.


----------



## JBeukema

Avatar4321 said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear Mormon, I think of the slaughter of innocent children so they might go to heaven.
> 
> But that's probably just because of the historical facts regarding the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who was slaughtering innocent children to get to heaven?
> 
> is there something about mormonism that just requires people to make stuff up about us?
Click to expand...






Don't know the history of your own church? When they slaughtered settlers and travelers passing through, the justification for the slaughter of the children was that the children could go to heaven if they were slain, whereas letting them live would mean they'd become stained with sin and go to hell.


----------



## JBeukema

Liability said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear Mormon, I think of the slaughter of innocent children so they might go to heaven.
> 
> But that's probably just because of the historical facts regarding the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who was slaughtering innocent children to get to heaven?
> 
> is there something about mormonism that just requires people to make stuff up about us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently.  That last one is a very weird whopper, though.  Clearly, some folks will say anything that pops into their so-called "mind."
Click to expand...


I see you're not familiar with history.



JBeukema said:


> I wonder whether they've a church at Mountain Meadows.
> 
> Is that anything like putting real Mosque actually AT Ground Zero?


----------



## JakeStarkey

JB, go take your meds, please.  When you can make sense, try your discussion again.


----------



## JBeukema

Why don't you want to talk about Mountain Meadows?


----------



## JBeukema

*Deuteronomy 18:14* For these nations, which thou shalt possess,  hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee,  the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so _to do_.


----------



## JBeukema

It is true that the blood of the Son of   God was shed for sins through the fall and those   committed by men, yet MEN CAN COMMIT SINS WHICH IT   CAN NEVER REMIT. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from   this stand, still the people do not understand   them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are   sins that can be ATONED for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a   lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit,   but THEY MUST BE ATONED FOR BY THE BLOOD OF THE   MAN.(Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol. 4, pages 53-54;   also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)


----------



## JBeukema

&#8220;shall i tell you the law of god in regard to the african race? if the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of cain, the penalty, under the law of god is death on the spot. this will always be so.&#8221;  (journal of discourses, v. 10, p. 110)


----------



## JBeukema

&#8220;and if any man mingle his seed with the seed of cane [sic] the ownly [sic] way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off & spill his blood upon the ground it would also take the life of his children...&#8221; (wilford woodruff's journal, recording a speech by brigham young,  january 16, 1852, typed copy; original located in lds church archives).


----------



## JBeukema

&#8220;i say, rather than that apostates should flourish here, i will unsheath my bowie knife, and conquer or die. (great commotion in the congregation, and a simultaneous burst of feeling, assenting to the declaration.) now, you nasty apostates, clear out, or judgment will be put to the line, and righteousness to the plummet. (voices, generally, 'go it, go it.') if you say it is right, raise your hands. (all hands up.) let us call upon the lord to assist us in this, and every good work.&#8221; (journal of discourses, vol. 1, page 83)


----------



## JBeukema

&#8220;this is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.  any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. that is the way to love mankind.&#8221; (sermon by brigham young, delivered in the mormon tabernacle, feb. 8, 1857, printed in the deseret news, feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the journal of discourses, vol. 4, pp. 219-220)




wait.... you didn't actually want the answer, did you? You wanted to pretend none of it was true?




This, people, if the truth about mormons


----------



## JBeukema

the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible,... and so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of god, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the south, in consequence of their holding the sons of ham in servitude.... i can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of god in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that god can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel. 
(history of the church, by joseph smith, vol. 2, pages 436-438)


----------



## JBeukema

John Taylor, who became the third President of the Mormon Church, had this to say   concerning the abolitionist Horace Greeley after Mr. Greeley visited Utah:
&#8220;... I WOULD NOT TALK TO HIM: I FELT MYSELF SUPERIOR TO SUCH A MEAN     CONTEMPTIBLE CUR. I knew he was not after truth, but falsehood. &#8220;This Greeley is one     of their popular characters in the East, and one that supports the stealing of ******* and     the underground railroad....he is one of the prominent newspaper editors in the Eastern     country, and he is a POOR, MISERABLE CURSE.&#8221; (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 119)
​


----------



## JakeStarkey

JBeukema said:


> Why don't you want to talk about Mountain Meadows?



The Meadows is a very small piece of history when compared to the Inquisition, or the precursors of evangelicals and pentacostals, etc, the Puritans hanging Quaker women for their public testimonies.

I like your quotes from the mid-19th Century.  Give us something after 1900, if you can, because what you are giving us comports more with the FLDS than the LDS church.

If you think any religious sect (or atheist believing faith group, for that matter) is without taint . . .  no, you would not be that foolish to think that, so your game here is personal.  Share it with us, please.


----------



## Christopher

JBeukema said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I hear Mormon, I think of the slaughter of innocent children so they might go to heaven.
> 
> But that's probably just because of the historical facts regarding the religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who was slaughtering innocent children to get to heaven?
> 
> is there something about mormonism that just requires people to make stuff up about us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know the history of your own church? When they slaughtered settlers and travelers passing through, the justification for the slaughter of the children was that the children could go to heaven if they were slain, whereas letting them live would mean they'd become stained with sin and go to hell.
Click to expand...


Well, you obviously dont know the whole history.  Maybe you dont want to know it.  Either way, Ill provide you the context, which you always seem to have so many problems including when discussing history.  From my discussions with you before, you continually ignored historical context so that you could maintain your position.  I think that shows your intent here is not for honest discussion, (you do seem to have something in common with Andrew Brietbart who also takes things out of context), however, Im willing to give you another chance.

I actually visited the Mountain Meadows massacre site just a few weeks ago and it is something I will discuss honestly and openly with anyone.  While no church has been built there (as you sarcastically implied), there was a monument constructed and dedicated by the LDS church some years ago in memory of those who were killed in this tragic event.
All the evidence available shows that the massacre was perpetrated by an isolated group of Mormons, with the main leader by the name of John D. Lee.

It was Lees paranoia fostered by previous church persecution, and combined with the increased tensions between the LDS and US troops in Utah which helped create the situation.  Lees paranoia caused him to go so far as to convince a group of Paiutes to attack the emigrants who had supposedly threatened LDS people in southern Utah.  Whether or not the threats were real, did not seem to matter to Lee; he seemed to take them as valid.

Lee, before attacking, went to local church leaders  to try and get support from the local church leaders.  A church council was called together.  The councils decision was that Lee and others were not to attack the emigrants.  He didnt listen and he let his paranoia control him.  The president of the church even sent a letter from Salt Lake City saying to leave the emigrants alone, although the letter came too late (it is 250 miles from Salt Lake City).

Lee was in no way justified by his actions and was put on trial and executed for his crimes.  Others were also put on trial, and convicted, although some ran from the law the rest of their lives.  Regardless of what you are trying to prove here, Lees actions and the others involved in this tragedy go against official church teachings.

Here is what Sharon Chambers, the great-granddaughter of one of the survivors said:


> The people who did this had lost their way. I dont know what was in their minds or in their hearts.  I feel sorrow that this happened to my ancestors. I also feel sorrow that people have blamed the acts of some on an entire group, or on an entire religion.



Are you blaming the acts of some on an entire group?  Are you really trying to find out the truth about Mormons?  Your answers to these questions will show your real intentions here.  That is, if you actually answer the questions.


----------



## JBeukema

Christopher said:


> All the evidence available shows that the massacre was perpetrated by an isolated group of Mormons, with the main leader by the name of John D. Lee.



Except for Young's involvement, condonement, and help covering it up.

But they tried to destroy all those documents...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

JBeukema said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a bigot. A hater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You foll;ow God or Satan, according to the teachings of the Prophets and the Messiah.
> 
> If they believe that Smith was given the word of God, then to turn their backs on that Word is to turn their backs on God, thus choosing the god of this world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not try to debate this with anyone that is actually in the church, you look like a fool. Plural marriages were ordered by Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Church. In 1890 the then Prophet ordered them no more. Prophets act on God's word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So God can't make up his mind? If the LORD is perfect and his words are perfect, why would he recant them?
> 
> Or did God suddenly decide a harem in which 1/3 of the girls were children was suddenly a bad thing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of God's orders is to obey the laws of the Country you are in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the Law of Man is more important than the Law of God? That doesn't sound like something God would say, but like something the Deciever would say.
Click to expand...


I suggest you read the BIBLE as the order is in that document.


----------



## JBeukema

So the bible says that Man's law is more important than God's?

Yet another proof that the people who wrote it couldn't keep their story straight. Very poorly written piece of fiction, it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JB, we have been through this before.

You can't prove that God does not exist, thus your nattering is meaningless on this issue.

Go dig in your sand pile.


----------



## Christopher

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence available shows that the massacre was perpetrated by an isolated group of Mormons, with the main leader by the name of John D. Lee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for Young's involvement, condonement, and help covering it up.
> 
> But they tried to destroy all those documents...
Click to expand...


Where is your credible evidence to support these statements?

By the way, you did not answer my two questions.  What is your real intent here?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints are, regardless of Avatar alleges, of course Mormon.  The LDS have tried to corral the title "Mormon" and the courts shot that down.  A "Mormon" is any person who follows Joseph Smith as a prophet of the restoration and believes that the Book of Mormon as true, revealed scripture.  To suggest one denomination in Mormonism are the only "Mormons" makes reason stare and is simply not supported by the professional occupations in the U.S.



If we're gonna get THAT technical then they can all have the nickname Mormons. It's just a nickname anyway. We're members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The original name of the church as revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet. 

And since we all ("Mormons") believe that the naming of the church must be revealed then that is the only revelation that was ever given to any of the prophets. No other name. We have it.

btw, Jake, hows that sweep taste right now for dem bums?


----------



## Avatar4321

I love how you need to delibrately take quotes out of context to make your points. 

How about instead of butchering the quotes, you just link to the sermons so we can read them ourselves?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The dictionary definitions vary on this, and you know that, Avatar.  Don't be duplicitous, please.
> 
> A member of the LDS church (Hq'd in SLC) is only one type of Mormon, for there have been hundreds of denominations within Mormonism since 1831.  The Temple Lot Case (1893) awarded the legal church status of Joseph Smith's organization to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (now the Community of Christ), not the Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If any church has a legal right to the word it would be the Community of Christ.
> 
> Let's stay with the facts, Avatar.



Too bad it wasn't Joseph's organization. It was the church of Jesus Christ not the church of Joseph Smith. Joseph Said so. not that it matters, but I don't see how a court of man could have any authority in spiritual matters anyway.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So God can't make up his mind?


Just because God gives different commandments in different time periods doesn't mean that he can't make up his mind. It just means, of course, that he is ahead of the curve as always.




> Or did God suddenly decide a harem in which 1/3 of the girls were children was suddenly a bad thing?


God has authorized polygamy at sundry times during the course of human existence. Many of the women involved were under the age of 18. Somewhere in the United States in the late 20th century, the law of the land delineated 17 and under to be a "minor". Children is a very vague term as well. The Virgin Mary was definitely under age 17. Does that make Joseph a pedophile once he took his wife later on after Jesus birth? I'm sure he didn't wait till she was 18. Otherwise he would have been sainted by the Catholics a long time ago The Virgin Joseph.





> So the Law of Man is more important than the Law of God?


When the US made it illegal to marry more than one wife, God revealed the time for plural marriages to cease. The purpose of plural marriage had been fulfilled and the population had flourished and was no longer necessary for the survival of our people. So God would not have his people in a catch 22 with the law. 

but to answer your question: No, the laws of men are not more important than the Law of God. They are not always in agreance with each other all the time either and sometimes that results in the goverments massacring his people. He would not have that at this time.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> When I hear Mormon, I think of the slaughter of innocent children so they might go to heaven.


that's too bad because what you really should be thinking of when you hear of the MMM is that there are evil and mislead people in all religions. Rather than ignorantly blaming the individual's church they claim to be from.











> Don't know the history of your own church?


I'm a church historian.



> When they slaughtered settlers and travelers passing through, the justification for the slaughter of the children was that the children could go to heaven if they were slain, whereas letting them live would mean they'd become stained with sin and go to hell.


That may have been the justification. But it was a renegade act by a mislead group of men from our church who did not understand the doctrine as plainly manifest. That is not nor ever has been our doctrine. 

But not to be off topic but you probably had a major problem with the slaughter of all the "innocent" Hittites, Ammonites and Phillistines that God commanded the children of Israel to slaughter leaving none alive.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> Why don't you want to talk about Mountain Meadows?



On the contrary, what would you like to discuss about it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> It is true that the blood of the Son of   God was shed for sins through the fall and those   committed by men, yet MEN CAN COMMIT SINS WHICH IT   CAN NEVER REMIT. As it was in ancient days, so it is in our day; and though the principles are taught publicly from   this stand, still the people do not understand   them; yet the law is precisely the same. There are   sins that can be ATONED for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a   lamb, of a calf, or of turtle doves, cannot remit,   but THEY MUST BE ATONED FOR BY THE BLOOD OF THE   MAN.(Sermon by Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses,Vol. 4, pages 53-54;   also published in the Deseret News, 1856, page 235)



Excellent quote from Brigham Young describing those who will not apply the blood of Christ in their lives. This answering period will last 1000 years where they will suffer in hell as Christ suffered in order to be redeemed and resurrected as opposed to the righteous being on the earth for the millenium during that same period.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> shall i tell you the law of god in regard to the african race? if the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of cain, the penalty, under the law of god is death on the spot. this will always be so.  (journal of discourses, v. 10, p. 110)



Thank you for omitting what he meant by "death". He goes on to elaborate that it was "spiritual death." and he was right at the time. The Curse over the priesthood had not been lifted and it was contrary to the will of God to intermarry at that time because an entire line of priesthood holders would have been wiped out and ineligible to receive it. 

In God's timing which is not always politically correct, the time for the ban to be lifted was 1978.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> this is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.  any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. that is the way to love mankind. (sermon by brigham young, delivered in the mormon tabernacle, feb. 8, 1857, printed in the deseret news, feb. 18, 1857; also reprinted in the journal of discourses, vol. 4, pp. 219-220)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wait.... you didn't actually want the answer, did you? You wanted to pretend none of it was true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, people, if the truth about mormons



Yeah it sure is. thank you for your COMPLETE lack of understanding of the words of Brigham Young. First times were different, there was no Law in Utah since it was only a territory of Mexico and not a state in the US at the time he made this statement. 

Second: He was referring to murderers or gross sinners who wanted to be forgiven of their sins and volunteer to die in return for the life they had taken. People could volunteer to die in order to answer for their murders. It was not a sanction for people to go and take the law into their own hands. Thank you for your ignorance on this matter. I'm glad I could set it straight.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible,... and so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of god, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the south, in consequence of their holding the sons of ham in servitude.... i can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of god in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that god can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel.
> (history of the church, by joseph smith, vol. 2, pages 436-438)



No one could have said it more brilliantly than Joseph Smith the Prophet. For God's laws are not required to be popular. His timing is better than ours. As is his understanding.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> John Taylor, who became the third President of the Mormon Church, had this to say   concerning the abolitionist Horace Greeley after Mr. Greeley visited Utah:
> ... I WOULD NOT TALK TO HIM: I FELT MYSELF SUPERIOR TO SUCH A MEAN     CONTEMPTIBLE CUR. I knew he was not after truth, but falsehood. This Greeley is one     of their popular characters in the East, and one that supports the stealing of ******* and     the underground railroad....he is one of the prominent newspaper editors in the Eastern     country, and he is a POOR, MISERABLE CURSE. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 119)
> ​



This is why I don't trust the Journal of Discourses. This is why it's never been part of our official doctrine. Because there are interpolations by some who are not the originators of their comments. I simply don't believe John Taylor would call anyone a "******". I've never heard of it's usage by any of our church leaders past or present and I just read the quote in my copy of the book and it reads "blacks" and not "*******".


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the evidence available shows that the massacre was perpetrated by an isolated group of Mormons, with the main leader by the name of John D. Lee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except for Young's involvement, condonement, and help covering it up.
> 
> But they tried to destroy all those documents...
Click to expand...


There are no documents. Or you would have gladly posted them first. Of course you are free to suspect Brigham but sensible people who look at this objectively can easily conclude that there was no motive for Brigham Young to order such a massacre. It was also not feasible because if he wanted to order it, the order would have taken just as long to get to the local leaders as the letter he wrote saying "you must not meddle with them...Let them alone."


----------



## JBeukema

Truthspeaker said:


> "you must not meddle with them...Let them alone."



"If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats."


----------



## JBeukema

_Brethren, do your  duty_


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sensible people conclude no such thing, truthspeaker.  Speak for yourself on this matter.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JBeukema said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you must not meddle with them...Let them alone."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats."
Click to expand...


Correct citation please?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Sensible people conclude no such thing, truthspeaker.  Speak for yourself on this matter.


My reply stands unchanged.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your reply is only for yourself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

How bout 'dem bums?


----------



## JakeStarkey

'dem bums are wandering around in a coma, with me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> 'dem bums are wandering around in a coma, with me.



well you guys could do us a huge favor if you wake up for Los Padres.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Padres and the Giants have to beat up each other for my Dodgers to sneak through.  The Dodgers are, player for player, the best team in the west, but you can't prove it by the standings.


----------



## Hister

Baseball is for spics and nignags.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister is not for the United States of America.  His type would be much happier in a compound with the brotherhood or out at the FEMA camp in Overton.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Joe Smith was a pretty good ballplayer I hear


----------



## JakeStarkey

This Joe Smith?  Joe Smith Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com


----------



## Hister

Jake, it's just that you have a better chance of making the bigs if you come from a voodoo country, it's a fact.
Truthy, did you mean that your Joe Smith liked to play with balls?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister did not play ball well at all with the other boys, and since puberty with any of the girls.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> This Joe Smith?  Joe Smith Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com



No it was just locally Joseph would play when he had extra time. It was noted that they played an early version of Baseball, closer to rounders since baseball had not been completely invented yet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Jake, it's just that you have a better chance of making the bigs if you come from a voodoo country, it's a fact.
> Truthy, did you mean that your Joe Smith liked to play with balls?



My how we digress. It's my fault for bringing up the Giants sweep over the hated team down south who shall not be named in this thread by me.

Joseph was good at everything he did athletically and was noted as being the strongest man in the county.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Until Abraham Lincoln, four years his junior, whipped his ass in early 1842 in a fight, refereed by Stephen Douglas.


----------



## Reject

If you're interested in this particular history, you might want to go to the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Illinois.  They have a massive collection of the internal workings and disputes in the early Mormon community.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is a super point.  Very little has been done with Mormons and their problems in Illinois in context with Lincoln and Douglas, which I find an interesting omission.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Until Abraham Lincoln, four years his junior, whipped his ass in early 1842 in a fight, refereed by Stephen Douglas.



oh come on... it's never been confirmed that they ever met. We know that Joseph met Lincoln's best friend Josiah Steed and mary lincoln attended some of Joseph's trials but it's still not for certain that they met. They may have but if they ever fought, Mary probably wouldn't have been going to Joseph's trials to support him, and Lincoln would have been no match for a man that was a tall order for 6 men to take down.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Abraham Lincoln, four years his junior, whipped his ass in early 1842 in a fight, refereed by Stephen Douglas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh come on... it's never been confirmed that they ever met. We know that Joseph met Lincoln's best friend Josiah Steed and mary lincoln attended some of Joseph's trials but it's still not for certain that they met. They may have but if they ever fought, Mary probably wouldn't have been going to Joseph's trials to support him, and Lincoln would have been no match for a man that was a tall order for 6 men to take down.
Click to expand...


Truth, go read up about Lincoln, his brawling ability, and his strength.  No man in Indiana or Illinois every got close to taking him, when in fact he fact could kick ass on anybody (Lincoln was a bookish man with a bawdy humor and an ability to brawl with the best of his "backwoods" companions (Today in military history: Abraham Lincoln born) ).  Lincoln, when smacking Smith around, pointed to the sky, shouted "Eagle!", and when Smith looked up, Abe kicked him in the nuts.  Don't mess with the Abe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Abraham Lincoln, four years his junior, whipped his ass in early 1842 in a fight, refereed by Stephen Douglas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh come on... it's never been confirmed that they ever met. We know that Joseph met Lincoln's best friend Josiah Steed and mary lincoln attended some of Joseph's trials but it's still not for certain that they met. They may have but if they ever fought, Mary probably wouldn't have been going to Joseph's trials to support him, and Lincoln would have been no match for a man that was a tall order for 6 men to take down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth, go read up about Lincoln, his brawling ability, and his strength.  No man in Indiana or Illinois every got close to taking him, when in fact he fact could kick ass on anybody (Lincoln was a bookish man with a bawdy humor and an ability to brawl with the best of his "backwoods" companions (Today in military history: Abraham Lincoln born) ).  Lincoln, when smacking Smith around, pointed to the sky, shouted "Eagle!", and when Smith looked up, Abe kicked him in the nuts.  Don't mess with the Abe.
Click to expand...


Hah! this is pointless but rich.

Joseph and Abe never fought. Where is this documented of this imagined altercation between two politicians who only would have fought before their political careers began. They would have had to have been younger and less occupied with politics to have engaged in a match. 

What's up with this "Eagle" nonsense? Of course I know Lincoln was a tough dude. But he couldn't handle more than one which Joseph had done before. We'll probably never get anywhere with this but remember Joseph was strong enough to lift the plates around and still fight off an armed mob in the woods.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh come on... it's never been confirmed that they ever met. We know that Joseph met Lincoln's best friend Josiah Steed and mary lincoln attended some of Joseph's trials but it's still not for certain that they met. They may have but if they ever fought, Mary probably wouldn't have been going to Joseph's trials to support him, and Lincoln would have been no match for a man that was a tall order for 6 men to take down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, go read up about Lincoln, his brawling ability, and his strength.  No man in Indiana or Illinois every got close to taking him, when in fact he fact could kick ass on anybody (Lincoln was a bookish man with a bawdy humor and an ability to brawl with the best of his "backwoods" companions (Today in military history: Abraham Lincoln born) ).  Lincoln, when smacking Smith around, pointed to the sky, shouted "Eagle!", and when Smith looked up, Abe kicked him in the nuts.  Don't mess with the Abe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hah! this is pointless but rich.
> 
> Joseph and Abe never fought. Where is this documented of this imagined altercation between two politicians who only would have fought before their political careers began. They would have had to have been younger and less occupied with politics to have engaged in a match.
> 
> What's up with this "Eagle" nonsense? Of course I know Lincoln was a tough dude. But he couldn't handle more than one which Joseph had done before. We'll probably never get anywhere with this but remember Joseph was strong enough to lift the plates around and still fight off an armed mob in the woods.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84bBzAxLXFY]YouTube - John West Commercial: Man Fights Bear for Fish[/ame]


----------



## Hister

I bet Lincoln wouldn't have let Joe Smith shine his wooden leg.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Vehr gut, Hister.


----------



## Truthspeaker

That was one of the funniest commercial's I've ever seen. I shed tears.


----------



## FA_Q2

A friend of mine recently told me that Mormons believe that Jesus visited the Americas and the natives did not follow him.  As punishment he turned the natives skin red.  As a general rule, I do not believe the random babbles of people about religions that they are not a part of but would like to know if this was completely off base here.  Thanks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The argument is about "pure and white" compared to "pure and delightsome."  The change in these Book of Mormon terms have to with the coloring of the Lamanites and their wickedness.  The second term replaced the first term after the 1978 announcement that all worthy blacks could hold the priesthood: that means they could have all of the work and blessings associated with a LDS temple.

Look the terms up and you will find plenty on it out in cyber land.


----------



## Hister

Are mormons ok with fudgepackers?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister, you are homosexual, so why would you ask the question?


----------



## Hister

I'm not a homo, but am thinking of joining the mormons so I can sit around with other douchers and excommunicate homos. Should be a gas!


----------



## JakeStarkey

But you have said you are attracted to your own sex.  Or are you bi-sexual?


----------



## Hister

JakeStarkey said:


> But you have said you are attracted to your own sex.  Or are you bi-sexual?



Never said that, lol. I think you're projecting again.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> A friend of mine recently told me that Mormons believe that Jesus visited the Americas and the natives did not follow him.  As punishment he turned the natives skin red.


Thanks for your question and please allow me to answer with more validity than any non-lds opinion on this subject.

Yes we do believe that Jesus came to the peoples living in America shortly after his resurrection. But contrary to what you may have heard, the people DID listen to him and were very sad to see him leave when he did. In fact, his coming and teachings led to a peace in the land which has never been seen since. It lasted over 200 years and was described as the happiest a people could ever have been. They thrived in this time but after 400 years the people had gradually fallen into apostacy and denied the Christ. They had become so wicked that they killed anyone who would not deny their belief in Christ.

Also contrary to what you've heard, this Utopian period was the time in which the curse of the "skin of blackness"was lifted from the Lamanite people. There is no more curse of the "skin of blackness" since that time and has never been associated with curse of the priesthood on people of African descent. Not to be confused.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The argument is about "pure and white" compared to "pure and delightsome."  The change in these Book of Mormon terms have to with the coloring of the Lamanites and their wickedness.  The second term replaced the first term after the 1978 announcement that all worthy blacks could hold the priesthood: that means they could have all of the work and blessings associated with a LDS temple.
> 
> Look the terms up and you will find plenty on it out in cyber land.



Jake the Book of Mormon has not undergone any changes on the subject. It still reads thus:
1 Nephi 5:21

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. 

Also of reference is Jacob Chapter 3 in which the prophet Jacob is chastising the Nephites for their racism:

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father&#8212;that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. 
  6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people. 
  7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator? 
  8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. 
  9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.


----------



## froggy

Mormonism and Black Skin 



&#8220;But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332



    When Mormon missionaries come to the door of literally thousands of potential converts they will assure the unsuspecting that they represent "Jesus Christ" and are preaching His Gospel. However, that is not the case on many accounts.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is about "pure and white" compared to "pure and delightsome."  The change in these Book of Mormon terms have to with the coloring of the Lamanites and their wickedness.  The second term replaced the first term after the 1978 announcement that all worthy blacks could hold the priesthood: that means they could have all of the work and blessings associated with a LDS temple.
> 
> Look the terms up and you will find plenty on it out in cyber land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the Book of Mormon has not undergone any changes on the subject. It still reads thus:
> 1 Nephi 5:21
> 
> 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
> 
> Also of reference is Jacob Chapter 3 in which the prophet Jacob is chastising the Nephites for their racism:
> 
> 5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fatherthat they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
> 6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.
> 7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?
> 8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
> 9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
Click to expand...


Nice try, but you have not specifically addressed the changes and the reasons for it in the terms.

Shall we look at what your prophets in the 19th century had to say about it . . . hmmmm?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Mormonism and Black Skin
> 
> 
> 
> But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332
> 
> 
> 
> When Mormon missionaries come to the door of literally thousands of potential converts they will assure the unsuspecting that they represent "Jesus Christ" and are preaching His Gospel. However, that is not the case on many accounts.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.



Correction. It was not because of their black skin that they could not hold the priesthood. It was because of their lineage. The skin of blackness givent to them was a mark to help them deal with the environment God knew they would be living in for thousands of years. The Sun drenched land of Africa.  Don't confuse the two. Lamanites were allowed to hold the priesthood in the book of Mormon despite their skin color. For them to have remained light skinned would have been most unconvenient in Africa.

Unpopular as it may sound here in the politically correct society we live in, nevertheless it is true.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The argument is about "pure and white" compared to "pure and delightsome."  The change in these Book of Mormon terms have to with the coloring of the Lamanites and their wickedness.  The second term replaced the first term after the 1978 announcement that all worthy blacks could hold the priesthood: that means they could have all of the work and blessings associated with a LDS temple.
> 
> Look the terms up and you will find plenty on it out in cyber land.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake the Book of Mormon has not undergone any changes on the subject. It still reads thus:
> 1 Nephi 5:21
> 
> 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
> 
> Also of reference is Jacob Chapter 3 in which the prophet Jacob is chastising the Nephites for their racism:
> 
> 5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our fatherthat they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
> 6 And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people.
> 7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?
> 8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
> 9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but you have not specifically addressed the changes and the reasons for it in the terms.
> 
> Shall we look at what your prophets in the 19th century had to say about it . . . hmmmm?
Click to expand...


uhh... What changes? The book of mormon still reads white and delightsome. We're not hiding from that statement. It still talks about White skin being more desirable than black skin at that time. What are you talking about?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism and Black Skin
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332
> 
> 
> 
> When Mormon missionaries come to the door of literally thousands of potential converts they will assure the unsuspecting that they represent "Jesus Christ" and are preaching His Gospel. However, that is not the case on many accounts.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction. It was not because of their black skin that they could not hold the priesthood. It was because of their lineage. The skin of blackness givent to them was a mark to help them deal with the environment God knew they would be living in for thousands of years. The Sun drenched land of Africa.  Don't confuse the two. Lamanites were allowed to hold the priesthood in the book of Mormon despite their skin color. For them to have remained light skinned would have been most unconvenient in Africa.
> 
> Unpopular as it may sound here in the politically correct society we live in, nevertheless it is true.
Click to expand...


If you go this way, Truth, you are going to have to admit everything that Brother Brigham and Brother John and Brother Rudger taught about blacks.  You can't cherry pick what you want.  Be very careful about "pure and delightsome" and "white and delightsome."


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism and Black Skin
> 
> 
> 
> But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332
> 
> 
> 
> When Mormon missionaries come to the door of literally thousands of potential converts they will assure the unsuspecting that they represent "Jesus Christ" and are preaching His Gospel. However, that is not the case on many accounts.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction. It was not because of their black skin that they could not hold the priesthood. It was because of their lineage. The skin of blackness givent to them was a mark to help them deal with the environment God knew they would be living in for thousands of years. The Sun drenched land of Africa.  Don't confuse the two. Lamanites were allowed to hold the priesthood in the book of Mormon despite their skin color. For them to have remained light skinned would have been most unconvenient in Africa.
> 
> Unpopular as it may sound here in the politically correct society we live in, nevertheless it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you go this way, Truth, you are going to have to admit everything that Brother Brigham and Brother John and Brother Rudger taught about blacks.  You can't cherry pick what you want.  Be very careful about "pure and delightsome" and "white and delightsome."
Click to expand...


I'm quite sure I've been as thorough as I could ever have been on this subject since it's been coming up ad nauseum for over a year now. I'm not afraid of our prophet's words.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sure, you are.  But you will say what you always say.  What a prophet says prophetically or authoritatively then is not prophesy or authority now.  The LDS church has been very good at developing that defense the last 25 years.

I will give you a gimme: all this talk about the Book of Mormon and DNA and Lamanites and Lehi and narrow-geography and continental-geography and so forth and so on ad infinitum ad nauseum?  The right answer is simple.  The book purports to be a testimony of Jesus as the Christ, not a geography book.


----------



## Hister

Do mormons sleep with all their wives at once? Like a gangbang?
Do they swap broads for fun? Maybe fuck each others daughters?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Sure, you are.  But you will say what you always say.  What a prophet says prophetically or authoritatively then is not prophesy or authority now.  The LDS church has been very good at developing that defense the last 25 years.
> 
> I will give you a gimme: all this talk about the Book of Mormon and DNA and Lamanites and Lehi and narrow-geography and continental-geography and so forth and so on ad infinitum ad nauseum?  The right answer is simple.  The book purports to be a testimony of Jesus as the Christ, not a geography book.



Of course it is not a geography lesson. What we think we know about geography is gathered from many writings which can be vague at times. Nevertheless, testimony is far more important than geography.

I'll say this about prophets. They're people, capable of sinning just like all of us. Were some of them racists? It's possible. But if there wasn't something repugnant about all of us; one may be a liar, a thief, a racist, a coward, etc, but all are children of God and can overcome such temptations. 

There are no prophets without blemish....SURPRISE!!!!!!! So do prophets sometimes make erroneous statements or deeds. But definitely less frequently than others. By the Grace of Christ we can all be cleansed from our sins, and may we all focus on cleaning our inward vessels.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am glad to see evangelicalism informing your understanding of grace and salvation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't like doing this, but I will to folks who are simply trying to be awful to others.  Hister, goodbye.  You are on ignore.  Irony informs me how amusing this is because I am not LDS.


----------



## Hister

I'm just trying to figure out why so many people think mormons are such douches. It's like trying to hate retarded people, it's hard because they're usually so nice.

Jake you might not be LDS, but you're squeezing your starfish so tight you have shit coming out your ears. Try to relax.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister, I can see your name but not read what you post.


----------



## Hister

See? Your mama was right, it does make you go blind!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I am glad to see evangelicalism informing your understanding of grace and salvation.



Take it with a grain of salt. You know we believe that we are saved by grace, after all we can do.


----------



## Truthspeaker

who is the picture on your avatar Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey

A guy who has been dead a long, long time.

Not too worry: I am sure his "for the dead" rituals have all been done.


----------



## HUGGY

Histeryicalsister, JakeThe Flake, and the EVILTruthSlayer..  Fuck y'all.  This is over when I say it's over your grace not withstanding.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> A guy who has been dead a long, long time.
> 
> Not too worry: I am sure his "for the dead" rituals have all been done.



So you claim this is another photo of Joseph Smith?

And no not all the baptisms for the dead have been done. Not even close to close.


----------



## JakeStarkey

HUGGY said:


> Histeryicalsister, JakeThe Flake, and the EVILTruthSlayer..  Fuck y'all.  This is over when I say it's over your grace not withstanding.



Yo, Huggy, you atheistic "drop and leave Mexican sleeper terror baby", how ya doin?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> A guy who has been dead a long, long time.
> 
> Not too worry: I am sure his "for the dead" rituals have all been done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you claim this is another photo of Joseph Smith?
> 
> And no not all the baptisms for the dead have been done. Not even close to close.
Click to expand...


No, that isn't JS a'tall, TS.  I am pretty sure the guy's temple work has been done for him.


----------



## Truthspeaker

These are possibilities: The death mask is the only thing we have that's been verified.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Numbers 1 and 2 have been dismissed, I believe.  The death masks of HS and JS are something, aren't they?


----------



## froggy

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism and Black Skin
> 
> 
> 
> But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332
> 
> 
> 
> When Mormon missionaries come to the door of literally thousands of potential converts they will assure the unsuspecting that they represent "Jesus Christ" and are preaching His Gospel. However, that is not the case on many accounts.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correction. It was not because of their black skin that they could not hold the priesthood. It was because of their lineage. The skin of blackness givent to them was a mark to help them deal with the environment God knew they would be living in for thousands of years. The Sun drenched land of Africa.  Don't confuse the two. Lamanites were allowed to hold the priesthood in the book of Mormon despite their skin color. For them to have remained light skinned would have been most unconvenient in Africa.
> 
> Unpopular as it may sound here in the politically correct society we live in, nevertheless it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you go this way, Truth, you are going to have to admit everything that Brother Brigham and Brother John and Brother Rudger taught about blacks.  You can't cherry pick what you want.  Be very careful about "pure and delightsome" and "white and delightsome."
Click to expand...


They always tell what story fits their need at the time even tho it might change a week later.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Numbers 1 and 2 have been dismissed, I believe.  The death masks of HS and JS are something, aren't they?



Yes they are. I don't believe the first picture because his facial features don't seem prominent enough, especially considering his famous Roman nose.

Number two looks believable but I just don't think he ever got in front of a camera because although cameras had been invented, they weren't widely used and surely he would have mentioned taking a picture in his journals since it would have been such a rare event. #2 is probably doctored but I think it looks like him.

the masks are very interesting and they make me sad. One cannot help but reflect after taking a look.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction. It was not because of their black skin that they could not hold the priesthood. It was because of their lineage. The skin of blackness givent to them was a mark to help them deal with the environment God knew they would be living in for thousands of years. The Sun drenched land of Africa.  Don't confuse the two. Lamanites were allowed to hold the priesthood in the book of Mormon despite their skin color. For them to have remained light skinned would have been most unconvenient in Africa.
> 
> Unpopular as it may sound here in the politically correct society we live in, nevertheless it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you go this way, Truth, you are going to have to admit everything that Brother Brigham and Brother John and Brother Rudger taught about blacks.  You can't cherry pick what you want.  Be very careful about "pure and delightsome" and "white and delightsome."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They always tell what story fits their need at the time even tho it might change a week later.
Click to expand...


That's the beauty of modern revelation. You act as though it's a bad thing. Times change people change, and so there needs to be new revelations to govern God's people during those times of change. God is not a god of outdated practices. He's always up on the latest.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Histeryicalsister, JakeThe Flake, and the EVILTruthSlayer..  Fuck y'all.  This is over when I say it's over your grace not withstanding.



Welcome back Huggy-hoff. How's you're little thread doing? Have you passed us yet in views and pages? Not that I care but it would be a useless fact I'd like to know.

How's it feel to be one year closer to death with no hope of a resurrection. Must get worse every year for you non-believers.

There's still time you know. You could get this whole religious thing figured out in time so that you don't wake up after you die and realize "Oh crap! I'm still alive! Now what the hell- I mean heck am I supposed to do?


----------



## Avatar4321

One of these days it would be nice to have productive discussions about the doctrines on one of these threads.

Sadly, I think this  like many other threads gets into irrelevant things.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Like when is a prophet being a prophet?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> One of these days it would be nice to have productive discussions about the doctrines on one of these threads.
> 
> Sadly, I think this  like many other threads gets into irrelevant things.



Well we used to have more of it but now we just get trolls and Jake.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Like when is a prophet being a prophet?



 A prophet is a prophet always. But he doesn't always behave like one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when is a prophet being a prophet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A prophet is a prophet always. But he doesn't always behave like one.
Click to expand...


I am not concerned about behavior but rather that the doctrine changes for an unchanging God.

But that is a discussion for another day.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you go this way, Truth, you are going to have to admit everything that Brother Brigham and Brother John and Brother Rudger taught about blacks.  You can't cherry pick what you want.  Be very careful about "pure and delightsome" and "white and delightsome."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They always tell what story fits their need at the time even tho it might change a week later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the beauty of modern revelation. You act as though it's a bad thing. Times change people change, and so there needs to be new revelations to govern God's people during those times of change. God is not a god of outdated practices. He's always up on the latest.
Click to expand...


Since Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), and since our God has said, "...I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Mal. 3:6), why not put your whole trust in Him for deliverance? Remember, Paul says that it is not ourselves that we trust, but God - the same Person Who delivered Christ (and us) from death.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Histeryicalsister, JakeThe Flake, and the EVILTruthSlayer..  Fuck y'all.  This is over when I say it's over your grace not withstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back Huggy-hoff. How's you're little thread doing? Have you passed us yet in views and pages? Not that I care but it would be a useless fact I'd like to know.
> 
> *How's it feel to be one year closer to death with no hope of a resurrection. Must get worse every year for you non-believers.*
> 
> There's still time you know. You could get this whole religious thing figured out in time so that you don't wake up after you die and realize "Oh crap! I'm still alive! Now what the hell- I mean heck am I supposed to do?
Click to expand...


Too bad you have no proof of any resurrection, which means you're just a deluded boob who believes in fairy tales.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when is a prophet being a prophet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A prophet is a prophet always. But he doesn't always behave like one.
Click to expand...


One incorrect or bad prophecy, and a prophet is a "false prophet".....

Also the bible says that "death" for that false prophet is justice-done.

J.S. Jr. has a major string of false prophecies........"false prophet"

A true prophet is a "mouthpiece" of God......He/she "can't" make false prophecies.

J.S. Jr. is just one of a long string of false prophets......i.e. Mohammed, Balaam, White(7th Day Adventist Prophetess), Russel(Watch Tower), Reverend Moon(Moonies), Hubbard(Scientology), Mary Baker Eddy(Christian Science)........


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when is a prophet being a prophet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A prophet is a prophet always. But he doesn't always behave like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One incorrect or bad prophecy, and a prophet is a "false prophet".....
> 
> Also the bible says that "death" for that false prophet is justice-done.
> 
> J.S. Jr. has a major string of false prophecies........"false prophet"
> 
> A true prophet is a "mouthpiece" of God......He/she "can't" make false prophecies.
> 
> J.S. Jr. is just one of a long string of false prophets......i.e. Mohammed, Balaam, White(7th Day Adventist Prophetess), Russel(Watch Tower), Reverend Moon(Moonies), Hubbard(Scientology), Mary Baker Eddy(Christian Science)........
Click to expand...


And whoever the lead "prophet" is for your faith group, 8ball.  Give grace if you want it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like when is a prophet being a prophet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A prophet is a prophet always. But he doesn't always behave like one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not concerned about behavior but rather that the doctrine changes for an unchanging God.
> 
> But that is a discussion for another day.
Click to expand...


The doctrine doesn't change. But it does get modified from time to time. God has changed the rules many times throughout the course of history. He knows the right time for all updates but the spirit of all his laws are the same. They all point to the sacrifice of the Only Begotten.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They always tell what story fits their need at the time even tho it might change a week later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the beauty of modern revelation. You act as though it's a bad thing. Times change people change, and so there needs to be new revelations to govern God's people during those times of change. God is not a god of outdated practices. He's always up on the latest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8), and since our God has said, "...I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Mal. 3:6), why not put your whole trust in Him for deliverance? Remember, Paul says that it is not ourselves that we trust, but God - the same Person Who delivered Christ (and us) from death.
Click to expand...


We have never put trust in anyone else but Jesus. I don't know what you mean.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Histeryicalsister, JakeThe Flake, and the EVILTruthSlayer..  Fuck y'all.  This is over when I say it's over your grace not withstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back Huggy-hoff. How's you're little thread doing? Have you passed us yet in views and pages? Not that I care but it would be a useless fact I'd like to know.
> 
> *How's it feel to be one year closer to death with no hope of a resurrection. Must get worse every year for you non-believers.*
> 
> There's still time you know. You could get this whole religious thing figured out in time so that you don't wake up after you die and realize "Oh crap! I'm still alive! Now what the hell- I mean heck am I supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad you have no proof of any resurrection, which means you're just a deluded boob who believes in fairy tales.
Click to expand...


Even if I were deluded, it would be better than the alternative-believing life sucks and then you die. I'd end up wearing black lipstick, a trenchcoat and a dog collar if that were true.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister has more faith than a Christian if he believes in atheism.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Histeryicalsister, JakeThe Flake, and the EVILTruthSlayer..  Fuck y'all.  This is over when I say it's over your grace not withstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back Huggy-hoff. How's you're little thread doing? Have you passed us yet in views and pages? Not that I care but it would be a useless fact I'd like to know.
> 
> *How's it feel to be one year closer to death with no hope of a resurrection. Must get worse every year for you non-believers.*
> 
> There's still time you know. You could get this whole religious thing figured out in time so that you don't wake up after you die and realize "Oh crap! I'm still alive! Now what the hell- I mean heck am I supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too bad you have no proof of any resurrection, which means you're just a deluded boob who believes in fairy tales.
Click to expand...


I have the Bible and Book of Mormon two written witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ. I have the witness of Modern Prophets saying:



> 22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
> 
> 23 *For we saw him*, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father
> 
> 24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God (D&C 76:22-24)



Most importantly, I have the witness of the Holy Ghost that testifies with power that the Resurrection is real. That one day our spirit will reunite with our body in immortal glory.

You can deny this all you want. You can disbelieve the evidence placed before you. But it's true nonetheless. You can find out for yourself from the Lord.


----------



## Hister

Jake: I'm an agnostic, the only sane path. No god has been proven, but if one ever is, I'm open to it.
Truthy: when you die, there's a possibility of several scenarios playing out, as an agnostic, nothing has ever been proven, but whatever it is, there's even a good chance that everyone was wrong. And whatever it is, it'll happen to everyone equally, regardless of their personal mental delusions.
Av: you get your info from man-written books of fiction, that about sums it up pretty sadly. Nothing in the bible is provable, the mormon book I'm not really familiar with, but I can't imagine it being a stroke of genius either, from the things that I gather from this thread and elsewhere, like the simpletons who come to my door. Kolob, golden plates, the wacky Smith guy, polygamy... Pretty crazy stuff. And you guys have been going door to door for how long and still mormons are a tiny inconsequential bunch.


----------



## Avatar4321

I love the assumption that they are fiction. 

They aren't. But you don't have to take my word for it. That's the beauty of it all.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> I love the assumption that they are fiction.
> 
> They aren't. But you don't have to take my word for it. That's the beauty of it all.



So you have proof for everything? Ok then, where is kolob? Stumped you on the very first question because I know you don't know.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> A prophet is a prophet always. But he doesn't always behave like one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One incorrect or bad prophecy, and a prophet is a "false prophet".....
> 
> Also the bible says that "death" for that false prophet is justice-done.
> 
> J.S. Jr. has a major string of false prophecies........"false prophet"
> 
> A true prophet is a "mouthpiece" of God......He/she "can't" make false prophecies.
> 
> J.S. Jr. is just one of a long string of false prophets......i.e. Mohammed, Balaam, White(7th Day Adventist Prophetess), Russel(Watch Tower), Reverend Moon(Moonies), Hubbard(Scientology), Mary Baker Eddy(Christian Science)........
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You just don't want to get it.......  If this person claims to be a bible Christian, and has a "Word" from God, and it is unbiblical.........or contradicts the bible, that person has just evoked a false prophecy, and the "church" is to ignore, or ban that person........  They are misleading God's flock.

I don't give a hoot what religion a person belongs to; when they say, that God said this or that via dreams, visions, or other means, and it it is not biblical, then they have produced a false prophecy.  

The bible is the final Word........As it has always been.  It is good for reproof, encouragement, discipline, and especially wisdom.


----------



## Eightball

Hister said:


> Jake: I'm an agnostic, the only sane path. No god has been proven, but if one ever is, I'm open to it.
> Truthy: when you die, there's a possibility of several scenarios playing out, as an agnostic, nothing has ever been proven, but whatever it is, there's even a good chance that everyone was wrong. And whatever it is, it'll happen to everyone equally, regardless of their personal mental delusions.
> Av: you get your info from man-written books of fiction, that about sums it up pretty sadly. Nothing in the bible is provable, the mormon book I'm not really familiar with, but I can't imagine it being a stroke of genius either, from the things that I gather from this thread and elsewhere, like the simpletons who come to my door. Kolob, golden plates, the wacky Smith guy, polygamy... Pretty crazy stuff. And you guys have been going door to door for how long and still mormons are a tiny inconsequential bunch.



It's startling how many deathbed conversions to Christianity have beenn recorded.............Also, the opposite too.  Many have been avowed agnostics and the rarebird atheist, and at death-bed time screamed out in horror, when they were at their last heartbeat, and breath, as they saw that their life had been dedicated to refuting the obvious(Romans Chapter 1 NT), and now the reality of their eternal destiny was truly revealed and coming to them.

Still remember my mother as she was on her deathbed, and she sat up and pointed skyward in that last minute, and the pain left her face and she started to smile, and whisper soft words of excitement as she saw her Redeember and Lord awaiting her.  Then she laid down peacefully and died.  Mom saw things that I didn't, and it happened when her soul and spirit were being taken from her pain ravaged body.   She was a Christian women who had suffered for years with Lupus.  She daily read her bible while she sat up in bed.


----------



## Hister

Eightball said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake: I'm an agnostic, the only sane path. No god has been proven, but if one ever is, I'm open to it.
> Truthy: when you die, there's a possibility of several scenarios playing out, as an agnostic, nothing has ever been proven, but whatever it is, there's even a good chance that everyone was wrong. And whatever it is, it'll happen to everyone equally, regardless of their personal mental delusions.
> Av: you get your info from man-written books of fiction, that about sums it up pretty sadly. Nothing in the bible is provable, the mormon book I'm not really familiar with, but I can't imagine it being a stroke of genius either, from the things that I gather from this thread and elsewhere, like the simpletons who come to my door. Kolob, golden plates, the wacky Smith guy, polygamy... Pretty crazy stuff. And you guys have been going door to door for how long and still mormons are a tiny inconsequential bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's startling how many deathbed conversions to Christianity have beenn recorded.............Also, the opposite too.  Many have been avowed agnostics and the rarebird atheist, and at death-bed time screamed out in horror, when they were at their last heartbeat, and breath, as they saw that their life had been dedicated to refuting the obvious(Romans Chapter 1 NT), and now the reality of their eternal destiny was truly revealed and coming to them.
> 
> Still remember my mother as she was on her deathbed, and she sat up and pointed skyward in that last minute, and the pain left her face and she started to smile, and whisper soft words of excitement as she saw her Redeember and Lord awaiting her.  Then she laid down peacefully and died.  Mom saw things that I didn't, and it happened when her soul and spirit were being taken from her pain ravaged body.   She was a Christian women who had suffered for years with Lupus.  She daily read her bible while she sat up in bed.
Click to expand...


My neighbor once hit my cat with his car, when we found it, it was in the middle of our road, couldn't stand up and had 1 eye hanging from its smashed up face. So I went and got a shovel to kill it, and whacked it on the back of the neck a few times. It then lay flat on its side and started to move its legs as though it was running. Did that for about 30 seconds as I just watched, and then it died. Point being, it looked like she was, in her mind, running through a field as her last thought before death. So your mom's last thought was something comforting to her, doesn't mean she saw god.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> One incorrect or bad prophecy, and a prophet is a "false prophet".....
> 
> Also the bible says that "death" for that false prophet is justice-done.
> 
> J.S. Jr. has a major string of false prophecies........"false prophet"
> 
> A true prophet is a "mouthpiece" of God......He/she "can't" make false prophecies.
> 
> J.S. Jr. is just one of a long string of false prophets......i.e. Mohammed, Balaam, White(7th Day Adventist Prophetess), Russel(Watch Tower), Reverend Moon(Moonies), Hubbard(Scientology), Mary Baker Eddy(Christian Science)........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just don't want to get it.......  If this person claims to be a bible Christian, and has a "Word" from God, and it is unbiblical.........or contradicts the bible, that person has just evoked a false prophecy, and the "church" is to ignore, or ban that person........  They are misleading God's flock.
> 
> I don't give a hoot what religion a person belongs to; when they say, that God said this or that via dreams, visions, or other means, and it it is not biblical, then they have produced a false prophecy.
> 
> The bible is the final Word........As it has always been.  It is good for reproof, encouragement, discipline, and especially wisdom.
Click to expand...


Well your faith is based on the book called the Bible. Fine.

Our faith is based in Jesus Christ, the inspirator of the book.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake: I'm an agnostic, the only sane path. No god has been proven, but if one ever is, I'm open to it.
> Truthy: when you die, there's a possibility of several scenarios playing out, as an agnostic, nothing has ever been proven, but whatever it is, there's even a good chance that everyone was wrong. And whatever it is, it'll happen to everyone equally, regardless of their personal mental delusions.
> Av: you get your info from man-written books of fiction, that about sums it up pretty sadly. Nothing in the bible is provable, the mormon book I'm not really familiar with, but I can't imagine it being a stroke of genius either, from the things that I gather from this thread and elsewhere, like the simpletons who come to my door. Kolob, golden plates, the wacky Smith guy, polygamy... Pretty crazy stuff. And you guys have been going door to door for how long and still mormons are a tiny inconsequential bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's startling how many deathbed conversions to Christianity have beenn recorded.............Also, the opposite too.  Many have been avowed agnostics and the rarebird atheist, and at death-bed time screamed out in horror, when they were at their last heartbeat, and breath, as they saw that their life had been dedicated to refuting the obvious(Romans Chapter 1 NT), and now the reality of their eternal destiny was truly revealed and coming to them.
> 
> Still remember my mother as she was on her deathbed, and she sat up and pointed skyward in that last minute, and the pain left her face and she started to smile, and whisper soft words of excitement as she saw her Redeember and Lord awaiting her.  Then she laid down peacefully and died.  Mom saw things that I didn't, and it happened when her soul and spirit were being taken from her pain ravaged body.   She was a Christian women who had suffered for years with Lupus.  She daily read her bible while she sat up in bed.
Click to expand...


I'm glad your mother had a peaceful death. I'm sure she is happier on the other side. We believe we will all be with our families again if we follow God's commandments.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake: I'm an agnostic, the only sane path. No god has been proven, but if one ever is, I'm open to it.
> Truthy: when you die, there's a possibility of several scenarios playing out, as an agnostic, nothing has ever been proven, but whatever it is, there's even a good chance that everyone was wrong. And whatever it is, it'll happen to everyone equally, regardless of their personal mental delusions.
> Av: you get your info from man-written books of fiction, that about sums it up pretty sadly. Nothing in the bible is provable, the mormon book I'm not really familiar with, but I can't imagine it being a stroke of genius either, from the things that I gather from this thread and elsewhere, like the simpletons who come to my door. Kolob, golden plates, the wacky Smith guy, polygamy... Pretty crazy stuff. And you guys have been going door to door for how long and still mormons are a tiny inconsequential bunch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's startling how many deathbed conversions to Christianity have beenn recorded.............Also, the opposite too.  Many have been avowed agnostics and the rarebird atheist, and at death-bed time screamed out in horror, when they were at their last heartbeat, and breath, as they saw that their life had been dedicated to refuting the obvious(Romans Chapter 1 NT), and now the reality of their eternal destiny was truly revealed and coming to them.
> 
> Still remember my mother as she was on her deathbed, and she sat up and pointed skyward in that last minute, and the pain left her face and she started to smile, and whisper soft words of excitement as she saw her Redeember and Lord awaiting her.  Then she laid down peacefully and died.  Mom saw things that I didn't, and it happened when her soul and spirit were being taken from her pain ravaged body.   She was a Christian women who had suffered for years with Lupus.  She daily read her bible while she sat up in bed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm glad your mother had a peaceful death. I'm sure she is happier on the other side.* We believe we will all be with our families again if we follow God's commandments.*
Click to expand...


Poor you. You're following man's commandments. Your books aren't written by god.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's startling how many deathbed conversions to Christianity have beenn recorded.............Also, the opposite too.  Many have been avowed agnostics and the rarebird atheist, and at death-bed time screamed out in horror, when they were at their last heartbeat, and breath, as they saw that their life had been dedicated to refuting the obvious(Romans Chapter 1 NT), and now the reality of their eternal destiny was truly revealed and coming to them.
> 
> Still remember my mother as she was on her deathbed, and she sat up and pointed skyward in that last minute, and the pain left her face and she started to smile, and whisper soft words of excitement as she saw her Redeember and Lord awaiting her.  Then she laid down peacefully and died.  Mom saw things that I didn't, and it happened when her soul and spirit were being taken from her pain ravaged body.   She was a Christian women who had suffered for years with Lupus.  She daily read her bible while she sat up in bed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad your mother had a peaceful death. I'm sure she is happier on the other side.* We believe we will all be with our families again if we follow God's commandments.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor you. You're following man's commandments. Your books aren't written by god.
Click to expand...


We all follow man's commandments to some degree. We all have to follow the law, which is made by men. 

But I'm under no delusion that the books were written by the finger of God. Scriptures were written by prophets under the inspiration of God. 

But sometimes we lose the originals and then interpolations can be made by the uninspired or deceitful. Thus we have missing or changed portions of scriptures. Thus the need for proper interpretation and explanation from Modern day prophets with regard to the sacred writings.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad your mother had a peaceful death. I'm sure she is happier on the other side.* We believe we will all be with our families again if we follow God's commandments.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor you. You're following man's commandments. Your books aren't written by god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all follow man's commandments to some degree. We all have to follow the law, which is made by men.
> 
> But I'm under no delusion that the books were written by the finger of God. Scriptures were written by prophets *under the inspiration of God*.
> 
> But sometimes we lose the originals and then interpolations can be made by the uninspired or deceitful. Thus we have missing or changed portions of scriptures. Thus the need for proper interpretation and explanation from Modern day prophets with regard to the sacred writings.
Click to expand...


So basically, anyone can make anything up as long as it's inspired by god? Hmmm.


----------



## Eightball

Respectfully Truthspeaker:

Thank you for the kind words about my Mother's passing.
******
I understand your "take" or "direction" on the bible with the premise that these passed-on, recopied letters lose their accuracy through the many years.........

Here, I must respectfully disagree Truthspeaker:  Throughout the bible, the almighty power of a sovereign God is expressed both in the OT and NT.......through prophets and through Christ Himself......as well as His disciples and Apostles.

This is the crux of my disagreement here.  Almighty and sovereign, means that our God has total control over all things.  Even what seems out of control is part of His sovereignty...........yet when it comes to what the O.T. prophets wrote and passed down, as well as the N.T. disciples and Apostles wrote and was handed down, this same God who is the "Same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" is still omnipotent.

Now, "Why?" would this/our omnipotent Creator allow His message to be skewed, mistranslated, twisted, or even allow important parts to be left out.  How could this be according to what you believe, and we still have an "omnipotent" Creator who holds the keys to Hades, Heaven, and all material and unmaterial creation?

When you say that the bible is incomplete because of the age of it's original authorship, how is it that our omnipotent Creator let His message become fuzzy, indistinct, inaccurate.....by your church's teaching?

There seems to be a contradiction here......I see it clearly......Respectfully......


----------



## Avatar4321

God doesn't let His message become Fuzzy because He constantly keeps teaching it to us. The scriptures were provided to us as a tool to bring us to know Christ. They weren't the be all end all of everything God has said or will say.

God speaks from the Heavens. He isn't silent. He isn't just the God of the dead prophets. But He is our Living God. He loves us now.

The danger is when we try to replace God with the scriptures and demand perfection from something that was touched and written by human hands. Doesn't matter how much God inspires us, we are still flawed. We still need Christ and the Atonement.  We need to lean on the Spirit and not just on our own understanding of what we think the scriptures say.

Are we really supposed to believe that God has changed from a God who lovingly reveals Himself to the people living to someone who will only speak to us from our ancestors words?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The danger is when any man or woman allows scriptures and "prophets" to replace one's responsibility to seek God on his or her own, to commune with the infinite, and to receive His direction for one's personal life.  One needs not a church, a scripture, or a prophet for that; in fact, those items are often extraneous.

Avatar, I do hope you know God on your own.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> God doesn't let His message become Fuzzy because He constantly keeps teaching it to us. The scriptures were provided to us as a tool to bring us to know Christ. They weren't the be all end all of everything God has said or will say.
> 
> God speaks from the Heavens. He isn't silent. He isn't just the God of the dead prophets. But He is our Living God. He loves us now.
> 
> The danger is when we try to replace God with the scriptures and demand perfection from something that was touched and written by human hands. Doesn't matter how much God inspires us, we are still flawed. We still need Christ and the Atonement.  We need to lean on the Spirit and not just on our own understanding of what we think the scriptures say.
> 
> Are we really supposed to believe that God has changed from a God who lovingly reveals Himself to the people living to someone who will only speak to us from our ancestors words?



So what happens when the bible is factually wrong? Like the world wasn't made in 6 days, c'mon, does anyone still believe that as a fact? Or that eve was made out of adam's rib? Or that anyone could get 2 of every animal in the world on a boat? 
And if god loves us now, does he also love the ones who die of starvation...? Doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor you. You're following man's commandments. Your books aren't written by god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all follow man's commandments to some degree. We all have to follow the law, which is made by men.
> 
> But I'm under no delusion that the books were written by the finger of God. Scriptures were written by prophets *under the inspiration of God*.
> 
> But sometimes we lose the originals and then interpolations can be made by the uninspired or deceitful. Thus we have missing or changed portions of scriptures. Thus the need for proper interpretation and explanation from Modern day prophets with regard to the sacred writings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, anyone can make anything up as long as it's inspired by god? Hmmm.
Click to expand...


Your statement doesn't make sense. If they're inspired by God, then God is making it up, not the person.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Now, "Why?" would this/our omnipotent Creator allow His message to be skewed, mistranslated, twisted, or even allow important parts to be left out.  How could this be according to what you believe, and we still have an "omnipotent" Creator who holds the keys to Hades, Heaven, and all material and unmaterial creation?



There's a couple of reasons why God has allowed the Bible to not be available to us in it's original form:

1. To show that the best way to know God is to come to Him directly through prayer and meditation. That the testator known as The Holy Ghost be our primary informer. The apostle James himself said so in chapter 1, verse 5 of his works. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.(He didn't say, if any of you lack wisdom, read the Bible.)

2. If God truly meant for the Bible to be the most important source of information regarding His kingdom, I would have been available to Adam and all his children in it's original form, unsullied and we all would have spoken just one language. Certainly not a copied and retranslated version of what is left of the original Bible. 



> When you say that the bible is incomplete because of the age of it's original authorship, how is it that our omnipotent Creator let His message become fuzzy, indistinct, inaccurate.....by your church's teaching?



The Bible is not incomplete or complete because it is merely a collection of some of the writings of the prophets. Many books were left out by the Nicean Creed after much debate. If God intended the Bible to be assembled perfectly, he would have had Jesus or his apostles put the book together long before the international squabble known as the Creed of Nicea. I repeat, The Bible is but a mere blip in the writings and holy teachings of Jesus. John said so himself in the last verse of his gospel.
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. "


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So what happens when the bible is factually wrong? Like the world wasn't made in 6 days, c'mon, does anyone still believe that as a fact? Or that eve was made out of adam's rib?


The Bible is a book that is full of literal and figurative statements. Some of the literal statements are also taken out of context or are hard to understand because the imagery described is often misunderstood by modern readers. The ancients could only speak in terms THEY were familar with. They had idioms and phrases they understood well but are lost on the readers many times.

 This is part of the reason why we need to pray to God for proper understanding of all it's passages. Remember, the Bible is not a golden ticket(an ancient reader would not have seen Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory and therefore would not understand this last statement.) It DOESN'T have all the answers. God is the only one who has all the answers.



> Or that anyone could get 2 of every animal in the world on a boat?



What probably happened is that he got 2 of every major species of animal. Like 2 of every feline, canine, fowl, etc. and the rest of the species we have today were descended from those. It's amazing how fast breeding can populate the earth. But even then maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Noah just took 2 of every kind of animal that the writers of Genesis were familiar with. 

In the end. It's a trivial question and if there was something erroneous found in the Bible, it's ok. It doesn't shatter faith because my faith is not founded on the Bible. But on Jesus Christ himself.


> And if god loves us now, does he also love the ones who die of starvation...? Doesn't make much sense.



It actually makes loads of sense when you understand the plan God has for all His children. Those who suffer in this world will receive equal rejoicing when they are resurrected with perfect immortal physical bodies. They will enjoy life without hunger, pain and suffering more than those who have not suffered. It will balance out in the universe in the end. Remember that suffering is PART of the plan of happiness. For in order to know happiness you must first know suffering and sadness.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> So what happens when the bible is factually wrong? Like the world wasn't made in 6 days, c'mon, does anyone still believe that as a fact? Or that eve was made out of adam's rib?
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible is a book that is full of literal and figurative statements. Some of the literal statements are also taken out of context or are hard to understand because the imagery described is often misunderstood by modern readers. The ancients could only speak in terms THEY were familar with. They had idioms and phrases they understood well but are lost on the readers many times.
> 
> This is part of the reason why we need to pray to God for proper understanding of all it's passages. Remember, the Bible is not a golden ticket(an ancient reader would not have seen Willy Wonka's Chocolate factory and therefore would not understand this last statement.) It DOESN'T have all the answers. God is the only one who has all the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that anyone could get 2 of every animal in the world on a boat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What probably happened is that he got 2 of every major species of animal. Like 2 of every feline, canine, fowl, etc. and the rest of the species we have today were descended from those. It's amazing how fast breeding can populate the earth. But even then maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Noah just took 2 of every kind of animal that the writers of Genesis were familiar with.
> 
> In the end. It's a trivial question and if there was something erroneous found in the Bible, it's ok. It doesn't shatter faith because my faith is not founded on the Bible. But on Jesus Christ himself.
> 
> 
> 
> And if god loves us now, does he also love the ones who die of starvation...? Doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It actually makes loads of sense when you understand the plan God has for all His children. *Those who suffer in this world will receive equal rejoicing when they are resurrected with perfect immortal physical bodies. They will enjoy life without hunger, pain and suffering more than those who have not suffered. It will balance out in the universe in the end. Remember that suffering is PART of the plan of happiness. For in order to know happiness you must first know suffering and sadness.*
Click to expand...


Wow, that's pretty honest of you to admit that the bible isn't a factual historical document. Hope Avatar doesn't report you to the church! 

The part I bolded is total crap though. You have no idea what happens to them when they die, you read that in a book, didn't you? And you already agree that it's not a factual book. So...


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Wow, that's pretty honest of you to admit that the bible isn't a factual historical document. Hope Avatar doesn't report you to the church!



Let's not put words in each other's mouths now. I didn't "admit" anything that you say. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "factual historical document." 

It is a fact that the Bible extists....I believe the things in the Bible happened. I'm not sure of the details and I don't really care what the details are. The book is there to help us build faith in the things we don't have answers for. But if there were no more copies of the bible available and they were all destroyed across the face of the earth, I would still be ok because of my relationship with Christ.



> The part I bolded is total crap though.


 I'm glad you have an opinion. I don't care for it but it's a free world.



> You have no idea what happens to them when they die, you read that in a book, didn't you? And you already agree that it's not a factual book. So...



No idea? Is that just a figure of speech? I've outlined in great detail what happens to people when they die. It's the only thing that makes any sense in this universe. Every other conclusion has holes in it. but the doctrine of our church on life after death is the most iron clad thing there ever was IMHO.
Yes, much of the knowledge gained in this world comes from reading books. You say it as though it's a bad thing.Cheers


----------



## Richard-H

I'm a bit late to this thread, but tell me:

What is significantly different about the Morman religion as compared to other religions?

They all preach 'goodness'. They all preach belief in God.  One believes in John Smith, the next Mohammud, another Moses, yet another Martin Luther. So what?

There's only been a tiny number of significant things said by any of them:

Love thy Neighbor...
Thou shalt not commit murder....
The middle way....

For most people these are statements of the obvious.

The differences from one religion to the next are their beliefs in mystical theology:

A triune god.
Was Jesus infused or impuned in the spirit of God?
Was Jesus God, just a man, or an interim prophet?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

None of which is provable and none of which matters.

I think that organized religions exist just to provide people with a sense of community, without fear of being abused (Most religious people are really nice and trust worthy).

Besides that the religions divide up into different ones primarily for financial and political reasons - then the come up with some lame theological basis (which no one can prove and which doesn't matter much) for dividing.

So tell me what is so different about the Mormon religion?


----------



## Avatar4321

Richard-H said:


> I'm a bit late to this thread, but tell me:
> 
> What is significantly different about the Morman religion as compared to other religions?
> 
> They all preach 'goodness'. They all preach belief in God.  One believes in John Smith, the next Mohammud, another Moses, yet another Martin Luther. So what?
> 
> There's only been a tiny number of significant things said by any of them:
> 
> Love thy Neighbor...
> Thou shalt not commit murder....
> The middle way....
> 
> For most people these are statements of the obvious.
> 
> The differences from one religion to the next are their beliefs in mystical theology:
> 
> A triune god.
> Was Jesus infused or impuned in the spirit of God?
> Was Jesus God, just a man, or an interim prophet?
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
> 
> None of which is provable and none of which matters.
> 
> I think that organized religions exist just to provide people with a sense of community, without fear of being abused (Most religious people are really nice and trust worthy).
> 
> Besides that the religions divide up into different ones primarily for financial and political reasons - then the come up with some lame theological basis (which no one can prove and which doesn't matter much) for dividing.
> 
> So tell me what is so different about the Mormon religion?



Revelation. The Book of Mormon. Restoration of Power


----------



## Richard-H

Avatar4321 said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bit late to this thread, but tell me:
> 
> What is significantly different about the Morman religion as compared to other religions?
> 
> They all preach 'goodness'. They all preach belief in God.  One believes in John Smith, the next Mohammud, another Moses, yet another Martin Luther. So what?
> 
> There's only been a tiny number of significant things said by any of them:
> 
> Love thy Neighbor...
> Thou shalt not commit murder....
> The middle way....
> 
> For most people these are statements of the obvious.
> 
> The differences from one religion to the next are their beliefs in mystical theology:
> 
> A triune god.
> Was Jesus infused or impuned in the spirit of God?
> Was Jesus God, just a man, or an interim prophet?
> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
> 
> None of which is provable and none of which matters.
> 
> I think that organized religions exist just to provide people with a sense of community, without fear of being abused (Most religious people are really nice and trust worthy).
> 
> Besides that the religions divide up into different ones primarily for financial and political reasons - then the come up with some lame theological basis (which no one can prove and which doesn't matter much) for dividing.
> 
> So tell me what is so different about the Mormon religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation. The Book of Mormon. Restoration of Power
Click to expand...


So what? If I had asked the same question to a Catholic they could have answered:

Faith. The Resurrection. The second coming of Christ. The Trinity. The Immaculate Conception.

or some equivalent B.S.

You said nothing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> I'm a bit late to this thread, but tell me:
> 
> What is significantly different about the Mormon religion as compared to other religions?



What is significantly different about us is that we claim to have a prophet like Moses today who speaks to God and is his mouthpiece on earth today. We also believe in the words of the Book of Mormon. What that means is that if those claims are true, then God has revealed lots of new information about how to live a godly life in today's day and age.



> They all preach 'goodness'. They all preach belief in God.  One believes in John Smith, the next Mohammud, another Moses, yet another Martin Luther. So what?



Most preach goodness, but they can't all be right. The laws governing truth dictate that only one of them can be right or all of them are wrong. That's the only conclusion that makes any sense to me. And it's Joseph Smith not John Smith. but no big deal. What is a big deal is the difference between the teachings of each leader. We don't "believe" in Joseph Smith the way you have put it. We believe in Jesus Christ and we accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.



> There's only been a tiny number of significant things said by any of them:
> 
> Love thy Neighbor...
> Thou shalt not commit murder....
> The middle way....
> 
> For most people these are statements of the obvious.



Having studied religion for the last 20 years, I must respectfully disagree. There are lots and lots more points of doctrine beyond the basics that are fundamental to each religion. There is simply much more to it than that.



> The differences from one religion to the next are their beliefs in mystical theology:


Some may be mystical to you and I but some may not be mystical. Those who believe it consider it real. That's a matter for you to decide between you and God.



> A triune god.



We don't believe in a triune God.



> Was Jesus infused or impuned in the spirit of God?



Jesus was His own person. Distinctly a different individual from His Father, whom we call ELOHIM.



> Was Jesus God, just a man, or an interim prophet?



Jesus is a God. His name before Jesus was Jehovah, before he took on a physical body.



> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


Funny





> None of which is provable and none of which matters.



Again I respectfully disagree. All truth matters. If such claims are true, it matters because you would want to follow God's teachings. If they are untrue then it still matters because then you could be freed from dogmatic traditions which hold you down in ignorance.

I





> think that organized religions exist just to provide people with a sense of community, without fear of being abused (Most religious people are really nice and trust worthy).



That is true. That is definitely one of the functions of organized religion.



> Besides that the religions divide up into different ones primarily for financial and political reasons - then the come up with some lame theological basis (which no one can prove and which doesn't matter much) for dividing.



Sadly you are right in most cases, religion is a business for the clergy. Often taking advantage of the faith and sometimes gullibility of their members.



> So tell me what is so different about the Mormon religion?



We believe we have the answers to life's most difficult questions. We don't shy away from questions. We truly have a detailed plan as to what to do with our lives and what will happen after death. The details of which are quite different from other religions.


----------



## Richard-H

Truthspeaker said:


> I'm a bit late to this thread, but tell me:
> 
> What is significantly different about the Mormon religion as compared to other religions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is significantly different about us is that we claim to have a prophet like Moses today who speaks to God and is his mouthpiece on earth today. We also believe in the words of the Book of Mormon. What that means is that if those claims are true, then God has revealed lots of new information about how to live a godly life in today's day and age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all preach 'goodness'. They all preach belief in God.  One believes in John Smith, the next Mohammud, another Moses, yet another Martin Luther. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most preach goodness, but they can't all be right. The laws governing truth dictate that only one of them can be right or all of them are wrong. That's the only conclusion that makes any sense to me. And it's Joseph Smith not John Smith. but no big deal. What is a big deal is the difference between the teachings of each leader. We don't "believe" in Joseph Smith the way you have put it. We believe in Jesus Christ and we accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Having studied religion for the last 20 years, I must respectfully disagree. There are lots and lots more points of doctrine beyond the basics that are fundamental to each religion. There is simply much more to it than that.
> 
> 
> Some may be mystical to you and I but some may not be mystical. Those who believe it consider it real. That's a matter for you to decide between you and God.
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe in a triune God.
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus was His own person. Distinctly a different individual from His Father, whom we call ELOHIM.
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is a God. His name before Jesus was Jehovah, before he took on a physical body.
> 
> 
> Funny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I respectfully disagree. All truth matters. If such claims are true, it matters because you would want to follow God's teachings. If they are untrue then it still matters because then you could be freed from dogmatic traditions which hold you down in ignorance.
> 
> I
> 
> That is true. That is definitely one of the functions of organized religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides that the religions divide up into different ones primarily for financial and political reasons - then the come up with some lame theological basis (which no one can prove and which doesn't matter much) for dividing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly you are right in most cases, religion is a business for the clergy. Often taking advantage of the faith and sometimes gullibility of their members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me what is so different about the Mormon religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe we have the answers to life's most difficult questions. We don't shy away from questions. We truly have a detailed plan as to what to do with our lives and what will happen after death. The details of which are quite different from other religions.
Click to expand...


You sound an awful lot like other religions. They all claim to know these answers to life's greatest questions. They all say that they have the mystical knowledge. That they know the truth. They all claim to know what will happen after death.

I'm not even sure what life's greatest questions are much less what are the answers.

So then, what are "life's most difficult questions" and what are the answers?

Please don't tell me (like other religions), that before I could possibly understand, I would have to spend years of absolute obedience and discipline, studying under some all knowing guru before I'm worthy. That's just a means of tricking people into slavery, servitude and brainwashing.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Wow, that's pretty honest of you to admit that the bible isn't a factual historical document. Hope Avatar doesn't report you to the church!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not put words in each other's mouths now. I didn't "admit" anything that you say. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "factual historical document."
> 
> It is a fact that the Bible extists....I believe the things in the Bible happened. I'm not sure of the details and I don't really care what the details are. The book is there to help us build faith in the things we don't have answers for. But if there were no more copies of the bible available and they were all destroyed across the face of the earth, I would still be ok because of my relationship with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part I bolded is total crap though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you have an opinion. I don't care for it but it's a free world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what happens to them when they die, you read that in a book, didn't you? And you already agree that it's not a factual book. So...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea? Is that just a figure of speech? I've outlined in great detail what happens to people when they die. It's the only thing that makes any sense in this universe. Every other conclusion has holes in it. but the doctrine of our church on life after death is the most iron clad thing there ever was IMHO.
> Yes, much of the knowledge gained in this world comes from reading books. You say it as though it's a bad thing.Cheers
Click to expand...


You yourself agree that not all the stories in the bible are right and are actual events that happened. Like Noah, there's NO WAY he could have rounded up all the animals from Australia, Asia, the Americas... So you agree the bible is a load of crap.

In a nutshell, what will happen to you when you die, where did you find this out, and why is this the only thing that makes sense to you? (or maybe link a previous answer, I wouldn't know which one it is)

Reading books is fine, but you ain't gonna learn a whole lot from Cat in the hat books either.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> You sound an awful lot like other religions.



I'd like to know even one that sounds the same or makes the same claims as we do.



> They all claim to know these answers to life's greatest questions.



Not true. In fact many of them claim that not knowing is part of the plan of God. That that's part of the mystery and wonder of God. That we are supposed to just accept things on blind faith alone. that we ought not search things out in our minds or pray to know the truth of such things.




> They all say that they have the mystical knowledge. That they know the truth. They all claim to know what will happen after death.



Yes but I haven't heard any of their explanations make any sense to me yet.







> So then, what are "life's most difficult questions" and what are the answers?



Well whatever the questions are there is usually an answer, especially if it pertains to your salvation. I don't know what questions you might have but for me it was these:

Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
What happens to me after I die?
Why does suffering exist in the world?
Why does God allow injustice?
Who, what and where is God?
Why do I need a God?
Why doesn't he just show himself if he's really there?

And other such questions.



> Please don't tell me (like other religions), that before I could possibly understand, I would have to spend years of absolute obedience and discipline, studying under some all knowing guru before I'm worthy. That's just a means of tricking people into slavery, servitude and brainwashing.



I'd never tell you such a thing. You are meant to understand everything. God is a god of knowledge who encourages education and discourages ignorance. You can know anything if you learn how to approach God in your private life. If you take the leap of faith that it takes to pray to him and ask for him to answer your questions. If you learn how to meditate and listen for the answers they will come into your mind as sudden strokes of ideas, happy emotions and logical thoughts. It's difficult to describe but it's like a light bulb going on. And everything seems to come together and then you know truth.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> You yourself agree that not all the stories in the bible are right and are actual events that happened. Like Noah, there's NO WAY he could have rounded up all the animals from Australia, Asia, the Americas... So you agree the bible is a load of crap.



No... That's not I said either. I believe the Bible when it says things happened. I believe that there may be things that on the surface don't make sense, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I take it with a grain of salt rather than dismiss it. I believe there are missing pieces that would help it all make sense that we will find one day. Some things may be inexplicable now, but in the end will make sense and I don't want to be the guy who at the last day is found scratching his head and saying. "Why didn't I look at it that way?" I make a point not to draw conclusions on things which have not had a conclusion yet. 

The Bible is the antithesis of a "load of crap". 



> In a nutshell, what will happen to you when you die, where did you find this out, and why is this the only thing that makes sense to you? (or maybe link a previous answer, I wouldn't know which one it is)



When we die, the body and the spirit separate. Then we go to the world of spirits which actually is right here among us. It is a place of either peace and rest, or  a place of ignorance and dismay. It is merely a continuation of this life. The same sociality that exists among us here exists among them there. You will still be you. But not everything is immediately revealed as far as religious correction for those who lived in religious error. 

There will be a great missionary work that still continues and people will still have to make choices to follow God in that arena. The only difference is that EVERYONE will get a chance to hear the full gospel of Christ in it's entirety and therefore accept or reject it.

That's phase 1.

Phase two I will sum up rather quickly. After every soul that has lived or ever will live has had the opportunity to accept or reject the gospel of Christ without fear of reprisal, then comes the final judgment and resurrection of all. The physical body will be reunited with our spirits and we will all still be recognizable as ourselves but any imperfections we had in mortality will be removed in the resurrection. 
This is revealed in parts in the Bible, but more especially in the Book of Mormon(ancient writings of prophets from the Western Hemisphere) and Doctrine and Covenants(revelations given to Joseph Smith and some of his predecessors.)



> Reading books is fine, but you ain't gonna learn a whole lot from Cat in the hat books either.



Quite so, but I'll have you know that knowlege is found in more places than just books. And Dr. Seuss was a genius.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Socialist Party had success in Utah, among Mormons 100 years ago | Standard-Examiner &ndash; Ogden, Layton, Brigham, Weber, Davis, Sports, Entertainment, Dining, Utah Jazz, Real Salt Lake, Ogden Raptors, Top of Utah News

Interesting article on Socialism, Utah, and Mormonism from 1900 to 1920.


----------



## Hister

Tru, do you believe yes or no that Noah rounded up 2 of each animal on this planet with food for 40 days and put it all on a boat that he built?

And your stories about death are messed up, none of that stuff can be proven, but hey, if that keeps you from going postal...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Tru, do you believe yes or no that Noah rounded up 2 of each animal on this planet with food for 40 days and put it all on a boat that he built?
> 
> And your stories about death are messed up, none of that stuff can be proven, but hey, if that keeps you from going postal...



Here's what I personally believe about the Noah situation. This is not the church's doctrine. I believe the Bible. The authors of the book make statements which sometimes are exagerrated and which they expect you to understand what they meant. Then again I could be wrong. 
I believe He rounded up 2 of every major species, not two of every breed. 2 Felines, 2 Canines, 2 bovines at least, 2 birds, 2 Fish(though they probably just swam along). I don't think the author of Genesis knew that people in the 21st century would haggle over the way he said "every kind" He figured he'd just write "every kind" instead of every breed of every dog, llamas, poison dart frogs and ocelots.  No need to trifle with too many details.

Who knows how many were babies and other such particulars. Anywhoo, I don't think Noah did it. I'm sure what happened was God commanded the animals and they obeyed. If you believe in miracles, you believe that if God felt like doing it in that manner, he could. He could show Noah how to build a boat big enough, He could command the animals to do whatever he says, he could provide supplies for all of them if he felt like it. He could even take away the heinous smell it must have had if he felt like it. 

So yes I believe it happened, though most of the details were left out of Genesis because they are unimportant. What's important is this question: Do you believe in miracles?


----------



## Hister

I think I believe in miracles because it's got to be a miracle that anyone could believe that noah bs you just told. So where did all the other species come from? Was there a noah guy on every continent? So what happened to the animals that didn't make in onto a boat? With only 2 of every species, the gene pool isn't big enough to have a lot of the species not die out... oh wait, you don't believe in gene pools... do you? 
You should go tell the head of your church that you don't believe the bible's account of noah's ark, and write back was he says... before you get excommunicated.
Be careful, Avatar is taking notes.


----------



## Richard-H

Truthspeaker said:


> So then, what are "life's most difficult questions" and what are the answers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well whatever the questions are there is usually an answer, especially if it pertains to your salvation. I don't know what questions you might have but for me it was these:
> 
> Where did I come from?
> Why am I here?
> What happens to me after I die?
> Why does suffering exist in the world?
> Why does God allow injustice?
> Who, what and where is God?
> Why do I need a God?
> Why doesn't he just show himself if he's really there?
Click to expand...


Wow, you ask such deeply theological questions! Most of which I really don't think are important in life. Maybe my experiences in life have just perplexed me so much that I wouldn't even approach questions of that magnitude anymore.

But if you know so much about God, you should be able to answer much simpler questions about God's creation. Ones that have perplexed man for all time. These should be easy for you:

Please explain the romantic behavior of women.

Please explain why there are so many nice peaceful people, yet there are so many violent nasty people.

If you know the nature of God, these questions should be easy for you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Wow, you ask such deeply theological questions! Most of which I really don't think are important in life.



Well such questions are important to most of us, at least myself. what's important to one may not be important to another. 





> Maybe my experiences in life have just perplexed me so much that I wouldn't even approach questions of that magnitude anymore.


Perhaps.



> But if you know so much about God, you should be able to answer much simpler questions about God's creation. Ones that have perplexed man for all time. These should be easy for you:


I'll give it my best shot!



> Please explain the romantic behavior of women.


God placed a chemical mixture in the makeup of women to have a strong desire to have a man in their life to love them. If he didn't do it, they would never be attracted to us and there would be no babies. It also makes marriage enjoyable, which is part of the purpose of life in having joy.
Likewise men, surprisingly have the same desire, though at times their desire is less monogamous.




> Please explain why there are so many nice peaceful people, yet there are so many violent nasty people.



Without the urge to be violent people could not choose for themselves to be peaceful. Peace would be forced upon us. Force is Satan's way, while choice is Jesus' way. 

Therefore people are left to their own choices. It is part of the plan of God to give us our complete freedom to choose what type of person we want to be. Thus most people choose to be nice, while others give in to their selfish desires to be violent.

Also since the purpose of existence is to have joy, the righteous could not experience joy in all it's completeness without experiencing the sufferings brought on by violence, etc.




> If you know the nature of God, these questions should be easy for you.


You're right...They were.


----------



## Richard-H

Truthspeaker said:


> Wow, you ask such deeply theological questions! Most of which I really don't think are important in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well such questions are important to most of us, at least myself. what's important to one may not be important to another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe my experiences in life have just perplexed me so much that I wouldn't even approach questions of that magnitude anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps.
> 
> 
> I'll give it my best shot!
> 
> 
> God placed a chemical mixture in the makeup of women to have a strong desire to have a man in their life to love them. If he didn't do it, they would never be attracted to us and there would be no babies. It also makes marriage enjoyable, which is part of the purpose of life in having joy.
> Likewise men, surprisingly have the same desire, though at times their desire is less monogamous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain why there are so many nice peaceful people, yet there are so many violent nasty people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without the urge to be violent people could not choose for themselves to be peaceful. Peace would be forced upon us. Force is Satan's way, while choice is Jesus' way.
> 
> Therefore people are left to their own choices. It is part of the plan of God to give us our complete freedom to choose what type of person we want to be. Thus most people choose to be nice, while others give in to their selfish desires to be violent.
> 
> Also since the purpose of existence is to have joy, the righteous could not experience joy in all it's completeness without experiencing the sufferings brought on by violence, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you know the nature of God, these questions should be easy for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right...They were.
Click to expand...


Well, you've proven two things:

You know nothing about the romantic nature of women (or men).

and 

You know nothing about why some people are nasty and other are nice.

You score a zero. (Sorry, no extra credit for cutesy answers).


----------



## Hister

Hister said:


> I think I believe in miracles because it's got to be a miracle that anyone could believe that noah bs you just told. So where did all the other species come from? Was there a noah guy on every continent? So what happened to the animals that didn't make in onto a boat? With only 2 of every species, the gene pool isn't big enough to have a lot of the species not die out... oh wait, you don't believe in gene pools... do you?
> You should go tell the head of your church that you don't believe the bible's account of noah's ark, and write back was he says... before you get excommunicated.
> Be careful, Avatar is taking notes.



Trut, you avoiding my questions?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hister proves that Hister does not know a darn thing a'tall.


----------



## Hister

Jake, waddaya talkin bout?


----------



## Avatar4321

Actually, I'm not taking notes. Ive barely paid attention to thits thread lately.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Well, you've proven two things:
> 
> You know nothing about the romantic nature of women (or men).



Well thanks for your opinion. You use an interesting word with "proven". I'd like to know how you came to your calculations. If you know something I don't, why don't you share it with the rest of the class.



> You know nothing about why some people are nasty and other are nice.
> 
> You score a zero. (Sorry, no extra credit for cutesy answers).



Well professor, you asked and I answered, hinting that you didn't know the answer to such questions yourself. So are you asking because you're quizzing me or are you trying to actually find an answer? If you don't like my answer, that doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means you don't like it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I believe in miracles because it's got to be a miracle that anyone could believe that noah bs you just told. So where did all the other species come from? Was there a noah guy on every continent? So what happened to the animals that didn't make in onto a boat? With only 2 of every species, the gene pool isn't big enough to have a lot of the species not die out... oh wait, you don't believe in gene pools... do you?
> You should go tell the head of your church that you don't believe the bible's account of noah's ark, and write back was he says... before you get excommunicated.
> Be careful, Avatar is taking notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trut, you avoiding my questions?
Click to expand...


Dude, you're nuts. I've been here taking all the tomatoes thrown at me for nearly 2 years. Ya think I might be able to live my life in between answers?

I don't know where all the other species came from. It's quite possible that they evolved from the ones on Noah's boat. I know about gene pools. They take long times to develop. I'm aware of that. But the Noah incident was incredibly long ago. But I'm not going to say that God hasn't caused more animals to develop since that time. In fact I'll go out on a limb and guarantee that there have been new animals that have come and gone since Noah's time. There's still animals we don't even know exist in the deep part of the junges and oceans.
I'm sure there was only one Noah's ark. and I'm sure there were plenty of sea going animals that didn't need to be in the boat. 

The point is, that there are lots of details that are not included in the Bible. But it doesn't mean that their claims are not true. It's not important to me to know how large the boat was, or the exact inventory of the boat either. what's important to me is not the stories themselves as much as the doctrine taught in the Bible. For doctrine, everyone, is the key. What is your religion teaching you? What are you practicing? Is what you are learning and practicing in harmony with God's will?


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> It's quite possible that they *evolved* from the ones on Noah's boat.



I think you're going to be in a lot of trouble




> What is your religion teaching you? What are you practicing? Is what you are learning and practicing in harmony with God's will?



If god existed and had a will, I'm sure he'd let me know. I'm agnostic and believe in peace and love and tolerance...  just like a follower of jesus should, but think that organized religion is a scam.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite possible that they *evolved* from the ones on Noah's boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be in a lot of trouble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your religion teaching you? What are you practicing? Is what you are learning and practicing in harmony with God's will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If god existed and had a will, I'm sure he'd let me know. I'm agnostic and believe in peace and love and tolerance...  just like a follower of jesus should, but think that organized religion is a scam.
Click to expand...


I don't know why you think I'm in trouble, but things evolve sometimes. There is no doctrine of our church eliminating evolution. Now, evolution is a broad term and a lot of people get a lot of ideas when they hear that word so it's important that you understand what I mean. 
I said it's POSSIBLE that animals evolved from the time of Noah, but I don't know for certain. Scientists don't know either, they just act like they know. They seem to forget all too often that the theory of evolution is a THEORY not a law. So often times when a theory makes a certain amount of sense people tend to treat it as a law which is wrong. Speculation, however educated it may sound, should not be taught at truth.

As for God letting you know His will, I'm sure He is trying every day to get you to listen to Him. But you have to be willing to do it His way, not you're way. That's the one thing He won't take from you, your freedom to choose your lifestyle. 

Don't be like the guy on the rooftop during the flood who says I'm waiting for God to save me, then a lifeboat comes along and he rejects it saying, I'm trusting in God to save me, then a helicopter comes along and drops a ladder and reject it saying "I'm trusting in God to save me." and when he drowns he asks God, Why didn't you save me? I trusted in you. Then God replies: "Nonsense. I sent you a boat and a helicopter and you refused my help."  Don't be that guy.


----------



## Eightball

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite possible that they *evolved* from the ones on Noah's boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're going to be in a lot of trouble
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your religion teaching you? What are you practicing? Is what you are learning and practicing in harmony with God's will?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If god existed and had a will, I'm sure he'd let me know. I'm agnostic and believe in peace and love and tolerance...  just like a follower of jesus should, but think that organized religion is a scam.
Click to expand...


What makes you think He hasn't been pounding you on the head with a 2x4 for many years, but you aren't paying attention.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> I don't know why you think I'm in trouble, but things evolve sometimes. There is no doctrine of our church eliminating evolution. Now, evolution is a broad term and a lot of people get a lot of ideas when they hear that word so it's important that you understand what I mean.
> I said it's POSSIBLE that animals evolved from the time of Noah, but I don't know for certain. Scientists don't know either, they just act like they know. They seem to forget all too often that the theory of evolution is a THEORY not a law. So often times when a theory makes a certain amount of sense people tend to treat it as a law which is wrong. Speculation, however educated it may sound, should not be taught at truth.
> 
> As for God letting you know His will, I'm sure He is trying every day to get you to listen to Him. But you have to be willing to do it His way, not you're way. That's the one thing He won't take from you, your freedom to choose your lifestyle.
> 
> Don't be like the guy on the rooftop during the flood who says I'm waiting for God to save me, then a lifeboat comes along and he rejects it saying, I'm trusting in God to save me, then a helicopter comes along and drops a ladder and reject it saying "I'm trusting in God to save me." and when he drowns he asks God, Why didn't you save me? I trusted in you. Then God replies: "Nonsense. I sent you a boat and a helicopter and you refused my help."  Don't be that guy.



I like the joke, 

So if you believe in evolution, then you don't follow the bible, so how can you call yourself a christian? And  you also question the veracity of the bible. You better die with a bathing suit on, it's going to be pretty hot where you're going! 

If god exists, why doesn't he just hold a press conference on the White House lawn? That would get everyone's attention and he could get us all to do exactly what he wants.


----------



## Eightball

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you think I'm in trouble, but things evolve sometimes. There is no doctrine of our church eliminating evolution. Now, evolution is a broad term and a lot of people get a lot of ideas when they hear that word so it's important that you understand what I mean.
> I said it's POSSIBLE that animals evolved from the time of Noah, but I don't know for certain. Scientists don't know either, they just act like they know. They seem to forget all too often that the theory of evolution is a THEORY not a law. So often times when a theory makes a certain amount of sense people tend to treat it as a law which is wrong. Speculation, however educated it may sound, should not be taught at truth.
> 
> As for God letting you know His will, I'm sure He is trying every day to get you to listen to Him. But you have to be willing to do it His way, not you're way. That's the one thing He won't take from you, your freedom to choose your lifestyle.
> 
> Don't be like the guy on the rooftop during the flood who says I'm waiting for God to save me, then a lifeboat comes along and he rejects it saying, I'm trusting in God to save me, then a helicopter comes along and drops a ladder and reject it saying "I'm trusting in God to save me." and when he drowns he asks God, Why didn't you save me? I trusted in you. Then God replies: "Nonsense. I sent you a boat and a helicopter and you refused my help."  Don't be that guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the joke,
> 
> So if you believe in evolution, then you don't follow the bible, so how can you call yourself a christian? And  you also question the veracity of the bible. You better die with a bathing suit on, it's going to be pretty hot where you're going!
> 
> If god exists, why doesn't he just hold a press conference on the White House lawn? That would get everyone's attention and he could get us all to do exactly what he wants.
Click to expand...


I can think right off the top of my head, one very piercing and to-the-point press conference brought to all non-Christians...........

Just take a deep breath, and read the first chapter of the Book of Romans authored by the Apostle Paul.

Chapter 1, clearly and concisely reveals how very obvious God has made Himself to all of creation..........which does include humanity.......and how we/humanity are "without excuse" when we continue in "unbelief".

Even my 7 year old grandson in his very child like simple way has expressed to me his belief in God.  He's told grandpa, how incredible he finds nature.......trees, animals, microscopic life.......volcanoes, weather, cellular life..............and on and on..........This 7 year old grandson marvels in his very childlike and simple way..........

Somehow when we reach adulthood, we ignore that side of our life, and start to rebell against the elemental, things that we saw and believed in our youth.

Just as Christ says that we must come to Him with a childlike faith.........and that is not a stupid or ignorant faith..........but He means a simple, innocent, faith, without hangups over things.........that just sees a intelligent creativity in life itself, without getting hung up on wanting more and more proofs that really just underlie a rebellious unbelief(willful unbelief).

As He said........."Suffer not these little ones to come to Me".  For some reason, children saw in Christ, the divine, expressed in a forgiving, and unjudgemental love, that just desired the best for mankind, and a restoration of mankind to a close, intimate relationship with God.

Christ even said, "I and the Father are One"........If you know Christ, you know the Father.  To know Christ is to trust and believe He is who He says He is.

It's funny how people who refuse Christianity will say that Christ was a good guy, He taught good things, and He died for that..........Yet, those same people will refuse to put their trust in Him as their personal Saviour.   In other words, He's an ok guy, and as far as we know He never did anything bad, and in fact did some pretty amazing stuff as recorded in the bible, but put my trust in Him, no way.

What do unbelievers think will happen if they were to actually exert a childlike faith in Christ...........as those little ones did 2,000 years ago?  Will something bad happen?  Will they become weird bible thumpers?  Will they lose friendships?  Will they have to give something up that they cherish?.............I've never met a true Christian yet that regretted giving up their life's agenda for Christ's life yet.  Though they will tell you that the Christian life isn't easy, they will emphatically tell you that they would never want to go back to being a non-Christian or unbeliever, as losing this intimate relationship with God through Christ's life would be terrible.

Christianity is not a religion.........It is a relationship............based on a one on one encounter "show-down" between an individual and their Creator.

Just as Chapter one of Romans in the N.Testament makes it so emphatically clear that no human being has a plausible escuse for being agnostic, or atheistic, it also makes it very clear that God has not hidden Himself from His creation but has made Himself very obvious through His creation itself.

To deny intelligent design is to willfully go against the strongest evidences possible.

Evidence demands a verdict, and we/humans are without excuse.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I like the joke, 



> So if you believe in evolution, then you don't follow the bible, so how can you call yourself a christian?


First, I never said I "believed in evolution." I don't even know what you mean by that. My mind is open with regard to the matter but since nothing has been proven, the details are unimportant to me. 
What is important is the knowledge I _have _gained. Not to say that knowledge I _haven't_ gained is unimportant but I've realized I'm not going to gain all knowledge while in this life. But I can gain the essential knowledge I need to guide me to salvation.




> And  you also question the veracity of the bible.


 I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. And of course God would have us question everything. Even His own extistance. That is how knowledge is gained. Through questions. God is not a God of dogma(teachings not to be questioned), which is the opposite of doctrine(teachings that should be questioned).



> You better die with a bathing suit on, it's going to be pretty hot where you're going!



I'm sure Jesus would approve of the words of Gandalf: "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgment."

If anyone ought to be careful it's the one pronouncing eternities on someone when they aren't Jesus.




> If god exists, why doesn't he just hold a press conference on the White House lawn? That would get everyone's attention and he could get us all to do exactly what he wants


Here is a good question. No really. It's reasonable to ask this.

Think what would happen if He did. Everyone would follow His commandments right? Because everyone would want to live with Him/avoid His punishment. If we all knew He was there and we never learned faith, we would have no choice but to obey His laws. This was Satan's plan from the beginning: To take away the choice of man. But God wanted to find out who truly loved Him and would seek Him out rather than be forced to follow Him. He has promised to reveal himself to those who seek Him out. There is actually a plan to this life. It's not entirely random. That's why there is such order in the world. The only disorder comes from the choices of Humans. Do you realize that? The animals don't go on murderous rampages. They only kill to eat. The earth doesn't pollute itself, it's only the choices of Man that cause great things of good or evil in the world. The whole key is choice. It's the only power that God does not have because he refuses to take it from us. We have the power of God with us because of choice. We don't survive on instinct. We survive on choice and intellect. 

So if God appeared to all of us, he would be going against His own plan set from the beginning. Do you think you're the only one who's ever asked that question before? Billions have asked and had the answer given to them so why do you think you can't have the same answer?


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> First, I never said I "believed in evolution." I don't even know what you mean by that. My mind is open with regard to the matter but since nothing has been proven, the details are unimportant to me.


You were the one who used the word "evolved", you should read up on it, to get a better sense of the word and the process.
I'm still wondering through, how did all those animals get to Australia, if noah never went there?

Like I said, you also don't believe that the bible is to be considered 100% fact, so you're not a true christian. You might want to stockpile some sunscreen too. 



> Think what would happen if He did. Everyone would follow His commandments right? Because everyone would want to live with Him/avoid His punishment. If we all knew He was there and we never learned faith, we would have no choice but to obey His laws. This was Satan's plan from the beginning: To take away the choice of man. But God wanted to find out who truly loved Him and would seek Him out rather than be forced to follow Him. He has promised to reveal himself to those who seek Him out. There is actually a plan to this life. It's not entirely random. That's why there is such order in the world. The only disorder comes from the choices of Humans. Do you realize that? The animals don't go on murderous rampages. They only kill to eat. The earth doesn't pollute itself, it's only the choices of Man that cause great things of good or evil in the world. The whole key is choice. It's the only power that God does not have because he refuses to take it from us. We have the power of God with us because of choice. We don't survive on instinct. We survive on choice and intellect.
> 
> So if God appeared to all of us, he would be going against His own plan set from the beginning. Do you think you're the only one who's ever asked that question before? Billions have asked and had the answer given to them so why do you think you can't have the same answer?



ok, that makes no sense at all. God WOULDN'T hold a press conference for that flimsy reason you gave? I've heard that before, and it's just the conclusion that theists have made up given the awkward nature of your written texts. Of course god would hold a press conference, then satan would hold one, then there would be a election. This time gOdbama won. 
But seriously, god would show itself to everyone for real, not just send a bunch of half-wits to my door.


----------



## HUGGY

Apparantly "God" prefers coffee drinkers to MormAns.


----------



## California Girl

Every time I drop by this thread I am struck by two things. 

1. How quick some idiots are to slam Mormons because they don't understand them or disagree with them.

2. How tolerant our Mormon members are.

If someone asked me who has earned respect on this forum, I'd have to say, hands down, it's the Mormons. They have outplayed every single idiot in this thread. Well done, guys.


----------



## Dr.House

California Girl said:


> Every time I drop by this thread I am struck by two things.
> 
> 1. How quick some idiots are to slam Mormons because they don't understand them or disagree with them.
> 
> 2. How tolerant our Mormon members are.
> 
> If someone asked me who has earned respect on this forum, I'd have to say, hands down, it's the Mormons. They have outplayed every single idiot in this thread. Well done, guys.



Amazing, isn't it?


----------



## Liability

California Girl said:


> Every time I drop by this thread I am struck by two things.
> 
> 1. How quick some idiots are to slam Mormons because they don't understand them or disagree with them.
> 
> 2. How tolerant our Mormon members are.
> 
> If someone asked me who has earned respect on this forum, I'd have to say, hands down, it's the Mormons. They have outplayed every single idiot in this thread. Well done, guys.



Like lots of religions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has some problems associated with it in terms of its literal written words and the application of logic.  

But despite the fact that a "critic" of the Mormons (and of their religious beliefs) could exploit such things, I believe YOU happen to be very much correct in your assessment.  I haven't seen any rude replies or anything but patience and civility from the participants here who are Mormon.

Therefore, I join you in applauding the way the Mormons in this thread have proceeded to discuss whatever has been tossed their way.


----------



## California Girl

Dr.House said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I drop by this thread I am struck by two things.
> 
> 1. How quick some idiots are to slam Mormons because they don't understand them or disagree with them.
> 
> 2. How tolerant our Mormon members are.
> 
> If someone asked me who has earned respect on this forum, I'd have to say, hands down, it's the Mormons. They have outplayed every single idiot in this thread. Well done, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing, isn't it?
Click to expand...


To be honest, from the Mormons I know, they are fairly typical. Generally speaking, I find Mormons to be very tolerant and accepting of others. Most of us, me included, could learn a thing or two from them.


----------



## California Girl

Liability said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I drop by this thread I am struck by two things.
> 
> 1. How quick some idiots are to slam Mormons because they don't understand them or disagree with them.
> 
> 2. How tolerant our Mormon members are.
> 
> If someone asked me who has earned respect on this forum, I'd have to say, hands down, it's the Mormons. They have outplayed every single idiot in this thread. Well done, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like lots of religions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has some problems associated with it in terms of its literal written words and the application of logic.
> 
> But despite the fact that a "critic" of the Mormons (and of their religious beliefs) could exploit such things, I believe YOU happen to be very much correct in your assessment.  I haven't seen any rude replies or anything but patience and civility from the participants here who are Mormon.
> 
> Therefore, I join you in applauding the way the Mormons in this thread have proceeded to discuss whatever has been tossed their way.
Click to expand...


See, that's the thing.... many people on this forum seem to be exceptionally rude about the Mormon religion. I have no issue with them as a religion or as people.... What does really stand out though is that, despite being slammed, made fun of, criticized and ridiculed, they remain polite, pleasant and tireless in their patience. 

I wander in and out of this thread to see who's whining at them etc and all I ever see from them is that endless patience. 

They are the most remarkable bunch of individuals on the forum. Not one of them seems to let their side down. Impressive stuff.


----------



## HUGGY

I agree.  They were tolorant and accepting of the mob money in the building of Las Vegas...and they were VERY tolorant and accepting of crazy Howard Hughes's fortune.


----------



## Christopher

California Girl said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I drop by this thread I am struck by two things.
> 
> 1. How quick some idiots are to slam Mormons because they don't understand them or disagree with them.
> 
> 2. How tolerant our Mormon members are.
> 
> If someone asked me who has earned respect on this forum, I'd have to say, hands down, it's the Mormons. They have outplayed every single idiot in this thread. Well done, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like lots of religions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has some problems associated with it in terms of its literal written words and the application of logic.
> 
> But despite the fact that a "critic" of the Mormons (and of their religious beliefs) could exploit such things, I believe YOU happen to be very much correct in your assessment.  I haven't seen any rude replies or anything but patience and civility from the participants here who are Mormon.
> 
> Therefore, I join you in applauding the way the Mormons in this thread have proceeded to discuss whatever has been tossed their way.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing.... many people on this forum seem to be exceptionally rude about the Mormon religion. I have no issue with them as a religion or as people.... What does really stand out though is that, despite being slammed, made fun of, criticized and ridiculed, they remain polite, pleasant and tireless in their patience.
> 
> I wander in and out of this thread to see who's whining at them etc and all I ever see from them is that endless patience.
> 
> They are the most remarkable bunch of individuals on the forum. Not one of them seems to let their side down. Impressive stuff.
Click to expand...


For me, it is a breath of fresh air to hear such positive words from a non-Mormon about Mormons in this thread.  Thank you.

By the way, when can we schedule your baptism?


----------



## California Girl

Christopher said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like lots of religions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has some problems associated with it in terms of its literal written words and the application of logic.
> 
> But despite the fact that a "critic" of the Mormons (and of their religious beliefs) could exploit such things, I believe YOU happen to be very much correct in your assessment.  I haven't seen any rude replies or anything but patience and civility from the participants here who are Mormon.
> 
> Therefore, I join you in applauding the way the Mormons in this thread have proceeded to discuss whatever has been tossed their way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing.... many people on this forum seem to be exceptionally rude about the Mormon religion. I have no issue with them as a religion or as people.... What does really stand out though is that, despite being slammed, made fun of, criticized and ridiculed, they remain polite, pleasant and tireless in their patience.
> 
> I wander in and out of this thread to see who's whining at them etc and all I ever see from them is that endless patience.
> 
> They are the most remarkable bunch of individuals on the forum. Not one of them seems to let their side down. Impressive stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For me, it is a breath of fresh air to hear such positive words from a non-Mormon about Mormons in this thread.  Thank you.
> 
> By the way, when can we schedule your baptism?
Click to expand...


I'll have a family member contact you immediate upon my death - then you can schedule me in asap.


----------



## Christopher

California Girl said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing.... many people on this forum seem to be exceptionally rude about the Mormon religion. I have no issue with them as a religion or as people.... What does really stand out though is that, despite being slammed, made fun of, criticized and ridiculed, they remain polite, pleasant and tireless in their patience.
> 
> I wander in and out of this thread to see who's whining at them etc and all I ever see from them is that endless patience.
> 
> They are the most remarkable bunch of individuals on the forum. Not one of them seems to let their side down. Impressive stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, it is a breath of fresh air to hear such positive words from a non-Mormon about Mormons in this thread.  Thank you.
> 
> By the way, when can we schedule your baptism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll have a family member contact you immediate upon my death - then you can schedule me in asap.
Click to expand...


I honestly was not even thinking about our practice of baptizing on behalf of deceased persons.  I hope you did not think I was.


----------



## California Girl

Christopher said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> For me, it is a breath of fresh air to hear such positive words from a non-Mormon about Mormons in this thread.  Thank you.
> 
> By the way, when can we schedule your baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have a family member contact you immediate upon my death - then you can schedule me in asap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I honestly was not even thinking about our practice of baptizing on behalf of deceased persons.  I hope you did not think I was.
Click to expand...


LOL. Of course not. I just couldn't resist a tug on the chain. LOL.... and even if you did baptize me when I'm dead, I would have no problem with it. I just don't have an issue with Mormons at all. I'm not one because I'm Catholic but I don't see that as a reason to whine about Mormons.


----------



## Toro

Park City is nice.


----------



## Hister

California Girl said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have a family member contact you immediate upon my death - then you can schedule me in asap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly was not even thinking about our practice of baptizing on behalf of deceased persons.  I hope you did not think I was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Of course not. I just couldn't resist a tug on the chain. LOL.... and even if you did baptize me when I'm dead, I would have no problem with it. I just don't have an issue with Mormons at all. I'm not one because I'm Catholic but I don't see that as a reason to whine about Mormons.
Click to expand...


CGirl prefers pedophile priests and taking a back seat to men.


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I drop by this thread I am struck by two things.
> 
> 1. How quick some idiots are to slam Mormons because they don't understand them or disagree with them.
> 
> 2. How tolerant our Mormon members are.
> 
> If someone asked me who has earned respect on this forum, I'd have to say, hands down, it's the Mormons. They have outplayed every single idiot in this thread. Well done, guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like lots of religions, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has some problems associated with it in terms of its literal written words and the application of logic.
> 
> But despite the fact that a "critic" of the Mormons (and of their religious beliefs) could exploit such things, I believe YOU happen to be very much correct in your assessment.  I haven't seen any rude replies or anything but patience and civility from the participants here who are Mormon.
> 
> Therefore, I join you in applauding the way the Mormons in this thread have proceeded to discuss whatever has been tossed their way.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's the thing.... many people on this forum seem to be exceptionally rude about the Mormon religion. I have no issue with them as a religion or as people.... What does really stand out though is that, despite being slammed, made fun of, criticized and ridiculed, they remain polite, pleasant and tireless in their patience.
> 
> I wander in and out of this thread to see who's whining at them etc and all I ever see from them is that endless patience.
> 
> They are the most remarkable bunch of individuals on the forum. Not one of them seems to let their side down. Impressive stuff.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much


----------



## Truthspeaker

Toro said:


> Park City is nice.



Sure is


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly was not even thinking about our practice of baptizing on behalf of deceased persons.  I hope you did not think I was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Of course not. I just couldn't resist a tug on the chain. LOL.... and even if you did baptize me when I'm dead, I would have no problem with it. I just don't have an issue with Mormons at all. I'm not one because I'm Catholic but I don't see that as a reason to whine about Mormons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CGirl prefers pedophile priests and taking a back seat to men.
Click to expand...


Now do you really think a woman from CALIFORNIA of all places in 2010 would do such a thing?
She obviously knows something you don't know.


----------



## California Girl

Hister said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly was not even thinking about our practice of baptizing on behalf of deceased persons.  I hope you did not think I was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Of course not. I just couldn't resist a tug on the chain. LOL.... and even if you did baptize me when I'm dead, I would have no problem with it. I just don't have an issue with Mormons at all. I'm not one because I'm Catholic but I don't see that as a reason to whine about Mormons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CGirl prefers pedophile priests and taking a back seat to men.
Click to expand...


You aren't even worth a neg rep... and, if you knew me, you'd realize just how relevant that makes your opinion to me. 

You're a rather pathetic individual. But, thankfully, just an individual. Your stupidity is yours to own.


----------



## Truthmatters

Any religion that has Secrets is not trustable to me.

Why is it there are so many things in the Morman relgion that are not open to the public?


----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> To be honest, from the Mormons I know, they are fairly typical. Generally speaking, I find Mormons to be very tolerant and accepting of others. Most of us, me included, could learn a thing or two from them.



Thank you for your kind words. We all have some things we need to deal with though. If we didn't there would be no need for the Atonement. But thank God we have it.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> I agree.  They were tolorant and accepting of the mob money in the building of Las Vegas...and they were VERY tolorant and accepting of crazy Howard Hughes's fortune.



While it's true we settled Las Vegas originally, we later left and it was resettled at a later time. That would be the mob era you are refering to.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I honestly was not even thinking about our practice of baptizing on behalf of deceased persons.  I hope you did not think I was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Of course not. I just couldn't resist a tug on the chain. LOL.... and even if you did baptize me when I'm dead, I would have no problem with it. I just don't have an issue with Mormons at all. I'm not one because I'm Catholic but I don't see that as a reason to whine about Mormons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CGirl prefers pedophile priests and taking a back seat to men.
Click to expand...


I've seen absolutely nothing in her posts that indicate that at all. I think you should stop maligning Catholics simply because of the actions of some rogue clergy.


----------



## Truthmatters

The mormans also killed settlers who crossed near their land


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> Any religion that has Secrets is not trustable to me.
> 
> Why is it there are so many things in the Morman relgion that are not open to the public?



I think you're looking at it the wrong way. We're not trying to keep anything from anyone. But we are trying to keep a reverence for God's ordinances in the Temple by not speaking about them and keeping them in their place. I'm sure you can go all over the internet and get all the "secrets" laid out by ex-members. You won't find them so amazing. It's just that we have respect for what goes on there and have promised not to discuss the details of the ordinances. 

As far as secrets like "skeletons in the closet" secrets, we don't have those. I'm sure there are plenty of religious ordinances in other religions that don't broadcast their rituals either. Why don't you get on the Monks for not televising all their daily rituals up in the mountains, or the Catholics for not streaming live video of the council to decide who will be the next pope? I don't know all the details of this but I think it's a pretty safe bet that Islam and judaism have private meetings as well.

There's nothing wrong with privacy. I think privacy is a better word to use than secrecy.


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthspeaker said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well because of the sacred nature of the undergarments which you call "Magic Undies", I won't be able to tell you everything. I have made promises not to discuss them in detail. What I will say however in a nutshell is that they are a symbol and a reminder to us daily to keep the commandments of God, it's just that they are worn out of sight, rather than displayed out in the open like in other religions, who were their religious symbols on their heads, around their necks or on their whole body.
> That will have to suffice.
Click to expand...


Secrets make me think you dont believe your ideas can stand on their own.


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Of course not. I just couldn't resist a tug on the chain. LOL.... and even if you did baptize me when I'm dead, I would have no problem with it. I just don't have an issue with Mormons at all. I'm not one because I'm Catholic but I don't see that as a reason to whine about Mormons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CGirl prefers pedophile priests and taking a back seat to men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen absolutely nothing in her posts that indicate that at all. I think you should stop maligning Catholics simply because of the actions of some rogue clergy.
Click to expand...


There is no cure for ignorance, Avatar. Allow them to wallow in their ignorance. They would wear out the patience of a saint - no matter whether it was a Mormon saint or a Catholic one.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> The mormans also killed settlers who crossed near their land



No..."The Mormons" did not do this.

the perpetrators who at the time were members of our church were speedily brought to justice and excommunicated from our church. They did this on their own behalf. Not on our behalf. That's very ignorant of you to suggest.


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthmatters said:


> Mountain Meadows massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> What does the LDS teach you about the Mountain Meadows Massacre?



this is one other reason I question this faith


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Any religion that has Secrets is not trustable to me.
> 
> Why is it there are so many things in the Morman relgion that are not open to the public?



Do you teach Calculus to children in elementry school?

Do you teach nuclear physics to people who don't know a thing about physics?

You think the Spiritual things in life are any different? The Lord only teaches us what we are prepared to know. 

Everyone is free to know and learn all they want. But they have to be prepared or they won't understand what is being taught and it may end up being to their detriment. In fact, we invite everyone to qualify themselves so that they can learn how to enter God's presence and become like Him.

The only obstacle is ourselves.


----------



## Truthmatters

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a mass slaughter of the Fancher-Baker emigrant wagon train at Mountain Meadows, Utah Territory, by a local Mormon militia and members of the Paiute Indian tribe on September 11, 1857. The incident began as an attack, quickly turned into a siege, and eventually culminated in the murder of the unarmed emigrants after their surrender. All of the party except for seventeen children under eight years old were killed&#8212;about 120 men, women, and children were killed, but precise numbers have been debated.[1] After the massacre, the corpses of the victims were left decomposing for two years on the open plain,[2] the surviving children were distributed to local Mormon families, and many of the victims' possessions were auctioned off at the Latter-day Saint Cedar City tithing office.[3


----------



## Truthmatters

Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its on the same level as this religion to me


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> The mormans also killed settlers who crossed near their land



Some did, contrary to orders. Of course, the fact that the Federal Government had invaded Utah to put down a non-existant rebellion and put everyone on edge didn't really help.

No one's perfect. Those who committed the crimes were excommunicated and incarcerated.

Justice was done.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well because of the sacred nature of the undergarments which you call "Magic Undies", I won't be able to tell you everything. I have made promises not to discuss them in detail. What I will say however in a nutshell is that they are a symbol and a reminder to us daily to keep the commandments of God, it's just that they are worn out of sight, rather than displayed out in the open like in other religions, who were their religious symbols on their heads, around their necks or on their whole body.
> That will have to suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Secrets make me think you dont believe your ideas can stand on their own.
Click to expand...


Read the Book of Mormon and find out.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Its on the same level as this religion to me



I sincerely hope you've studied more than a wikipedia page on both before drawing any conclusions.


----------



## Truthmatters

I dont have any problems with members of this religion.

I have family members who are morman and they are wonderful people.

I do not trust most organized religion.

Any time a religion denies the bad things it has done and refuses to allow family members to even attend weddings and such then they have SECRETS they have to keep from the world.

When your philosophy is so burdened with secrets you fail to believe your own self that your ideas can stand the test of fresh air.

The morman religion started with poligamy  and blacks not being able to get into heaven.


How can you think devine people who can create a religion with these foul ideas?


----------



## Truthmatters

Just for the record I would never deny the mormans the right to build a church wehre they wanted


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mormans also killed settlers who crossed near their land
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some did, contrary to orders. Of course, the fact that the Federal Government had invaded Utah to put down a non-existant rebellion and put everyone on edge didn't really help.
> 
> No one's perfect. Those who committed the crimes were excommunicated and incarcerated.
> 
> Justice was done.
Click to expand...


Truthmatters has a habit of judging a whole group by the actions of the few... unless they're Democrats.


----------



## California Girl

Truthmatters said:


> Just for the record I would never deny the mormans the right to build a church wehre they wanted



For the record, it's Mormon, not Morman. If you can't even get their name right, why the hell should anyone care whether you'd 'deny' them the right to build a church.


----------



## Truthmatters

Then dont read my posts.

Did you know Mormons dont let non  mormon family members attend weddings?


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> I dont have any problems with members of this religion.
> 
> I have family members who are morman and they are wonderful people.
> 
> I do not trust most organized religion.
> 
> Any time a religion denies the bad things it has done and refuses to allow family members to even attend weddings and such then they have SECRETS they have to keep from the world.
> 
> When your philosophy is so burdened with secrets you fail to believe your own self that your ideas can stand the test of fresh air.
> 
> The morman religion started with poligamy  and blacks not being able to get into heaven.
> 
> 
> How can you think devine people who can create a religion with these foul ideas?



There is nothing wrong with Plural marriage when God commands it. The Lord has commanded it not to happen now. So the Lord is obeyed. He commands what He commands when He commands it and can change them at His pleasure.

Blacks have always been able to get into heaven. Which is precisely why I think you speak from ignorance rather than first hand knowledge and would invite you to actually study the doctrines and learn for yourself as every mormon will encourage. Read the Book of Mormon for yourself. It's a good place to start. It gives you a great foundational base.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Just for the record I would never deny the mormans the right to build a church wehre they wanted



That's good. I wouldn't stop anyone from building a place of worship where they want either. I love having the freedom to worship as God sees fit.


----------



## Truthmatters

Who took the messages from the lord on these changes?


----------



## Truthmatters

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record I would never deny the mormans the right to build a church wehre they wanted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's good. I wouldn't stop anyone from building a place of worship where they want either. I love having the freedom to worship as God sees fit.
Click to expand...


Glad to know you are pro prayer center near ground zero


----------



## California Girl

Truthmatters said:


> Then dont read my posts.
> 
> Did you know Mormons dont let non  mormon family members attend weddings?



Since I have family members who are Mormons, I'm aware of their practices. Your point?


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Who took the messages from the lord on these changes?



The one who holds the keys to recieve binding revelation for the Church. God is a God of Order and of Revelation.


----------



## California Girl

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have any problems with members of this religion.
> 
> I have family members who are morman and they are wonderful people.
> 
> I do not trust most organized religion.
> 
> Any time a religion denies the bad things it has done and refuses to allow family members to even attend weddings and such then they have SECRETS they have to keep from the world.
> 
> When your philosophy is so burdened with secrets you fail to believe your own self that your ideas can stand the test of fresh air.
> 
> The morman religion started with poligamy  and blacks not being able to get into heaven.
> 
> 
> How can you think devine people who can create a religion with these foul ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with Plural marriage when God commands it. The Lord has commanded it not to happen now. So the Lord is obeyed. He commands what He commands when He commands it and can change them at His pleasure.
> 
> Blacks have always been able to get into heaven. Which is precisely why I think you speak from ignorance rather than first hand knowledge and would invite you to actually study the doctrines and learn for yourself as every mormon will encourage. Read the Book of Mormon for yourself. It's a good place to start. It gives you a great foundational base.
Click to expand...


Here's a little known factoid about me.... I have actually read it. I'm impressed with myself for that.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record I would never deny the mormans the right to build a church wehre they wanted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's good. I wouldn't stop anyone from building a place of worship where they want either. I love having the freedom to worship as God sees fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad to know you are pro prayer center near ground zero
Click to expand...


I'm not for it per se. I just realize they have the right to build it there and id rather not give them attention if they are simply doing it to make a political statement.


----------



## Truthmatters

Muslim first responders died saving people on 911, they have a right to be there.

I also think the Muslim reigion is silly too.

Black people and the Latter Day Saint movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Truthmatters

California Girl said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont have any problems with members of this religion.
> 
> I have family members who are morman and they are wonderful people.
> 
> I do not trust most organized religion.
> 
> Any time a religion denies the bad things it has done and refuses to allow family members to even attend weddings and such then they have SECRETS they have to keep from the world.
> 
> When your philosophy is so burdened with secrets you fail to believe your own self that your ideas can stand the test of fresh air.
> 
> The morman religion started with poligamy  and blacks not being able to get into heaven.
> 
> 
> How can you think devine people who can create a religion with these foul ideas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with Plural marriage when God commands it. The Lord has commanded it not to happen now. So the Lord is obeyed. He commands what He commands when He commands it and can change them at His pleasure.
> 
> Blacks have always been able to get into heaven. Which is precisely why I think you speak from ignorance rather than first hand knowledge and would invite you to actually study the doctrines and learn for yourself as every mormon will encourage. Read the Book of Mormon for yourself. It's a good place to start. It gives you a great foundational base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's a little known factoid about me.... I have actually read it. I'm impressed with myself for that.
Click to expand...


Then tell me about magic underwear and what they do at weddings that us heathens are not allowed to see even if you gave birth to one of the people getting married?


----------



## Truthmatters

Secrets do not have any place in religion.

We have had too many people in history DIE because of religion to ignore it when religions want to keep secrets and deny what their religion has done.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Secrets do not have any place in religion.
> 
> We have had too many people in history DIE because of religion to ignore it when religions want to keep secrets and deny what their religion has done.



If you don't like not knowing, then find out. No one is stopping you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record I would never deny the mormans the right to build a church wehre they wanted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's good. I wouldn't stop anyone from building a place of worship where they want either. I love having the freedom to worship as God sees fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad to know you are pro prayer center near ground zero
Click to expand...


Technically, I think it should have to be legal, but If I were looking to build a mosque, I'd probably look to build it somewhere far from Ground Zero. It's pretty audacious and makes Islam look bad when they do it. 
Well it didn't stop them from building a Giant Mosque over David's Temple in Jerusalem either. Religions should do their best NOT to "stir it up", but Islam has not often abided that advice.


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then dont read my posts.
> 
> Did you know Mormons dont let non  mormon family members attend weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have family members who are Mormons, I'm aware of their practices. Your point?
Click to expand...


You could always just DECIDE to not marry a mormon. Everybody is welcome to the reception anyway and in such cases where this happens, what usually happens is there is a separate ring ceremony followed by a reception which is the same as a traditional marriage so no one is left out.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with Plural marriage when God commands it. The Lord has commanded it not to happen now. So the Lord is obeyed. He commands what He commands when He commands it and can change them at His pleasure.
> 
> Blacks have always been able to get into heaven. Which is precisely why I think you speak from ignorance rather than first hand knowledge and would invite you to actually study the doctrines and learn for yourself as every mormon will encourage. Read the Book of Mormon for yourself. It's a good place to start. It gives you a great foundational base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a little known factoid about me.... I have actually read it. I'm impressed with myself for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then tell me about magic underwear and what they do at weddings that us heathens are not allowed to see even if you gave birth to one of the people getting married?
Click to expand...


We don't consider you a heathen simply because you are not allowed in the Temple. A heathen is a term strictly reserved for idol worshippers and does not mean they are evil either. It's just a term for idol worship.


----------



## California Girl

Truthmatters said:


> Secrets do not have any place in religion.
> 
> We have had too many people in history DIE because of religion to ignore it when religions want to keep secrets and deny what their religion has done.



What is 'secret' to the terminally stupid, is 'sacred' to others. It's not about not wanting 'outsiders' to know. But, being stupid, you're never gonna get it. Any explanation not provided by such reliable and balanced sources as wiki or media matters wouldn't register with you.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then dont read my posts.
> 
> Did you know Mormons dont let non  mormon family members attend weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have family members who are Mormons, I'm aware of their practices. Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could always just DECIDE to not marry a mormon. Everybody is welcome to the reception anyway and in such cases where this happens, what usually happens is there is a separate ring ceremony followed by a reception which is the same as a traditional marriage so no one is left out.
Click to expand...


I know, I've attended a Mormon wedding. I didn't feel excluded or unwelcome. It's only those who judge your faith that use it. Each faith has it's own traditions and practices. What I find really fascinating is the lack of 'tolerance' from those who claim the moral highground when it comes to 'tolerance'. They are too intolerant to see the utter ridiculousness of their views.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a little known factoid about me.... I have actually read it. I'm impressed with myself for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell me about magic underwear and what they do at weddings that us heathens are not allowed to see even if you gave birth to one of the people getting married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't consider you a heathen simply because you are not allowed in the Temple. A heathen is a term strictly reserved for idol worshippers and does not mean they are evil either. It's just a term for idol worship.
Click to expand...


To someone who doesn't even understand the term 'heathen', you're gonna have an uphill struggle to explain even the most basic principles of faith generally - yet alone the practices of a particular religion.


----------



## HUGGY

California Girl said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secrets do not have any place in religion.
> 
> We have had too many people in history DIE because of religion to ignore it when religions want to keep secrets and deny what their religion has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is 'secret' to the terminally stupid, is 'sacred' to others. It's not about not wanting 'outsiders' to know. But, being stupid, you're never gonna get it. Any explanation not provided by such reliable and balanced sources as wiki or media matters wouldn't register with you.
Click to expand...


No sale CG!  You can dazzle with brilliance or you can baffle with bullshit but you can't sell both with the same breath.


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secrets do not have any place in religion.
> 
> We have had too many people in history DIE because of religion to ignore it when religions want to keep secrets and deny what their religion has done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is 'secret' to the terminally stupid, is 'sacred' to others. It's not about not wanting 'outsiders' to know. But, being stupid, you're never gonna get it. Any explanation not provided by such reliable and balanced sources as wiki or media matters wouldn't register with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sale CG!  You can dazzle with brilliance or you can baffle with bullshit but you can't sell both ith the same breath.
Click to expand...


Wadda madda huggy bear? You don't understand my point, therefore there can't be a point?


----------



## HUGGY

California Girl said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is 'secret' to the terminally stupid, is 'sacred' to others. It's not about not wanting 'outsiders' to know. But, being stupid, you're never gonna get it. Any explanation not provided by such reliable and balanced sources as wiki or media matters wouldn't register with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sale CG!  You can dazzle with brilliance or you can baffle with bullshit but you can't sell both ith the same breath.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wadda madda huggy bear? You don't understand my point, therefore there can't be a point?
Click to expand...


I believe I understand you very well.  Your strongest qualities are research and preparation.  You enjoy the pedestal to a fault.  What you can't have or be you envy.  You enjoy your own laughter as you should.  You probably don't enjoy the laughter of others enough which is bad.  Unfortunately that description is your point more so than your response to TM because dear girl you missed the point entirely.  He was not talking about magic underwear.  The secrets referred to are not mystic revelations..  What they are is crimes and lies and cover ups.  So called secrets like The MormAns swindling the Native Americans and funding the Mafia to name just a couple.. protecting child molesters in your faith.  That was TM's point ..not a debate over the need for mysticism to give up it's tricks of the trade.

I am not trying to beat you down.  I could have just suggested that you simply missed the point I guess.  Sometimes I ramble on a bit.  Please forgive me.


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sale CG!  You can dazzle with brilliance or you can baffle with bullshit but you can't sell both ith the same breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wadda madda huggy bear? You don't understand my point, therefore there can't be a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe I understand you very well.  Your strongest qualities are research and preparation.  You enjoy the pedestal to a fault.  What you can't have or be you envy.  You enjoy your own laughter as you should.  You probably don't enjoy the laughter of others enough which is bad.  Unfortunately that description is your point more so than your response to TM because dear girl you missed the point entirely.  He was not talking about magic underwear.  The secrets referred to are not mystic revelations..  What they are is crimes and lies and cover ups.  So called secrets like The MormAns swindling the Native Americans and funding the Mafia to name just a couple.. protecting child molesters in your faith.  That was TM's point ..not a debate over the need for mysticism to give up it's tricks of the trade.
> 
> I am not trying to beat you down.  I could have just suggested that you simply missed the point I guess.  Sometimes I ramble on a bit.  Please forgive me.
Click to expand...


I have no pedestal - if you put me on one, that is for you - nothing to do with me. I defend the Mormons - particularly those on this forum - because every single Mormon I know is a decent person. I don't hold them all responsible for any act committed by the few within their ranks just as I have never seen the Mormons on this site hold all Catholics accountable for the actions of a minority of priests. I cannot say the same for you, Hugs. You seem to think that isolated incidents of inappropriate behavior are justification for deriding an entire faith or group of people. I do not. It's quite simple. You, like truthmatters, dig back into history and whine about incidents that have no relevance. I am aware of the Mountain Meadows Massacre - studied it in school. I am aware of the Mormon land in Las Vagas. I am aware of a lot of their history because I was interested enough to find out. It makes no difference to me. If it does to you, that's fine but don't make your issues mine.

And FYI: I didn't say you didn't understand me, I said you didn't understand my point. Two totally different things. Actually, for the most part, I think you get me. I think I get you too... which is why - on occasion - we can actually debate instead of just insulting each other.... although insulting each other is more fun. LOL.


----------



## froggy

Romans 10:3-4, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.  For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."


----------



## froggy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE]YouTube - Banned Mormon Cartoon[/ame]


----------



## Christopher

froggy said:


> YouTube - Banned Mormon Cartoon



That is not a banned Mormon cartoon.  Ive actually seen this before.  It definitely was not created by the Mormon church.

Did you know there are misrepresentations/lies in it?  This makes me question the person/group who made it and their real intentions.  It should do the same for you, if you are for an honest discussion.


----------



## Hister

Were the golden plates like dinner plates and they ate off them? Where can I see these dinner plates?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Christopher said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Banned Mormon Cartoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a banned Mormon cartoon.  Ive actually seen this before.  It definitely was not created by the Mormon church.
> 
> Did you know there are misrepresentations/lies in it?  This makes me question the person/group who made it and their real intentions.  It should do the same for you, if you are for an honest discussion.
Click to expand...


That's hilarious that they say "banned" as if it was something we used to have in our curriculum or sunday schools. What baloney! It makes me laugh.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Were the golden plates like dinner plates and they ate off them? Where can I see these dinner plates?



You're so exhaustingly juvenile.
But here: Not unlike this


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the golden plates like dinner plates and they ate off them? Where can I see these dinner plates?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so exhaustingly juvenile.
> But here: Not unlike this
Click to expand...


Those are more like golden recipe cards. So where are they? I couldn't find anything online.


----------



## Luissa

Hister said:


> Were the golden plates like dinner plates and they ate off them? Where can I see these dinner plates?



Hey moron, why do even bother? You look like a fool every time you post in this thread.


----------



## Hister

Can't a guy be curious?


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Banned Mormon Cartoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a banned Mormon cartoon.  Ive actually seen this before.  It definitely was not created by the Mormon church.
> 
> Did you know there are misrepresentations/lies in it?  This makes me question the person/group who made it and their real intentions.  It should do the same for you, if you are for an honest discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious that they say "banned" as if it was something we used to have in our curriculum or sunday schools. What baloney! It makes me laugh.
Click to expand...


So the mormans never believed any thing mention in the vid.


----------



## froggy

The bible says "In the begining was God" mormons don't believe this.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a banned Mormon cartoon.  Ive actually seen this before.  It definitely was not created by the Mormon church.
> 
> Did you know there are misrepresentations/lies in it?  This makes me question the person/group who made it and their real intentions.  It should do the same for you, if you are for an honest discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hilarious that they say "banned" as if it was something we used to have in our curriculum or sunday schools. What baloney! It makes me laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the mormans never believed any thing mention in the vid.
Click to expand...


There are some things which are true, half true and false. It is clearly produced with malicious intent. Trying to "expose" what we "really" believe behind closed doors. Therefore this video is ridiculous to anyone pursuing truth on the matter.


----------



## froggy

Do you believe your a god?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> The bible says "In the begining was God" mormons don't believe this.



Sure, that part was true.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says "In the begining was God" mormons don't believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that part was true.
Click to expand...


But the God God? Or the God from kolob?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Do you believe your a god?



Not yet.


----------



## froggy

Have you put Joseph Smith, Jr in place of Jesus by saying You must accept Joseph Smith jr as a prophet of God to gain entrance into the highest form of Mormon heaven.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says "In the begining was God" mormons don't believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that part was true.
Click to expand...


But to blasphem God is A sin.


----------



## Truthmatters

Truthspeaker said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then dont read my posts.
> 
> Did you know Mormons dont let non  mormon family members attend weddings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have family members who are Mormons, I'm aware of their practices. Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could always just DECIDE to not marry a mormon. Everybody is welcome to the reception anyway and in such cases where this happens, what usually happens is there is a separate ring ceremony followed by a reception which is the same as a traditional marriage so no one is left out.
Click to expand...


WHY DO THEY NOT ALLOW FAMILY AT WEDDINGS!

you NEVER answered my question.

When you have a religion that shuts out family because of religious prejudice then you have a problem.

There are things you dont wnat the world to know about you.

That makes you a closed religion.

Its cult like and I will never respect an organized religion that has secret practices.

I will NEVER vote for a mormon for office because of your secrets.


----------



## Yurt

Truthmatters said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have family members who are Mormons, I'm aware of their practices. Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could always just DECIDE to not marry a mormon. Everybody is welcome to the reception anyway and in such cases where this happens, what usually happens is there is a separate ring ceremony followed by a reception which is the same as a traditional marriage so no one is left out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY DO THEY NOT ALLOW FAMILY AT WEDDINGS!
> 
> you NEVER answered my question.
> 
> When you have a religion that shuts out family because of religious prejudice then you have a problem.
> 
> There are things you dont wnat the world to know about you.
> 
> That makes you a closed religion.
> 
> Its cult like and I will never respect an organized religion that has secret practices.
> 
> I will NEVER vote for a mormon for office because of your secrets.
Click to expand...


so now religion does matter....too funny...you argue with obama it shouldn't matter if he is a muslim or not....


----------



## Eightball

Truthmatters said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have family members who are Mormons, I'm aware of their practices. Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could always just DECIDE to not marry a mormon. Everybody is welcome to the reception anyway and in such cases where this happens, what usually happens is there is a separate ring ceremony followed by a reception which is the same as a traditional marriage so no one is left out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY DO THEY NOT ALLOW FAMILY AT WEDDINGS!
> 
> you NEVER answered my question.
> 
> When you have a religion that shuts out family because of religious prejudice then you have a problem.
> 
> There are things you dont wnat the world to know about you.
> 
> That makes you a closed religion.
> 
> Its cult like and I will never respect an organized religion that has secret practices.
> 
> I will NEVER vote for a mormon for office because of your secrets.
Click to expand...


Exellent point!  My son and daughter in law have a Mormon lady friend that invited them to their wedding at the main temple in Oakland, Ca.. 

However..............My son who is a very devout Christian man has to stay outside along with his wife(our daughter in law), as they weren't Mormons.

So they got to attend the banquet afterwards, but were treated like "pagans" when it came to the actual wedding/sealing service in the Oakland, Ca. temple.

What a slap in the face.  How can that methodology convey a warm thought about who Christ is, and what He came to earth to accomplish?  

A wedding is a celebration that both believers in God and non-believers as well as folks of other religions rejoice-in.

Interestingly, in the bible, Jesus shares how marriage is a time of observance by young and old, and of all people.  It is a time of rejoicing.

So you sit outside the temple cause your not a Mormon, and then you get to give them their Toaster...........Thank you very much.......

Do folks come to wedding only for the food amd banqueting after the ceremony?  I suppose some do, but most perceive correctly that a wedding is the ceremony, and the rejoicing banquet and fellowship afterwards as a package.

My son had warm vibes about the Mormon religion, but that "rejection" from the ceremony sealed the deal.  He was hurt as well as my daughter in law.  This was a very dear friend whom they knew through highschool and college...........but "religion" got in the way of a friendship.
******
Interestingly, a few years before when my son and daughter in law to-be were married this same Mormon lady was asked to be a bride's maid.  My wife was given the task of making all the bride's maid dresses.  She is a seamstress and has sewn some beautiful pieces of clothing.

Well, the Mormon bridesmaid could only be a bridesmaid for her best friend if my wife altered her bridesmaid dress in a way to compensate for her Mormon magic underware.........The top piece looks like a T-shirt of sorts.  Well, my dear daughter in law tolerated this, but my wife had to do some extra special work to alter one brides maid's dress so that the underware top-shirt didn't show.  Her dress stood out so different from the others that took away from the uniformity of the brides Maid's dresses as a whole.

So............We Christians will go out of the way to do things  to accomadate people of other religions, out of respect........Like even inviting a Mormon to enjoy and watch the Christian wedding ceremony right along with Bhuddists, Zorastrians, BaHai, Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, agnostics..............you name.  

1 year later, my son and daugher in law were sitting outside on the steps of the Oakland Mormon temple.......as they weren't allowed to participate and enjoy the wedding vows/ceremonies of this same lady whom they made all kinds of allowances-for.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says "In the begining was God" mormons don't believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that part was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the God God? Or the God from kolob?
Click to expand...


There is no God from Kolob. Kolob is a star. I don't know what you're talking about with GOD GOD.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Have you put Joseph Smith, Jr in place of Jesus by saying You must accept Joseph Smith jr as a prophet of God to gain entrance into the highest form of Mormon heaven.



It is impossible to put Joseph into the same category as Jesus by accepting him as a prophet. To put him on the same level as Jesus would be to accept Joseph as the Savior of the world and redeemer from sin. This we do not do.

In order to get into the temple today you need to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet but there are no requirements in the eternities (that I know of) that require allegiance to Joseph Smith.

He was a great man, but He is also in need of the redeeming power of Jesus Christ, just like all of us.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> WHY DO THEY NOT ALLOW FAMILY AT WEDDINGS!


Easy there feller. It's gonna be ok. Picture this.
1. the wedding chamber is about as big as a small office and can only seat between 10 and 15 people. The ordinance(not the ceremony) of marriage is very short and quiet. There are mirrors all over to create the perspective of eternity by seeing your images get smaller and smaller in the reflections. It's not a big event.

2. Because the ordinance(not the ceremony) is performed in the temple, only card carrying members of the church may enter as has been revealed by prophecy. It's not a club. In fact MOST of our own members are not allowed in because they have not passed the interviews necessary to gain access.

3. So it's not just non members that are excluded. It's not personal, it's just religion.




> you NEVER answered my question.


I thought I did. Hopefully you believe me now.



> When you have a religion that shuts out family because of religious prejudice then you have a problem.



It's not prejudice because we're not prejudging anyone. It's a simple knowledge that they haven't passed the interviews required to gain access. 
And it's funny that you acuse us of shutting out families when the whole purpose of our existence is to be together with our families.



> There are things you dont wnat the world to know about you.


If we didn't wan't the whole world to know about it, we wouldn't send out 40,000 missionaries to approach total strangers about our message. We wouldn't be on blogs trying to explain these things to the ignorant. We wouldn't spend millions of dollars to build these very noticeable buildings in very public places if we didn't want people to know about it. Think harder about it.




> That makes you a closed religion.


We are only closed to those who don't want to be let in.



> Its cult like and I will never respect an organized religion that has secret practices.


Fair enough. You have you're own criteria and that's fine. Funny thing about that is that the meaning of the word cult applies to nearly every religion there is: A system of exclusive religious beliefs or practices.



> I will NEVER vote for a mormon for office because of your secrets.


O....Kay....?
We weren't campaigning for anyone and I assume you must be referring to Mitt Romney. Forget his policies!!!!!!! Focus on his RELIGION!!!!!!! Regardless of religion we should all vote on what a candidate does. Not what his religion is. But hey, no wonder votes are screwy these days. People don't even follow the policies. They follow their own prejudices more often than not.hmmmm.


That's tolerant. That's educated.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bible says "In the begining was God" mormons don't believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that part was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But to blasphem God is A sin.
Click to expand...


Sure blasphemy is a sin. Define blasphemy.  Jesus was called a blasphemer. The Pharisees had their own definition.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that part was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But to blasphem God is A sin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure blasphemy is a sin. Define blasphemy.  Jesus was called a blasphemer. The Pharisees had their own definition.
Click to expand...


Pretty straight-forward.........Jesus referred to Himself as God.......

When He said "Before Abraham I AM".......That triggered the attempted stoning.  He asked them why they were doing this......"Because you called yourself or referred to yourself as God".

The mysterious triune nature of God was clearly revealed as a fact.

No.....He wasn't once a "mere" man, and then exalted......Far from it.  That's unbiblical Mormon doctrine.  Great attempt to bring Jesus down to the level of a "sinner"..........right from the loins of Adam's race........

When He said, "Before Abraham, I AM".......that revealed to the those who attempted to stone Him that He was claiming to be the Everlasting, Never Created, God.............There are so many, many passages in the bible that refer to Jesus as The Creator........and also his eternal glory that encompasses eternity-past, eternity-present, and eternity-future.  The same yesterday, today and tomorrow.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to blasphem God is A sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure blasphemy is a sin. Define blasphemy.  Jesus was called a blasphemer. The Pharisees had their own definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty straight-forward.........Jesus referred to Himself as God.......
> 
> When He said "Before Abraham I AM".......That triggered the attempted stoning.  He asked them why they were doing this......"Because you called yourself or referred to yourself as God".
> 
> The mysterious triune nature of God was clearly revealed as a fact.
> 
> No.....He wasn't once a "mere" man, and then exalted......Far from it.  That's unbiblical Mormon doctrine.  Great attempt to bring Jesus down to the level of a "sinner"..........right from the loins of Adam's race........
> 
> When He said, "Before Abraham, I AM".......that revealed to the those who attempted to stone Him that He was claiming to be the Everlasting, Never Created, God.............There are so many, many passages in the bible that refer to Jesus as The Creator........and also his eternal glory that encompasses eternity-past, eternity-present, and eternity-future.  The same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Click to expand...


We have several disagreements here.
The first is that we DO believe that Jesus is Jehovah. He is the Creator of the world, and therefore can be called the FATHER of Heaven and Earth. However, what most people don't realize is that Jehovah, The Father of Heaven and Earth, also has his own father, a   2nd person. That's why Joseph's Smith's vision was worth more than billion words that have been expressed about the subject.
And the Bible is clear that Jesus is from the race of Adam. He was born of Mary, that's where he got His body. He descended to take on the imperfect body in order so that he could relate with our pains and sufferings. He set the example by doing it Himself what he asks us to do: Keep His Father 's commandments. 
He prayed to His Father who was in heaven at the time, while Jesus was still on the earth. The bible is clear to those who pray to know the truth concerning this matter.


Now that Jesus is resurrected, His body will suffer no more.


----------



## froggy

Truthmutter you could easily be seen as the one who prepareth the way for satan, lying come so easy for you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthmutter you could easily be seen as the one who prepareth the way for satan, lying come so easy for you.



Not worried about it. I could face my maker today with a clear conscience.


----------



## California Girl

I don't know where truthmatters gets this obsession with 'secrecy' and 'excluding' people. My understanding - and I've attended Mormon weddings - is that very few people attend the actual ceremony. At the wedding I attended, most family members - including Mormons - didn't attend that part. It didn't make any of the non-Mormons feel unwelcome or excluded. Quite the opposite, I found the Mormons there to be very friendly. 

We had a great time - even without alcohol!!! 

What Mormons believe is their business - I don't necessarily agree with all their beliefs any more than they would agree with mine.... However, I'd rather have a Mormon on my side than an atheist. Now, atheists... they are weird. Must be hard to believe in nothing. 

For the non Mormons on this thread.... just read back through the thousands of posts for a while and see for yourself. No matter what the provocation - and some people here have been seriously pathetic in their attacks of Mormons.... Not once have our Mormon posters reacted with anything more than patience. Personally, I respect them much more than those who claim 'intellectual superiority' and then fall back on stupid arguments against them. 

I'm gonna say it again.... High Five to the Mormons on this site. You guys hold your ground with honor and dignity and this Catholic respects that.


----------



## Hister

CGirl, I think non-mormons aren't allowed at the actual ceremony because from I heard, there's at least one sheep involved. Don't ask me what for!


----------



## Shogun

a catholic high fives a mormon?


that's gotta be a punchline for a joke!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> CGirl, I think non-mormons aren't allowed at the actual ceremony because from I heard, there's at least one sheep involved. Don't ask me what for!



fail


----------



## froggy

California Girl said:


> I don't know where truthmatters gets this obsession with 'secrecy' and 'excluding' people. My understanding - and I've attended Mormon weddings - is that very few people attend the actual ceremony. At the wedding I attended, most family members - including Mormons - didn't attend that part. It didn't make any of the non-Mormons feel unwelcome or excluded. Quite the opposite, I found the Mormons there to be very friendly.
> 
> We had a great time - even without alcohol!!!
> 
> What Mormons believe is their business - I don't necessarily agree with all their beliefs any more than they would agree with mine.... However, I'd rather have a Mormon on my side than an atheist. Now, atheists... they are weird. Must be hard to believe in nothing.
> 
> For the non Mormons on this thread.... just read back through the thousands of posts for a while and see for yourself. No matter what the provocation - and some people here have been seriously pathetic in their attacks of Mormons.... Not once have our Mormon posters reacted with anything more than patience. Personally, I respect them much more than those who claim 'intellectual superiority' and then fall back on stupid arguments against them.
> 
> I'm gonna say it again.... High Five to the Mormons on this site. You guys hold your ground with honor and dignity and this Catholic respects that.




alcohol was served, just not to you they new your condition


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> CGirl, I think non-mormons aren't allowed at the actual ceremony because from I heard, there's at least one sheep involved. Don't ask me what for!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fail
Click to expand...



I said it earlier in this monolithic thread and I'll say it again, dude:

congrats on posting what is probably one of the largest threads on USMB.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Shogun said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> CGirl, I think non-mormons aren't allowed at the actual ceremony because from I heard, there's at least one sheep involved. Don't ask me what for!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said it earlier in this monolithic thread and I'll say it again, dude:
> 
> congrats on posting what is probably one of the largest threads on USMB.
Click to expand...


I'm very surprised at it's staying power. I should start collecting royalties I think we'll get to 100,000 views. I doubt any other has reached this.


----------



## Shogun

Truthspeaker said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said it earlier in this monolithic thread and I'll say it again, dude:
> 
> congrats on posting what is probably one of the largest threads on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm very surprised at it's staying power. I should start collecting royalties I think we'll get to 100,000 views. *I doubt any other has reached this*.
Click to expand...


I'd bet on that horse!


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthmatters said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I have family members who are Mormons, I'm aware of their practices. Your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could always just DECIDE to not marry a mormon. Everybody is welcome to the reception anyway and in such cases where this happens, what usually happens is there is a separate ring ceremony followed by a reception which is the same as a traditional marriage so no one is left out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY DO THEY NOT ALLOW FAMILY AT WEDDINGS!
> 
> you NEVER answered my question.
> 
> When you have a religion that shuts out family because of religious prejudice then you have a problem.
> 
> There are things you dont wnat the world to know about you.
> 
> That makes you a closed religion.
> 
> Its cult like and I will never respect an organized religion that has secret practices.
> 
> I will NEVER vote for a mormon for office because of your secrets.
Click to expand...


Again it's not secret. You are more than welcome to repent of your sins and be taught everything. In fact, we encourage you to. We want you to read the Book of Mormon. We want you to be prepared for the Temple and to learn what the Lord wants to teach you.

Not our fault if you don't want to do what's necessary to learn it.

Shame you don't have an open mind or a desire to learn anything. You'd be very surprised what you'd learn.


----------



## Shogun

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You could always just DECIDE to not marry a mormon. Everybody is welcome to the reception anyway and in such cases where this happens, what usually happens is there is a separate ring ceremony followed by a reception which is the same as a traditional marriage so no one is left out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY DO THEY NOT ALLOW FAMILY AT WEDDINGS!
> 
> you NEVER answered my question.
> 
> When you have a religion that shuts out family because of religious prejudice then you have a problem.
> 
> There are things you dont wnat the world to know about you.
> 
> That makes you a closed religion.
> 
> Its cult like and I will never respect an organized religion that has secret practices.
> 
> I will NEVER vote for a mormon for office because of your secrets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again it's not secret. You are more than welcome to repent of your sins *and be taught everything. In fact, we encourage you to. We want you to read the Book* of Mormon. We want you to be prepared for the Temple and to learn what the Lord wants to teach you.
> *
> Not our fault if you don't want to do what's necessary to learn it.
> 
> Shame you don't have an open mind or a desire to learn anything. You'd be very surprised what you'd learn*.
Click to expand...


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Do you believe your a god?



Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.

So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.

The scriptures are pretty clear

We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)

Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?

Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?


----------



## Truthspeaker

A perfect response.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe your a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.
> 
> So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.
> 
> The scriptures are pretty clear
> 
> We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
> We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
> We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
> We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
> We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
> We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)
> 
> Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?
> 
> Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?
Click to expand...


That might work if the bible wasn't all second hand hearsay.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe your a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.
> 
> So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.
> 
> The scriptures are pretty clear
> 
> We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
> We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
> We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
> We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
> We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
> We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)
> 
> Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?
> 
> Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That might work if the bible wasn't all second hand hearsay.
Click to expand...


Well I don't know if secondhand is the perfect word to describe it but I get your point. It's not hearsay that's for sure. It needs proper interpretation let's just say that. 

You may try reading the book of mormon and I'd like to get your thoughts on it.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe your a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.
> 
> So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.
> 
> The scriptures are pretty clear
> 
> We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
> We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
> We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
> We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
> We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
> We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)
> 
> Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?
> 
> Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?
Click to expand...


Talking about twisting the truth, Jesus ask the jewish leaders a question. " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" 
 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  Thus jesus is saying to them they the Jews put that text in their jewishs laws.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe your a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.
> 
> So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.
> 
> The scriptures are pretty clear
> 
> We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
> We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
> We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
> We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
> We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
> We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)
> 
> Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?
> 
> Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?
Click to expand...


It says we will be like him meaning in spirit form, it does say we will be gods, mormons got that from men like joey,he told the idiots that were dumb enough to follow him that they would be gods over the non mormons, what a con.


----------



## California Girl

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe your a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.
> 
> So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.
> 
> The scriptures are pretty clear
> 
> We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
> We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
> We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
> We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
> We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
> We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)
> 
> Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?
> 
> Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says we will be like him meaning in spirit form, it does say we will be gods, mormons got that from men like joey,he told the idiots that were dumb enough to follow him that they would be gods over the non mormons, what a con.
Click to expand...


I would have thought that you would be able to argue your point without resorting to insulting Mormons. We have that whole 'judge not, lest ye be judged' thing going on in Christianity. 

I always find the wisest course is for God to decide who is and is not a Believer.


----------



## froggy

California Girl said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.
> 
> So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.
> 
> The scriptures are pretty clear
> 
> We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
> We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
> We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
> We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
> We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
> We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)
> 
> Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?
> 
> Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says we will be like him meaning in spirit form, it does say we will be gods, mormons got that from men like joey,he told the idiots that were dumb enough to follow him that they would be gods over the non mormons, what a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have thought that you would be able to argue your point without resorting to insulting Mormons. We have that whole 'judge not, lest ye be judged' thing going on in Christianity.
> 
> I always find the wisest course is for God to decide who is and is not a Believer.
Click to expand...


It also says you know them by their fruit they bare.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It says we will be like him meaning in spirit form, it does say we will be gods, mormons got that from men like joey,he told the idiots that were dumb enough to follow him that they would be gods over the non mormons, what a con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have thought that you would be able to argue your point without resorting to insulting Mormons. We have that whole 'judge not, lest ye be judged' thing going on in Christianity.
> 
> I always find the wisest course is for God to decide who is and is not a Believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It also says you know them by their fruit they bare.
Click to expand...


I think that's the point she is making.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Talking about twisting the truth, Jesus ask the jewish leaders a question. " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
> If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  Thus jesus is saying to them they the Jews put that text in their jewishs laws.



How is it twisting the Truth when Jesus did in fact say it as you verified.

Are you saying that Psalms 82 is not inspired of God?


----------



## Christopher

Truthspeaker said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Banned Mormon Cartoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a banned Mormon cartoon.  Ive actually seen this before.  It definitely was not created by the Mormon church.
> 
> Did you know there are misrepresentations/lies in it?  This makes me question the person/group who made it and their real intentions.  It should do the same for you, if you are for an honest discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hilarious that they say "banned" as if it was something we used to have in our curriculum or sunday schools. What baloney! It makes me laugh.
Click to expand...


I laughed the first time I saw it too.  It is almost like they tried to make it like the Living Scriptures animation or something.


----------



## Christopher

California Girl said:


> I don't know where truthmatters gets this obsession with 'secrecy' and 'excluding' people. My understanding - and I've attended Mormon weddings - is that very few people attend the actual ceremony. At the wedding I attended, most family members - including Mormons - didn't attend that part. It didn't make any of the non-Mormons feel unwelcome or excluded. Quite the opposite, I found the Mormons there to be very friendly.
> 
> We had a great time - even without alcohol!!!
> 
> What Mormons believe is their business - I don't necessarily agree with all their beliefs any more than they would agree with mine.... However, I'd rather have a Mormon on my side than an atheist. Now, atheists... they are weird. Must be hard to believe in nothing.
> 
> For the non Mormons on this thread.... just read back through the thousands of posts for a while and see for yourself. No matter what the provocation - and some people here have been seriously pathetic in their attacks of Mormons.... Not once have our Mormon posters reacted with anything more than patience. Personally, I respect them much more than those who claim 'intellectual superiority' and then fall back on stupid arguments against them.
> 
> I'm gonna say it again.... High Five to the Mormons on this site. You guys hold your ground with honor and dignity and this Catholic respects that.



My 3 year old son always has to do a knuckle pump after a high five.  So, here's a high five and a knuckle pump back for being respectful.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> That might work if the bible wasn't all second hand hearsay.



Well, unlike some people, I am aware of my audience. Froggy has professed a belief in the Bible. So I am citing references that he finds authoritative. If I had been talking to you, I would have had a much different approach because you need to learn how to recieve revelation for yourself and to find that the scriptures are reliable before the revelations will be authoritative to you.


----------



## Hister

Avatar4321 said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> That might work if the bible wasn't all second hand hearsay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unlike some people, I am aware of my audience. Froggy has professed a belief in the Bible. So I am citing references that he finds authoritative. If I had been talking to you, I would have had a much different approach because you need to learn how to recieve revelation for yourself and to find that the scriptures are reliable before the revelations will be authoritative to you.
Click to expand...


Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?


----------



## froggy

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> That might work if the bible wasn't all second hand hearsay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unlike some people, I am aware of my audience. Froggy has professed a belief in the Bible. So I am citing references that he finds authoritative. If I had been talking to you, I would have had a much different approach because you need to learn how to recieve revelation for yourself and to find that the scriptures are reliable before the revelations will be authoritative to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
> So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?
Click to expand...


How long is a day in Gods time compared to our day, much much longer i'd say.


----------



## Hister

froggy said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unlike some people, I am aware of my audience. Froggy has professed a belief in the Bible. So I am citing references that he finds authoritative. If I had been talking to you, I would have had a much different approach because you need to learn how to recieve revelation for yourself and to find that the scriptures are reliable before the revelations will be authoritative to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
> So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is a day in Gods time compared to our day, much much longer i'd say.
Click to expand...


You'd say, but does the bible say so? And anyways, how long is a god day? Does it mention that anywhere at all?


----------



## froggy

Hister said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
> So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long is a day in Gods time compared to our day, much much longer i'd say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd say, but does the bible say so? And anyways, how long is a god day? Does it mention that anywhere at all?
Click to expand...


read 2nd peter chapter 3 verse 8


----------



## Hister

froggy said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long is a day in Gods time compared to our day, much much longer i'd say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd say, but does the bible say so? And anyways, how long is a god day? Does it mention that anywhere at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> read 2nd peter chapter 3 verse 8
Click to expand...


Don't have a bible.


----------



## froggy

Hister said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd say, but does the bible say so? And anyways, how long is a god day? Does it mention that anywhere at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read 2nd peter chapter 3 verse 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have a bible.
Click to expand...


Your on the web now aren't you.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
> So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?



You assume that it didn't take six days. Mostly because you think days necessarily means a 24 hr period.

But it doesn't always mean that, now does it?


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd say, but does the bible say so? And anyways, how long is a god day? Does it mention that anywhere at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> read 2nd peter chapter 3 verse 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have a bible.
Click to expand...


Shocked. Shocked I tell you!

Seriously, why is it people seem to think they understand something they have never read before?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about twisting the truth, Jesus ask the jewish leaders a question. " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
> If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  Thus jesus is saying to them they the Jews put that text in their jewishs laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it twisting the Truth when Jesus did in fact say it as you verified.
> 
> Are you saying that Psalms 82 is not inspired of God?
Click to expand...


Did you not know that the book of psalms was a book of hymns


----------



## Eightball

Jesus' useage of gods towards the Jews was not in the text of Jehovah.......It is a Jewish term that doesn't mean literally that they were God.  It was an endearing term towards His Creation.

Bible scholars/theologists will all confirm that fact.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe your a god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Jesus Christ said "ye are gods" to those who recieve the word.
> 
> So yes. I take Jesus as a very credible resource.
> 
> The scriptures are pretty clear
> 
> We partake of the Divine nature (2 Peter 1:4)
> We are joint heirs with Christ and recieve everything the Father has (Rom 8:17)
> We are to recieve a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4)
> We will be like God when He comes (1 John 3:2)
> We will be perfected and sanctified (Heb 10:14)
> We will be one with the Father as Jesus is one with the Father (John 17:21)
> 
> Are you suggesting that we can be one with God without being Divine? That we aren't actually going to inherit everything the Father has including his power, dominion, glory, perfection, character, etc?
> 
> Personally, I believe Christ. I believe the Apostles testimony of Christ and the Father. Why should I pretend otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It says we will be like him meaning in spirit form, it does say we will be gods, mormons got that from men like joey,he told the idiots that were dumb enough to follow him that they would be gods over the non mormons, what a con.
Click to expand...


Thanks for calling me an idiot. Perhaps I could retaliate but I don't need to. The bible is clear on this subject but I won't call you an idiiot for interpreting the bible differently.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unlike some people, I am aware of my audience. Froggy has professed a belief in the Bible. So I am citing references that he finds authoritative. If I had been talking to you, I would have had a much different approach because you need to learn how to recieve revelation for yourself and to find that the scriptures are reliable before the revelations will be authoritative to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
> So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How long is a day in Gods time compared to our day, much much longer i'd say.
Click to expand...


Here's how you understand it. Ok? Earth hadn't been created yet so the days he was referring to could not have been Earth Days. The universe is big and not all revolutions are the same. I'm sure it was a different sun and different planet being referred to. I don't know that many people who still believe it was a 6-earth day process.
Especially if God rested a 7th day, that would have been a very long period of time for life to have developed and generations upon generations of living species to have lived and died out. Preparing the way for the placement of Man upon the earth.

As to the other miracles you're referring to, you don't have to believe in them. If I were you I'd focus more on the doctrines taught and whether or not they are true. When you find out for sure, It makes much more sense to say those miracles did or didn't happen. That's my advice for you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking about twisting the truth, Jesus ask the jewish leaders a question. " Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
> If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  Thus jesus is saying to them they the Jews put that text in their jewishs laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it twisting the Truth when Jesus did in fact say it as you verified.
> 
> Are you saying that Psalms 82 is not inspired of God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you not know that the book of psalms was a book of hymns
Click to expand...


Yes of course. Hymns are songs and God has said:
"For the song of the righteous is a prayer unto me, and shall be answered on their heads with a blessing."


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Jesus' useage of gods towards the Jews was not in the text of Jehovah.......It is a Jewish term that doesn't mean literally that they were God.  It was an endearing term towards His Creation.
> 
> Bible scholars/theologists will all confirm that fact.



So you think Jews tampered with the Bible? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
> So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long is a day in Gods time compared to our day, much much longer i'd say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's how you understand it. Ok? Earth hadn't been created yet so the days he was referring to could not have been Earth Days. The universe is big and not all revolutions are the same. I'm sure it was a different sun and different planet being referred to. I don't know that many people who still believe it was a 6-earth day process.
> Especially if God rested a 7th day, that would have been a very long period of time for life to have developed and generations upon generations of living species to have lived and died out. Preparing the way for the placement of Man upon the earth.
> 
> As to the other miracles you're referring to, you don't have to believe in them. If I were you I'd focus more on the doctrines taught and whether or not they are true. When you find out for sure, It makes much more sense to say those miracles did or didn't happen. That's my advice for you.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that the person who wrote genesis was talking about 6 earth days, which makes you someone who doesn't believe in the bible.
As for the other "miracles", you don't seem to believe those either. So you must be faking it to be a mormon just to marry as many young girls as you want.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long is a day in Gods time compared to our day, much much longer i'd say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how you understand it. Ok? Earth hadn't been created yet so the days he was referring to could not have been Earth Days. The universe is big and not all revolutions are the same. I'm sure it was a different sun and different planet being referred to. I don't know that many people who still believe it was a 6-earth day process.
> Especially if God rested a 7th day, that would have been a very long period of time for life to have developed and generations upon generations of living species to have lived and died out. Preparing the way for the placement of Man upon the earth.
> 
> As to the other miracles you're referring to, you don't have to believe in them. If I were you I'd focus more on the doctrines taught and whether or not they are true. When you find out for sure, It makes much more sense to say those miracles did or didn't happen. That's my advice for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the person who wrote genesis was talking about 6 earth days, which makes you someone who doesn't believe in the bible.
> As for the other "miracles", you don't seem to believe those either. So you must be faking it to be a mormon just to marry as many young girls as you want.
Click to expand...


You're just sooo witty.

No, the person who translated Genesis saw the hebrew word meaning "revolution" and thought it meant "day". Either way if I wanted to marry lots of young girls I could do it much easier by leaving the Church of Jesus Christ and joining the polygamist colonies in the boonies. Or becoming a muslim and living in Saudi Arabia. Not my cup o' tea. Then again, as a "mormon", what would be my cup of tea.


----------



## California Girl

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how you understand it. Ok? Earth hadn't been created yet so the days he was referring to could not have been Earth Days. The universe is big and not all revolutions are the same. I'm sure it was a different sun and different planet being referred to. I don't know that many people who still believe it was a 6-earth day process.
> Especially if God rested a 7th day, that would have been a very long period of time for life to have developed and generations upon generations of living species to have lived and died out. Preparing the way for the placement of Man upon the earth.
> 
> As to the other miracles you're referring to, you don't have to believe in them. If I were you I'd focus more on the doctrines taught and whether or not they are true. When you find out for sure, It makes much more sense to say those miracles did or didn't happen. That's my advice for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the person who wrote genesis was talking about 6 earth days, which makes you someone who doesn't believe in the bible.
> As for the other "miracles", you don't seem to believe those either. So you must be faking it to be a mormon just to marry as many young girls as you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just sooo witty.
> 
> No, the person who translated Genesis saw the hebrew word meaning "revolution" and thought it meant "day". Either way if I wanted to marry lots of young girls I could do it much easier by leaving the Church of Jesus Christ and joining the polygamist colonies in the boonies. Or becoming a muslim and living in Saudi Arabia. Not my cup o' tea. Then again, as a "mormon", what would be my cup of tea.
Click to expand...


Decaf?


----------



## Eightball

*surely ye are gods*



> surely, "ye are gods" is one of the strangest statements recorded in the bible. It is one of those verses that we simply pass over time and time again because of its peculiarity. We do not understand it, but we are able to live with that lack of understanding. What did asaph mean when he penned these words under the inspiration of the holy ghost in the 82nd psalm? What did jesus mean in john 10 when he quoted asaph to the unbelieving jews?
> 
> First we must look at psalm 82 to get the context in which these words are found. In verse one asaph declared that god judges among the gods. This word "gods" is the same hebrew word used in verse six. Verses two through four inform us as to the identity of these gods whom god judges. They are none other than judges, or magistrates of the land. They were rulers who were perverting judgment through their office and authority. Because of this it is declared, "i have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" (psalm 82:6-7). The lord had given these rulers their authority, but they abused it (daniel 4:25, 30, 34-37; 5:18-22; romans 13:1-4). As a result of their evil stewardship over the offices of god, the lord said they would fall like one of the princes. In this passage, then, those who are called gods are human judges in the land of israel.
> 
> The hebrew word translated "gods" is elohim. This is the masculine plural form of the root word el, denoting strength and power.1 elohim is used 2,250 times in the old testament. What is interesting about this word is that it does not always refer to the one true god, and is not even always translated "god." it is also attributed to angels (psalm 8:5), and human judges (exodus 21:6). It is translated as "mighty" in reference to a human prince (genesis 23:6), thunder (exodus 9:28), "great" in reference to rachel's competition with leah for children (genesis 30:8). The reason god called the judges "gods" was because of their strength and power of position, not because of any deity within them. As i have just demonstrated, the word does not always imply deity, whether it be false or true, but can refer to different offices, peoples, or concepts.
> 
> Now we will examine jesus' use of this verse in john 10:34. The event that prompted jesus' quotation of this verse was the jews' response to his claim of deity. Not only did he claim deity, but he claimed to be yahweh himself (deuteronomy 6:4; john 10:30-33). The jews did not understand jesus' statement, "i and my father are one," to mean that jesus was in unity with god's purpose. They understood him to be claiming that he and god were one in essence and substance. To the jews this was blasphemy. Blasphemy received the death penalty by stoning according to the law of moses. That is why they took up stones to stone him.
> 
> Jesus knew that it was his claim to be god himself that infuriated the jews enough to kill him. If jesus only meant that his oneness with the father was of purpose, and not of essence, this would have been the perfect time to explain to the jews that he was not claiming to be god, but merely a demigod, or second god sent from the lord. Instead he quoted psalm 82:6 saying, "is it not written in your law, i said, ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of god came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because i said, i am the son of god?".
> 
> The point jesus was making here was that since " 'the scripture uses the word god as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It cannot, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the messiah.' "2 if the magistrates could be called by the same word used for the true god because they were leaders to whom the word of god came (was entrusted), then jesus should also be able to claim the title for yahweh since he spoke the words of god. Jesus' argument to the jews was that if mere humans could carry the title of "gods" in the holy scriptures, then they should not object to his claim either.
> 
> With this, i believe we might also view a touch of sarcasm in jesus' words. In a sense he said, "why can't i be god just because i'm a man. Even you're own scriptures declare men to be gods?" jesus was not minimizing his identity to be something less than god, but seems to be mocking the jews with their own scriptures. The jews continually came at jesus with the scriptures trying to destroy his claims, so jesus used their own methods on them.
> 
> If jesus did not intend to be at least a little sarcastic with the jews, then his statement would have put him on the same level as a magistrate or leader, and not as the son of god as he claimed to be (john 10:30, 36). If jesus was equating himself with a magistrate or leader, he could not have claimed to be in the father, and have the father in him (john 10:38). This was a special identity and relationship unique to jesus himself. No mere man could claim anything similar without in fact committing blasphemy against the god of heaven.


----------



## Truthspeaker

California Girl said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that the person who wrote genesis was talking about 6 earth days, which makes you someone who doesn't believe in the bible.
> As for the other "miracles", you don't seem to believe those either. So you must be faking it to be a mormon just to marry as many young girls as you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're just sooo witty.
> 
> No, the person who translated Genesis saw the hebrew word meaning "revolution" and thought it meant "day". Either way if I wanted to marry lots of young girls I could do it much easier by leaving the Church of Jesus Christ and joining the polygamist colonies in the boonies. Or becoming a muslim and living in Saudi Arabia. Not my cup o' tea. Then again, as a "mormon", what would be my cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Decaf?
Click to expand...


Root beer


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> *surely ye are gods*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surely, "ye are gods" is one of the strangest statements recorded in the bible. It is one of those verses that we simply pass over time and time again because of its peculiarity. We do not understand it, but we are able to live with that lack of understanding. What did asaph mean when he penned these words under the inspiration of the holy ghost in the 82nd psalm? What did jesus mean in john 10 when he quoted asaph to the unbelieving jews?
> 
> First we must look at psalm 82 to get the context in which these words are found. In verse one asaph declared that god judges among the gods. This word "gods" is the same hebrew word used in verse six. Verses two through four inform us as to the identity of these gods whom god judges. They are none other than judges, or magistrates of the land. They were rulers who were perverting judgment through their office and authority. Because of this it is declared, "i have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" (psalm 82:6-7). The lord had given these rulers their authority, but they abused it (daniel 4:25, 30, 34-37; 5:18-22; romans 13:1-4). As a result of their evil stewardship over the offices of god, the lord said they would fall like one of the princes. In this passage, then, those who are called gods are human judges in the land of israel.
> 
> The hebrew word translated "gods" is elohim. This is the masculine plural form of the root word el, denoting strength and power.1 elohim is used 2,250 times in the old testament. What is interesting about this word is that it does not always refer to the one true god, and is not even always translated "god." it is also attributed to angels (psalm 8:5), and human judges (exodus 21:6). It is translated as "mighty" in reference to a human prince (genesis 23:6), thunder (exodus 9:28), "great" in reference to rachel's competition with leah for children (genesis 30:8). The reason god called the judges "gods" was because of their strength and power of position, not because of any deity within them. As i have just demonstrated, the word does not always imply deity, whether it be false or true, but can refer to different offices, peoples, or concepts.
> 
> Now we will examine jesus' use of this verse in john 10:34. The event that prompted jesus' quotation of this verse was the jews' response to his claim of deity. Not only did he claim deity, but he claimed to be yahweh himself (deuteronomy 6:4; john 10:30-33). The jews did not understand jesus' statement, "i and my father are one," to mean that jesus was in unity with god's purpose. They understood him to be claiming that he and god were one in essence and substance. To the jews this was blasphemy. Blasphemy received the death penalty by stoning according to the law of moses. That is why they took up stones to stone him.
> 
> Jesus knew that it was his claim to be god himself that infuriated the jews enough to kill him. If jesus only meant that his oneness with the father was of purpose, and not of essence, this would have been the perfect time to explain to the jews that he was not claiming to be god, but merely a demigod, or second god sent from the lord. Instead he quoted psalm 82:6 saying, "is it not written in your law, i said, ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of god came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because i said, i am the son of god?".
> 
> The point jesus was making here was that since " 'the scripture uses the word god as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It cannot, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the messiah.' "2 if the magistrates could be called by the same word used for the true god because they were leaders to whom the word of god came (was entrusted), then jesus should also be able to claim the title for yahweh since he spoke the words of god. Jesus' argument to the jews was that if mere humans could carry the title of "gods" in the holy scriptures, then they should not object to his claim either.
> 
> With this, i believe we might also view a touch of sarcasm in jesus' words. In a sense he said, "why can't i be god just because i'm a man. Even you're own scriptures declare men to be gods?" jesus was not minimizing his identity to be something less than god, but seems to be mocking the jews with their own scriptures. The jews continually came at jesus with the scriptures trying to destroy his claims, so jesus used their own methods on them.
> 
> If jesus did not intend to be at least a little sarcastic with the jews, then his statement would have put him on the same level as a magistrate or leader, and not as the son of god as he claimed to be (john 10:30, 36). If jesus was equating himself with a magistrate or leader, he could not have claimed to be in the father, and have the father in him (john 10:38). This was a special identity and relationship unique to jesus himself. No mere man could claim anything similar without in fact committing blasphemy against the god of heaven.
Click to expand...


definition of a god: supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe.

I think Jesus meant what he said. And that he wasn't the only one. Surely he's the one in charge but the Bible is clear that there is more than one on many occasions. How about the opening statement "Let US make man in OUR image." That's not a mistake. God was not speaking to himself like Gollum or Smeagol. He wasn't lonely. He had us with him there in the beginning as well, only we were no where near his level of advancement. He's in charge and is the boss. He's the head God of all gods. It's not that big a deal. It makes more sense that way anyway if you think about it. And God is all about making as much sense as possible, not about being mysterious.

He also says that we are also children of the Most High and can be joint heirs with Christ and receive all he has. All is an interesting word. Do you think Jesus means what he says? Yes. He doesn't misspeak. He said all and that means all. Including the same inheritance of godship. He commands us to do it. He commands us to be one with the father, the same way he is one with his father. Therefore he has commanded us to be like him and follow his example.  That's why when Peter asked what manner of men ought we to be, Jesus answered and said "verily verily, I say unto you, even as I AM." Don't you realize that? 
He's a loving father who wants us to be like him. How can you be like him if you don't become a god? That makes sense to me.


----------



## Hister

God is the God of all Gods? 

How many are there?

And you think your religion is going to make you a God? And each God gets a planet to rule over? So how do you know that the God of all Gods isn't just some random guy like you who was elevated to a God?
Time to call in the cult de-programmers.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> *surely ye are gods*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> surely, "ye are gods" is one of the strangest statements recorded in the bible. It is one of those verses that we simply pass over time and time again because of its peculiarity. We do not understand it, but we are able to live with that lack of understanding. What did asaph mean when he penned these words under the inspiration of the holy ghost in the 82nd psalm? What did jesus mean in john 10 when he quoted asaph to the unbelieving jews?
> 
> First we must look at psalm 82 to get the context in which these words are found. In verse one asaph declared that god judges among the gods. This word "gods" is the same hebrew word used in verse six. Verses two through four inform us as to the identity of these gods whom god judges. They are none other than judges, or magistrates of the land. They were rulers who were perverting judgment through their office and authority. Because of this it is declared, "i have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most high. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes" (psalm 82:6-7). The lord had given these rulers their authority, but they abused it (daniel 4:25, 30, 34-37; 5:18-22; romans 13:1-4). As a result of their evil stewardship over the offices of god, the lord said they would fall like one of the princes. In this passage, then, those who are called gods are human judges in the land of israel.
> 
> The hebrew word translated "gods" is elohim. This is the masculine plural form of the root word el, denoting strength and power.1 elohim is used 2,250 times in the old testament. What is interesting about this word is that it does not always refer to the one true god, and is not even always translated "god." it is also attributed to angels (psalm 8:5), and human judges (exodus 21:6). It is translated as "mighty" in reference to a human prince (genesis 23:6), thunder (exodus 9:28), "great" in reference to rachel's competition with leah for children (genesis 30:8). The reason god called the judges "gods" was because of their strength and power of position, not because of any deity within them. As i have just demonstrated, the word does not always imply deity, whether it be false or true, but can refer to different offices, peoples, or concepts.
> 
> Now we will examine jesus' use of this verse in john 10:34. The event that prompted jesus' quotation of this verse was the jews' response to his claim of deity. Not only did he claim deity, but he claimed to be yahweh himself (deuteronomy 6:4; john 10:30-33). The jews did not understand jesus' statement, "i and my father are one," to mean that jesus was in unity with god's purpose. They understood him to be claiming that he and god were one in essence and substance. To the jews this was blasphemy. Blasphemy received the death penalty by stoning according to the law of moses. That is why they took up stones to stone him.
> 
> Jesus knew that it was his claim to be god himself that infuriated the jews enough to kill him. If jesus only meant that his oneness with the father was of purpose, and not of essence, this would have been the perfect time to explain to the jews that he was not claiming to be god, but merely a demigod, or second god sent from the lord. Instead he quoted psalm 82:6 saying, "is it not written in your law, i said, ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of god came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because i said, i am the son of god?".
> 
> The point jesus was making here was that since " 'the scripture uses the word god as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It cannot, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the messiah.' "2 if the magistrates could be called by the same word used for the true god because they were leaders to whom the word of god came (was entrusted), then jesus should also be able to claim the title for yahweh since he spoke the words of god. Jesus' argument to the jews was that if mere humans could carry the title of "gods" in the holy scriptures, then they should not object to his claim either.
> 
> With this, i believe we might also view a touch of sarcasm in jesus' words. In a sense he said, "why can't i be god just because i'm a man. Even you're own scriptures declare men to be gods?" jesus was not minimizing his identity to be something less than god, but seems to be mocking the jews with their own scriptures. The jews continually came at jesus with the scriptures trying to destroy his claims, so jesus used their own methods on them.
> 
> If jesus did not intend to be at least a little sarcastic with the jews, then his statement would have put him on the same level as a magistrate or leader, and not as the son of god as he claimed to be (john 10:30, 36). If jesus was equating himself with a magistrate or leader, he could not have claimed to be in the father, and have the father in him (john 10:38). This was a special identity and relationship unique to jesus himself. No mere man could claim anything similar without in fact committing blasphemy against the god of heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> definition of a god: supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe.
> 
> I think Jesus meant what he said. And that he wasn't the only one. Surely he's the one in charge but the Bible is clear that there is more than one on many occasions. How about the opening statement "Let US make man in OUR image." That's not a mistake. God was not speaking to himself like Gollum or Smeagol. He wasn't lonely. He had us with him there in the beginning as well, only we were no where near his level of advancement. He's in charge and is the boss. He's the head God of all gods. It's not that big a deal. It makes more sense that way anyway if you think about it. And God is all about making as much sense as possible, not about being mysterious.
> 
> He also says that we are also children of the Most High and can be joint heirs with Christ and receive all he has. All is an interesting word. Do you think Jesus means what he says? Yes. He doesn't misspeak. He said all and that means all. Including the same inheritance of godship. He commands us to do it. He commands us to be one with the father, the same way he is one with his father. Therefore he has commanded us to be like him and follow his example.  That's why when Peter asked what manner of men ought we to be, Jesus answered and said "verily verily, I say unto you, even as I AM." Don't you realize that?
> He's a loving father who wants us to be like him. How can you be like him if you don't become a god? That makes sense to me.
Click to expand...


Psalms 82 was a song written by Asaph, not God.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> God is the God of all Gods?
> 
> How many are there?
> 
> And you think your religion is going to make you a God? And each God gets a planet to rule over? So how do you know that the God of all Gods isn't just some random guy like you who was elevated to a God?
> Time to call in the cult de-programmers.



As man is, God once was.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the God of all Gods?
> 
> How many are there?
> 
> And you think your religion is going to make you a God? And each God gets a planet to rule over? So how do you know that the God of all Gods isn't just some random guy like you who was elevated to a God?
> Time to call in the cult de-programmers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was.
Click to expand...


So basically, you're saying that mormonism will elevate all mormons to god status with each having its own planet to rule over? That's WHACKED!!!


----------



## Eightball

Hister said:


> So basically, you're saying that mormonism will elevate all mormons to god status with each having its own planet to rule over? That's WHACKED!!!



Try this on for size    



> *The Plain Truth about the Mormons*
> 
> The Mormon movement began with "the prophet" Joseph Smith, Jr. in the year 1820. Joe (as he was known) was born to some rather strange parents in 1805. His mother, Lucy, was involved in occult practices and visions, while his father, Joseph, Sr., consumed much time with imaginary treasure digging (including the booty of Captain Kidd).
> 
> According to Mormon writings (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:1-25), on a day in 1820, Joe was praying in the woods when he received a vision from God the Father and Jesus. It was revealed to Joe that the church was in apostasy and he was the chosen one to launch a new dispensation.
> 
> Being unwilling to drop his current occupation of money-digging with his father (while using "peep stones" and "divining rods"), Joe put his "calling" on hold for three years. Then, according to his own account (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:29-54), he was paid a bedside visit by the angel Moroni in 1823. Moroni, who professed to be the glorified son of a man named Mormon (who had been dead 1400 years), told Joe about a book of golden plates which contained "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel." This book was said to have been buried at Cumorah Hill, near Palmyra, New York, some 1400 years earlier by the man named Mormon. Four years later (1827), Joe supposedly dug up the golden plates along with a gigantic pair of spectacles which he called "the Urim and Thummim." The spectacles were for translating the hieroglyphics on the plates. With the help of his only legal wife and a friend named Oliver Cowdery, Joe translated the plates and published the Book of Mormon in 1830. Later that same year, Joe, his wife, his brothers (Hyrum and Samuel), and Cowdery established the "Church of Jesus Christ," which is known today as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints."
> 
> The Book of Mormon contains many plagiarisms of the King James English (at least 25,000 words). This is strange since the plates were supposed to have been in the ground many centuries before the King James Bible was completed in 1611! The Book of Mormon also contains many errors such as claims of elephants in the Western Hemisphere and advanced metal producing capabilities in America before 400 A.D. (See Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults for a fine study in the errors of the Mormon Bible)
> 
> The Mormons, under Smith's command, turned out to be a rough bunch. Joe was a polygamist with at least twenty- seven wives (some say over 60 wives). The whole gang left New York for Ohio, and then moved to Missouri. The Missouri governor ran them out of the state, so they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, and built the state's largest city. In 1844, Joe and Hyrum were thrown in jail. Then an angry mob stormed the jail and murdered them both. Naturally, this "martyrdom" insured the perpetual reverence of the great "prophet" Joseph Smith.
> 
> The "church" then split. The Smith family headed for Independence, Missouri and started what is now the "Recognized Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints." However, the majority of Smith's followers chose Brigham Young as their new captain.
> 
> To escape U.S. laws, Young led the Mormons from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City in 1847 (which then belonged to Mexico). For the next thirty years, Young and his "saints" laid the foundation stones of the Mormon cult.
> 
> Little known to most Mormons, Young was a rather rough and ruthless character. In 1857, he commanded Bishop John D. Lee to murder a wagon train of over one hundred helpless non-Mormon immigrants. Twenty years later Lee was convicted and executed by the U.S. Government. Young escaped punishment, and his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre has escaped the Mormon history books.
> 
> Young spent most of his "ministry" dodging the law to continue the immoral practice of polygamy. At the time of his death in 1877, Young had seventeen wives and fifty-six children.
> 
> Today the Mormon church is administrated by its "General Authorities." These authorities consist of the "First Presidency," the "Counsel of Twelve Apostles," the "First Quorum of the Seventy" and its presidency, the "Presiding Bishoprick," and the "Patriarch of the Church."
> 
> Male Mormons over twelve years of age are divided into priesthoods. The Aaronic order is the lesser priesthood, and the Melchizedek order is the higher.
> 
> The church is divided into thousands of "wards" and "stakes," with over 2000 branches and 180 missions, and over 5,000,000 members.
> 
> Mormons are very missionary-minded people, with over 26,000 active missionaries. However, much of this missionary army consists of young men and women in their early twenties who must serve two years in missionary work while supporting themselves.
> 
> The Mormon people of today are highly respected in our society, but there is nothing respectable about their doctrines. Some are as follows:
> 
> *The Deity of Man Promoted *
> 
> Mormons teach that man can become God, and that God was once a man:
> 
> "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted immortal resurrected man!" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 322-23, 517, 643)
> "...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens..." (Journal of Discourses, V6, P3, 1844)
> "As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become." (Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, the Gospel Through the Ages, pp. 105-106)
> 
> *This is plain and simple heresy*. Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God was ever a man, or that man can become God! Malachi 3:6 says, "For I am the LORD, I change not..." How could this be true if God was once a man? Genesis 1:1 states that God existed "in the beginning" before man was ever created. John 4:24 states that God is a "spirit," and *Jesus tells us in John 1:18 that no man has seen God at any time*. Numbers 23:19 says that "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." God has always been God, and no one has ever "become" God.
> 
> *Deity of Jesus Christ Denied *
> 
> The Deity of Jesus Christ is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, yet the Mormons deny this truth. Exalting man to "god status" is apparently alright, but Jesus Christ is not acknowledged as the eternal Son of God in the Mormon church. The Mormon Jesus was a preexisting spirit who was exalted, just as Mormon followers hope to be exalted someday.
> 
> God is a Trinity (I Jn. 5:7), and the second Member of that Trinity is the Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:1 says that "the Word was God," and John 1:14 tells us that "the Word was made flesh." Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate, and John 1:1 tells us that the Word was God; so Jesus Christ is God.
> 
> Jesus allowed Thomas to address Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28. In Isaiah 9:6, He is called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father," and we read in Micah 5:2 that Jesus is "from everlasting."
> 
> Our Lord allowed people to worship him in John 10:38 and in Matthew 14:33, and since He is "God with us" (Mat. 1:23) He also has power to forgive sins (Mk. 2:5). Jesus Christ is clearly Deity, yet this doctrine is denied by the Mormons.
> 
> *Multiple Authorities *
> 
> The Bible declares, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20) However, the Mormon Church claims that other writings, such as the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's writings are also authoritative. In fact, Joseph Smith taught his people to doubt the accuracy of the Bible: "...it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 10)
> 
> *Mormon Writings Support Polygamy *
> 
> "...if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery...And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery." (Doctrines and Covenants, 132:61, 62)
> 
> Jesus Christ held a slightly different view (Mark 10:6- 9). There is no way a man can be "one flesh" with more than one woman. A man and his wife are supposed to picture Christ and his church (Eph. 5:23-32), but this symbolism is shattered by the Mormon heresy of Polygamy.
> 
> *True Church Theory *
> 
> The Mormon book, The Pearl of Great Price, claims that all other Christian groups are "corrupt" and are an "abomination" in God's sight (Joseph Smith, 2:19). Such claims as this are based on the unscriptural assumption that the Lord Jesus Christ has a specific religious organization on the earth today, complete with a name, a membership, and a leadership, which makes up His "true church." This doctrine is found nowhere in God's word. Everyone who has received Christ as their Saviour is a member of His church, which is a spiritual body of born-again believers (Eph. 4:4; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18-24; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 19:7; 5:9-10; 21:9).
> 
> *Other False Teachings *
> 
> The Mormons deny the Trinity and the existence of a literal burning Hell, yet they promote polytheism (many gods), baptism for the dead, and the notion that Jesus and Satan were originally spirit brothers! Friend, make no mistake about it--Mormonism is a dangerous cult. In the eyes of man, the Mormons seem very respectable, but the light of God's word reveals the true wolves behind the sheep clothing. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Mat. 7:15) Don't look at their nice families, their clean-cut hair, and their friendly "missionaries." LOOK AT THEIR DOCTRINES! (I Tim. 4:1)
> 
> There is no way to cover all of the Mormon heresies in a tract this size. For further reading, we recommend our publication, The Bible Believer's Handbook of Heresies, which sheds light on many of the heresies being taught today in the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
> 
> *Salvation through Works *
> 
> Mormons believe that one's salvation is based on such good works as baptism, good deeds, missionary work, and following Mormon teachings. In The Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, justification by faith in Jesus Christ is called a "pernicious doctrine" twice and he states that it has been "an influence for evil." (pp. 107, 480) Bruce McConkie once stated at Brigham Young University that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is "improper and perilous" (Church News, March 20, 1982, p. 5)
> 
> Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Romans 4:5 says that salvation comes to those who do not work for salvation, but believe on Jesus Christ instead!
> 
> Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6) "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
> 
> Jesus PAID your way to Heaven! Your church cannot save you! Only by receiving Jesus Christ as your Saviour can you escape the damnation of Hell. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the God of all Gods?
> 
> How many are there?
> 
> And you think your religion is going to make you a God? And each God gets a planet to rule over? So how do you know that the God of all Gods isn't just some random guy like you who was elevated to a God?
> Time to call in the cult de-programmers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was.
Click to expand...


THat's what joey would have you to believe, its not in the bible.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the God of all Gods?
> 
> How many are there?
> 
> And you think your religion is going to make you a God? And each God gets a planet to rule over? So how do you know that the God of all Gods isn't just some random guy like you who was elevated to a God?
> Time to call in the cult de-programmers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THat's what joey would have you to believe, its not in the bible.
Click to expand...


So God didn't become flesh and Atone for the sins of the World?

Thought that was the central theme of the New Testament.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the God of all Gods?
> 
> How many are there?
> 
> And you think your religion is going to make you a God? And each God gets a planet to rule over? So how do you know that the God of all Gods isn't just some random guy like you who was elevated to a God?
> Time to call in the cult de-programmers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So basically, you're saying that mormonism will elevate all mormons to god status with each having its own planet to rule over? That's WHACKED!!!
Click to expand...


If only it were as easy as you suggest, but there's much more to it than that. Certainly not all mormons. In fact most mormons won't make it. There are far more people who are currently non-mormons who will receive exaltation than the ones who are currently claiming to be of our faith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is the God of all Gods?
> 
> How many are there?
> 
> And you think your religion is going to make you a God? And each God gets a planet to rule over? So how do you know that the God of all Gods isn't just some random guy like you who was elevated to a God?
> Time to call in the cult de-programmers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THat's what joey would have you to believe, its not in the bible.
Click to expand...


So what if it's not in the bible? The Bible never says everything has to be in the Bible?

In fact the Bible supports the statement. It certainly doesn't deny it. In fact it confirms it.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> As man is, God once was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you're saying that mormonism will elevate all mormons to god status with each having its own planet to rule over? That's WHACKED!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only it were as easy as you suggest, but there's much more to it than that. Certainly not all mormons. In fact most mormons won't make it. There are far more people who are currently non-mormons who will receive exaltation than the ones who are currently claiming to be of our faith.
Click to expand...


So god will elevate people (women also?) of his choosing regardless of their personal religion? So what's the point of your religion? I mean, besides the tithe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Try this on for size


You just couldn't help yourself. you tried to hide your pattern of consistent repetition but You are truly back to being yourself. At least you gave me a break for a while from your monotony. I needed the rest. Now I'm willing to deal with it again. Thanks








> *The Plain Truth about the Mormons*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mormon movement began with "the prophet" Joseph Smith, Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> First, it's not a movement. It's a worldwide religion. And it started with Jesus Christ choosing to appear to Joseph Smith. Joseph didn't choose this for himself. He was 14 and only wanted to know which church to join.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe (as he was known) was born to some rather strange parents in 1805.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His parents actually had a shining reputation until their son claimed to have seen God. The slander on their character didn't come until after this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His mother, Lucy, was involved in occult practices and visions,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please cite which practices and visions, since you are the one accusing. Details are kind of important when slandering someone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> while his father, Joseph, Sr., consumed much time with imaginary treasure digging (including the booty of Captain Kidd).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again details would be nice. But to be paid by an employer to dig for a mine which is suspected to contain silver or other jewels is not bad work if you can get it. What makes it so bad? It's honest hard work. And please tell us what you mean by "the booty of Captain Kidd". Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Mormon writings (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:1-25), on a day in 1820, Joe was praying in the woods when he received a vision from God the Father and Jesus. It was revealed to Joe that the church was in apostasy and he was the chosen one to launch a new dispensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he was affectionately known by his friends as Joe. I just think it's odd that you disaffectionately call him Joe in a sneering sort of trying-to-insult way. Anywhoo,
> 
> He was told not to join any of the churches and to wait for further instruction. It wasn't for four years that he was given instruction to translate the gold plates and not until 10 years had passed to restart Jesus original church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being unwilling to drop his current occupation of money-digging with his father
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's not lie shall we? It is true that they picked up odd jobs where they could find them, but to call "money digging" his occupation is a malicious lie. They were farmers by occupation, since that is what they did every day. The digging jobs they were lucky enough to find(lots of others were taking these jobs as well since many rich enthusiasts were willing to pay workers to dig for them as many treasures had been found in those parts and times.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (while using "peep stones" and "divining rods")
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please define "peep stones" and "divining rods". How did Joseph use these? Where did he find them? Were they useful or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe put his "calling" on hold for three years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joseph was never given a calling until 4 years had passed, so what calling could he have been given that he was putting on hold?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then, according to his own account (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1:29-54), he was paid a bedside visit by the angel Moroni in 1823. Moroni, who professed to be the glorified son of a man named Mormon (who had been dead 1400 years), told Joe about a book of golden plates which contained "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Finally something you posted was entirely true about us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This book was said to have been buried at Cumorah Hill, near Palmyra, New York, some 1400 years earlier by the man named Mormon. Four years later (1827), Joe supposedly dug up the golden plates along with a gigantic pair of spectacles which he called "the Urim and Thummim."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Large, yes...Gigantic...No. and the man's name was Moroni, not Mormon. Sorry about focusing on what you might call minutia but I kinda like getting it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spectacles were for translating the hieroglyphics on the plates. With the help of his only legal wife and a friend named Oliver Cowdery,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My how you love to try and sneak little jabs in... At least make them true jabs and not lies.
> 
> Emma was his only wife at the time. If you want to refer to his later years and his other wives then yes he had more than one but they were never illegal. He was never convicted of a crime. It was not illegal in the US to have more than one wife at the time so it couldn't have been illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe translated the plates and published the Book of Mormon in 1830. Later that same year, Joe, his wife, his brothers (Hyrum and Samuel), and Cowdery established the "Church of Jesus Christ," which is known today as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not like the name Joseph? You just LOVE saying Joe don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon contains many plagiarisms of the King James English (at least 25,000 words)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the most ridiculous claim I've heard yet. Number one. The Bible does not have a copyright so it can't be plagiarized. Number 2, The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi, while speaking to his followers in ancient times, quotes the prophet Isaiah. He actually says "Listen to the words of Isaiah," then quotes several chapters and verses that are found nearly verbatim in the King James Version of the Bible.....Uhhh.....How is quoting the same as plagiarizing. There are several publicized Bible quotes which state who they're quoting in the Book of Mormon. Please learn English and the difference between the words quote and plagiarize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . This is strange since the plates were supposed to have been in the ground many centuries before the King James Bible was completed in 1611!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed it would be strange to plagiarize from something that is impossible to plagiarize since it has no copyright and the book only quotes from it instead of claiming to originate the staments of the Bible. It says, "hey everyone, here's words from the Bible! You better listen to it or you'll be sorry.By the way, it wasn't my idea, it came from the Bible."
> Plagiarism?????............no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon also contains many errors such as claims of elephants in the Western Hemisphere and advanced metal producing capabilities in America before 400 A.D. (See Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults for a fine study in the errors of the Mormon Bible)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Recent discoveries have shown that Mammoths were in North and Central America around as late as 3000 to 1500 B.C. Right around the time of the Jaredites....hmmm....if that doesn't put the INK in coINKydINK. Then I don't know what does. by the way. Metal rusts and since the society that had brought the knoweldge of metallurgy with them from the old world was wiped out, it's no wonder the swords have rusted and gone back to mother Earth over a thousand year period of time, especially in the humid tropical climate of central America. Nonetheless, we shouldn't judge too quickly when only 2% of the archaelogical sites in Central and South america have been excavated. It means nothing that metal hasn't been found when considering all the evidences together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mormons, under Smith's command, turned out to be a rough bunch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rough bunch?
> 
> 
> 
> Joe was a polygamist with at least twenty- seven wives (some say over 60 wives).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some say 1000! That's epic indeed. Who cares if it was two or two thousand. He was a polygamist. The number is irrelevant. C'mon guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole gang left New York for Ohio, and then moved to Missouri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the "gang" comment. Not sure what you meant by gang but maybe I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Missouri governor ran them out of the state, so they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, and built the state's largest city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "ran them out" is a rather mild way of putting it. I believe the correct term would have been ordered them out by extermination, which order made it legal to kill a member of our church that remained on the books until the 1970s, that's right not 18 but 1970."ran them out" eh? Sounds like you were proud of that noble governor for murdering harmless innocents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1844, Joe and Hyrum were thrown in jail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without conviction. many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then an angry mob stormed the jail and murdered them both. Naturally, this "martyrdom" insured the perpetual reverence of the great "prophet" Joseph Smith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not a man's death that makes him a martyr. It was his life leading up to it. It was not his death that gave us a reverence for him. It was his wonderful life. God bless Joseph Smith! The greatest prophet man has ever seen. Jesus only, was greater.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "church" then split.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it didn't...People split themselves from the church and formed a new one under a new name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Smith family headed for Independence, Missouri and started what is now the "Recognized Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you just made a typo... They formed the so called, "Reorganized" Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the majority of Smith's followers chose Brigham Young as their new captain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ has never been chosen by it's members. Such choices are always made personally by Jesus Christ through revelation to his apostles. This revelation was made to the apostles after the death of Smith. There is no vote, other than to count those in support of their leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To escape U.S. laws, Young led the Mormons from Nauvoo to Salt Lake City in 1847 (which then belonged to Mexico).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had a law out for your extermination you would be fleeing the states too. Such is the only law they fled from. What other law would you be referring to since you used the plural "laws"? Please, the burden of details are on the accuser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the next thirty years, Young and his "saints" laid the foundation stones of the Mormon cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the cult jab again. since by definition a cult is: a system of exclusive religious beliefs or practices; it's not so bad of an insult after all. It's just more the negative connotation that the word holds today. Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little known to most Mormons, Young was a rather rough and ruthless character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course the character of a man I've studied all my life is better known to you rather than me... uh huh...yeah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1857, he commanded Bishop John D. Lee to murder a wagon train of over one hundred helpless non-Mormon immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A viscious lie and you know it. Do to your disposition of hatred towards us, I can't even give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you have at best made an unfounded, biased and/or ignorant accusation. All the evidence proves Brigham tried to stop the massacre before it happened. But too bad his blackberry was broken and so the offenders didn't get his text message telling them to "let them alone. You must not meddle with them!" The message came too late by the fastest possible method, a courier by horse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty years later Lee was convicted and executed by the U.S. Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And rightly so. Gee I wonder why, if Lee knew he was going to die that he wouldn't implicate Young if he knew his time was up.hmm... Men don't go to their deathbeds carrying secrets. at least not to my knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young escaped punishment, and his role in the Mountain Meadows Massacre has escaped the Mormon history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Escaped? It's printed. Right there for everyone to see. It still is. How do you think it got told? Because it was us that brought the murderers to justice. You have got one of the most bitter spirits I have ever seen. It's because of deceitful and viscious lies like this that people ignore our good deeds and slam doors in our face, without ever hearing the other side of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young spent most of his "ministry"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the quotations jab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dodging the law to continue the immoral practice of polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're a christian and you worship the Bible the way you claim you do, then you can't call polygamy immoral when so many of your revered prophets observed the commandment of polygamy in their time. Now I might have some respect for your sentiments if you were an Atheist or some other religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the time of his death in 1877, Young had seventeen wives and fifty-six children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said before, 2 or 20, it's the same thing. The number is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Today the Mormon church is administrated by its "General Authorities."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the jab again with your little quotations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These authorities consist of the "First Presidency," the "Counsel of Twelve Apostles," the "First Quorum of the Seventy" and its presidency, the "Presiding Bishoprick," and the "Patriarch of the Church."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are the official titles. They're not nicknames so there's no need for the ridiculous quotations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Male Mormons over twelve years of age are divided into priesthoods. The Aaronic order is the lesser priesthood, and the Melchizedek order is the higher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The church is divided into thousands of "wards" and "stakes," with over 2000 branches and 180 missions, and over 5,000,000 members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> update your statistics. It's clear this is another one of your patented copy and paste jobs. For someone who rants and rants about plagiarism, it'd be nice if you cite your source for these obvious copy/paste jobs. I don't know the numbers for the wards stakes and missions but our membership numbers are nearly 15 million now so probably more than double what you pasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are very missionary-minded people, with over 26,000 active missionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My how kind of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, much of this missionary army consists of young men and women in their early twenties who must serve two years in missionary work while supporting themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "must serve"? That's hilarious. Or what? We'll whip them to death?
> It's voluntary, evidenced by the expenses being covered by the missionaries themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mormon people of today are highly respected in our society, but there is nothing respectable about their doctrines. Some are as follows:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I feel so...just... respected by your post. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Deity of Man Promoted *
> 
> Mormons teach that man can become God, and that God was once a man:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "God himself, the Father of us all, is a glorified, exalted immortal resurrected man!" (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 322-23, 517, 643)
> "...God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens..." (Journal of Discourses, V6, P3, 1844)
> "As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become." (Lorenzo Snow, quoted in Milton R. Hunter, the Gospel Through the Ages, pp. 105-106)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is pure, rich, true doctrine.mmmm It tastes good. It feels good to hear you say it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is plain and simple heresy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll see about that won't we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere does the Bible say or imply that God was ever a man, or that man can become God! Malachi 3:6 says, "For I am the LORD, I change not..." How could this be true if God was once a man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because God doesn't change once he's a God.
> 
> Because Jesus said that he only does "that which my Father doeth." He followed the example of His Father who had a mortal life just like He had. And he followed his example.
> And heresy is a strong word partner. The root of the word comes from Herod, who sought to kill Jesus. We do not seek to destroy Jesus, only convert more to Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genesis 1:1 states that God existed "in the beginning" before man was ever created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We say the same thing. There are more worlds than this tiny little place in time called Earth. One day you'll realize how big the universe really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John 4:24 states that God is a "spirit," and
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God IS a spirit. He's a spirit with a body. And since Jesus took his body back and resurrected with a perfect body and he is God, that means God has a body. So the math adds up that His Father has a body too.
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B]Jesus tells us in John 1:18 that no man has seen God at any time[/B].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the ones who saw him in the Bible: Moses, Jacob, Stephen etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers 23:19 says that "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite right, which shows the error of man in translation when it was written that God repented for causing the flood to destroy man. Good going scribes!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has always been God, and no one has ever "become" God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an emoted statement, not supported by fact. However God has always been from everlasting to everlasting. You'll come to realize that all of us are equally eternal only His progression has always been superior in every way to ours. I don't expect you to get it but it's not that important. You just need to be a nicer person and stop trying to tear down other people's religion and find your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Deity of Jesus Christ Denied *
> 
> The Deity of Jesus Christ is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity, yet the Mormons deny this truth. Exalting man to "god status" is apparently alright, but Jesus Christ is not acknowledged as the eternal Son of God in the Mormon church. The Mormon Jesus was a preexisting spirit who was exalted, just as Mormon followers hope to be exalted someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know where you got this cockamamy idea but it has always been known that Jesus is Jehovah, the Son of God. He was a God in the pre existence, and the God of the old Testament but he had not achieved the highest level of Exaltation because he had not received his body yet. It doesn't change that he was always the greatest. and always the Son of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is a Trinity (I Jn. 5:7), and the second Member of that Trinity is the Lord Jesus Christ. John 1:1 says that "the Word was God," and John 1:14 tells us that "the Word was made flesh." Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate, and John 1:1 tells us that the Word was God; so Jesus Christ is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is merely your interpretation. It's not worth wasting time arguing about interpretations. I just don't get the impossibility of a "trinity". It doesn't make sense in any universe that I know of. Certainly not in the scientific world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus allowed Thomas to address Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And rightly so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Isaiah 9:6, He is called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father," and we read in Micah 5:2 that Jesus is "from everlasting."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And rightly so. Jesus is the Father of Heaven and Earth. He is Jehovah. He was part of the team of Gods in charge of creating the world. He directed it's formation after being commissioned of his Father. So since he created it and directed it's creation, he gets the title "Father" of heaven and earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our Lord allowed people to worship him in John 10:38 and in Matthew 14:33, and since He is "God with us" (Mat. 1:23) He also has power to forgive sins (Mk. 2:5). Jesus Christ is clearly Deity, yet this doctrine is denied by the Mormons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not denied. Embraced.
> 
> *Multiple Authorities *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible declares, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isa. 8:20) However, the Mormon Church claims that other writings, such as the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's writings are also authoritative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's quite an interpretation. Quite an obvious falsehood. The Bible had not been compiled when Isaiah made that statement so he couldn't have been referring to the Bible. By your creed, we shouldn't be listening to any of the words found outside the book of Isaiah.
> The Bible never....EVER....ANYWHERE...states that the word of God is confined to the Bible.
> 
> In fact it states that The Holy Ghost is the revelator of the word of God. The word of God can come from your friends who speak under the influence of the Holy Ghost. It can even come from you if you ever get so influenced. The word of God is not always written in books. Why can't you understand that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, Joseph Smith taught his people to doubt the accuracy of the Bible: "...it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 10)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Truth is hard to accept for the close-minded.
> But we study the Bible with more fervor than most people on the planet. because there is such an overwhelming amount of greatness in the Bible. Most especially because of the ministry of Christ in the new testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormon Writings Support Polygamy *
> 
> "...if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then he is justified; he cannot commit adultery...And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery." (Doctrines and Covenants, 132:61, 62)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In certain times and dispensations in this world and after this world it is very true. But our traditions lead us to prejudices and rash judgments when we are ignorant of things we're not used to.
> 
> Jesus Christ held a slightly different view (Mark 10:6- 9).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way a man can be "one flesh" with more than one woman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't put words in the mouth of Jesus. The quote says "6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
> 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
> 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
> 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
> All this says is that a man should only cleave to his wife and that marriage is not to be put asunder.
> 
> It is clear you have twisted the scriptures to mean what you WANT it to mean. That is quite a stretch. Don't cite references with me. I will print them and show you where you're twisting them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A man and his wife are supposed to picture Christ and his church (Eph. 5:23-32), but this symbolism is shattered by the Mormon heresy of Polygamy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok here's what it actually says:
> 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the cchurch: and he is the saviour of the body.
> 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
> 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
> 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
> 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
> 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
> 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
> 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
> 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
> 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
> 
> Still I don't get where you interpret anything against polygamy. He was just talking about the relationship husbands should have with their wives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *True Church Theory *
> 
> The Mormon book, The Pearl of Great Price, claims that all other Christian groups are "corrupt" and are an "abomination" in God's sight (Joseph Smith, 2:19). Such claims as this are based on the unscriptural assumption that the Lord Jesus Christ has a specific religious organization on the earth today, complete with a name, a membership, and a leadership, which makes up His "true church." This doctrine is found nowhere in God's word. Everyone who has received Christ as their Saviour is a member of His church, which is a spiritual body of born-again believers (Eph. 4:4; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18-24; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 19:7; 5:9-10; 21:9).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you think the order of Christ's church is not found in the Bible then you haven't read Ephesians chapter 4 which tells us the order of Christ's church and what offices he gave to run it. The entire chapter also states why we need this order. To prevent confusion and arguments and vanity till we all come together in a unity of faith. Has Christianity come to a unity of Faith? Not last time I checked. Please read
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Other False Teachings *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We'll see what's false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mormons deny the Trinity and the existence of a literal burning Hell,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet they promote polytheism (many gods),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God wasn't talking to himself when he said "Let us make man in our image."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> baptism for the dead,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:29
> 29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
> Clearly they were doing baptisms for the dead already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the notion that Jesus and Satan were originally spirit brothers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perish the thought
> The problem is you don't know the enemy therefore he's been able to decieve you all this time. He's made you think all this time that he's a pitchfork weilding imp with horns and a halloween costume. He's got you by the short ones if you can't recognize him. He was just like us. Only he chose to rebel against Christs plan and we all chose to follow Christs plan(all who ever were or will be born.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friend, make no mistake about it--Mormonism is a dangerous cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make sure you're all packin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eyes of man, the Mormons seem very respectable, but the light of God's word reveals the true wolves behind the sheep clothing. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Mat. 7:15)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you've done your best(not very good) to try and strip us of respectability but hey, nice try. And I'll second your notion from the Bible to beware of false prophets. Check them all out and see if they check out and meet the qualifications of a true prophet or not.  We got nothing to hide. A false prophet would just tell you to accept his word and trust him. A true prophet will tell you to pull out your magnifying glass. The decision is all yours people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look at their nice families, their clean-cut hair, and their friendly "missionaries." LOOK AT THEIR DOCTRINES! (I Tim. 4:1)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you should look at everything. Actions would be good to look at too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to cover all of the Mormon heresies in a tract this size. For further reading, we recommend our publication, The Bible Believer's Handbook of Heresies,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But...but...The handbook of Heresies isn't in the Bible!!!!!!....go ahead read whatever you want. you'll never know until you go to God in private prayer and get answers straight from Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which sheds light on many of the heresies being taught today in the name of our Saviour Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Salvation through Works *
> 
> Mormons believe that one's salvation is based on such good works as baptism, good deeds, missionary work, and following Mormon teachings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice omission. You missed the part where we said Salvation is impossible without the grace of Christ. He just wants a max effort on our part. We'll never be able to jump over the grand canyon, but he just asks us to jump as far as we can and he'll catch us and bring us the rest of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce McConkie once stated at Brigham Young University that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is "improper and perilous" (Church News, March 20, 1982, p. 5)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. That's not what he said. He said that the doctrine of grace alone is improper and perilous because it gives the impression that we don't need to work to improve ourselves. If we didn't work to improve ourselves and keep the commandments of God then the world would be a terrible place to live. Christ gave max effort. He commanded us to keep his commandments and be like him. Are we being like Christ if we don't give our max effort? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, it's like I just said.
> 
> Romans 4:5 says that salvation comes to those who do not work for salvation, but believe on Jesus Christ instead!
> He's referring to those who don't believe in grace.stating that works without faith are dead. But we do believe in Grace.
> 
> So stew on the statements of the apostle James who writes:
> James 2: 20, 26
> 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
>     
> 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6) "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're on the same page here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes he's paid for your ticket, but if you don't get in line, you'll miss the train.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus PAID your way to Heaven! Your church cannot save you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never were there truer words than this. Churches can lead horses to water, but can't make them drink.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only by receiving Jesus Christ as your Saviour can you escape the damnation of Hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True...You're gettin a little out of control there though cowboy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one who would ever ask you to forsake righteousness would be Satan. So no, I'm not ready to forsake the commandment of Jesus to be righteous. He said "Go and do thou likewise." So I'll go and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who truly call upon the name of the Lord are ready to follow God's commandments. That's why they'll be saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll finish the sentence for you...saved. Ok...
> They'll be saved because if they truly do those things, they'll be willing to keep God's commandments.
> 
> You just gotta keep the commandments. Otherwise, God wouldn't have given them. He'd have just said "keep my suggestions...ya know...if you feel like it...if you have time..."
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically, you're saying that mormonism will elevate all mormons to god status with each having its own planet to rule over? That's WHACKED!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only it were as easy as you suggest, but there's much more to it than that. Certainly not all mormons. In fact most mormons won't make it. There are far more people who are currently non-mormons who will receive exaltation than the ones who are currently claiming to be of our faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So god will elevate people (women also?) of his choosing regardless of their personal religion? So what's the point of your religion? I mean, besides the tithe.
Click to expand...


har har.

Religion is like a guide in the forest. Some are better than others. Some will give you a great tour of the forest. but as always, only one is the best, but none can protect you from the Jaguar if you ignore his advice. The greatness of your forest experience depends on you. It can be enhanced by the tour guide but at the end of the day, you just have to be into it yourself. 

Atheists are like the tourists who break away from the group and brave it on their own because they think they're so smart and tough. But the result usually isn't so good when they get lost.

Our church is the best tour guide through the forest. It gives the best advice, prepares you for the trip better than any other, draws your attention to the most attractive features of the forest and warns you of it's dangers. But whether you make it out with a great experience or not at all depends entirely on you.


Man I just surprised myself with that one.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only it were as easy as you suggest, but there's much more to it than that. Certainly not all mormons. In fact most mormons won't make it. There are far more people who are currently non-mormons who will receive exaltation than the ones who are currently claiming to be of our faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So god will elevate people (women also?) of his choosing regardless of their personal religion? So what's the point of your religion? I mean, besides the tithe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> har har.
> 
> Religion is like a guide in the forest. Some are better than others. Some will give you a great tour of the forest. but as always, only one is the best, but none can protect you from the Jaguar if you ignore his advice. The greatness of your forest experience depends on you. It can be enhanced by the tour guide but at the end of the day, you just have to be into it yourself.
> Atheists are like the tourists who break away from the group and brave it on their own because they think they're so smart and tough. But the result usually isn't so good when they get lost.
> Our church is the best tour guide through the forest. It gives the best advice, prepares you for the trip better than any other, draws your attention to the most attractive features of the forest and warns you of it's dangers. But whether you make it out with a great experience or not at all depends entirely on you.
> Man I just surprised myself with that one.
Click to expand...


So I'll take that as a NO for women gods. Male chauvinist pigs!

Religion is a guide through a fictitious forest that only exists in your mind. I have a real forest behind my house and guess what? I've never gotten lost or eaten by a jaguar!

Man am I smart. 

(I'm agnostic, no god has ever been proven but if one ever is, I'll change my mind no problem. Atheists also have no hope of proving the non-existance of god.)


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So I'll take that as a NO for women gods. Male chauvinist pigs!


Oops my bad... I forgot to address this. I got carried away with my newly created analogy.

Actually yes women can become goddesses. I guess that makes us some other kind of pig in your book. 



> Religion is a guide through a fictitious forest that only exists in your mind. I have a real forest behind my house and guess what? I've never gotten lost or eaten by a jaguar!


Time will tell on both fronts.




> Man am I smart.



Time will tell.



> (I'm agnostic, no god has ever been proven but if one ever is, I'll change my mind no problem. Atheists also have no hope of proving the non-existance of god.)



It can be proven if you want it to be privately. But God's not going to make a mass announcement.


----------



## Eightball

Please address "why" it's the Mormon husband that has the power to raise his wife from the dead?  

She isn't really an equal, or co-partner in this scenario?


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> So I'll take that as a NO for women gods. Male chauvinist pigs!
> 
> 
> 
> Oops my bad... I forgot to address this. I got carried away with my newly created analogy.
> 
> Actually yes women can become goddesses. I guess that makes us some other kind of pig in your book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Religion is a guide through a fictitious forest that only exists in your mind. I have a real forest behind my house and guess what? I've never gotten lost or eaten by a jaguar!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Time will tell on both fronts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man am I smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time will tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm agnostic, no god has ever been proven but if one ever is, I'll change my mind no problem. Atheists also have no hope of proving the non-existance of god.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be proven if you want it to be privately. But God's not going to make a mass announcement.
Click to expand...


I'm waiting for god to prove herself to me privately. If that ever happens, do I still need to pay for protection? um, I mean tithe.

Goddesses? That's so hot!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Please address "why" it's the Mormon husband that has the power to raise his wife from the dead?
> 
> She isn't really an equal, or co-partner in this scenario?



He doesn't. Only Christ has this power. Christ can have others perform miracles in His name, but it is still His power.

I still don't know where you're getting your information about husbands raising wives from the dead. But in the end the relationship between a man and his wife has the potential to be a king and a queen both consulting each other with regard to all decisions.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> He doesn't. Only Christ has this power. Christ can have others perform miracles in His name, but it is still His power.
> 
> I still don't know where you're getting your information about husbands raising wives from the dead. But in the end the relationship between a man and his wife has the potential to be a king and a queen both consulting each other with regard to all decisions.



Alrighty Then:



> *How the LDS Husband Hopes to Resurrect His Wife
> According to the LDS Temple Ceremony*
> 
> By Sandra Tanner
> 
> The LDS Church teaches that at the end of the world everyone will be resurrected. They also believe that almost everyone will go to heaven, which is divided up into three main levels. Bad people go to the lowest, the Telestial Kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 76:81-86). Good people, who were not Mormons, will go to the middle level, the Terrestrial Kingdom (D&C 76:71-79). Mormons will go to the highest level, the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 76:50-70). However, only those who merit the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom will have Eternal Life [the ability to live in a marriage relationship and continue to beget childrensee D&C 132:20-24, also see Mormons Hope to Become Gods of Their Own Worlds]. All others have immortality [which is defined as the ability to live forever in a single condition, not married and no future children] but do not have Eternal Life. One must be married in the LDS temple and then obey all of the Mormon regulations to get to the highest degree of heaven. The first time a Mormon attends the temple endowment ceremony he/she will be given a new name [usually a Bible name like Peter or Mary or the name of European royalty]. These will supposedly be their names in eternity. The wife must tell her husband her new name, and no one else, as he is supposed to call her up in the resurrection. If he does not call her up she would still resurrect, but not as his wife. When a Mormon returns to the temple, on various occasions, to go through the endowment ceremony, he/she will stand in by proxy for a dead person. For instance, a man may be going through the ritual in behalf of his dead uncle. A new temple name would be assigned to the dead person, which could be Joseph, David, Paul, etc. In the case of a dead woman, a Mormon woman would stand in by proxy for her, and the dead woman would be given a new temple name, like Rachael, Eve, Rebecca, etc.
> 
> LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose wrote:
> 
> In the divine economy, as in nature, the man "is the head of the woman," and it is written that "he is the savior of the body." But "the man is not without the woman" any more than the woman is without the man, in the Lord. Adam was first formed, then Eve. In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof.
> 
> In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. ("Mormon" Doctrine Plain and Simple, or Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Charles W. Penrose, p.66, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT.)
> 
> LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:
> 
> Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)
> 
> William Clayton, secretary to Joseph Smith, also discussed some of the temple work in his journals. In the Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton we read:
> 
> Clayton described the temple endowment, a ritualized drama of the creation, fall, and redemption of Adam, during which its participants promise obedience and loyalty to the church, and repeat passwords and signs they believe will enable them to enter into the celestial or highest kingdom of heaven. He wrote about washings and anointings, preparatory rituals for the endowment ceremony, and described dramatic role-playing in which church members act out the Garden of Eden story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent.
> 
> As church members rehearsed this celestial drama, they wore special clothing and volunteered the necessary words and signs to enter the highest heaven, the Celestial Kingdom. Clayton recorded that "The tokens and covenants are. . . the key by which you approach God and be recognized." In this ceremony, each husband escorted his wife through a veil, calling her by a "new temple name." The woman's salvation would depend upon her husband's priesthood authority. Clayton reported Brigham Young saying that "the man must love his God and the woman must love her husband," adding that "woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back." (Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith, Signature Books, p. xxxvi-xxxvii; see also p. 204-240.)
> 
> Writing in 1870, former Mormon Mary Ettie Smith related her experience with the LDS Church and the temple ritual:
> 
> My husband,...and myself, were called to the [Nauvoo] Temple to receive our "Endowments." . . .
> 
> The room I had entered was nearly filled with women; no men were in this room; and no women were in the room at the right, where Wallace had entered. Here we were undressed and washed in a large tub of warm water . . . and then anointed with "consecrated oil," . . . we were then dressed with a white night-gown and skirt, and shoes of bleached drilling, and with our hair loose and dripping with consecrated oil, each received a new name, and were instructed that we were never to pronounce this name on earth but once: and that, when we came to enter within the "Veil," hereafter described.
> 
> The same process is gone through with in the men's washing-room . . . and when all was ready in both rooms, each party was piloted by one of their own sex into a common room, fitted up to represent, and called the Garden of Eden. . . . "We . . . each put on the "garment," [Special LDS underwear. An abbreviated version is still worn by faithful Mormons today.] which is so arranged as to form a whole suit at once; and the "robe," which is a strip of white muslin [cotton], say three-fourths of a yard wide, and long enough to reach to the feet, gathered in the middle, and tied by a bow, to the left shoulder, and brought across the body, and the edges fastened together on the right side, with a belt around the waist of the same. Over this was put the apron we had received in the "first glory;" and the women wore what is called a veil . . .
> 
> We were next led into what is called the Terrestrial Glory; where Brigham Young received us, . . . he gave each a pass-word and grip necessary, he said, to admit us into the "Celestial Glory;" . . . there are many gods, and they do not acknowledge the one Triune God of the Bible, but that every man will sometime be a "god;" and that women are to be the ornaments of his kingdom, and dependent upon him for resurrection and salvation; and that our salvation is dependent upon the recollection of these passwords; . . ." (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition. Embracing the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, of Her Residence and Experience of Fifteen Years with the Mormons..., by N. W. Green, Hartford, 1870, p. 42-48)
> 
> After Mrs. Smith and her first husband, Wallace Henderson, left Nauvoo and headed west, their marriage began to fall apart. Among other indiscretions, Mr. Henderson took another wife and Ettie left him. When she later explained to Apostle Orson Hyde why she had left her husband, Mr. Hyde replied:
> 
> "The reasons you have given do not constitute a lawful excuse for leaving your husband, according to the laws of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
> 
> I then rose up to go, as I did not propose to discuss the matter with him. But he stopped me, and said, "You may, if you wish, be 'sealed' to me, and then you know there would be no risk to run, in case you should die. Otherwise, if by chance you should drop away, having no husband to raise you at the last day, you could not be 'resurrected' as a saint, and would only be raised like any Gentile, as a servant for the Saints, i.e., for the Mormons.' "
> 
> I was so much disgusted with this proposition, that I left him in the most unceremonious manner, in the midst of his disinterested effort for my salvation. Orson Hyde was, at this time, forty years of age, and had at least three wives and one daughter about my own age. I was then nineteen years old. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 132)
> 
> Later in her book, Mrs. Smith discussed the LDS concept of priesthood and salvation:
> 
> The priesthood, in some form, is understood to be necessary to the salvation of a male, or at least, to his exaltation; and a female cannot be saved without being "sealed" to some male who is a Priest. Hence all true Mormons are Priests, and women really do not amount to much in themselves, . . . Hence women are often "sealed," that is married to men, when they do not intend to live with them as an earthly wife, but merely that they may be saved by them: in that case they are "sealed" for eternity, as it termed. But when they are married for the natural purposes of a wife, i.e. to have children, they are then said to be "sealed" for time; and they may be "sealed" for one alone, or for both [Thus they can be married for time only, for time and eternity or for just eternity.] If a woman's husband is dead, she need not be sealed again, unless she chooses, and when she does marry again, she is "sealed" only for time, as when she dies, her first husband will "resurrect," i.e. save her; and she will be his in the next world. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 154 )
> 
> The following is a summary of the early Utah temple ceremony as found in History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft:
> 
> [During the washing and anointing ceremony] The eyes are touched, that they may be quick to see; the ears, that the hearing may be sharp; the mouth, to bestow wisdom upon speech; and the feet, that they be swift to run in the ways of the Lord. Then a new name, which is rarely to be mentioned, is whispered into the ear, and all are marched into room No. 2, where they are seated, the sexes on opposite sides of the room, and facing each other. Here they are told by a priest that any person not strong enough to proceed may retire; but if any portion of the ceremony is disclosed, the throat of the person so offending will be cut from ear to ear. [In 1990 the Mormon Church removed the signs of the death penalties from the ceremony. See Salt Lake City Messenger #75 TEMPLE RITUAL ALTERED.] Those faltering, if any, having retired, the remainder are taken into room No. 3, where a representation of the creation, the temptation, and fall is given.
> 
> Each candidate then puts on over his robe an apron of white linen, upon which are sewn pieces of green silk representing fig-leaves, and also the cap or veil. All good Mormons are buried in their endowment robes, and the veil worn by the women covers their faces when they are consigned to the grave. In the morning of the resurrection, this veil is to be lifted by the husband; otherwise no woman can see the face of the almighty in the next world. This ends the first degree; and the initiated are now driven out of Eden into room No. 4, which represents the world, where they encounter many temptations, the chief of which is the false gospel preached by methodists, baptists, etc.
> 
> Finally St James and St John appear and proclaim the true gospel of Mormonism, which all gladly embrace. After this they receive certain grips and pass-words, and all are arranged in a circle, kneel, and the women lower their veils. Then, with the right hand uplifted, an oath is taken to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, jun., upon the gentiles who had caused his murder, to teach the children of the church to do likewise, [The oath against the murderers of the Smiths has since been removed.] to obey implicitly and without murmur or question all commands of the priesthood, to refrain from adultery, and finally, eternal secrecy concerning all that transpired in the endowment house is promised.
> 
> Then comes an address, after which another room is entered, leading from which is a door with a hole in it, covered with a piece of muslin [cotton]. The men approach this door in turn and ask to enter. Then a person behind the door reaches through the opening, and with knife in hand cuts a certain mark on the left breast of the shirt, another over the abdomen, and one over the right knee, which marks are faithfully copied by the women in their own garments after returning to their homes. [These markings are already sewn on the garments today.] The man then mentions his new name, gives the grip of the third degree, and is permitted to pass in. This is called going behind the veil.
> 
> When the men are all in, each woman is passed through by her husband, or having none, by one of the brethren. This concludes the ceremony, with the exception of marriage, which will be noticed elsewhere. Of these ceremonies Mrs Stenhouse, from whose account the foregoing is partly taken, says: "About what was done in Nauvoo, I can only speak by hearsay, but have been told many strange and revolting stories about the ceremonies which were there performed. Of the endowments in Utah, everything was beautifully neat and clean, and I wish to say most distinctly that, although the initiation appears now to my mind as a piece of the most ridiculous absurdity, there was, nevertheless, nothing in it indecent or immoral. . . ." (History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft, 1889, ch. 15, no. 17, p. 357-358)


----------



## Hister

So who's the noob ruling over earth? He/she doesn't seem to be doing a very good job?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Alrighty Then:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How the LDS Husband Hopes to Resurrect His Wife
> According to the LDS Temple Ceremony*
> 
> By Sandra Tanner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ahh good ol' Sandy. A truly bitter creature. Someone who by her rebellious nature couldn't stand to be obedient so she'd rather fight against the establised order. Not always a bad idea when the established order is actually corrupt. But not always the case as I will demonstrate below.
> 
> And thank you for finally admitting your sources instead of just copying and pasting them. Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LDS Church teaches that at the end of the world everyone will be resurrected. They also believe that almost everyone will go to heaven, which is divided up into three main levels. Bad people go to the lowest, the Telestial Kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 76:81-86). Good people, who were not Mormons, will go to the middle level, the Terrestrial Kingdom (D&C 76:71-79).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title of "mormon" is never required. That title is given to us by people like you and Sandy. Good people, who were not diligent in their testimony of Christ, are the ones who will not reach the pinnacle of salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons will go to the highest level, the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 76:50-70).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Church membership is not the guarantee of the celestial kingdom as Sandy just contradicted herself a paragraph ago, knowing that there are bad "mormons" as well.
> Action, faith and purity of heart are what gets someone into one heaven or the other. Church membership is simply a declaration, like words. And we all know how much words mean: Something, but not much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, only those who merit the highest part of the Celestial Kingdom will have Eternal Life [the ability to live in a marriage relationship and continue to beget childrensee D&C 132:20-24, also see Mormons Hope to Become Gods of Their Own Worlds]. All others have immortality [which is defined as the ability to live forever in a single condition, not married and no future children] but do not have Eternal Life. One must be married in the LDS temple and then obey all of the Mormon regulations to get to the highest degree of heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no Mormon regulations. You may call them that, but that's not what they are.
> But everything here is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first time a Mormon attends the temple endowment ceremony he/she will be given a new name [usually a Bible name like Peter or Mary or the name of European royalty].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor, presumptuous Sandra, she probably only went a few times and those are the names she heard. European royalty? You mean Elizabeth? Sandra, don't you realize that's not a European name. In fact it's a hebrew name and I guess she's thinking more about old English than actual European. Consequently most English names are not English at all. They're Hebrew! (John, Paul, Luke, Matthew, Thomas, Peter, Sarah, Elizabeth, Mary, Ruth, etc.). Good job Sandra.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These will supposedly be their names in eternity. The wife must tell her husband her new name, and no one else, as he is supposed to call her up in the resurrection. If he does not call her up she would still resurrect, but not as his wife. When a Mormon returns to the temple, on various occasions, to go through the endowment ceremony, he/she will stand in by proxy for a dead person. For instance, a man may be going through the ritual in behalf of his dead uncle. A new temple name would be assigned to the dead person, which could be Joseph, David, Paul, etc. In the case of a dead woman, a Mormon woman would stand in by proxy for her, and the dead woman would be given a new temple name, like Rachael, Eve, Rebecca, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since I have promised not to discuss temple rites you will have to be satisfied with this reply: Sandra Tanner has some things which she says are true and others are in error, but you told everyone that Mormon men ressurect their wives didn't you? Now you see that even by Sandra's claims, that is not true. The power of Jesus Christ resurrects all, not the power of any man.
> Among other things, Sandra needs to go back to the temple more often as it's clear she's very rusty in her memory. It's been a while and it will take a while before she get's to go back again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose wrote:
> 
> In the divine economy, as in nature, the man "is the head of the woman," and it is written that "he is the savior of the body." But "the man is not without the woman" any more than the woman is without the man, in the Lord. Adam was first formed, then Eve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charles Penrose did say this, but it wasn't his idea. Those quotes came from the Bible. And is not to be taken out of context.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you it's together and not alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right, but not power to resurrect her. Just call her. Don't put words in our mouths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. ("Mormon" Doctrine Plain and Simple, or Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Charles W. Penrose, p.66, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, if the wife chooses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:
> 
> Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's so easy for modern readers to misunderstand this and Sandra knows it and visciously uses it to her advantage.
> Language in 1857 was so different from modern speech. This is the old english use of the word lord, meaning protector, ruler, leader. Any man who was a head of a household in England was referred to as lord of the manor, or lord of the house. It was used by younger men addressing older men as they walked by, "hello my lord". It wasn't a deificating word. It was a title like Mr. or Sire. A term of respect. Sandra knows that by citing the word "lord" in the ears of the modern reader people will mistakenly think that "mormon" men are to be their wives' God. This is not the usage of the word and you can see how the influence of the devil uses her to twist truth into lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> William Clayton, secretary to Joseph Smith, also discussed some of the temple work in his journals. In the Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton we read:
> 
> Clayton described the temple endowment, a ritualized drama of the creation, fall, and redemption of Adam, during which its participants promise obedience and loyalty to the church, and repeat passwords and signs they believe will enable them to enter into the celestial or highest kingdom of heaven. He wrote about washings and anointings, preparatory rituals for the endowment ceremony, and described dramatic role-playing in which church members act out the Garden of Eden story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent.
> 
> As church members rehearsed this celestial drama, they wore special clothing and volunteered the necessary words and signs to enter the highest heaven, the Celestial Kingdom. Clayton recorded that "The tokens and covenants are. . . the key by which you approach God and be recognized." In this ceremony, each husband escorted his wife through a veil, calling her by a "new temple name." The woman's salvation would depend upon her husband's priesthood authority. Clayton reported Brigham Young saying that "the man must love his God and the woman must love her husband," adding that "woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back." (Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith, Signature Books, p. xxxvi-xxxvii; see also p. 204-240.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This William Clayton character must have been an exile. His memory of the endowment is spotty at best. He's really missing a lot of pieces. Here's the problem with a so called "espose" of the temple ritual. They're always given by people with very little experience inside the temple. They go once or twice or even a handful of times but when they leave the church, memory fades and details become less clear and what they think they know they have now largely forgotten. The ceremony is over 2 hours long. That's a lot to remember. It has been longer in the past. No wonder the details are so spotty.
> But I'll clarify. No where in the temple endowment does it suggest or state that a woman's salvation is dependent upon her husband's priesthood.
> 
> It's not her husband's to begin with. It's Christ's. A woman's salvation is not depended upon any one man's righteousness. Only her own.
> You'd understand if you'd been through the real endowment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Writing in 1870, former Mormon Mary Ettie Smith related her experience with the LDS Church and the temple ritual:
> 
> My husband,...and myself, were called to the [Nauvoo] Temple to receive our "Endowments." . . .
> 
> The room I had entered was nearly filled with women; no men were in this room; and no women were in the room at the right, where Wallace had entered. Here we were undressed and washed in a large tub of warm water . . . and then anointed with "consecrated oil," . . . we were then dressed with a white night-gown and skirt, and shoes of bleached drilling, and with our hair loose and dripping with consecrated oil, each received a new name, and were instructed that we were never to pronounce this name on earth but once: and that, when we came to enter within the "Veil," hereafter described.
> 
> The same process is gone through with in the men's washing-room . . . and when all was ready in both rooms, each party was piloted by one of their own sex into a common room, fitted up to represent, and called the Garden of Eden. . . . "We . . . each put on the "garment," [Special LDS underwear. An abbreviated version is still worn by faithful Mormons today.] which is so arranged as to form a whole suit at once; and the "robe," which is a strip of white muslin [cotton], say three-fourths of a yard wide, and long enough to reach to the feet, gathered in the middle, and tied by a bow, to the left shoulder, and brought across the body, and the edges fastened together on the right side, with a belt around the waist of the same. Over this was put the apron we had received in the "first glory;" and the women wore what is called a veil . . .
> 
> We were next led into what is called the Terrestrial Glory; where Brigham Young received us, . . . he gave each a pass-word and grip necessary, he said, to admit us into the "Celestial Glory;" . . . there are many gods, and they do not acknowledge the one Triune God of the Bible, but that every man will sometime be a "god;" and that women are to be the ornaments of his kingdom, and dependent upon him for resurrection and salvation; and that our salvation is dependent upon the recollection of these passwords; . . ." (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition. Embracing the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, of Her Residence and Experience of Fifteen Years with the Mormons..., by N. W. Green, Hartford, 1870, p. 42-48)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, large details are missing from her account of the endowment which would explain everything and not appear so one sided.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Mrs. Smith and her first husband, Wallace Henderson, left Nauvoo and headed west, their marriage began to fall apart. Among other indiscretions, Mr. Henderson took another wife and Ettie left him. When she later explained to Apostle Orson Hyde why she had left her husband, Mr. Hyde replied:
> 
> "The reasons you have given do not constitute a lawful excuse for leaving your husband, according to the laws of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is nothing more than a he-said-she-said.
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then rose up to go, as I did not propose to discuss the matter with him. But he stopped me, and said, "You may, if you wish, be 'sealed' to me, and then you know there would be no risk to run, in case you should die. Otherwise, if by chance you should drop away, having no husband to raise you at the last day, you could not be 'resurrected' as a saint, and would only be raised like any Gentile, as a servant for the Saints, i.e., for the Mormons.' "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This also is nothing more than a he-said-she-said. I highly doubt that Orson Hyde, whom I have the utmost respect for, would say something so tacky. He also has a better understanding of the afterlife than to have said something. This reeks of a girl who is lashing out to attack the church when maybe she had her own issues to address.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was so much disgusted with this proposition, that I left him in the most unceremonious manner, in the midst of his disinterested effort for my salvation. Orson Hyde was, at this time, forty years of age, and had at least three wives and one daughter about my own age. I was then nineteen years old. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 132)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like a victorian age brat trying to slander someone of respectability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later in her book, Mrs. Smith discussed the LDS concept of priesthood and salvation:
> 
> The priesthood, in some form, is understood to be necessary to the salvation of a male, or at least, to his exaltation; and a female cannot be saved without being "sealed" to some male who is a Priest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All are saved by the grace of Christ. It's all over our books. Saved to which degree is the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence all true Mormons are Priests
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true. Men are the only ones in this life who can hold the priesthood. And not all men either. And not all at the priest level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , and women really do not amount to much in themselves, . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the biggest lie. Here is what Satan really thinks of women, not Christ. Our leaders have said that women are the greatest of all God's creations. Even greater than men.What a shocker! Just because roles are different does not mean that one is better than another. Women will have dominion and rule in the afterlife as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hence women are often "sealed," that is married to men, when they do not intend to live with them as an earthly wife, but merely that they may be saved by them:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We've established that women are not saved by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in that case they are "sealed" for eternity, as it termed. But when they are married for the natural purposes of a wife, i.e. to have children, they are then said to be "sealed" for time; and they may be "sealed" for one alone, or for both [Thus they can be married for time only, for time and eternity or for just eternity.] If a woman's husband is dead, she need not be sealed again, unless she chooses, and when she does marry again, she is "sealed" only for time, as when she dies, her first husband will "resurrect," i.e. save her; and she will be his in the next world. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 154 )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct except for the error of ressurecting and saving which has been established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following is a summary of the early Utah temple ceremony as found in History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft:
> 
> [During the washing and anointing ceremony] The eyes are touched, that they may be quick to see; the ears, that the hearing may be sharp; the mouth, to bestow wisdom upon speech; and the feet, that they be swift to run in the ways of the Lord. Then a new name, which is rarely to be mentioned, is whispered into the ear, and all are marched into room No. 2, where they are seated, the sexes on opposite sides of the room, and facing each other. Here they are told by a priest that any person not strong enough to proceed may retire; but if any portion of the ceremony is disclosed, the throat of the person so offending will be cut from ear to ear. [In 1990 the Mormon Church removed the signs of the death penalties from the ceremony. See Salt Lake City Messenger #75 TEMPLE RITUAL ALTERED.] Those faltering, if any, having retired, the remainder are taken into room No. 3, where a representation of the creation, the temptation, and fall is given.
> 
> Each candidate then puts on over his robe an apron of white linen, upon which are sewn pieces of green silk representing fig-leaves, and also the cap or veil. All good Mormons are buried in their endowment robes, and the veil worn by the women covers their faces when they are consigned to the grave. In the morning of the resurrection, this veil is to be lifted by the husband; otherwise no woman can see the face of the almighty in the next world. This ends the first degree; and the initiated are now driven out of Eden into room No. 4, which represents the world, where they encounter many temptations, the chief of which is the false gospel preached by methodists, baptists, etc.
> 
> Finally St James and St John appear and proclaim the true gospel of Mormonism, which all gladly embrace. After this they receive certain grips and pass-words, and all are arranged in a circle, kneel, and the women lower their veils. Then, with the right hand uplifted, an oath is taken to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, jun., upon the gentiles who had caused his murder, to teach the children of the church to do likewise, [The oath against the murderers of the Smiths has since been removed.] to obey implicitly and without murmur or question all commands of the priesthood, to refrain from adultery, and finally, eternal secrecy concerning all that transpired in the endowment house is promised.
> 
> Then comes an address, after which another room is entered, leading from which is a door with a hole in it, covered with a piece of muslin [cotton]. The men approach this door in turn and ask to enter. Then a person behind the door reaches through the opening, and with knife in hand cuts a certain mark on the left breast of the shirt, another over the abdomen, and one over the right knee, which marks are faithfully copied by the women in their own garments after returning to their homes. [These markings are already sewn on the garments today.] The man then mentions his new name, gives the grip of the third degree, and is permitted to pass in. This is called going behind the veil.
> 
> When the men are all in, each woman is passed through by her husband, or having none, by one of the brethren. This concludes the ceremony, with the exception of marriage, which will be noticed elsewhere. Of these ceremonies Mrs Stenhouse, from whose account the foregoing is partly taken, says: "About what was done in Nauvoo, I can only speak by hearsay, but have been told many strange and revolting stories about the ceremonies which were there performed. Of the endowments in Utah, everything was beautifully neat and clean, and I wish to say most distinctly that, although the initiation appears now to my mind as a piece of the most ridiculous absurdity, there was, nevertheless, nothing in it indecent or immoral. . . ." (History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft, 1889, ch. 15, no. 17, p. 357-358)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Again, truths mixed with errors minus omissions because of memory failure. 
Fortunately it's still all fresh in my mind. There's a lot missing. There's some things we don't do any more but it doesn't matter. The message is still the same.


----------



## Eightball

> Again, truths mixed with errors minus omissions because of memory failure.
> Fortunately it's still all fresh in my mind. There's a lot missing. There's some things we don't do any more but it doesn't matter. The message is still the same.



Never changes with you........You continue to exercise inductive reasoning in respect to any evidences that don't agree with you.

You "want to" have your religion be the "truth", so all your posts "deflect", and use inductive reasoning.

The myriad or mountain of evidences that have been presented before you, clearly "indict" you.

Predicated upon reliance in a 19th century "mad man", who along with his father "bilked" people of their money through scams.  What a prophet..........At least Jesus' true apostles became "changed" men(glorified God, not themselves) when they received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.......J.S. Jr. just changed his means and ways of scamming, and seeking power over people.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Never changes with you........You continue to exercise inductive reasoning in respect to any evidences that don't agree with you.
> 
> You "want to" have your religion be the "truth", so all your posts "deflect", and use inductive reasoning.
> 
> The myriad or mountain of evidences that have been presented before you, clearly "indict" you.
> 
> Predicated upon reliance in a 19th century "mad man", who along with his father "bilked" people of their money through scams.  What a prophet..........At least Jesus' true apostles became "changed" men(glorified God, not themselves) when they received the Holy Spirit at Pentacost.......J.S. Jr. just changed his means and ways of scamming, and seeking power over people.



You and I have our minds made up. We'll just have to let others make their mind up after doing their own research and study. To each their own.


----------



## Hister

Hister said:


> So who's the noob ruling over earth? He/she doesn't seem to be doing a very good job?



Also, do you guys bang your women through a sheet with a hole in it? Or is that another whacky religion?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's the noob ruling over earth? He/she doesn't seem to be doing a very good job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, do you guys bang your women through a sheet with a hole in it? Or is that another whacky religion?
Click to expand...


----------



## Charles_Main

The truth is probably a little bit of all of them As with almost every group there are all kinds in it.

Most Americans get their opinions about Mormons today from BIG LOVE. lol


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's the noob ruling over earth? He/she doesn't seem to be doing a very good job?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, do you guys bang your women through a sheet with a hole in it? Or is that another whacky religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


ok, I'll take that as a no for the sheet, I know Hassids do that, I thought maybe you guys did too. But seriously, are your women just supposed to lie there during sex, or can they get involved and do things like oral...


----------



## dasolution

Oh, were talking about morons, I mean mormons here.  Yet another cult.

You know what, I'll go buy some gold plates so that I can smack some morons with it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, do you guys bang your women through a sheet with a hole in it? Or is that another whacky religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, I'll take that as a no for the sheet, I know Hassids do that, I thought maybe you guys did too. But seriously, are your women just supposed to lie there during sex, or can they get involved and do things like oral...
Click to expand...


You're maturity level astounds me. Sexual decisions are entirely up to the couple.


----------



## Truthspeaker

dasolution said:


> Oh, were talking about morons, I mean mormons here.  Yet another cult.
> 
> You know what, I'll go buy some gold plates so that I can smack some morons with it.



Thank you for your very intelligent contribution. Any other gems of wisdom?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, I'll take that as a no for the sheet, I know Hassids do that, I thought maybe you guys did too. But seriously, are your women just supposed to lie there during sex, or can they get involved and do things like oral...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're maturity level astounds me. Sexual decisions are entirely up to the couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your wife gives good head? And mormons are allowed sex toys, masturbation and kinky sex? Or is that just for pastors?
Click to expand...


I see why your rep power is less than zero.


----------



## Avatar4321

See, I'd come to the thread more often, but it seems to have degraded. 

Oh well, I am sure the trolls will get banned at some point and I can go back to writing long responses to eightball only to see him pretend as if i hadnt said anything less than a page later.

Just need to wait things out.


----------



## Avatar4321

dasolution said:


> Oh, were talking about morons, I mean mormons here.  Yet another cult.
> 
> You know what, I'll go buy some gold plates so that I can smack some morons with it.



Another guy who thinks his "moron" comment is original and actually funny. 

I'll give you some free legal advice. Don't hit people with gold. That's called assault. You can go to jail for it.


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're maturity astounds me. Sexual decisions are entirely up to the couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edited by EZ-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see why your rep power is less than zero.
Click to expand...


edited-NO FAMILY! -EZ I'm looking for a religion but don't want one with repressed sexuality.

I bet avatar is a virgin.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Where are the mods when you need em


----------



## Hister

Truthspeaker said:


> Where are the mods when you need em



Why, you embarrassed to talk about sex? Is it all mormons, or just you and av?


----------



## Truthspeaker

I've spoken about sex many times but the bottom line is that details are best left between husband and wife. If you're looking for bedroom police, we don't have any.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your wife gives good head? And mormons are allowed sex toys, masturbation and kinky sex? Or is that just for pastors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see why your rep power is less than zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a religion but don't want one with repressed sexuality.
> 
> I bet avatar is a virgin.
Click to expand...


I suppose I'm supposed to be insulted. Since when is being a virgin a bad thing?

Seriously, you really need to understand your audience. It's kind of pathetic


----------



## Eightball

Hister said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are the mods when you need em
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, you embarrassed to talk about sex? Is it all mormons, or just you and av?
Click to expand...


Hister:   I don't agree or believe the Mormon/LDS doctrine at all, but I do believe that people should be civil and polite to one-another, and also be respectful.

Your comments towards the Mormons on this thread has been at the very least, moronic.......childish.....mean spirited......and pathetic.

Whether your an avowed atheist, agnostic.....or whatever you buy into, you lack a common ingredient that distinguishes humanity from the animal world........."self control"......"conscience"......and "mutual respect" for those that differ from your outlook at existence, and or the meaning of life, and humanity's role in the whole picture.

Not once in all my debating with the Mormon folks who post on this thread have I had the urging to talk "trash" or "be-little" them.

You might be surprised when I say this, but "God made you in His image".....but it's up to you to "will" yourself to follow that calling and identity.

In the meantime why don't you just exercise your 1st amendment rights, and "blow off" or out of here unless you have something of "substance" to share or to debate about concerning Mormonism.

I totally agree, that your conduct on the U.S. Message Board warrants banning, as you have stepped over the line of decency with your fellow human being.  You know it too.

You sit safely behind your P.C. mocking the Mormons here, with stupid comments unbecoming of any  human.  I'd bet if you met Truth or one of the other Mormons on the street, you'd high-tail-it out of there, as you are the type that cowardly hides behind a P.C. throwing degrading pot shots.

Believe me, when I disagree or debate with the Mormons here, I don't include you as one who is supporting my side, nor do I want you on my side.

As a biblical, born again Christian, I pity you.  Some day I hope you come to grips with yourself and the reality of life, and start thinking beyond your warped, comedic ego.  

*God really does love you, despite all your antics here on this forum.  But..............you have to come to grips with yourself, in honest appraisal........not unlike those who attend AA meetings....... *


----------



## Hister

8balls, who are you? The fun police? Man, you religionites have NO sense of humor. C'mon, like it's not idiotic to believe in golden plates, kolob and all the rest? I'm just trying to get down on their level and expose the absurdity of Tru's religion, and have a little fun (as opposed to you, who's posts are so dry and lifeless). He doesn't seem totally convinced about it himself, so I'm trying to help him see clearly.
Av's still a virgin, lol, how old are you?


----------



## Eightball

> Hister said: "how old are you?"



Eightball said: "Old enough to know."


----------



## Avatar4321

Doesn't really listen does he?


----------



## Hister

Av, seriously, how old are you?


----------



## Truthspeaker

How old are you Hister?


----------



## Hister

I'm 27.


----------



## Eightball

Hister said:


> I'm 27.



Fiesty age to be trapped-in.  Lot'sa energy, lot'a enthusiam with a bunch of spit and vinegar to keep things jump'n.


----------



## Hister

Eightball said:


> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 27.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiesty age to be trapped-in.  Lot'sa energy, lot'a enthusiam with a bunch of spit and vinegar to keep things jump'n.
Click to expand...


What does that even mean?


----------



## Truthspeaker

It's a nice way of saying you're full of crap by saying "spit and vinegar" instead.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> It's a nice way of saying *you're full of crap *by saying "spit and vinegar" instead.



My use of "spit and vinegar" was not intended to mean "*full of crap*" , but actually meant in the direction of, "impulsively reacting, without exercising wise forethought before stating things.".........Actually this is very typical of that age range(27).

Have raised three sons.  All three happily married.........2 out of 3 were full of that type of "spit and vinegar".  

Since they have grown all out of their 20's........they have started to retrospectively looked back on those years and they "whistle" a much more mellow tune, with certain measures of regret about their prior conduct.

Hopefully, Hister has some loved-ones that are praying for him and hoping that this current period in his life will soon pass, and maturity/wisdom will ensue.

I still remember my early college years.  I gave bible Christians a terrible time.  I thought they were looney.  Never in my dreams would I have thought that God was working on me, with His unfathomable love through His Son, Jesus Christ.  I never realized that it wasn't my job to become "acceptable" to Him, but it was my job to be "willing" to let Him have my life for His Glory, not mine.

Then the changes from "spit and vinegar" started to happen, as my old life was placed before the cross, (Galatians 2:20 N.T.) and a new Spirit/Life was placed within my soul.  "Old things passed away", "New things that glorified God" became the importance of my life.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well, I stand corrected. I do say that he's full of crap. Maybe it's not the nicest thing to say but it's the truest.


----------



## Hister

I am full of crap, I'm older than 27. 

But mormons are full of crap too, you have no golden plates, don't know where kolob is, marry off little girls like you're muslim or something, and have been coming to my door 3 times a year for the past 20 years and they still can't figure out that I'm not interested.


----------



## Eightball

Hister said:


> I am full of crap, I'm older than 27.
> 
> But mormons are full of crap too, you have no golden plates, don't know where kolob is, marry off little girls like you're muslim or something, and have been coming to my door 3 times a year for the past 20 years and they still can't figure out that I'm not interested.



Hister:  I've found that the visits start to become less-so, if you just come up to the door with a bible in your hand, and ask the novus plus the elder go on a bible journey with you that compares their doctrine to what the bible says.

They know the scriptures, but they use bible scripture inductively.......In other words piece-meal in order to support their "new found" visions/messages from god, that have come through their latter day prophets.

You will find that this is the basic finger prints of a "cult".  

First of all cults almost every time have an axe to grind with the diety of Christ.  Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that Christ was just a created being.........An angel......most notably Michael the angel.

Also you will find in the J.W. bible, The New World Translation, that they have changed references to Jesus' diety to downgrade Him to a mere mortal, and not God incarnate.

The Mormons use a different tact, but just as damaging.  They claim that God as we read in the bible was once a mere, mortal man..........who got godhood, because he was a good guy.

It's interesting how Mormons draw a "deer in the headlamps" reaction when a true biblical, saved Christian attempts to explain "God's Grace" to them.  Grace=unmerited favor.......I.E.  in other words God extended forgiveness to mankind not based on man's merit in how he is or did live his life, but by God's pardoning favor.  No greater thing can a man do for another but give his life.

Christ didn't die for the "righteous", He died for the "unrighteous" who comprise the entire human race.

As much as one tries to live a "goodie two shoes" life, of going to church, praying a lot, crossing themselves, not swearing, not drinking, not fornicating..........They are in no better standing before God than the one who has gone "whole hog" into sin.

The very story of the "Prodigal Son" is an exemplary example of how God sees mankind, and also how God responds to sinful mankind when sinful mankind comes to a point of sorrow and remorse for their sinful state of being, and cries out with a contrite and repentant heart for salvation from Christ Himself.

Mormonism is a "feel good" religion that only offers the external or carnal side of satisfaction to mankind.  It has been designed by an evil intent, criminal, scamming mind, that has a history of misleading people from his young age until his death while shooting it out in Illinois before being lynched by a very angry mob.

Every where you go, Mormonism has been trying their darndest to vindicate J.S. Jr. but the evidence from unbiased secular sources say otherwise.  He was not a martyr except for those who "wish" it to be that way.

Mormonism usurpts God's omnipotents in gross ways, by degrading the holy bible with their lame replacement called the book of Mormon.  This book is filled with plagarism from direct bible verses/tracts.  It's N. American historical depictions have not been archeologically substantiated at all.  This goes for metalurgy being done in the Americans thousands of years ago.

Also Joseph Smith lacked any historical reasoning ability, as he was very uneducated, and very devious and rebellious as a person.

His and his predecessors who say that our planet earth is just one jumping-off place in a progression of earths with their own Jesus's who in turn saved another planet full of humans is so absurd that even makes Arthur Clark and his science fiction noves seem believeable.

Scientology/Tom Cruise/Travolta/ etc...:  Here again we see the same or similar fingerprints of the same Liar that has been misleading and putting mankind through travail since the beginning of time.  Scientologists don't have Kolob on their list of planets, but they also teach about a progression of human kind from planet to planet.

How people can buy into this absurd/crazy stuff is beyond me.

Howeve I do know this.  The bible says that those that ignore purposefully the God of the bible will be allowed to fall into the carnal side of life; devoid of interest in the truth, but will create their own gods, and with that will delude themselves over and over.

The bible warns of straying from the scriptures, but Mormons lean heavily on alleged visions, dreams, and other self-acclaimed phenomena to "Vindicate" their belief system.

We already know that the human mind can create things to the individual that only exist in their own mind.  The LSD generation can attest to that.  The realities that the unbridled mind can exude, and in turn misdirect that human being is endless.

I find it rather interesting how the strong biblical Jesus movement of the 60's-70's actually got it's "kick start" from the "hippie movement.

Dropping acid and creating little "trips" into fantasy land where only the individual who was "dropping" experienced the deepness of life seem to lose it's flavor, as "make love not war" along with communal living and changing sex partners created epidemics of S.T.D.'s.

Yes this Boomer generation was looking for meaning in life through transcendental meditaion, acid, sex, yoga, Hinduism, Zorastrism, you name................

This generation finally realize how all this visons, dreams, and other mind games didn't add up to a hill of beans.  This is when they finally came to an "end point" in their life's journey of experimentation.  They literally "gave up", and that's when the God of the bible was able to knock on the door of their hearts and get their individual attentions.

Mormonism might seem like the antithesis of the Hippie movement, as no Mormon would drop acid, when they won't even drink coffee.  

Yet the Mormon's are not different from anyone who is looking for the truth or understanding of life itself.

What they have created is a humanistically generated belief system that has a strict moral code of do's and don'ts..........Not unlike the strict Pharisees of Jesus' day.  I.E.  Follow the Pharisee's precepts or way of obeying the Torah/O.T. and you are acceptable to God.

Sadly, God's acceptance is not based on living a squeaky clean life.  God is not interested on the "exterior" of humanity.........whether he helps little old ladies across the street or not, isn't why Jesus came to earth through the virgin birth/incarnation of God.

Jesus is interested in the soul of mankind.  The soul is the mind, emotions, will, and spirit of man.  Jesus came to redeem, or face Mankinds sinful nature upon His own being, and a ransom payed back to God to keep mankind from facing God's thorough justice towards him.

Mormons have skewed this simple call from God through Christ for salvation into a multitude of decrees or doings to prove acceptability before God.  They have priesthoods that absolutely mean nothing before God.

Jesus did away with the priesthoods...........He is the one and only high priest now.  He is the advocate for those whom He has saved.  When we pray, Jesus is our gateway or bridge back to God Almighty.

Whether we can tithe 10% or can only give a widows mite, it is the heart of man than condemns him or not.
*******
Mormonism is a cult.  It is not Christian, except proclaimed by their own people.  It totally goes against the definition of who Christ was, is, and wil always be.

Mormonism lifts mere humans to godhood, which in itself is blasphemous.  

Sadly, as in all cults, the "hold" on a deeply entrenched Mormon is so strong that it often is only by bold, warfare prayer by concerned and loving biblical Christians that Satans hold can be broken and the scales of Mormon lies can fall away.

In most cases Mormons who have left the LDS church, have had to start with honestly acknowledging the subtle first doubts, and not burying them away as lies from those bad biblical Christians and the corrupted holy bible.

They are not encouraged to do independent study of the bible or other sources that might not be from the old "behive" store.

Again, that is another sign or fingerprint of a cult......."Control" of their members in what they can or cannot do.
*****
A couple outspoken LDS members blow me off regularly on this thread with short little dismissals to the posts I submit.  This is just another deflection.

I think deep down they know that the foundations of their belief system is built upon sand, and not a solid rock.
*****
As for those that think I'm looking from the outside at Mormonism.  My familial background goes back to Salt Lake City, and probably further in the branches of Mormon geneology than most here.

My father's mother was an active Mormon, yet she married an Episcapalean man who owned and ran two saloons in Salt Lake City in the late 1800's into the early 1900's.  This non-Mormon Saloon keeper(My grand dad) also helped build the Mormon Tabernacle, and is also one of the pictured people in the famous "gold spike driving" at Promentory Point, Utah, when the TransContinental railroad was completed.  

Also my Uncle who was an active Free Mason In Salt Lake City, and a native resident of that city, informed me that Mormons were not allowed membership in the Utah Lodge.  Why?:  Well, their founder, J.S. Jr. who was a Freemason, divulged all the secret ceremonies of Freemasonry by including them in the LDS Temple ceremonies.  

So those temple rites/ceremonies being a "sent' message from god, are a bunch of baloney.  

Part of my family also knows what it was like to live in Salt Lake and not be Mormons, and endure the chastising treatment of that.  Non-Mormons in Salt Lake back in the late 19th and early 20th century endured discrimination to various degrees from the Mormon populous.  I give my granddad a lot of credit for bucking the trend and having those two saloons, and even helping the Mormons with the building of their sacred temple.
************


----------



## Hister

Geez 8B, you sure have a lot of time on your hands. 

Jesus died because the Jews didn't like what he was preaching, so they turned him in as a subversive. That he died for our sins is total made up bs, that doesn't even make any sense. What's even worse is that every time you see a picture of JC on the cross, they always draw him in a diaper!!!


----------



## Hister

Geez 8B, you sure have a lot of time on your hands. 

Jesus died because the Jews didn't like what he was preaching, so they turned him in as a subversive. That he died for our sins is total made up bs, that doesn't even make any sense. What's even worse is that every time you see a picture of JC on the cross, they always draw him in a diaper!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Interesting comments on "Brigham Young University Rehangs Gay Art Project"

Brigham Young University Rehangs Gay Art Project  CAFFEINATED POLITICS


----------



## Eightball

Big "Bump"


----------



## Adamo

Mormons have no truth, just read the book of Mormons, it's total fiction.


----------



## Avatar4321

Adamo said:


> Mormons have no truth, just read the book of Mormons, it's total fiction.



Actually, read the Book of Mormon. You might be surprised by what you find.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Book of Mormon is the best original religious fiction in American literature: truly a marvel!


----------



## Tom Clancy

Sarcasm?


----------



## Liability

*This thread has turned way lame.*

It has turned SOOOOO lame, in fact, that I now feel a little bit guilty for having bumped it back a few months ago.


----------



## Avatar4321

Liability said:


> *This thread has turned way lame.*
> 
> It has turned SOOOOO lame, in fact, that I now feel a little bit guilty for having bumped it back a few months ago.



Why do you think I havent been posting as much? There is nothing of substance to respond to and hasnt been in a while.


----------



## Adamo

Avatar4321 said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons have no truth, just read the book of Mormons, it's total fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, read the Book of Mormon. You might be surprised by what you find.
Click to expand...


I've read some of it, I was surprised how little common sense it had in it.

for one, basically, everyone on earth now was a spirit in the pre-existence. When we die, our spirits are separated from our bodies and if we were good they go to spirit paradise. If we were bad they go to spirit prison. The spirit world exists as a place for spirits to go while awaiting the second coming.

No proof, and it's a crazy idea.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Adamo, your comments reveal you have read little, if any, of the Book of Mormon.  It does not not talk about pre-existent spirits.  And above?  No, no sarcasm at all.  The work  is truly unique.


----------



## Adamo

JakeStarkey said:


> Adamo, your comments reveals you have read little, if any, of the Book of Mormon.  It does not not talk about pre-existent spirits.  And above?  No, no sarcasm at all.  The work  is truly unique.



Can someone translate this into English?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Check my post, Adamo.  It is clear and to the point.  Deal with the points here, son, and you will be OK.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It's been far too long since I've been on here. Adamo has glanced at this thread and would like to pass final judgment on us as an ignorant and crazy people. Curious that someone would come to such a hasty conclusion.

His rash judgments lead me to believe there is an underlying concern that he has that he doesn't want to communicate to the rest of us. Also since plain english seems to be a problem we have a mixture of two things, ignorance and arrogance. So I likely won't get far with him either. 

Thanks for the bumps and I do realize the thread has gotten flabby. Most of the reason for that is like what avatar said, very little substance besides juvenile jabs have gone on here. 8 ball has substance but it's just more of the same so it would be nice to have a fresh face in here again....with fresh interest to boot.


----------



## Adamo

ok, if you can't answer that one, how about this truly bizarre no proof belief:

The Book of Mormon is a book that takes place during the same time as the Bible and takes place on the American continent. It follows the stories of two tribes who descended from the family of Lehi. After Jesus&#8217; resurrection LDS people believe he visited the peoples of the Americas.

How do you figure that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Adamo said:


> ok, if you can't answer that one, how about this truly bizarre no proof belief:
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a book that takes place during the same time as the Bible and takes place on the American continent. It follows the stories of two tribes who descended from the family of Lehi. After Jesus resurrection LDS people believe he visited the peoples of the Americas.
> 
> How do you figure that?



Good, I am glad you are back to what is written.  I am not LDS, but I do understand American literature.  The BoM is a great piece of American religious fiction.  If you don't like it, OK, you are entitled to your opinion, but that means nothing other than for you.


----------



## Adamo

JakeStarkey said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, if you can't answer that one, how about this truly bizarre no proof belief:
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a book that takes place during the same time as the Bible and takes place on the American continent. It follows the stories of two tribes who descended from the family of Lehi. After Jesus&#8217; resurrection LDS people believe he visited the peoples of the Americas.
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good, I am glad you are back to what is written.  *I am not LDS*, but I do understand American literature.  The BoM is a great piece of American religious fiction.  If you don't like it, OK, you are entitled to your opinion, but that means nothing other than for you.
Click to expand...


Then stfu.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I don't have to, Adamo, and neither do you.  But I will keep making you look like a fool when you post stupid stuff.  That's what I do.


----------



## Adamo

What, asking what makes them think Jesus walked in the Americas is stupid? If you have no answer but to say: YOU'RE STUPID! Then you'd look less foolish yourself if you just shut the fuck up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not at all, because your tone was accusatory, in the beginning half of the much you were writing was wrong, and I asked you to clean up you act.  You are the foolish one.


----------



## Adamo

You're not LDS, I'm not even talking to you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I told you that I am not LDS, but I know far more about it than you do.  Shoot, Truthspeaker and Avitar4321 between them might know a third of what I know about it.  Good beliefs, fine people, interesting literature, depraved beginnings: what more would you want in an American story?


----------



## Avatar4321

Adamo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adamo, your comments reveals you have read little, if any, of the Book of Mormon.  It does not not talk about pre-existent spirits.  And above?  No, no sarcasm at all.  The work  is truly unique.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone translate this into English?
Click to expand...


He means: Read closer.


----------



## Avatar4321

Adamo said:


> What, asking what makes them think Jesus walked in the Americas is stupid? If you have no answer but to say: YOU'RE STUPID! Then you'd look less foolish yourself if you just shut the fuck up.



The Spirit has revealed it. But you don't have to take my word for it. Ask God yourself.


----------



## Adamo

Avatar4321 said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, asking what makes them think Jesus walked in the Americas is stupid? If you have no answer but to say: YOU'RE STUPID! Then you'd look less foolish yourself if you just shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Spirit has revealed it. But you don't have to take my word for it. Ask God yourself.
Click to expand...


How did the spirit reveal it? And I just asked god, no shit, and am awaiting his answer. How long does it usually take for an answer?


----------



## JakeStarkey

What a sissy comment, Adamo.  Tell us what happend.  A Mormon girl dump you?


----------



## Adamo

What's sissy? Saying that I asked god and nothing happened? Or answering your post?


----------



## Avatar4321

Adamo said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, asking what makes them think Jesus walked in the Americas is stupid? If you have no answer but to say: YOU'RE STUPID! Then you'd look less foolish yourself if you just shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Spirit has revealed it. But you don't have to take my word for it. Ask God yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the spirit reveal it? And I just asked god, no shit, and am awaiting his answer. How long does it usually take for an answer?
Click to expand...


Long enough for you to be humble and sincere and believe that you can get an answer.


----------



## Avatar4321

Oh if anyone is interested, here are some of the talks from the Church's General Conference last week. Very good and informative. I thought the Speakers were excellent. One of the best conferences Ive seen in a while. Feel free to read or watch as you like. And comment on anything youd like. It make great discussions.


----------



## Adamo

Avatar4321 said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Spirit has revealed it. But you don't have to take my word for it. Ask God yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the spirit reveal it? And I just asked god, no shit, and am awaiting his answer. How long does it usually take for an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long enough for you to be humble and sincere and believe that you can get an answer.
Click to expand...


What's it been, like, a week, two? Still no answer.


----------



## Avatar4321

Adamo said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the spirit reveal it? And I just asked god, no shit, and am awaiting his answer. How long does it usually take for an answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long enough for you to be humble and sincere and believe that you can get an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's it been, like, a week, two? Still no answer.
Click to expand...


God isn't someone you can be flippant with or mock. He knows your heart. He knows whether you sincerely are seeking the truth or are simply playing games.

When you are humble and sincere, asking in faith believing you can recieve an answer if there is a God, He will reveal Himself to you. But if you think you can play games and not really care, then you will never find your answer.

I didn't know whether there was a God when i sought Him. I just wanted to know the Truth. If there was a God I wanted to know if there was one. So I had faith and shared that with Him. I told Him if He would show me the Truth I would follow Him where it took me. And the Spirit revealed Himself to me when He was ready and it a way that was impossible for me to deny.

My only disappointment is that I've been human and not lived up to the promise to follow Him as I should have. I've been slow to listen and often disobedient and full of contention rather than love. Thankfully God is merciful. And He has provided an Atonement to make up for my weaknesses and pains.

You may not know God. But He loves you. He is your Father in Heaven. But in His mercy He keeps people from knowing Him unless they sincerely seek Him out in humility and exercising even a small amount of faith. 

Here are some questions to ask to yourself honestly. We don't need to know the answers. You already do:

1) If you knew God was real, would you follow Him or would you continue to do as you wish?
2) If there is a God, could you believe that He would have the power to reveal himself to you, even if you don't understand why He doesn't do it to everyone at once?
3) Would you rather stay in ignorance or would you rather seek out and find the truth?
4) Are you willing to admit that you might not know everything and that you could learn more?

Like I said, ask them to yourself. Ponder them. And then seek the Lord in prayer. Get on your knees and show your faith calling out to God even if you don't know He is there. yeah it may seem silly. But experiment on the word. 

Seek the Truth in your life. Be honest with everyone. Even with yourself. Study. Learn. Think and ponder. Search the scriptures. Search what has been written for and against and try to find out for yourself the Truth.

And serve others. provide acts of service and kindness to each member of your family. Serve your coworkers. Be kind to people.

Don't do this for just one day or one week. Try to sincerely do this for a month or two. Do this and I am confident that the Spirit reveal Himself to you. Even if it's on the very last day you are trying this.


----------



## froggy

So, the Mormon deception continues.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Here is something interesting.  The arch rightwinger, Boyd Packer, long Hinckley and Monson's opponent on social issues, gave a sermon a bit ago about The Proclamation on the Family, the anti-gay program of the LDS Church.  The interesting point is that the release of his sermon on lds.org was heavily edited to eliminate his hate speech.  You will not see him speak in public again except in the most guarded of scenes so that the Church can control him.


----------



## Jack Fate

JakeStarkey said:


> Here is something interesting.  The arch rightwinger, Boyd Packer, long Hinckley and Monson's opponent on social issues, gave a sermon a bit ago about The Proclamation on the Family, the anti-gay program of the LDS Church.  The interesting point is that the release of his sermon on lds.org was heavily edited to eliminate his hate speech.  You will not see him speak in public again except in the most guarded of scenes so that the Church can control him.



Jake, are you a homosexual?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jack, are you asking for a date?  I am the wrong guy for that.  Why do you fear homosexuals; that often is a symbol of latent homosexuality.  bigreb demonstrates that as well.


----------



## Jack Fate

JakeStarkey said:


> Jack, are you asking for a date?  I am the wrong guy for that.  Why do you fear homosexuals; that often is a symbol of latent homosexuality.  bigreb demonstrates that as well.



Why can't you answer the question?  Are you ashamed of your homosexuality?


----------



## mal

Isn't this Thread about Mormons?...



peace...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jack Fate said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jack, are you asking for a date?  I am the wrong guy for that.  Why do you fear homosexuals; that often is a symbol of latent homosexuality.  bigreb demonstrates that as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't you answer the question?  Are you ashamed of your homosexuality?
Click to expand...


You are following an earlier path for you that did not end well.

I am not homosexual.  Why do you hate homosexuals, Jack Fate?


----------



## JakeStarkey

mal said:


> Isn't this Thread about Mormons?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...



Hi, Mal.  Jack Fate is trolling me for making him look bad on another thread.  I don't he is as interested in the Mormon position on homosexuality (check the Proclamation on the Family, for that) as he is about me making him look bad.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Spirit has revealed it. But you don't have to take my word for it. Ask God yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the spirit reveal it? And I just asked god, no shit, and am awaiting his answer. How long does it usually take for an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Long enough for you to be humble and sincere and believe that you can get an answer.
Click to expand...


But, is it enough to ask whether the church is true, or does one have to pray to god to help him believe that it is true?  

That is a big difference, IMO.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> So, the Mormon deception continues.



No. Just a thread on mormonism.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Here is something interesting.  The arch rightwinger, Boyd Packer, long Hinckley and Monson's opponent on social issues, gave a sermon a bit ago about The Proclamation on the Family, the anti-gay program of the LDS Church.  The interesting point is that the release of his sermon on lds.org was heavily edited to eliminate his hate speech.  You will not see him speak in public again except in the most guarded of scenes so that the Church can control him.



There was no hate speech in the sermon Jake. In fact, it was a very clear expression and love and hope through the power of the Atonement.

Nor was it heavily edited. Nor is there right v left wing in the Church leadership. They all preach the same message of repentence.

No one has to take my word for it though. Read and listen for yourselves.


----------



## Avatar4321

mal said:


> Isn't this Thread about Mormons?...
> 
> 
> 
> peace...



It is. But almost everyone seems obsessed with the gay thing lately.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the spirit reveal it? And I just asked god, no shit, and am awaiting his answer. How long does it usually take for an answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long enough for you to be humble and sincere and believe that you can get an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, is it enough to ask whether the church is true, or does one have to pray to god to help him believe that it is true?
> 
> That is a big difference, IMO.
Click to expand...


I think it's more a question of coming to know God. 

My questions when I was searching was specifically to see the truth and come to know God. Part of that was asking whether there even was a God. I didn't know whether there was then. I didn't know whether Jesus was real or that He was the Son of God. I didn't know whether I could rely on the scriptures, whether the testimonies given in them were true. And I didn't know whether the Church was true.

But if the scriptures were true, it became obvious to me that the only way to find out was to exercise faith that if God was there, He could reveal Himself to me in His own time and place. I had a hypothesis, I needed to test it for myself. So I acted with faith, not knowing. Just believing if it were right I would know eventually somehow.

The fact is all of us have to question whether there is a God at one point in our lives are not or we aren't being honest with ourselves. But how can we know? Obviously we can't rely on the experience of other people. They might be wrong. They might be lying. It would be impossible to put firm reliance in God without finding out for ourselves whether there is a God. I mean how can you rely on someone you aren't sure is even there?

We can try to reason it out or scientifically prove it. However, people can look at the same data and come up with completely differenet ideas. Neither reason nor science can prove or disprove whether there is a God.

In fact, I am not sure anything can disprove there is a God short of being a god and knowing everything. But we can we know God? That is the question we all need to ask ourselves. Because if we have a personal experience with God. One that is so obvious that we cannot deny it, we could know that God is there.

So how do we have such an experience. We have to actively experiment on the Word. The scriptures say that we won't receive an witness until after the trial of our faith. We need to let go. We need to surrender and trust God, even if we aren't sure if He is there initially. We have to be willing to try prayer and be consistant with it. We need to be humble and accept that God might be there and that if He is there He might have mercy enough to reveal Himself to us.

We all have to look into ourselves. We need to actively seek out the Truth and be honest with ourselves about the answers we find. We need to talk with God if we ever expect to come to know Him. How can we possibly know someone if we don't?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something interesting.  The arch rightwinger, Boyd Packer, long Hinckley and Monson's opponent on social issues, gave a sermon a bit ago about The Proclamation on the Family, the anti-gay program of the LDS Church.  The interesting point is that the release of his sermon on lds.org was heavily edited to eliminate his hate speech.  You will not see him speak in public again except in the most guarded of scenes so that the Church can control him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no hate speech in the sermon Jake. In fact, it was a very clear expression and love and hope through the power of the Atonement.
> 
> Nor was it heavily edited. Nor is there right v left wing in the Church leadership. They all preach the same message of repentence.
> 
> No one has to take my word for it though. Read and listen for yourselves.
Click to expand...


The edited verson is much, much better than sermon, and, yes, it was homophobic.  Don't take my word for it, listen to it if you can find a bootleg copy.  Hinckley and Monson long opposed Packer and his supporters Oaks and Maxwell in the Twelve.  The two wings go all the way back to Joseph F. Smith and his son against Apostles Orson F. Whitney and David O. McKay.

The motifs are the Iron Rod and the Liahona for the two wings.


----------



## Adamo

Avatar, you say you started out not knowing if there was a god...
So what was it that turned the lightbulb on in your head so to speak, about suddenly being convinced that your god was real after all? And why one of the whackiest branches of religion?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> I told you that I am not LDS, but I know far more about it than you do.  Shoot, Truthspeaker and Avitar4321 between them might know a third of what I know about it.  Good beliefs, fine people, interesting literature, depraved beginnings: what more would you want in an American story?



so Avatar and I who are devout in our religion and study it on a daily basis, only know a third of what you know about it even though you are not a member of our church. Interesting. Great nugget Schrute!


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Here is something interesting.  The arch rightwinger, Boyd Packer, long Hinckley and Monson's opponent on social issues, gave a sermon a bit ago about The Proclamation on the Family, the anti-gay program of the LDS Church.  The interesting point is that the release of his sermon on lds.org was heavily edited to eliminate his hate speech.  You will not see him speak in public again except in the most guarded of scenes so that the Church can control him.



Boy are you off the beaten path. Boyd K. Packer has ever been in the greatest harmony with the rest of the general authorities.  He just spoke about the very same thing again last sunday in general conference broadcast across the whole planet, coincidentally again about the proclamation to the world about the family.

He outlined it again. Explaining the reason why homosexuality is not acceptable to God's plan of happiness. There is no censorship in our church. It's an all open book for everyone to scrutinize with the largest microscopes.


----------



## topspin

Mormons are no less retarded than Muslims or Catholics.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is something interesting.  The arch rightwinger, Boyd Packer, long Hinckley and Monson's opponent on social issues, gave a sermon a bit ago about The Proclamation on the Family, the anti-gay program of the LDS Church.  The interesting point is that the release of his sermon on lds.org was heavily edited to eliminate his hate speech.  You will not see him speak in public again except in the most guarded of scenes so that the Church can control him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was no hate speech in the sermon Jake. In fact, it was a very clear expression and love and hope through the power of the Atonement.
> 
> Nor was it heavily edited. Nor is there right v left wing in the Church leadership. They all preach the same message of repentence.
> 
> No one has to take my word for it though. Read and listen for yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The edited verson is much, much better than sermon, and, yes, it was homophobic.  Don't take my word for it, listen to it if you can find a bootleg copy.  Hinckley and Monson long opposed Packer and his supporters Oaks and Maxwell in the Twelve.  The two wings go all the way back to Joseph F. Smith and his son against Apostles Orson F. Whitney and David O. McKay.
> 
> The motifs are the Iron Rod and the Liahona for the two wings.
Click to expand...


Jake, this claim is beyond absurd. I'd say you know it too, but maybe you don't. Please post links if you're going to make such wild claims please.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the spirit reveal it? And I just asked god, no shit, and am awaiting his answer. How long does it usually take for an answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Long enough for you to be humble and sincere and believe that you can get an answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, is it enough to ask whether the church is true, or does one have to pray to god to help him believe that it is true?
> 
> That is a big difference, IMO.
Click to expand...


First you have to want to know if it's true. Then you have to believe god exists. Then you have to go out on a limb and ask if God will give you the answer.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Adamo said:


> Avatar, you say you started out not knowing if there was a god...
> So what was it that turned the lightbulb on in your head so to speak, about suddenly being convinced that your god was real after all? And why one of the whackiest branches of religion?



It wasn't one lightbulb moment. It was lots of little light bulb moments. It was the way i preferred my life to the alternative. It seemed to make sense in my heart, and sense in my brain just as much. I didn't see things as wacky. Truth is often stranger than fiction so knowing that ahead of time I decided not to blindly dismiss anything without investigating it first. 
That goes beyond religion.

When questions come that I don't know the answer to, I don't jump to conclusions, I seek answers and I usually get them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

topspin said:


> Mormons are no less retarded than Muslims or Catholics.



uh.. thanks


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Long enough for you to be humble and sincere and believe that you can get an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, is it enough to ask whether the church is true, or does one have to pray to god to help him believe that it is true?
> 
> That is a big difference, IMO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you have to want to know if it's true. Then you have to believe god exists. Then you have to go out on a limb and ask if God will give you the answer.
Click to expand...


Heaven forbid, we use the bible to make sure our heart is following the truth.  Guess the Apostle Paul was one screwed up dude when he said, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".

And don't try to redefine what Paul meant by "Word".......He was referring to scripture, not dreams, feelings, burning bosoms, that seemed to meet the criteria of one's "heart".

The bible says that the heart is inherently deceitful...........It cannot be trusted............Thus the Word Of God that was omnipotently protected and handed down to us through the centuries is at our disposal to use for growth, correction, and keeping on correct "track".


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Heaven forbid, we use the bible to make sure our heart is following the truth.  Guess the Apostle Paul was one screwed up dude when he said, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".
> 
> And don't try to redefine what Paul meant by "Word".......He was referring to scripture, not dreams, feelings, burning bosoms, that seemed to meet the criteria of one's "heart".



Is that your interpretation of Paul's words?  It sounds to me like he was agreeing with Truthspeaker.



Eightball said:


> The bible says that the heart is inherently deceitful...........It cannot be trusted............Thus the Word Of God that was omnipotently protected and handed down to us through the centuries is at our disposal to use for growth, correction, and keeping on correct "track".



The Bible that says that the human race began with two individuals in the Garden of Eden?  The one that says that all the animals that weren't on Noah's Ark were wiped out in a universal flood?  The one that tells us that Joshua made the walls of Jerico fall down by blowing on a trumpet, or that god actually parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape?

That Bible?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no hate speech in the sermon Jake. In fact, it was a very clear expression and love and hope through the power of the Atonement.
> 
> Nor was it heavily edited. Nor is there right v left wing in the Church leadership. They all preach the same message of repentence.
> 
> No one has to take my word for it though. Read and listen for yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The edited verson is much, much better than sermon, and, yes, it was homophobic.  Don't take my word for it, listen to it if you can find a bootleg copy.  Hinckley and Monson long opposed Packer and his supporters Oaks and Maxwell in the Twelve.  The two wings go all the way back to Joseph F. Smith and his son against Apostles Orson F. Whitney and David O. McKay.
> 
> The motifs are the Iron Rod and the Liahona for the two wings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, this claim is beyond absurd. I'd say you know it too, but maybe you don't. Please post links if you're going to make such wild claims please.
Click to expand...


Truthspeaker clearly does not know his history.  Anyone interested in this can contact LDS historians at BYU, University of Utah, and elsewhere.  Three award-winning temple-card carrying LDS historians who have spent their whole lives on these issues*, Todd Compton,and Richard Bushman and Richard E. Bennett, will support exactly what I have written.

*Disclaimer: Truthspeaker is going to write that he knows more about this anyone else.  Ask him contact Todd, Richard, and Richard for futher instruction.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Foxfyre said:


> Agree 100% that God created us



Which god:
Aphrodite
Apollo
Apsu
Ares
Artemis
Asclepius
Athena
Athirat
Athtart
Atlas
Baal
Ba Xian
Bacchus
Balder
Bast
Bellona
Bergelmir
Bes
Bixia Yuanjin
Bragi
Brahma
Brigit
Camaxtli
Ceres
Ceridwen
Cernunnos
Chac
Chalchiuhtlicue
Charun
Chemosh
Cheng-huang
Cybele
Dagon
Damkina (Dumkina)
Davlin
Dawn
Demeter
Diana
Di Cang
Dionysus

Anywho you get the point?


----------



## Adamo

Truthspeaker said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, you say you started out not knowing if there was a god...
> So what was it that turned the lightbulb on in your head so to speak, about suddenly being convinced that your god was real after all? And why one of the whackiest branches of religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't one lightbulb moment. It was lots of little light bulb moments. It was the way i preferred my life to the alternative. It seemed to make sense in my heart, and sense in my brain just as much. I didn't see things as wacky. Truth is often stranger than fiction so knowing that ahead of time I decided not to blindly dismiss anything without investigating it first.
> That goes beyond religion.
> 
> When questions come that I don't know the answer to, I don't jump to conclusions, I seek answers and I usually get them.
Click to expand...


Avatar, you change your name to truthspeaker? If not, t-dude why don't you stfu.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Adamo, I hope you understand that you don't make the rules here.  Any one of us, including you, can pop in anytime on any discussion.  Don't like it?  Take it up with admin.  Oh, check your attitude at the door, cause that don't work here.


----------



## Adamo

Jake, you pussy, don't like my answer, then too bad, fuck you too.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Adamo, no one cares about your little tantrums.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, is it enough to ask whether the church is true, or does one have to pray to god to help him believe that it is true?
> 
> That is a big difference, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you have to want to know if it's true. Then you have to believe god exists. Then you have to go out on a limb and ask if God will give you the answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heaven forbid, we use the bible to make sure our heart is following the truth.  Guess the Apostle Paul was one screwed up dude when he said, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God".
> 
> And don't try to redefine what Paul meant by "Word".......He was referring to scripture, not dreams, feelings, burning bosoms, that seemed to meet the criteria of one's "heart".
> 
> The bible says that the heart is inherently deceitful...........It cannot be trusted............Thus the Word Of God that was omnipotently protected and handed down to us through the centuries is at our disposal to use for growth, correction, and keeping on correct "track".
Click to expand...


8-ball, you read something like the bible and then it gives you hope that the stories are true. That hope is the desire I'm talking about. But that hope is not knowledge or even belief. it's the desire.

Then you have to pray to God to get the answer. His answer, by the power of the spirit of God, is not mistakable. it doesn't fail as do the hearts of men on their own. That's what I'm talking about.


----------



## Tom Clancy

A mormon living in San Fran?

Sounds like a Black Gay couple in Alabama.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The edited verson is much, much better than sermon, and, yes, it was homophobic.  Don't take my word for it, listen to it if you can find a bootleg copy.  Hinckley and Monson long opposed Packer and his supporters Oaks and Maxwell in the Twelve.  The two wings go all the way back to Joseph F. Smith and his son against Apostles Orson F. Whitney and David O. McKay.
> 
> The motifs are the Iron Rod and the Liahona for the two wings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, this claim is beyond absurd. I'd say you know it too, but maybe you don't. Please post links if you're going to make such wild claims please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker clearly does not know his history.  Anyone interested in this can contact LDS historians at BYU, University of Utah, and elsewhere.  Three award-winning temple-card carrying LDS historians who have spent their whole lives on these issues*, Todd Compton,and Richard Bushman and Richard E. Bennett, will support exactly what I have written.
> 
> *Disclaimer: Truthspeaker is going to write that he knows more about this anyone else.  Ask him contact Todd, Richard, and Richard for futher instruction.
Click to expand...

Yes please do. Contact all those people and also contact BYU and look at any and all annals of our documents and you won't find what Jake says you will find.

btw Go Giants!!! Bring on Philadelphia!!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100% that God created us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god:
> Aphrodite
> Apollo
> Apsu
> Ares
> Artemis
> Asclepius
> Athena
> Athirat
> Athtart
> Atlas
> Baal
> Ba Xian
> Bacchus
> Balder
> Bast
> Bellona
> Bergelmir
> Bes
> Bixia Yuanjin
> Bragi
> Brahma
> Brigit
> Camaxtli
> Ceres
> Ceridwen
> Cernunnos
> Chac
> Chalchiuhtlicue
> Charun
> Chemosh
> Cheng-huang
> Cybele
> Dagon
> Damkina (Dumkina)
> Davlin
> Dawn
> Demeter
> Diana
> Di Cang
> Dionysus
> 
> Anywho you get the point?
Click to expand...


I'll simplifiy this for you. Jehovah. which one do you think?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Adamo said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, you say you started out not knowing if there was a god...
> So what was it that turned the lightbulb on in your head so to speak, about suddenly being convinced that your god was real after all? And why one of the whackiest branches of religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't one lightbulb moment. It was lots of little light bulb moments. It was the way i preferred my life to the alternative. It seemed to make sense in my heart, and sense in my brain just as much. I didn't see things as wacky. Truth is often stranger than fiction so knowing that ahead of time I decided not to blindly dismiss anything without investigating it first.
> That goes beyond religion.
> 
> When questions come that I don't know the answer to, I don't jump to conclusions, I seek answers and I usually get them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, you change your name to truthspeaker? If not, t-dude why don't you stfu.
Click to expand...


I know you're trying to make us all think you're Satan with your avatar, but it's not a good look for you and it's not believable.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Tom Clancy said:


> A mormon living in San Fran?
> 
> Sounds like a Black Gay couple in Alabama.



Or a Gay Apache Indian living in Nepal? Yeah, something like that. Who knew?


----------



## Adamo

ok T-boner, what were those little lightbulb moments? Give me 5.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Adamo said:


> ok T-boner, what were those little lightbulb moments? Give me 5.



Sorry Adamo, I don't feel like telling you while you're being a jackass.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Since the 1967 appearance of "What the Church Means to People Like Me," the *Liahona-Iron Rod *symbolism has taken on a life of its own. In addition to republications in periodicals and anthologies, hundreds of reprints and copies of the article have found their way into circulation, many through Brigham Young University's bookstore and classes and the LDS institute and seminary system. It was quoted in Gottlieb's and Wiley's America's Saints and figures prominently in the conclusion of Arrington's and Bitton's The Mormon Experience.1 Its most sigmficant contribution&#8212;to the extent that it went beyond providing handy labels&#8212;was to help make the Liahonas more accepting of themselves. As one correspondent succinctly put it to me: 'You'll never know how delighted I was to find out that I have a nice name like Liahona.&#8230;I just wasn't aware that there were so many of us who questioned.'"
History & Faith: Liahona and Iron Rod Revisited


----------



## Adamo

Truthspeaker said:


> Adamo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok T-boner, what were those little lightbulb moments? Give me 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Adamo, I don't feel like telling you while you're being a jackass.
Click to expand...


Awwww, c'mon. Purdy pleeeeeeze!


----------



## Avatar4321

Been gone alot last couple days.

To answer your question: The only way to know things of the Spirit is through the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> Been gone alot last couple days.
> 
> To answer your question: The only way to know things of the Spirit is through the Holy Spirit.



Ok.  Now please explain how you "know" that the one communicating with you is the Holy Spirit, and not a demonic spirit?

Where do you go to for validation that it's the Holy Spirit, and not a deceiving spirit?

Do you just depend on your "intuition", and or "feelings" that this is the Holy Spirit?  

On this board, both you and Truthspeaker always revert back to the "heart"..........or your "heart" telling you that a communique' is from God/Holy Spirit.

The bible says that man's heart is deceitful, and cannot be trusted.

So how do you know your "heart" or "intuition" or "feelings" are steering you into the "truth"?

Where's the ultimate compass or "bedrock" to rely on when you think God is talking to you via the alleged Holy Spirit?

Our nation has what is called a "Constitution".  Though in the last and recent century, it has been ignored, watered-down, etc., it is the "compass" that is supposed to ultimately guide this great nation.

Where is the compass or Constitution, that your religion relys on to make sure it isn't going astray from God's truth?


----------



## Adamo

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Been gone alot last couple days.
> 
> To answer your question: The only way to know things of the Spirit is through the Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Now please explain how you "know" that the one communicating with you is the Holy Spirit, and not a demonic spirit?
> 
> Where do you go to for validation that it's the Holy Spirit, and not a deceiving spirit?
> 
> Do you just depend on your "intuition", and or "feelings" that this is the Holy Spirit?
> 
> On this board, both you and Truthspeaker always revert back to the "heart"..........or your "heart" telling you that a communique' is from God/Holy Spirit.
> 
> The bible says that man's heart is deceitful, and cannot be trusted.
> 
> So how do you know your "heart" or "intuition" or "feelings" are steering you into the "truth"?
> 
> Where's the ultimate compass or "bedrock" to rely on when you think God is talking to you via the alleged Holy Spirit?
> 
> Our nation has what is called a "Constitution".  Though in the last and recent century, it has been ignored, watered-down, etc., it is the "compass" that is supposed to ultimately guide this great nation.
> 
> Where is the compass or Constitution, that your religion relys on to make sure it isn't going astray from God's truth?
Click to expand...


Dude's hearing voices and you're asking him how he knows that it's the right voice?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar/Truthspeaker:

Ok. Now please explain how you "*know*" that the one communicating with you is the Holy Spirit, *and not a demonic spirit?*

Where do you go to for validation that it's the Holy Spirit, and *not a deceiving spirit?*

Do you just depend on your "*intuition*", and or "*feelings*" that you *know* it's the Holy Spirit? 

On this board, both you and Truthspeaker always revert back to the "*heart*"..........or *your "heart*" telling you that a communique' is from God/Holy Spirit.

The bible says that man's heart is deceitful, and cannot be trusted.


> Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?



So how do you know your "*heart*" or "*intuition*" or "*feelings*" are steering you into the *"truth"?*

Where's the ultimate *compass or "bedrock*" to rely on when *you think *God is talking to you via the alleged Holy Spirit?

Our nation has what is called a "Constitution". Though in the last and recent century, it has been ignored, watered-down, etc., it is the "*compass*" that is supposed to *ultimately guide *this great nation.

*Where is the compass or Constitution, that your religion relys on to make sure it isn't going astray from God's truth?*


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Truthspeaker said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree 100% that God created us
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which god:
> Aphrodite
> Apollo
> Apsu
> Ares
> Artemis
> Asclepius
> Athena
> Athirat
> Athtart
> Atlas
> Baal
> Ba Xian
> Bacchus
> Balder
> Bast
> Bellona
> Bergelmir
> Bes
> Bixia Yuanjin
> Bragi
> Brahma
> Brigit
> Camaxtli
> Ceres
> Ceridwen
> Cernunnos
> Chac
> Chalchiuhtlicue
> Charun
> Chemosh
> Cheng-huang
> Cybele
> Dagon
> Damkina (Dumkina)
> Davlin
> Dawn
> Demeter
> Diana
> Di Cang
> Dionysus
> 
> Anywho you get the point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll simplifiy this for you. Jehovah. which one do you think?
Click to expand...


But why just pick one, there are so many. i like Thor myself, so many gods and so little time...


----------



## Skeptik

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which god:
> Aphrodite
> Apollo
> Apsu
> Ares
> Artemis
> Asclepius
> Athena
> Athirat
> Athtart
> Atlas
> Baal
> Ba Xian
> Bacchus
> Balder
> Bast
> Bellona
> Bergelmir
> Bes
> Bixia Yuanjin
> Bragi
> Brahma
> Brigit
> Camaxtli
> Ceres
> Ceridwen
> Cernunnos
> Chac
> Chalchiuhtlicue
> Charun
> Chemosh
> Cheng-huang
> Cybele
> Dagon
> Damkina (Dumkina)
> Davlin
> Dawn
> Demeter
> Diana
> Di Cang
> Dionysus
> 
> Anywho you get the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll simplifiy this for you. Jehovah. which one do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But why just pick one, there are so many. i like Thor myself, so many gods and so little time...
Click to expand...


I favor Aphrodite myself, the goddess of love, beauty, and sexuality.

I kind of like love, beauty, and sexuality, don't you?


----------



## Eightball

Avatar/Truthspeaker:

Ok. Now please explain how you "*know*" that the one communicating with you is the Holy Spirit, *and not a demonic spirit?*

Where do you go to for validation that it's the Holy Spirit, and *not a deceiving spirit?*

Do you just depend on your "*intuition*", and or "*feelings*" that you *know* it's the Holy Spirit? 

On this board, both you and Truthspeaker always revert back to the "*heart*"..........or *your "heart*" telling you that a communique' is from God/Holy Spirit.

The bible says that man's heart is deceitful, and cannot be trusted.


> Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?



So how do you know your "*heart*" or "*intuition*" or "*feelings*" are steering you into the *"truth"?*

Where's the ultimate *compass or "bedrock*" to rely on when *you think *God is talking to you via the alleged Holy Spirit?

Our nation has what is called a "Constitution". Though in the last and recent century, it has been ignored, watered-down, etc., it is the "*compass*" that is supposed to *ultimately guide *this great nation.

*Where is the compass or Constitution, that your religion relys on to make sure it isn't going astray from God's truth?*


----------



## Truthspeaker

8-Ball I've explained this dozens of times already. You should remember this by now. Paul talks about the difference between the fruits of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit. In Galatians 5:25 he says, "But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, temperance, goodness, meekness, faith. Against such there is no law.

After describing the opposites as the fruits of the flesh it is clear to me that if my heart feels any of those good things. It is a witness of the spirit of God to me, that what i am feeling or doing at that time, stands approved of God.

Yes the heart of man is weak. But that is only when the heart chooses to follow after the fruits of the flesh which are thus: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
  20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
  21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.(interesting that Paul mentions actions here, even if those people had confessed the christ with their lips. It doesn't seem to matter.)

So the heart is still useful. Our hearts are weak when left to ourselves. but our hearts are strong when under the influence of the Spirit of God. This cannot be denied without lying.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Truthspeaker said:


> 8-Ball I've explained this dozens of times already. You should remember this by now. Paul talks about the difference between the fruits of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit. In Galatians 5:25 he says, "But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, temperance, goodness, meekness, faith. Against such there is no law.
> 
> After describing the opposites as the fruits of the flesh it is clear to me that if my heart feels any of those good things. It is a witness of the spirit of God to me, that what i am feeling or doing at that time, stands approved of God.
> 
> Yes the heart of man is weak. But that is only when the heart chooses to follow after the fruits of the flesh which are thus: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
> 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.(interesting that Paul mentions actions here, even if those people had confessed the christ with their lips. It doesn't seem to matter.)
> 
> So the heart is still useful. Our hearts are weak when left to ourselves. but our hearts are strong when under the influence of the Spirit of God. This cannot be denied without lying.



Paul lived in the stone age, you really imagine he knew anything worth our consideration?


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker/Avatar:



> So the heart is still useful. Our hearts are weak when left to ourselves. but our hearts are strong when under the influence of the Spirit of God



This does "not" answer my previous question.

"....when under the influence of the Spirit of God....."

My previous question raised this.............How, do you know "it" is the "Spirit of God" that is influencing you and not a demonic/false spirit that is working on misleading you into what is not the truth.

You have not attempted to give me an answer...........for "Where is your ultimate, bedrock, definitive "compass" or "valid source" to validate that you have received the "real" truth from God?

You keep reverting back to the "heart" or the "Spirit", but you haven't provided a source of validation.

The "flesh" that Paul is referring to is a "condition" that Christians can "walk" in where they are not abiding in Christ/God/Spirit.  

For the non-Christian; they walk "in the flesh" daily with no "out" to walk in the "Spirit" as they are not "born again" as Jesus told Nicodemus the Pharisee.

Paul also refers to the true Christian as a "new creature/creation" in Christ Jesus........Old things have passed away........This person no longer is spirtually "dead" but is alive in Christ Jesus' life whom God has placed into via their "true" profession of faith in Christs' redeeming work on the cross.

So.......Where is the Mormon's base of truth that can't be questioned as to it's source or validity.

This you haven't given.......as a result your "8ball.....I've answered you many times" remark is totally false.  Yes you've answered, but you have skirted around answeriing my question.

It was a simple question.   A true Christian would have no problem answering my question.  They's say, "God's Word" is my ultimate compass/source of truth, as all other messages may or may not be from God..............including dreams, burning bosom experiences, visions, feelings, promptings........etc....

The early church was assailed by Satan and demonic influence even in it's infancy with people straying away from even the Torah, and Jesus' teachings that still were being compiled for the future N.T..

Paul commended the people of Berea for not even trusting him/Pauls' message that he brought to them!!!!  What a commendable and humble move on his part!

What did the people of Berea or Bereans do after Paul taught or brought a message as one of Christ's apostles?  They immediately went to the "written truth" of that day............Namely the Torah.....to make sure that Paul was not "Misleading Them".

What does the Mormon who calls him/herself a Christian "run to" when one of their Apostles or a fellow Mormon shares a "testimony" that they say is from God?

"Oh, my heart is sufficent enough".........My heart can tell the difference between what is demonic or false and what is the "truth".

Yeah?...........That's amazing.  Folks have been bombing folks, and killing folks in the name of Jesus and for God and Allah for centurys just "knowing" that they were following the "truth".

Apple pie, the American flag, living a squeaky-clean, Leave It To Beaver Cleaver family life does not impress God one bit.  Those may be evidences of one's faith, but they can also be evidences of living by "works" as a way to impress or please the one they assume to be their god.

The true Christian know's that when they don't renew their mind daily by immersing themselves into God's Word, that they can easily become distracted, and mis-guided by "untruths" or unbiblical things/doings, that do not bring glory to God through their lives.

Mormons, JW's, Moonies, and on and on all have one "telling" signature, they "SKEW" the Jesus Christ of the bible into a jesus that is more to their liking, that excuses sin, and unholiness, and lack of faith in the Word of God.

They also "all" will "respect" the bible, but will also tear it down as being corrupted, incomplete, or just plain wrong.

The JW's have gone so far as to make up their own bible called the New World Translation.  Withing it's pages they have attempted to restructure sentences and wording to remove any reference to Jesus as being God in the Flesh.  The famous first verses of the book of John have been been carefully changed in the NWT of the JW's religion make Jesus just a mere "created" being but exalted at a higher state than some other created beings.

The Mormons have left the bible alone and attacked it's validity from a different angle.  They "question" it's accuracy because the OT and NT letters/books within it are so "old".............That they just had to become inaccurate over many years of recopying.

I've brought up to the resident Mormons on this forum this question.  If God is "*omnipotent*", how in the world would His/God's communication via Moses', and all the major and minor OT prophets messages, and Johns', Marks', Lukes, Matthews' accounts as well as Pauls epistles to the infant churches *become "CORRUPTED*"?

*What is the very definition of "omnipotence"?* *It means total capability, total control.*

Now if the Mormons via their venerated latter day prophets have taught starting back in the 1830's that the "Word of God"/bible has become inaccurate or corrupted, and thus a new "revelation" from God had to be delivered to none other than Joseph Smith Jr. to get the "REAL TRUTH" from God..............................?
Question: What does this tell us about God through the eyes and beliefs of the Mormon story/revelation?
1. *God is not omnipotent.*
2. *In fact He is very much unlike the God of the bible.*
3.*He has re-instituted polygamy then changed his mind and condemned it.*
4.*He has negated Jesus' work on the cross through instituting "Mormon blood attonement against fellow human beings", basically telling the Mormon and non Mormon audience that some sin-attonement must be done beyond Jesus' total sacrifice.*
5.*Jesus is just an a man once just like you and me but he got to be exalted by his father.  You too, as a Mormon can also reach the Mormon Jesus' state of exaltation and be called the Son of God, if you live a good life as defined by the Mormon church.*
6.*Biblical Christians are sadly misdled......as presented in the very private temple ceremony......of the LDS church.*

In order to promote one's belief, one must look for, or manufacture weakness in other belief systems that claim to be the "truth".

The LDS church, JW's, and a myriad of other beliefy systems have been doing this since the first church in the book of Acts has told.

Paul had to deal with Judiazers.........as well as many pagan belief systems that were gradually trying to inject themselves into the early church via members who "claimed" to have the "truth".  Many believer's lives were made ineffectual in spreading the good news/gospel of Jesus Christ to all points of the world, but these apostate folks who claimed to have the "Real Truth".
*******
So, where is the anchor, or solid base of truth that the LDS member relys on?  

Just look at the track record of their founding Apostle, J. Smith Jr..  What kind of a life did he exemplify.  Was he a man of humble background and total trust in Christ of the bible...........?

No, he wasn't.  In fact he went even one further.  He started a belief system with great cleverness.  He had an "encounter" with a "messenger from heaven"................That's a good start..........BUT.......How did J Smith Jr. validate this encounter as coming from the true God?  There's where the LDS foundation of teaching and belief falls flat.  It all rests on trusting just J Smith Jr..

The bible not only has the eye witness accounts of Moses, but it goes on and on with other prophets............and what is so miraculous about the bible is that their accounts all jell together and don't contradict the "nature of God".  In fact the N.T. accounts also jell with the formulation of who God is too.  Jesus constantly referred back to the OT or Torah as He taught.   Why?  That was the bible of their day.  It was their Word of God, and Word From God.  Jesus of the bible validated Himself to the Jews and gentiles via Torah.....using Isaiah, Psalms, Jeremiah, Michah, Amos............including both major and minor OT prophets to validate that He was the "Expected One".

Why do we need a new/improved revelation from J Smith Jr. who didn't even respect the bible, but questioned it's very foundations.....a man that made a living out of scamming individuals an numerous occasions while residing in New York.

J.Smith Jr. had an axe to grind with Christianity......as the bible in it's totality if he/Smith accepted it  would have indicted him of being a gross sinner in need of a Savior.......ala Jesus Christ.

Even Thomas Jefferson........a man of much greater stature, conviction, and character, couldn't accept the teacings of Jesus Christ, and thus.........he authored his own bible, called the Jeffersonian bible.  Jefferson did a cut ant paste job on the New Testament to the point that he felt releived of guilt.  Jefferson's bible didn't convict him of being a sinner any longer.

So just as the J Smith Jr put God in a man made box to relieve conviction of sin, and ultimate fate of unbelieving humanity, so did one of our venerated Fathers of our great nation.  Only difference is that Jefferson was a man of character and wisdom when it came to fathering a great nation.........this can't be said of J Smith Jr.. who was a gross opportunist, and needed his church to rewrite history about his life in order to alleviate the gross embarrassment of his unGodly life.
*************
Amen!  Come quickly Jesus!


----------



## Adamo

8ball, why you so bitter? You get booted from the mormon church? Get over it already.


----------



## Eightball

Adamo said:


> 8ball, why you so bitter? You get booted from the mormon church? Get over it already.



Adamo:  Nothing I wrote had a bitter root towards any persons, nor was it written because of a bitter experience in the LDS church.

Factoid:  I have never been a member of the LDS religion, but many of my ancestors were quite involved in it in Salt Lake City, Utah..

My posts are a result of a "concern" for those who either through ignorance, misunderstanding, or even down-right disobedience/rebellion have gone astray from the principles of the number one selling, and printed book of all times, the bible.

As I believe that within the pages of this book hold the keys to eternal life through the blood and life of Jesus Christ, and He alone.

No other book on earth has been so ridiculed yet so venerated.

Jesus said that the human soul can be has hardend'd as packed dirt, and so very resistant to the love, and calling of God, yet, He is so very patient, and allows us to live out our lives of folly looking for that pot of gold that we can't take with us at our last breath.

90% of avowed atheists are actually agnostics but don't want to admit it.  If they ended up in a fox hole in Iwo Jima back in the 1940's with the U.S. Marines, they would find themselves reaching out to that invisible Being known as God.

So much of those that strike down the Christian faith is just "blather" and foolish folly.  Often one grows out of it as they live-out their lives and experience the many ups and downs that are sure to come.

God often considers the "wise" of this world as "fools" because they look everywhere; under rocks, in drugs, movies, secular books, science, etc. to make meaning of their lives, but foolishly overlook the One that created all substance..............


----------



## Adamo

8ball, your other problem is that you just ramble on, reread your last post, most of it's not even relevant to what I said.

I admit it, I'm an agnostic.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8-Ball I've explained this dozens of times already. You should remember this by now. Paul talks about the difference between the fruits of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit. In Galatians 5:25 he says, "But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, temperance, goodness, meekness, faith. Against such there is no law.
> 
> After describing the opposites as the fruits of the flesh it is clear to me that if my heart feels any of those good things. It is a witness of the spirit of God to me, that what i am feeling or doing at that time, stands approved of God.
> 
> Yes the heart of man is weak. But that is only when the heart chooses to follow after the fruits of the flesh which are thus: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
> 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.(interesting that Paul mentions actions here, even if those people had confessed the christ with their lips. It doesn't seem to matter.)
> 
> So the heart is still useful. Our hearts are weak when left to ourselves. but our hearts are strong when under the influence of the Spirit of God. This cannot be denied without lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul lived in the stone age, you really imagine he knew anything worth our consideration?
Click to expand...


Truth is truth whenever it is spoken. And that wasn't the stone age. Roman soldiers used bronze swords and spears.


----------



## Truthspeaker

8-ball if you ever wonder why it takes me FOREVER to get back to you it's because you write ridiculously long romance novels about your opinion. Can you please for the love of God write smaller posts in segments. Because i don't do this as a full time job. I can't take an hour out of my day to disect your repetetive posts. I'll get to these when I get a chance to read them.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> 8-ball if you ever wonder why it takes me FOREVER to get back to you it's because you write ridiculously long romance novels about your opinion. Can you please for the love of God write smaller posts in segments. Because i don't do this as a full time job. I can't take an hour out of my day to disect your repetetive posts. I'll get to these when I get a chance to read them.



As I expected from Truthspeaker, but tried anyway.............I got "a deflection" retort.
***********
Got a visit from the guys in the white shirts/ties/black slacks on Saturday, and they quickly wanted to leave because I wouldn't accept their free "book of Mormon" and said to them that I "was" a Christian, based on the Holy Bible as the foundational source.

I would have loved to have discoursed with them, but they had no time for me.  I wasn't ripe for the picking to be rattled-away from my faith in the biblical Christ by these door to door missionaries.

These door step missionaries are always looking for Christians that have a poor or small understanding of their faith based on biblical precepts.  They will use the old, "corrupted bible" attack to try to get a born again Christian to consider their heresy.  Sadly, many true Christians have been sucked into the LDS church as they have not been "renewing their minds" (Romans 12) and also exercising their faith based on Ephesians 6.........The total armour of God that is given to every "true" believer.


----------



## Eightball

Adamo said:


> 8ball, your other problem is that you just ramble on, reread your last post, most of it's not even relevant to what I said.
> 
> I admit it, I'm an agnostic.



Most of my post wasn't directed to you. It was directed towards those of the LDS church.  

Adamo said,





> I admit it, I'm an agnostic.


Well, that's a healthy start right there.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8-ball if you ever wonder why it takes me FOREVER to get back to you it's because you write ridiculously long romance novels about your opinion. Can you please for the love of God write smaller posts in segments. Because i don't do this as a full time job. I can't take an hour out of my day to disect your repetetive posts. I'll get to these when I get a chance to read them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I expected from Truthspeaker, but tried anyway.............I got "a deflection" retort.
> ***********
> Got a visit from the guys in the white shirts/ties/black slacks on Saturday, and they quickly wanted to leave because I wouldn't accept their free "book of Mormon" and said to them that I "was" a Christian, based on the Holy Bible as the foundational source.
> 
> I would have loved to have discoursed with them, but they had no time for me.  I wasn't ripe for the picking to be rattled-away from my faith in the biblical Christ by these door to door missionaries.
> 
> These door step missionaries are always looking for Christians that have a poor or small understanding of their faith based on biblical precepts.  They will use the old, "corrupted bible" attack to try to get a born again Christian to consider their heresy.  Sadly, many true Christians have been sucked into the LDS church as they have not been "renewing their minds" (Romans 12) and also exercising their faith based on Ephesians 6.........The total armour of God that is given to every "true" believer.
Click to expand...


Do you think the Mormon Chris is somehow different from the one in the Bible?


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8-ball if you ever wonder why it takes me FOREVER to get back to you it's because you write ridiculously long romance novels about your opinion. Can you please for the love of God write smaller posts in segments. Because i don't do this as a full time job. I can't take an hour out of my day to disect your repetetive posts. I'll get to these when I get a chance to read them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I expected from Truthspeaker, but tried anyway.............I got "a deflection" retort.
> ***********
> Got a visit from the guys in the white shirts/ties/black slacks on Saturday, and they quickly wanted to leave because I wouldn't accept their free "book of Mormon" and said to them that I "was" a Christian, based on the Holy Bible as the foundational source.
> 
> I would have loved to have discoursed with them, but they had no time for me.  I wasn't ripe for the picking to be rattled-away from my faith in the biblical Christ by these door to door missionaries.
> 
> These door step missionaries are always looking for Christians that have a poor or small understanding of their faith based on biblical precepts.  They will use the old, "corrupted bible" attack to try to get a born again Christian to consider their heresy.  Sadly, many true Christians have been sucked into the LDS church as they have not been "renewing their minds" (Romans 12) and also exercising their faith based on Ephesians 6.........The total armour of God that is given to every "true" believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you think the Mormon Christ is somehow different from the one in the Bible?*
Click to expand...


Excellent Question!

I will be back with a comparative of the bible Jesus and the Mormon/LDS Jesus.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I expected from Truthspeaker, but tried anyway.............I got "a deflection" retort.
> ***********
> Got a visit from the guys in the white shirts/ties/black slacks on Saturday, and they quickly wanted to leave because I wouldn't accept their free "book of Mormon" and said to them that I "was" a Christian, based on the Holy Bible as the foundational source.
> 
> I would have loved to have discoursed with them, but they had no time for me.  I wasn't ripe for the picking to be rattled-away from my faith in the biblical Christ by these door to door missionaries.
> 
> These door step missionaries are always looking for Christians that have a poor or small understanding of their faith based on biblical precepts.  They will use the old, "corrupted bible" attack to try to get a born again Christian to consider their heresy.  Sadly, many true Christians have been sucked into the LDS church as they have not been "renewing their minds" (Romans 12) and also exercising their faith based on Ephesians 6.........The total armour of God that is given to every "true" believer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you think the Mormon Chris is somehow different from the one in the Bible?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent Question!
> 
> I will be back with a comparative of the bible Jesus and the Mormon/LDS Jesus.
> 
> Stay tuned.
Click to expand...


I haven't even got time for the first novel, let alone the sequel. I'm designed to take a reasonable amount of time, anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes per answer. Not an hour.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you think the Mormon Chris is somehow different from the one in the Bible?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent Question!
> 
> I will be back with a comparative of the bible Jesus and the Mormon/LDS Jesus.
> 
> Stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't even got time for the first novel, let alone the sequel. I'm designed to take a reasonable amount of time, anywhere between 5 and 10 minutes per answer. Not an hour.
Click to expand...


Oh, you poor, poor, overworked Mormon Missionary/evangelist....  .............Just another deflection.............typical when one can't answer......


----------



## Eightball

*Skeptik:*
What is the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible?

*What is the difference between the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible?*

*THE MORMON JESUS- Introduction*

Mormons openly profess to believe in Jesus Christ.  But is their Jesus different from the Jesus of the Bible?

*THE MORMON JESUS*- The Real Jesus?
Its not uncommon for Mormons to argue that they should be regarded as Christians because their faith is centered on Jesus Christ.  And while this may appear to be the case from the perspective of the Mormon Church, there can be little doubt that the Jesus preached by Mormonism is not the Jesus of the Bible.

*THE MORMON JESUS*- A Different Jesus
Simply believing in someone named Jesus will not solve the issue for Mormons because  as the apostle Paul warns in 2 Corinthians 11:4  there are some who preach a different Jesus.  For example, while the Bible teaches that Jesus has always existed as God (John 1:1), Mormons see Jesus as someone who worked His way up to godhood.  In fact, to Mormons, Jesus is merely one in purpose with God the Father; whereas the Bible declares that the Father and the Son are also one in essence (cf. Phil. 2:6)  that they are both equally God and members of the Holy Trinity.

*THE MORMON JESUS*- Doctrine Twisting
This leads me to what is perhaps the most problematic matter facing Mormons with regard to their view of Christ.  You see, in their attempt to evade charges of polytheism  which, of course, is the belief in or worship of more than one god  Mormons end up prohibiting prayer to Jesus.  Mormons confess that they believe in the existence of many gods but pray only to God the Father.  Well, in light of the Bibles explicit command to pray to Jehovah (cf. Deut. 4:7; 2 Chron. 7:14; Pss. 5:2; 32:6; Jer. 27:7, 12), its simply incredible that Mormons refuse to pray to Jesus while yet acknowledging Him to be Jehovah!  In addition, let me point you to passages like John 14:14 and Romans 10:12 which demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that believers ought to pray to Jesus.

*THE MORMON JESUS*- Not the Jesus of the Bible
Mormons can claim to believe in Jesus all they want, but its apparent from their teachings that the Jesus they profess is definitely not the Jesus of the Bible.  The truth is they worship another Jesus, proclaim another gospel, and teach the skin of the truth stuffed with a lie.  Ultimately, all cults and world  religions, in one way or another, compromise the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 On the Mormon Jesus, thats the CRI Perspective.  Im Hank Hanegraaff.


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik:

This even more definitive of the Mormon Jesus versus the bible Jesus.
*********

Comparing Mormon Jesus

*Comparing the Mormon Jesus 
with the Jesus of the Holy Bible*

*How was Jesus born?*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus is the literal son of god and his goddess wife. He was born through physical sexual relations with Mary. Brigham Young taught that Jesus was not born with any involvement of the Holy Spirit.

According to the Bible, Jesus is not the literal son of god and his goddess wife. He was not born through sexual relations. Mary was a virgin was Jesus was born. There is no such thing as a goddess wife. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).

*Where was Jesus born? Of what tribe?*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Book of Mormon, Alma 7:9,10) and is of the Tribe of Benjamin. The city of Jerusalem (Jebusi) belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21-28).

According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, of the Davidic, kingly line of Judah (Matthew 2:1, Hebrews 7:14). Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5). Jesus is a descendant of David, a Bethlehemite (Matthew 1:6, 1 Samuel 16:1). Several other verses refer to Jesus as "Son of David" (Matthew 15:22; 21:9; Mark 10:47). The line of King was through the Tribe of Judah and not Benjamin (Genesis 49:9-10).

*Spirit brothers*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus is the brother of all spirits born in heaven. He is also the spirit brother of Lucifer. 

According to the Bible, Jesus is not the brother of all spirits born in heaven and he is not the spirit brother of Lucifer. Lucifer is an angel created by Jesus (who created all angels). Lucifer rebelled against God. Only those that do the will of the Father are considered spiritual brothers and sisters of Jesus (Mark 3:35). Jesus even told some Jews that their spiritual father was the devil (John 8:44). 

*Earthly marriage and celestial marriage*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus was married and had wives. Thus, in Heaven, Jesus will continue to be married to his wives forever.

According to the Bible, Jesus was not married and did not have wives. Jesus said there is no celestial marriage. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).

*Polygamy*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus was a polygamist (Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, page 259).

According to the Bible, Jesus was not married and did not have wives.

*The Godhead*

In Mormon theology, in the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370", Joseph Smith taught that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist as 3 gods. The Trinity is three separate gods.

According to the Bible, Jesus is not one of 3 gods in the godhead. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God. Jesus is God. There is only 1 God, but many false gods.

*The Nature of God*

According to Mormon theology, in Doctrines and Covenants 130:22, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also". According to Doctrines and Covenants section 93, man was co-eternal with God in the beginning. In 1844, Joseph Smith began teaching that the Book of Abraham teaches that God is but one link in an infinite ancestral chain of Gods stretching back through eternity. God is only one of innumerable Gods. The Church believes that humans are the literal offspring of God and one of his celestial wives, and because of this we all have the potential to achieve exaltation to divine status. Smith taught beginning in 1844 that God had a literal father, and that father had a literal father, and so on. Mormons also teach that we existed in heaven with God (our literal Father) as spirits before we became human.

According to the Bible, Jesus teaches us that God is a spirit. Man was not co-eternal with God. Jesus created man. God did not procreate with celestial wives.

*The Existence of Jesus*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a created being.

According to the Bible, Jesus did not have a beginning. Jesus is the Eternal God.

*Atonement for Sin*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemene. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.

According to the Bible, Jesus atoned for sin on the cross alone. His atoning death on the cross was able to cleanse all sins

*Plan of Salvation*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus offered a plan of salvation in addition to the one offered by Lucifer. Also, there is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.

According to the Bible, Jesus is the only plan for salvation. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. This is no salvation in any other name

*Where will Jesus return?*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus is expected to return to a future temple in Missouri.

According to the Bible, Jesus will return to the Jerusalem in Israel (Zechariah 14:4).

*Garden of Gethsemane*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane.

According to the Bible, Jesus did not sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44).

*Passover*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus did not mention the Passover.

According to the Bible, Jesus mentioned the Passover to his disciples.

*Period of darkness*

According to Mormon theology, when Jesus died darkness covered the land for three days (Nephi 8:19, 23).

According to the Bible, when Jesus died darkness covered the land for three hours (Luke 23:44).

*Where did Jesus preach the Gospel?*

According to Mormon theology, Jesus came to the United States to preach the gospel.

According to the Bible, Jesus did not go to the United States or any other country after his resurrection to preach the gospel for that matter. He told his disciples to go to the ends of the earth and preach the gospel. This is called the Great Commission (Mark 16:15).

*The Church of Christ*

In Mormon theology, Jesus' church ceased to exist and Joseph Smith came to restore it.

According to the Bible, Jesus built his Church and it would exist for all time (Matthew 16:18).

*Praying to and worshipping Jesus*

In Mormon temples, Jesus is not worshipped and is not called God. Mormons do not call Jesus their Lord and God. Mormons never address prayer to Jesus Christ. Prayers are made in His name, but only addressed to the "Heavenly Father". They do not go through Christ.

According to the Bible, Jesus Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Rom. 10:13; Zech 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2), is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and is called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). Jesus allowed Thomas to address Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28. In Isaiah 9:6, He is called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father," and we read in Micah 5:2 that Jesus is "from everlasting." Christians go through Christ because Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.

*The Testament of Jesus Christ*

In Mormon theology, Jesus gave a second New Testament (or Covenant). The Book of Mormon is said to be another Testament of Jesus Christ.

According to the Bible, Jesus only gave ONE New Testament (or Covenant). See Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20.

If you put your faith in a Jesus that is false, then your faith is useless.

*The True Salvation*

Mormons believe that one's salvation is based on such good works as baptism, good deeds, missionary work, and following Mormon teachings. In The Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, justification by faith in Jesus Christ is called a "pernicious doctrine" twice and he states that it has been "an influence for evil." (pp. 107, 480) Bruce McConkie once stated at Brigham Young University that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is "improper and perilous" (Church News, March 20, 1982, p. 5) 

Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Romans 4:5 says that salvation comes to those who do not work for salvation, but believe on Jesus Christ instead! 

Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6) "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) 

The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." 

Jesus PAID your way to Heaven! Your church cannot save you! Only by receiving Jesus Christ as your Saviour can you escape the damnation of Hell. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Why not pray right now and ask the Lord to come into your heart and cleanse you from all sin? He will save you just as He promised.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Skeptik:
> 
> This even more definitive of the Mormon Jesus versus the bible Jesus.
> *********
> 
> Comparing Mormon Jesus
> 
> *Comparing the Mormon Jesus
> with the Jesus of the Holy Bible*
> 
> *How was Jesus born?*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus is the literal son of god and his goddess wife. He was born through physical sexual relations with Mary. Brigham Young taught that Jesus was not born with any involvement of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus is not the literal son of god and his goddess wife. He was not born through sexual relations. Mary was a virgin was Jesus was born. There is no such thing as a goddess wife. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20).
> 
> *Where was Jesus born? Of what tribe?*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus was born in Jerusalem (Book of Mormon, Alma 7:9,10) and is of the Tribe of Benjamin. The city of Jerusalem (Jebusi) belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:21-28).
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, of the Davidic, kingly line of Judah (Matthew 2:1, Hebrews 7:14). Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Revelation 5:5). Jesus is a descendant of David, a Bethlehemite (Matthew 1:6, 1 Samuel 16:1). Several other verses refer to Jesus as "Son of David" (Matthew 15:22; 21:9; Mark 10:47). The line of King was through the Tribe of Judah and not Benjamin (Genesis 49:9-10).
> 
> *Spirit brothers*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus is the brother of all spirits born in heaven. He is also the spirit brother of Lucifer.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus is not the brother of all spirits born in heaven and he is not the spirit brother of Lucifer. Lucifer is an angel created by Jesus (who created all angels). Lucifer rebelled against God. Only those that do the will of the Father are considered spiritual brothers and sisters of Jesus (Mark 3:35). Jesus even told some Jews that their spiritual father was the devil (John 8:44).
> 
> *Earthly marriage and celestial marriage*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus was married and had wives. Thus, in Heaven, Jesus will continue to be married to his wives forever.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was not married and did not have wives. Jesus said there is no celestial marriage. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).
> 
> *Polygamy*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus was a polygamist (Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, page 259).
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus was not married and did not have wives.
> 
> *The Godhead*
> 
> In Mormon theology, in the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 370", Joseph Smith taught that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist as 3 gods. The Trinity is three separate gods.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus is not one of 3 gods in the godhead. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God. Jesus is God. There is only 1 God, but many false gods.
> 
> *The Nature of God*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, in Doctrines and Covenants 130:22, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also". According to Doctrines and Covenants section 93, man was co-eternal with God in the beginning. In 1844, Joseph Smith began teaching that the Book of Abraham teaches that God is but one link in an infinite ancestral chain of Gods stretching back through eternity. God is only one of innumerable Gods. The Church believes that humans are the literal offspring of God and one of his celestial wives, and because of this we all have the potential to achieve exaltation to divine status. Smith taught beginning in 1844 that God had a literal father, and that father had a literal father, and so on. Mormons also teach that we existed in heaven with God (our literal Father) as spirits before we became human.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus teaches us that God is a spirit. Man was not co-eternal with God. Jesus created man. God did not procreate with celestial wives.
> 
> *The Existence of Jesus*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a created being.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus did not have a beginning. Jesus is the Eternal God.
> 
> *Atonement for Sin*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemene. Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 247, 1856.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus atoned for sin on the cross alone. His atoning death on the cross was able to cleanse all sins
> 
> *Plan of Salvation*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus offered a plan of salvation in addition to the one offered by Lucifer. Also, there is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus is the only plan for salvation. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. This is no salvation in any other name
> 
> *Where will Jesus return?*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus is expected to return to a future temple in Missouri.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus will return to the Jerusalem in Israel (Zechariah 14:4).
> 
> *Garden of Gethsemane*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus did not sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane. "And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground" (Luke 22:44).
> 
> *Passover*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus did not mention the Passover.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus mentioned the Passover to his disciples.
> 
> *Period of darkness*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, when Jesus died darkness covered the land for three days (Nephi 8:19, 23).
> 
> According to the Bible, when Jesus died darkness covered the land for three hours (Luke 23:44).
> 
> *Where did Jesus preach the Gospel?*
> 
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus came to the United States to preach the gospel.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus did not go to the United States or any other country after his resurrection to preach the gospel for that matter. He told his disciples to go to the ends of the earth and preach the gospel. This is called the Great Commission (Mark 16:15).
> 
> *The Church of Christ*
> 
> In Mormon theology, Jesus' church ceased to exist and Joseph Smith came to restore it.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus built his Church and it would exist for all time (Matthew 16:18).
> 
> *Praying to and worshipping Jesus*
> 
> In Mormon temples, Jesus is not worshipped and is not called God. Mormons do not call Jesus their Lord and God. Mormons never address prayer to Jesus Christ. Prayers are made in His name, but only addressed to the "Heavenly Father". They do not go through Christ.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus Bible is prayed to (Acts 7:55-60; Rom. 10:13; Zech 13:9 with 1 Cor. 1:1-2), is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6), and is called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8). Jesus allowed Thomas to address Him as "My Lord and my God" in John 20:28. In Isaiah 9:6, He is called "The mighty God" and "The everlasting Father," and we read in Micah 5:2 that Jesus is "from everlasting." Christians go through Christ because Jesus is the only mediator between God and man.
> 
> *The Testament of Jesus Christ*
> 
> In Mormon theology, Jesus gave a second New Testament (or Covenant). The Book of Mormon is said to be another Testament of Jesus Christ.
> 
> According to the Bible, Jesus only gave ONE New Testament (or Covenant). See Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20.
> 
> If you put your faith in a Jesus that is false, then your faith is useless.
> 
> *The True Salvation*
> 
> Mormons believe that one's salvation is based on such good works as baptism, good deeds, missionary work, and following Mormon teachings. In The Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, justification by faith in Jesus Christ is called a "pernicious doctrine" twice and he states that it has been "an influence for evil." (pp. 107, 480) Bruce McConkie once stated at Brigham Young University that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ is "improper and perilous" (Church News, March 20, 1982, p. 5)
> 
> Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Romans 4:5 says that salvation comes to those who do not work for salvation, but believe on Jesus Christ instead!
> 
> Jesus Christ came into this world to lay down His sinless life for YOU--to pay for your sins because you couldn't. Jesus is your only hope for salvation. Only by receiving Him as your Saviour can you enter the gates of Heaven. There is no other way. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me." (John 14:6) "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
> 
> The Lord Jesus Christ has come and PAID for your sins by shedding His own Blood on Calvary. By receiving Him as your Saviour, you can be WASHED from all your sins in His precious Blood (Rev. 1:5; Col. 1:14; Acts 20:28; I Pet. 1:18-19). Notice these important words from Romans 5:8-9: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
> 
> Jesus PAID your way to Heaven! Your church cannot save you! Only by receiving Jesus Christ as your Saviour can you escape the damnation of Hell. Are you willing to forsake YOUR righteousness and receive Jesus Christ as your Saviour, your ONLY HOPE for Salvation? Romans 10:13 says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:9 says, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Why not pray right now and ask the Lord to come into your heart and cleanse you from all sin? He will save you just as He promised.



Some of what you have posted is correct, and some is not.  



> According to Mormon theology, Jesus was married and had wives. Thus, in Heaven, Jesus will continue to be married to his wives forever.



I don't recall having read anything like that in Mormon theology.  In the novel The DaVinci Code, the idea of Jesus having been married is explored, but that is hardly Mormon scripture.

The faith vs works discussion is partly correct.  Mormons do believe that faith alone won't get you into heaven, but that you must follow the teachings of Christ.  They believe in faith and works, much as Catholics do.



> According to Mormon theology, Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a created being.



That is not correct.  According to Mormon theology, Jesus is eternal, as are all men.



> In Mormon temples, Jesus is not worshipped and is not called God. Mormons do not call Jesus their Lord and God. Mormons never address prayer to Jesus Christ. Prayers are made in His name, but only addressed to the "Heavenly Father". They do not go through Christ.



That simply isn't so.  Jesus is worshiped as Lord and God, just as the heavenly father is so worshiped.  

You seem to have made a study of Mormonism, but made it through sources that mix truth with fiction.  Did you write the above post yourself, or was it copied from some other source?  A lot of effort went into all of the sources cited, and so on, but it doesn't appear as the work of someone simply writing a post for an internet forum.


----------



## Eightball

*Skeptik:  I would take another look into the LDS church articles of faith, Journal of Discourses, and the BOM before you make that call. *



> Some of what you have posted is correct, and some is not.
> 
> I would take another look into the LDS church articles of faith, Journal of Discourses, and the BOM
> 
> 
> Quote:
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus was married and had wives. Thus, in Heaven, Jesus will continue to be married to his wives forever.
> I don't recall having read anything like that in Mormon theology. In the novel The DaVinci Code, the idea of Jesus having been married is explored, but that is hardly Mormon scripture.
> 
> The faith vs works discussion is partly correct. Mormons do believe that faith alone won't get you into heaven, but that you must follow the teachings of Christ. They believe in faith and works, much as Catholics do.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a created being.
> That is not correct. According to Mormon theology, Jesus is eternal, as are all men.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> In Mormon temples, Jesus is not worshipped and is not called God. Mormons do not call Jesus their Lord and God. Mormons never address prayer to Jesus Christ. Prayers are made in His name, but only addressed to the "Heavenly Father". They do not go through Christ.
> That simply isn't so. Jesus is worshiped as Lord and God, just as the heavenly father is so worshiped.


----------



## HUGGY

Pity bump.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> For the shirtless man,(you gotta love a guy who has the guts to post himself shirtless). Bravo!
> I am glad that you brought up all those points. Most mormons have not done their homework the way I have. Most don't really have to because, like you said, faith in Christ and good principles are the only thing you really need. However, I find it fun to dig for the truth and mysteries of God. I am grateful to be able to answer your questions because I believe I can do so in a satisfactory manner.
> Point number 1: Yes we do believe that many tribes have some bloodline of descendency from people of Israel. But it is not that simple. Herein lies the misconception that even a lot of Mormons hold because they are not as studious of the Book of Mormon as they should be. There were three main migrations spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The nation of Lehites which divided into 2 peoples of the same blood called Nephites and Lamanites. The second people spoken of but often forgotten were the Jaredites. The third, often glossed over completely are the Mulekites. I can delve into each of their histories in detail later if you like, but to sum up. The first people here, the Jaredites actually came from Asiatic area of Babylon. Quite a different DNA scheme. They were the first ever to set foot on this continent. This people as a nation dissolved and spread into unknown parts of the continent, certainly later mixing in with the future nations that would come, first mixing with the Mulekite people, who also came from the land of Jerusalem about 12 years after the more famous Nephites and Lamanites.
> I can't remember exactly the study, but I can produce it later if need be that showed that the people of the Americas were found to be primarily descended from Asiatic origins, which would fit perfectly in with the chronology of the Book of Mormon.......whew!
> 
> Oh yes, point two, the "Nuclear submarines" in question. The vessels themselves had to be made differently than your normal ship of the day with it's sails and common boat shape. To be clear, the people who first used these vessels were the Jaredites when they were told by God to take up this voyage. To a westerner, I agree, this story does not make much sense. But when put into historical context, it is an impressive stamp on the authenticity of the book.
> First it has been well documented that most of what we have learned of Ancient weather and dates of storms and destruction has been discovered in the last 100 years with the carbon dating process and knowledge of Geology and so on. We have learned in this time that there was a great and terrible weather pattern which leveled entire civilizations and left thriving cities, such as Bablyon completely destitute circa 2200 bc, right around the time the jaredites left bablyon. Strikingly, The most learned scientists of 1830 had no such knowledge of this timeline of destruction. Certainly not a poor farmboy named Joseph Smith in upstate rural New York.
> Hence had these Jaredites been in regular ships with sails, it would have been a quick destruction for all on board. The construction of the ships was very peculiar, not like a submarine like you have described, but certainly "tight, like unto a dish" as Ether points out. "Ye shall put a hole in the top thereof, that will close tight like unto a dish so that when the mountain waves shall dash upon you, you shall not be broken into pieces. You shall be as a whale in the sea, and I shall cause my winds to blow and a tempest to be thy wind continually blowing toward the promised land." I know I slightly misquoted the scripture in Ether because I don't have my book with me, but those are basically the words spoken to "the brother of Jared" in the book. "And when ye shall suffer for air ye shall unstop the hole when you come to the surface".
> They were not submarines. They were boats that would normally float on the water, but because of their shape, could stand for short whiles to be underneath water for a time. Just like a whale that needs to come up for air......whew...
> Next point... where was I?
> Oh yes, the great cities and their locations. We all know that there have been cities that have been buried by volcanic eruptions, or erased by large earthquakes and floods and such throughout the ages. Then why not in America. But some may say, well certainly not all the cities would be lost right? It would take one heck of a natural disaster wouldn't it? Yes it would.
> The book of mormon talks about just such a disaster, where after the death of Christ, Mountains were removed out of their place and fell on cities, giant waves, tornadoes and and vicious earthquakes that lasted for the space of three hours. Do any of us have any idea what would happen if a magnitude 9 earthquake shook for three hours? We do if we look in the book of mormon. Think something like that couldn't happen? Just watch that show on TLC Mega Disasters.



THE BOOK OF MORMON DID NOT EXIST UNTIL jOE AND HIS COHORTS THOUGHT IT UP THERE ISNT ANY HISTORY OF MORMONS BEFORE JOEY.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> *Skeptik:  I would take another look into the LDS church articles of faith, Journal of Discourses, and the BOM before you make that call. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of what you have posted is correct, and some is not.
> 
> I would take another look into the LDS church articles of faith, Journal of Discourses, and the BOM
> 
> 
> Quote:
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus was married and had wives. Thus, in Heaven, Jesus will continue to be married to his wives forever.
> I don't recall having read anything like that in Mormon theology. In the novel The DaVinci Code, the idea of Jesus having been married is explored, but that is hardly Mormon scripture.
> 
> The faith vs works discussion is partly correct. Mormons do believe that faith alone won't get you into heaven, but that you must follow the teachings of Christ. They believe in faith and works, much as Catholics do.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a created being.
> That is not correct. According to Mormon theology, Jesus is eternal, as are all men.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> In Mormon temples, Jesus is not worshipped and is not called God. Mormons do not call Jesus their Lord and God. Mormons never address prayer to Jesus Christ. Prayers are made in His name, but only addressed to the "Heavenly Father". They do not go through Christ.
> That simply isn't so. Jesus is worshiped as Lord and God, just as the heavenly father is so worshiped.
Click to expand...


I don't think so, eightball.  I got my info at BYU. Where did you get yours?  I noticed you didn't answer my question as to whether you wrote thaqt response yourself.  Shouldn't you give credit to the author, you know, plagerism and all that?


----------



## Adamo

Tru, so the Jaredites made sort of submarines in 2200BC to come to a merrucca? Because of a 3 hours mag 9 earthquake? And that "it is an impressive stamp on the authenticity of the book"? 

Do they pass out free hallucinogenics at your church? I might want to join.


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Skeptik:  I would take another look into the LDS church articles of faith, Journal of Discourses, and the BOM before you make that call. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of what you have posted is correct, and some is not.
> 
> I would take another look into the LDS church articles of faith, Journal of Discourses, and the BOM
> 
> 
> Quote:
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus was married and had wives. Thus, in Heaven, Jesus will continue to be married to his wives forever.
> I don't recall having read anything like that in Mormon theology. In the novel The DaVinci Code, the idea of Jesus having been married is explored, but that is hardly Mormon scripture.
> 
> The faith vs works discussion is partly correct. Mormons do believe that faith alone won't get you into heaven, but that you must follow the teachings of Christ. They believe in faith and works, much as Catholics do.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> According to Mormon theology, Jesus had a beginning. Jesus was a created being.
> That is not correct. According to Mormon theology, Jesus is eternal, as are all men.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> In Mormon temples, Jesus is not worshipped and is not called God. Mormons do not call Jesus their Lord and God. Mormons never address prayer to Jesus Christ. Prayers are made in His name, but only addressed to the "Heavenly Father". They do not go through Christ.
> That simply isn't so. Jesus is worshiped as Lord and God, just as the heavenly father is so worshiped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so, eightball.  I got my info at BYU. Where did you get yours?  I noticed you didn't answer my question as to whether you wrote thaqt response yourself.  Shouldn't you give credit to the author, you know, plagerism and all that?
Click to expand...



Skeptik:

I have included the web address or clickable link with both Mormon Jesus vs. Bible Jesus comparisons.  They were there when I first posted and are still there.

Just click the "comparing ...." highlighted ..." thingy just above where I pasted the comparisons.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> I have included the web address or clickable link with both Mormon Jesus vs. Bible Jesus comparisons.  They were there when I first posted and are still there.
> 
> Just click the "comparing ...." highlighted ..." thingy just above where I pasted the comparisons.



OK, my bad. I missed that link.

You are quoting the Media Ministries website.  According to their site, they believe the following:


> * We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God and inerrant in the original writings.
> * We believe there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. See the Doctrine of the Trinity.
> * We believe in the Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ; in His virgin birth; in His sinless life; in His Miracles; in His vicarious atonement through His death and shed blood; in His bodily resurrection; in His ascension to the right hand of the Father; in His Personal return in power and glory!
> * We believe that lost and sinful man must be saved, and that man's only hope of redemption is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
> * We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a Godly life.
> * We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the unsaved; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are unsaved unto the resurrection of damnation.
> * We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord, Jesus Christ.



Their site contains arguments against Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, and Seventh Day Adventist beliefs, and claims to support "Biblical Christianity"

I wonder why they find it necessary to mix half truths and outright falsehoods among the facts that they present?  

Isn't that what the Bible says Satan does in order to fool us, tell a thousand truths so that we will believe one lie?


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have included the web address or clickable link with both Mormon Jesus vs. Bible Jesus comparisons.  They were there when I first posted and are still there.
> 
> Just click the "comparing ...." highlighted ..." thingy just above where I pasted the comparisons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, my bad. I missed that link.
> 
> You are quoting the Media Ministries website.  According to their site, they believe the following:
> 
> 
> 
> * We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God and inerrant in the original writings.
> * We believe there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. See the Doctrine of the Trinity.
> * We believe in the Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ; in His virgin birth; in His sinless life; in His Miracles; in His vicarious atonement through His death and shed blood; in His bodily resurrection; in His ascension to the right hand of the Father; in His Personal return in power and glory!
> * We believe that lost and sinful man must be saved, and that man's only hope of redemption is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
> * We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a Godly life.
> * We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the unsaved; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are unsaved unto the resurrection of damnation.
> * We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord, Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their site contains arguments against Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, and Seventh Day Adventist beliefs, and claims to support "Biblical Christianity"
> 
> I wonder why they find it necessary to mix half truths and outright falsehoods among the facts that they present?
> 
> Isn't that what the Bible says Satan does in order to fool us, tell a thousand truths so that we will believe one lie?
Click to expand...


Skeptik:

Good question/s.  This site works hard at weeding-out that which is not biblical.  

The 7th Day Adventists are recognized as a "Christian" denomination, but have some unbiblical quirks or differences.. i.e. they also have what might be called a Latter Day prophet/prophetess by the name of Ellen White.  You might take a look at her via a web search.  Many Adventists have pulled away from Ellen White's teachings, but many have not.......All in all she has some abherrent teachings that don't coincide with biblical doctrine.  I'll let you discover that by just typing in her name into a seach engine like Yahoo or Google.  You'll get a myriad of hits, no doubt defend and critiqueing her.

Many 7th Day Adventists adhere to strict vegetarian diets based on Ellen White's teachings.

JW's along with Mormons/LDS are considered cults by biblical theologians and or those that adhere to strict biblical doctrine as the foundation of Christianity(actually what other foundation is there for Christianity?").

The "test" of whether or not a denomination/religion is Christian boils down to "how" they deal with the "Jesus Christ" of the bible.

JW's consider Jesus a created being/angel; the archangel Michael.  

In their JW bible called the New World translation, they have made gross, and purposeful changes in many N. Testament verses in order to deminish Jesus' divinity.   In the book of John; Chapter one passages that refer to Jesus as "God", they/JW's insert the artical/word "a" and make Him/Jesus be, "and the word was "a" god.", instead of the accurate translation that says about Jesus/Word, "and the Word was God.".

The JW's have changed many N.T. passages in this fashion.
******

You might take a look at a very respected site called CRI or Christian Research Institute.  It strives to research all the religions of the world and compare/explore/explain/differentiate the differences between them and biblical Christianity.
http://equip.org/
******
These sites do not have an "Axe to grind" against non-Christian, or Christian religions that are getting off-track, but are often accused of that because they strive to expose the important differences between those claiming accurate or "true" Christianity and what the bible says.
*****
Now you can say that the bible is open to many interpretations, but I would have to refer back to the many authors of the many books of the bible that say that the scriptures are written-down by men who were "inspired" through the Holy Spirit or Spirit of God.
******
One must explain how so many prophecies in the bible that were  written hundreds of years earlier came to accurate fruition?  Isaiah hundreds of years earlier propheside that a Virgin would give birth and He would be called "Immanuel(God With Us)", and indeed it happened in Bethlehem.

The prophets Jeremiah, Micah, Amos, and many other also prophesied Christ's birth, and also the city where it would occur(Bethlehem).
******
The Dead Sea Scrolls encompass every book of the bible except Ruth.  Within those now-discovered scrolls is a complete book of Isaiah.  That scroll has been compared to present day translations of Isaiah, and there has been no changes in it's message or verbage!

That is absolutely amazing! 

The Mormons claim that the bible of present day is inaccurate because "mortal, fallible man" has been re-translating the scriptures for thousands of years since Moses' first authorship back in the O.T./Torah.  And.......we all know that fallible man can't keep things the same over thousands of years.............Just use for an example when a joke is passed from person to person.  By the time it gets to the 10th person the Joke is barely recognizable from the original. 

But.........here we have a nearly 2,000 year old copy of Isaiah from Qumran, that defies that logic in regards to God's communiques to mankind.

I.E.. When we say that God is "omnipotent" we are saying that He is in total control of all things created...........and also in total control of past/present/future events...............Not in a way that makes us automatons, but in both direct intervention into history via works of power, miracles, and also keeping hands-off and letting things go in apparent awry to the human mind and wisdom; yet it is all under his control.

Romans Chapter One says clearly that man has chosen his own way instead of Gods.......He has ignored "the obvious" that is God's existence as rendered through the incredible finite, and infinite works of creation.  From the microscopic to the macroscopic, His wisdom and power have been obvious to the human eye, yet man has purposefully ignored this "obviousness" and chosen to lean on his own wisdome, minus the enlightment or inspiration of God.

Man is without excuse........We have absolutely no legs to stand on in supporting our wilfull disregard of obvious.

A bible isn't even needed to realize that creation itself in it's entirety screams of "intelligent design".   That too is found in Romans Chapter One.
*******


----------



## HUGGY

Don't you die on me!!!  I'm not done with you MorMans yet!!!!!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.


----------



## HUGGY

Perhaps you would get more response if you displayed pictures of MorMan latte's and breakfast food dripping with syrup on your magic golden plates!  A certain "FoxFyre" seems to be doing well using that format.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.



Another deflection response.  Yes they/Mormons believe in something........It's what they believe that either is foundational/biblically sound or is not.

You readers/folks out there have the evidences, and have observed the deflective responses when these Mormons are faced with biblical, archeological, and historical data.

Evidence demands a verdict.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection response.  Yes they/Mormons believe in something........It's what they believe that either is foundational/biblically sound or is not.
> 
> You readers/folks out there have the evidences, and have observed the deflective responses when these Mormons are faced with biblical, archeological, and historical data.
> 
> Evidence demands a verdict.
Click to expand...


The evidence you have cited is full of part truths and falsehoods.  It is from a site that is dedicated to refuting Mormon, 7th. Day Adventist, and Jehova's Witness doctrine.


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection response.  Yes they/Mormons believe in something........It's what they believe that either is foundational/biblically sound or is not.
> 
> You readers/folks out there have the evidences, and have observed the deflective responses when these Mormons are faced with biblical, archeological, and historical data.
> 
> Evidence demands a verdict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence you have cited is full of part truths and falsehoods.  It is from a site that is dedicated to refuting Mormon, 7th. Day Adventist, and Jehova's Witness doctrine.
Click to expand...


I will assume that your comments are not because you are a LDS apologist, but because you don't "buy into" the belief that the bible is the foundational/compass point for determining what is Christian and what is not.

I will also take a wild guess that you are agnostic, but like most atheists and agnostics, see the bible as a fairy tale book not unlike the BOM of the LDS church.
******
The web site I gave you that critiqued LDS, and JW, and 7th Day folks only supports what agrees with the bible.

If you do not accept the bible as God's inspired communique' to mankind then it will be difficult to discuss issues with you, as you don't have a foundational point/compass of belief to base your critiques upon. 

Never the less you are very welcome to continue to post and comment.

Also, we must ask ourselves where is Christianity's foundation point/compass without the bible?  The LDS/Mormons claim that the bible is not accurate, based on the claims of a person of very questionable background and character.  LDS historians have formulated their own home-grown unsubstantiated history of J.S. Jr. and other early LDS leaders as a defense against the mounting and unrefutable evidences of how their church was started and arrived where it is nowadays.

There is absolutely no evidences in J.S. Jr.'s life of an actual salvation/born again change as Christ told Nicodemus the Pharisee in the bible.  J.S. Jrs. life has never exhibited a contrite heart attitude in respect to Christ and or God, nor did his life while leading his followers Westward from New York to Utah reflect a humility/humbleness of life that would indicate that he/J.S. had an understand of the "grace" of God that is offered to all mankind through the death/burial/ressurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Cross:  Mormons think or teach that it is a morbid symbol for Christians to wear around their necks or place upon the steeple of their churches.  They will even say that it isn't any different from wearing a little electric chair symbol around one's neck.

That(the cross) is evidence of the Mormon's total lack of understanding of what the Cross trully means to the true biblical Christian.  Yes the true Christian realizes that the cross was one very morbid execution device and means, but if it wasn't for that Roman cross on Golgotha Hill outside the city walls of Jerusalem the Son of God would not have "beat" death, sin, and mankinds ultimate eternal destiny that was "total eternal separation from their Maker".

The entire foundation of Christianity is based on what happened at Golgotha, and what finished-up 3 days later when Christ arose from the dead.
******
I say this respectfully to you Skeptik.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.



Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.


----------



## Gadawg73

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
Click to expand...


Does Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family and every other Christian evangelist, group profit off of their "scams"?


----------



## froggy

Gadawg73 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family and every other Christian evangelist, group profit off of their "scams"?
Click to expand...


And don't the scamers put a stumbling block in front of the unbeliever.


----------



## Eightball

Gadawg73 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family and every other Christian evangelist, group profit off of their "scams"?
Click to expand...


Scams?  Such as?

Jerry Falwell was a Baptist preacher that got involved in politics, but never ran for an office.  Was President of Liberty Baptist College.

Pat Robertson:  Never scammed as far as I know, but made some statements publically that got him in hot water.  I.E.  Said that natural disasters that happen to our nation were "possibly" God's judgement because the nation has strayed-away from it's biblical roots.

Dr. Dobson/Focus On The Family:  He hosted that show for years and was a foremost pediatrician/psychologist who wrote many best sellers, like "Dare To Discipline", "Tough Love", and many other books on raising children.  
Dobson never ran for, nor aspired to running for public office.  He is up in years now, and Focus on the Family is hosted by other folks now.  
Dobson never strayed from biblical principles.
*****
Preachers that our off-beam:

1. Jimmy Swaggert
2. Bob Tilton
3. Benny Hinn
4. Kenneth Copeland
5. Reverend Wright(Our President's pastor for many years)
*******
Many preachers that started out biblical and then drifted off into unbiblical areas seemed to have things happen to their ministries that seemed like God's hand came down on them.

I.E. they would get caught being hypocrites.......preaching against pornography and then getting caught being involved in it.

Swaggert comes to mind concerning that.
*******
One thing is certain.  When a biblical man of God goes astry into sin, it is sooner or later found out, and that persoon usually fades away into obscurity.

Some have gone through a time of great repentance, and humility and have gone back into ministry, but I think they have tainted their effectiveness in bringing Gods Word to the people.  I think it would be best that they step down and serve in capacities that aren't so public.
*****
Jerry Falwell has gotten a bad rap from the left wing drive-by media that is totally secularized in every way.  

Jerry Falwell used to publically say things that were straight-on biblical, but just like we read in the New Testament......A lot of folks don't like hearing God's Word.  They get angry, run away for escape(drugs, sex, pornography....etc.), or they play an indifferent role to hide their angst towards hearing these bible truths.

Where I live in the S.F.  bay area........a polling of folks indicated that 97% don't attend any church on Sundays.

Is that the fault of the churches, or is their anti-Christian/bible mantra being covertly spread through the media, and our higher institutions of learning that's causing this.
*****


----------



## Eightball

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
Click to expand...


Most definitely!  He scammed people with treasure hunting along with his Dad in New York.

He had a lot of charisma which hooked folks into his get-rich ploys.......then he found this charisma and knack for influencing people would work very-well with starting a religious movement.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most definitely!  He scammed people with treasure hunting along with his Dad in New York.
> 
> He had a lot of charisma which hooked folks into his get-rich ploys.......then he found this charisma and knack for influencing people would work very-well with starting a religious movement.
Click to expand...


Other than the getting killed by a mob part, it worked out wonderfully well for him.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
Click to expand...


Did Joseph Smith profit? No

Which makes you ask: Was it really a scam?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Joseph Smith profit? No
> 
> Which makes you ask: Was it really a scam?
Click to expand...


Looks as if he did well Sex money and power till his wickedness with married women caught up with him.


----------



## Eightball

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Joseph Smith profit? No
> 
> Which makes you ask: Was it really a scam?
Click to expand...


Oh, he profited.......He did better than Mohammed's promise of 77 virgins in the afterlife..........Smith was doing underage girls in his earthly life.......

Also, Charisma only takes you so far, and then you have to back things up with facts............Obama is learning that too.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?



How can ya beat hard hitting reporting like this?


----------



## MelissaD

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can ya beat hard hitting reporting like this?
Click to expand...


Who's got magic underwear? That it soaks up urine isn't magic, that's just some Depends, lol.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection response.  Yes they/Mormons believe in something........It's what they believe that either is foundational/biblically sound or is not.
> 
> You readers/folks out there have the evidences, and have observed the deflective responses when these Mormons are faced with biblical, archeological, and historical data.
> 
> Evidence demands a verdict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence you have cited is full of part truths and falsehoods.  It is from a site that is dedicated to refuting Mormon, 7th. Day Adventist, and Jehova's Witness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will assume that your comments are not because you are a LDS apologist, but because you don't "buy into" the belief that the bible is the foundational/compass point for determining what is Christian and what is not.
> 
> I will also take a wild guess that you are agnostic, but like most atheists and agnostics, see the bible as a fairy tale book not unlike the BOM of the LDS church.
> ******
> The web site I gave you that critiqued LDS, and JW, and 7th Day folks only supports what agrees with the bible.
> 
> If you do not accept the bible as God's inspired communique' to mankind then it will be difficult to discuss issues with you, as you don't have a foundational point/compass of belief to base your critiques upon.
> 
> Never the less you are very welcome to continue to post and comment.
> 
> Also, we must ask ourselves where is Christianity's foundation point/compass without the bible?  The LDS/Mormons claim that the bible is not accurate, based on the claims of a person of very questionable background and character.  LDS historians have formulated their own home-grown unsubstantiated history of J.S. Jr. and other early LDS leaders as a defense against the mounting and unrefutable evidences of how their church was started and arrived where it is nowadays.
> 
> There is absolutely no evidences in J.S. Jr.'s life of an actual salvation/born again change as Christ told Nicodemus the Pharisee in the bible.  J.S. Jrs. life has never exhibited a contrite heart attitude in respect to Christ and or God, nor did his life while leading his followers Westward from New York to Utah reflect a humility/humbleness of life that would indicate that he/J.S. had an understand of the "grace" of God that is offered to all mankind through the death/burial/ressurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> The Cross:  Mormons think or teach that it is a morbid symbol for Christians to wear around their necks or place upon the steeple of their churches.  They will even say that it isn't any different from wearing a little electric chair symbol around one's neck.
> 
> That(the cross) is evidence of the Mormon's total lack of understanding of what the Cross trully means to the true biblical Christian.  Yes the true Christian realizes that the cross was one very morbid execution device and means, but if it wasn't for that Roman cross on Golgotha Hill outside the city walls of Jerusalem the Son of God would not have "beat" death, sin, and mankinds ultimate eternal destiny that was "total eternal separation from their Maker".
> 
> The entire foundation of Christianity is based on what happened at Golgotha, and what finished-up 3 days later when Christ arose from the dead.
> ******
> I say this respectfully to you Skeptik.
Click to expand...


The website that you swear by is accepting of only their interpretation of the Bible. Who are they to say they are the true authority on the Bible?
Just as you might ask the same question of us. But we don't see the Bible the same way  as you do so don't pretend as if your understanding of it is the uniform way of all the world. If there one uniform way of understanding, we'd all be "Mormons" by now, or some other church. But we're not all unified so don't pretend as if we are.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
Click to expand...


Joseph Smith died a poor man as to wealth of the world, but none profitted more in spiritual wealth and treasures laid up in store for the other side.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Gadawg73 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone else have any questions about what we believe? I think it's been established what we do believe and what we don't believe, no thanks to 8-Ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family and every other Christian evangelist, group profit off of their "scams"?
Click to expand...


Joseph did not profit monetarily from his ministry. If you believe it was a scam, then you must say he was a complete failure if money was his aim.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Jerry Falwell , Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family and every other Christian evangelist, group profit off of their "scams"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scams?  Such as?
> 
> Jerry Falwell was a Baptist preacher that got involved in politics, but never ran for an office.  Was President of Liberty Baptist College.
> 
> Pat Robertson:  Never scammed as far as I know, but made some statements publically that got him in hot water.  I.E.  Said that natural disasters that happen to our nation were "possibly" God's judgement because the nation has strayed-away from it's biblical roots.
> 
> Dr. Dobson/Focus On The Family:  He hosted that show for years and was a foremost pediatrician/psychologist who wrote many best sellers, like "Dare To Discipline", "Tough Love", and many other books on raising children.
> Dobson never ran for, nor aspired to running for public office.  He is up in years now, and Focus on the Family is hosted by other folks now.
> Dobson never strayed from biblical principles.
> *****
> Preachers that our off-beam:
> 
> 1. Jimmy Swaggert
> 2. Bob Tilton
> 3. Benny Hinn
> 4. Kenneth Copeland
> 5. Reverend Wright(Our President's pastor for many years)
> *******
> Many preachers that started out biblical and then drifted off into unbiblical areas seemed to have things happen to their ministries that seemed like God's hand came down on them.
> 
> I.E. they would get caught being hypocrites.......preaching against pornography and then getting caught being involved in it.
> 
> Swaggert comes to mind concerning that.
> *******
> One thing is certain.  When a biblical man of God goes astry into sin, it is sooner or later found out, and that persoon usually fades away into obscurity.
> 
> Some have gone through a time of great repentance, and humility and have gone back into ministry, but I think they have tainted their effectiveness in bringing Gods Word to the people.  I think it would be best that they step down and serve in capacities that aren't so public.
> *****
> Jerry Falwell has gotten a bad rap from the left wing drive-by media that is totally secularized in every way.
> 
> Jerry Falwell used to publically say things that were straight-on biblical, but just like we read in the New Testament......A lot of folks don't like hearing God's Word.  They get angry, run away for escape(drugs, sex, pornography....etc.), or they play an indifferent role to hide their angst towards hearing these bible truths.
> 
> Where I live in the S.F.  bay area........a polling of folks indicated that 97% don't attend any church on Sundays.
> 
> Is that the fault of the churches, or is their anti-Christian/bible mantra being covertly spread through the media, and our higher institutions of learning that's causing this.
> *****
Click to expand...


I agree with you on the media trying to destroy God in every form. The media either overtly or covertly, is always seemingly on the attack of God in all his representations. The Bible, His servants, Jesus Himself, The Book of Mormon and anyone who will stand up for true principles that may be unpopular with secular customs of the day like promiscuity, homosexuality, drugs of all kinds, gambling etc.  Speaking out against these things ruffles feathers of those profitting in the media from these  evils. So the media attacks the credibility of the complaining source. We are in agreeance on this.

But I also thought it interesting that u mention scammers who eventually are found out and fade into obscurity. I agree that's what usually happens to these scammers. Funny how Joseph Smith Jr. has endured and grown in recognition and is becoming more and more known and less and less obscure as the years go by. Imagine that


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Joesph Smith Profited off this Mormon scam he started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Joseph Smith profit? No
> 
> Which makes you ask: Was it really a scam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, he profited.......He did better than Mohammed's promise of 77 virgins in the afterlife..........Smith was doing underage girls in his earthly life.......
> 
> Also, Charisma only takes you so far, and then you have to back things up with facts............Obama is learning that too.
Click to expand...


Why don't you tell us just what was the legal age of women back in 1840? Care to enlighten us? 18 was nearly an old maid if you weren't married in the U.S. 

Why don't u also care to enlighten us on the legal age of women to be married around 1BC when Mary wed Joseph and had other babies beside Jesus. How old was she? 13-15 at most? hmmm.
Different times maybe? Different cultural expectations? Different levels of maturity by women at that age maybe? Don't get locked into presentism.

Oh did u know the legal age of marriage in Arkansas today is 15? So are those abiding the law in that state worthy to be judged pedophiles? Can you deal out that judgment?

I'd really enjoy answers to each of those questions specifically.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can ya beat hard hitting reporting like this?
Click to expand...


Well hugster I don't understand your question. What's hard hitting and what's reporting about the above quote?


----------



## Truthspeaker

MelissaD said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Just what is it that you would like to know about "magic underwear"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can ya beat hard hitting reporting like this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's got magic underwear? That it soaks up urine isn't magic, that's just some Depends, lol.
Click to expand...


There is no magic underwear


----------



## FrankZapper

Truthspeaker said:


> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
Click to expand...


So you follow the church teachings out of fear, nice one.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another deflection response.  Yes they/Mormons believe in something........It's what they believe that either is foundational/biblically sound or is not.
> 
> You readers/folks out there have the evidences, and have observed the deflective responses when these Mormons are faced with biblical, archeological, and historical data.
> 
> Evidence demands a verdict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence you have cited is full of part truths and falsehoods.  It is from a site that is dedicated to refuting Mormon, 7th. Day Adventist, and Jehova's Witness doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will assume that your comments are not because you are a LDS apologist, but because you don't "buy into" the belief that the bible is the foundational/compass point for determining what is Christian and what is not.
> 
> I will also take a wild guess that you are agnostic, but like most atheists and agnostics, see the bible as a fairy tale book not unlike the BOM of the LDS church.
> ******
> The web site I gave you that critiqued LDS, and JW, and 7th Day folks only supports what agrees with the bible.
> 
> If you do not accept the bible as God's inspired communique' to mankind then it will be difficult to discuss issues with you, as you don't have a foundational point/compass of belief to base your critiques upon.
> 
> Never the less you are very welcome to continue to post and comment.
> 
> Also, we must ask ourselves where is Christianity's foundation point/compass without the bible?  The LDS/Mormons claim that the bible is not accurate, based on the claims of a person of very questionable background and character.  LDS historians have formulated their own home-grown unsubstantiated history of J.S. Jr. and other early LDS leaders as a defense against the mounting and unrefutable evidences of how their church was started and arrived where it is nowadays.
> 
> There is absolutely no evidences in J.S. Jr.'s life of an actual salvation/born again change as Christ told Nicodemus the Pharisee in the bible.  J.S. Jrs. life has never exhibited a contrite heart attitude in respect to Christ and or God, nor did his life while leading his followers Westward from New York to Utah reflect a humility/humbleness of life that would indicate that he/J.S. had an understand of the "grace" of God that is offered to all mankind through the death/burial/ressurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> The Cross:  Mormons think or teach that it is a morbid symbol for Christians to wear around their necks or place upon the steeple of their churches.  They will even say that it isn't any different from wearing a little electric chair symbol around one's neck.
> 
> That(the cross) is evidence of the Mormon's total lack of understanding of what the Cross trully means to the true biblical Christian.  Yes the true Christian realizes that the cross was one very morbid execution device and means, but if it wasn't for that Roman cross on Golgotha Hill outside the city walls of Jerusalem the Son of God would not have "beat" death, sin, and mankinds ultimate eternal destiny that was "total eternal separation from their Maker".
> 
> The entire foundation of Christianity is based on what happened at Golgotha, and what finished-up 3 days later when Christ arose from the dead.
> ******
> I say this respectfully to you Skeptik.
Click to expand...


All  that is well and good, but none of it addresses the point I made.

Truthspeaker's objective has been to explain Mormon belief, not to necessarily "convert" anyone.

The site you are using is not entirely factual. It tells the truth sometimes, and half truths or outright falsehoods other times.

I'm not writing this to try to make you believe what the Mormons believe, frankly, I could care less about that.  What I'm doing is explaining that the information you have posted about Mormon beliefs is not correct.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Thats a nice jacket.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Joseph Smith profit? No
> 
> Which makes you ask: Was it really a scam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he profited.......He did better than Mohammed's promise of 77 virgins in the afterlife..........Smith was doing underage girls in his earthly life.......
> 
> Also, Charisma only takes you so far, and then you have to back things up with facts............Obama is learning that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you tell us just what was the legal age of women back in 1840? Care to enlighten us? 18 was nearly an old maid if you weren't married in the U.S.
> 
> Why don't u also care to enlighten us on the legal age of women to be married around 1BC when Mary wed Joseph and had other babies beside Jesus. How old was she? 13-15 at most? hmmm.
> Different times maybe? Different cultural expectations? Different levels of maturity by women at that age maybe? Don't get locked into presentism.
> 
> Oh did u know the legal age of marriage in Arkansas today is 15? So are those abiding the law in that state worthy to be judged pedophiles? Can you deal out that judgment?
> 
> I'd really enjoy answers to each of those questions specifically.
Click to expand...


Joey and the other leaders slept with the wives of the members, no marriage, The commandments say "You shall not commit adultery". "You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbors.  They were in it for money, sex and power.


----------



## Skeptik

froggy said:


> Joey and the other leaders slept with the wives of the members, no marriage, The commandments say "You shall not commit adultery". "You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbors.  They were in it for money, sex and power.



Making up nonsense might get you a job writing for the tabloids, but it adds nothing to a discussion on this forum.


----------



## Truthspeaker

FrankZapper said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you follow the church teachings out of fear, nice one.
Click to expand...


For fear of what? For fear of offending God. Yes. There's no other punishment for preaching false doctrine besides excommunication. It's not like we cane people.


----------



## FrankZapper

Truthspeaker said:


> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you follow the church teachings out of fear, nice one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For fear of what? For fear of offending God. Yes. There's no other punishment for preaching false doctrine besides excommunication. It's not like we cane people.
Click to expand...


Banishment is worse than caning folks. It's a regime of fear, admit it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, he profited.......He did better than Mohammed's promise of 77 virgins in the afterlife..........Smith was doing underage girls in his earthly life.......
> 
> Also, Charisma only takes you so far, and then you have to back things up with facts............Obama is learning that too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you tell us just what was the legal age of women back in 1840? Care to enlighten us? 18 was nearly an old maid if you weren't married in the U.S.
> 
> Why don't u also care to enlighten us on the legal age of women to be married around 1BC when Mary wed Joseph and had other babies beside Jesus. How old was she? 13-15 at most? hmmm.
> Different times maybe? Different cultural expectations? Different levels of maturity by women at that age maybe? Don't get locked into presentism.
> 
> Oh did u know the legal age of marriage in Arkansas today is 15? So are those abiding the law in that state worthy to be judged pedophiles? Can you deal out that judgment?
> 
> I'd really enjoy answers to each of those questions specifically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joey and the other leaders slept with the wives of the members, no marriage, The commandments say "You shall not commit adultery". "You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbors.  They were in it for money, sex and power.
Click to expand...


Think what you want but false accusers tried to prove this in court but couldn't do it. Joseph was never rich and was known for his money problems. Your accusations of adultery are just that,  accusations. God will be the final judge. The courts of earth couldn't prove it so we'll have to leave it to the courts in heaven.


----------



## Truthspeaker

FrankZapper said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you follow the church teachings out of fear, nice one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For fear of what? For fear of offending God. Yes. There's no other punishment for preaching false doctrine besides excommunication. It's not like we cane people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Banishment is worse than caning folks. It's a regime of fear, admit it.
Click to expand...


banishment from a religion you don't believe in is far better than caning. And no one is ever banished from the church. excommunication does not mean banishment. Many excommunicated members come back to the church. Both my grandparents on my fathers sided had this happen.


----------



## FrankZapper

Truthspeaker said:


> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> For fear of what? For fear of offending God. Yes. There's no other punishment for preaching false doctrine besides excommunication. It's not like we cane people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banishment is worse than caning folks. It's a regime of fear, admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> banishment from a religion you don't believe in is far better than caning. And no one is ever banished from the church. excommunication does not mean banishment. Many excommunicated members come back to the church. Both my grandparents on my fathers sided had this happen.
Click to expand...


So you toe the party line or you're gone, it's a regime of fear, either agree or get lost.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey and the other leaders slept with the wives of the members, no marriage, The commandments say "You shall not commit adultery". "You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbors.  They were in it for money, sex and power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want but false accusers tried to prove this in court but couldn't do it. Joseph was never rich and was known for his money problems. Your accusations of adultery are just that,  accusations. God will be the final judge. The courts of earth couldn't prove it so we'll have to leave it to the courts in heaven.
Click to expand...



in spite of 140 years of silence, the records did surface. Rev. Wesley Walters discovered the documents in the basement of the Chenango County, New York, jailhouse at Norwich, N.Y. in 1971. The records, affidavits, and other data show conclusively that Joseph Smith was arrested, went to trial, was found guilty as an imposter in the Stowell matter of "glass-looking." It is not a matter of debate, opinion or religious preference. It is a proven historical fact.


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence you have cited is full of part truths and falsehoods.  It is from a site that is dedicated to refuting Mormon, 7th. Day Adventist, and Jehova's Witness doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will assume that your comments are not because you are a LDS apologist, but because you don't "buy into" the belief that the bible is the foundational/compass point for determining what is Christian and what is not.
> 
> I will also take a wild guess that you are agnostic, but like most atheists and agnostics, see the bible as a fairy tale book not unlike the BOM of the LDS church.
> ******
> The web site I gave you that critiqued LDS, and JW, and 7th Day folks only supports what agrees with the bible.
> 
> If you do not accept the bible as God's inspired communique' to mankind then it will be difficult to discuss issues with you, as you don't have a foundational point/compass of belief to base your critiques upon.
> 
> Never the less you are very welcome to continue to post and comment.
> 
> Also, we must ask ourselves where is Christianity's foundation point/compass without the bible?  The LDS/Mormons claim that the bible is not accurate, based on the claims of a person of very questionable background and character.  LDS historians have formulated their own home-grown unsubstantiated history of J.S. Jr. and other early LDS leaders as a defense against the mounting and unrefutable evidences of how their church was started and arrived where it is nowadays.
> 
> There is absolutely no evidences in J.S. Jr.'s life of an actual salvation/born again change as Christ told Nicodemus the Pharisee in the bible.  J.S. Jrs. life has never exhibited a contrite heart attitude in respect to Christ and or God, nor did his life while leading his followers Westward from New York to Utah reflect a humility/humbleness of life that would indicate that he/J.S. had an understand of the "grace" of God that is offered to all mankind through the death/burial/ressurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> The Cross:  Mormons think or teach that it is a morbid symbol for Christians to wear around their necks or place upon the steeple of their churches.  They will even say that it isn't any different from wearing a little electric chair symbol around one's neck.
> 
> That(the cross) is evidence of the Mormon's total lack of understanding of what the Cross trully means to the true biblical Christian.  Yes the true Christian realizes that the cross was one very morbid execution device and means, but if it wasn't for that Roman cross on Golgotha Hill outside the city walls of Jerusalem the Son of God would not have "beat" death, sin, and mankinds ultimate eternal destiny that was "total eternal separation from their Maker".
> 
> The entire foundation of Christianity is based on what happened at Golgotha, and what finished-up 3 days later when Christ arose from the dead.
> ******
> I say this respectfully to you Skeptik.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All  that is well and good, but none of it addresses the point I made.
> 
> Truthspeaker's objective has been to explain Mormon belief, not to necessarily "convert" anyone.
> 
> The site you are using is not entirely factual. It tells the truth sometimes, and half truths or outright falsehoods other times.
> 
> I'm not writing this to try to make you believe what the Mormons believe, frankly, I could care less about that.  What I'm doing is explaining that the information you have posted about Mormon beliefs is not correct.
Click to expand...


Oh give me a break Mr. Mormon apologist.

They hit the front door porches of communities in their dress/white shirts/ties and black slacks with their bicycles and back packs filled with free BOM's like an organized army.

You reject their offer of a BOM and they write you off as a "loser" missing out on the "greater new truths" that the bible allegedly fails at.

You go to Temple Square and Mormons are there waiting to jump on you like used car salesmen.

They come to your door and want you to hear about Mormonism..........If you refute them in any way with biblical info. they tell you they aren't here to compare or debate that issue, but their whole premise of the belief system is to refute biblical Christianity, and brand their religion as "true Christianity".

In their secret temple rituals they even portray a Christian preacher as a satan-duped person.


----------



## FrankZapper

How does a mormon choose his wife? Do they gather up all the virgins and tell you to pick one?


----------



## Truthspeaker

FrankZapper said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Banishment is worse than caning folks. It's a regime of fear, admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> banishment from a religion you don't believe in is far better than caning. And no one is ever banished from the church. excommunication does not mean banishment. Many excommunicated members come back to the church. Both my grandparents on my fathers sided had this happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you toe the party line or you're gone, it's a regime of fear, either agree or get lost.
Click to expand...


Again I would ask you, fear of what?

Regime is an interesting word usually ascribed to Dictators, nice touch. We don't have any of those but it's more a "regime" if you will, of like it or not? U want in or out?


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey and the other leaders slept with the wives of the members, no marriage, The commandments say "You shall not commit adultery". "You shall not covet your neighbors house; you shall not covet your neighbors wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbors.  They were in it for money, sex and power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want but false accusers tried to prove this in court but couldn't do it. Joseph was never rich and was known for his money problems. Your accusations of adultery are just that,  accusations. God will be the final judge. The courts of earth couldn't prove it so we'll have to leave it to the courts in heaven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in spite of 140 years of silence, the records did surface. Rev. Wesley Walters discovered the documents in the basement of the Chenango County, New York, jailhouse at Norwich, N.Y. in 1971. The records, affidavits, and other data show conclusively that Joseph Smith was arrested, went to trial, was found guilty as an imposter in the Stowell matter of "glass-looking." It is not a matter of debate, opinion or religious preference. It is a proven historical fact.
Click to expand...


Please provide said document.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Oh give me a break Mr. Mormon apologist.
> 
> They hit the front door porches of communities in their dress/white shirts/ties and black slacks with their bicycles and back packs filled with free BOM's like an organized army.
> 
> You reject their offer of a BOM and they write you off as a "loser" missing out on the "greater new truths" that the bible allegedly fails at.
> 
> You go to Temple Square and Mormons are there waiting to jump on you like used car salesmen.
> 
> They come to your door and want you to hear about Mormonism..........If you refute them in any way with biblical info. they tell you they aren't here to compare or debate that issue, but their whole premise of the belief system is to refute biblical Christianity, and brand their religion as "true Christianity".
> 
> In their secret temple rituals they even portray a Christian preacher as a satan-duped person.




That's you opinion, and you're welcome to it, but it has nothing to do with my post, which said:



> What I'm doing is explaining that the information you have posted about Mormon beliefs is not correct



Some of it is correct, some is partly correct, and some is false.  The website you're using for your information is misleading.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think what you want but false accusers tried to prove this in court but couldn't do it. Joseph was never rich and was known for his money problems. Your accusations of adultery are just that,  accusations. God will be the final judge. The courts of earth couldn't prove it so we'll have to leave it to the courts in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in spite of 140 years of silence, the records did surface. Rev. Wesley Walters discovered the documents in the basement of the Chenango County, New York, jailhouse at Norwich, N.Y. in 1971. The records, affidavits, and other data show conclusively that Joseph Smith was arrested, went to trial, was found guilty as an imposter in the Stowell matter of "glass-looking." It is not a matter of debate, opinion or religious preference. It is a proven historical fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please provide said document.
Click to expand...


Account of 1826 Trial published in Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873


----------



## froggy

The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith
by Russell Anderson

In the Summer of 2002, I traveled with my family to visit Nauvoo, Illinois. We were anxious to get a chance to tour the new Nauvoo temple. I didn't see much anti-Mormon activity, but I did take an opportunity to stop in for a brief visit to a Christian bookstore. I went in to browse, and see what was available in their store. Prominently displayed on the counter was a copy of the charges by Judge Neely for 1826.1


Judge Neely Bill

The critical section has the following:

Same [meaning People]
vs
Joseph Smith
the Glass Looker
March 20, 1826 
 For my fees in examination
of above cause $2.68


----------



## FrankZapper

Truthspeaker said:


> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> banishment from a religion you don't believe in is far better than caning. And no one is ever banished from the church. excommunication does not mean banishment. Many excommunicated members come back to the church. Both my grandparents on my fathers sided had this happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you toe the party line or you're gone, it's a regime of fear, either agree or get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I would ask you, fear of what?
> 
> Regime is an interesting word usually ascribed to Dictators, nice touch. We don't have any of those but it's more a "regime" if you will, of like it or not? U want in or out?
Click to expand...


Fear of being tossed out of the church, shunned by your community... That's a VERY powerful weapon. Like if you decided that wearing special underwear was retarded and you told your priest that you're not wearing that dumb shit anymore, they'd boot your ass to the curb.

Just like the elders of some mormon sects toss out the teenage boys because they don't have enough women to go around after the elders take 5 brides each.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> in spite of 140 years of silence, the records did surface. Rev. Wesley Walters discovered the documents in the basement of the Chenango County, New York, jailhouse at Norwich, N.Y. in 1971. The records, affidavits, and other data show conclusively that Joseph Smith was arrested, went to trial, was found guilty as an imposter in the Stowell matter of "glass-looking." It is not a matter of debate, opinion or religious preference. It is a proven historical fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide said document.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Account of 1826 Trial published in Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873
Click to expand...


Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
Neither was done in this "document" of yours. 
He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.

From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion. 
To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.

Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

FrankZapper said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you toe the party line or you're gone, it's a regime of fear, either agree or get lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I would ask you, fear of what?
> 
> Regime is an interesting word usually ascribed to Dictators, nice touch. We don't have any of those but it's more a "regime" if you will, of like it or not? U want in or out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fear of being tossed out of the church, shunned by your community... That's a VERY powerful weapon. Like if you decided that wearing special underwear was retarded and you told your priest that you're not wearing that dumb shit anymore, they'd boot your ass to the curb.
> 
> Just like the elders of some mormon sects toss out the teenage boys because they don't have enough women to go around after the elders take 5 brides each.
Click to expand...


My poor dear Frank,
Why would anyone fear being tossed out of a church that "forces" them to do things they don't believe in? If the church is asking them to do "dumb" things, why would they even want to be part of it? Sounds like a dumb person to me. And define "boot your ass to the curb." please. 

This is america. That means freedom of religion. that means freedom of religions to establish their own rules. The great part about america is that you don't have to be associated with any religion. Good thing it ain't old England where you were labeled a heretic and a criminal punishable by death if you weren't part of the church of England.
In this country you can form an organization that has rules, religious or not and if members don't follow the rules, they get "booted out", but at least not physically, or punished in any way other than expelled from the group. Ain't this country great!


And please learn knowledge, and allow education to penetrate your mind at this moment. Here is knowledge if you will be governed by it:
There are no "mormon sects". There is simply no such thing. That's a term that has been coined by non mormons. If you knew anything in the remotest about our religion you would realize that breakaways are not recognized as legitimate by us. Our law clearly state that a man shall have only one wife. It's written so in the book of Mormon as well as in our church law today. Those who call themselves "Mormons" and engaged in polygamy are either formally expelled members or people who never joined our church to begin with.  Therefore they can call themselves what they want but they are not the genuine article. This is the original church. All others are breakaways. 

Truth allows one to live happily, but often causes an early death.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide said document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Account of 1826 Trial published in Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
> Neither was done in this "document" of yours.
> He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.
> 
> From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
> If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion.
> To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
> Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
> Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.
> 
> Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Click to expand...


You're silly oh wait a minute that what Mormons do they read something and the make up stories about what they've read, typical Joey Smith. How anyone could believe he found the treasure box but couldn't retrieve it because it kept sinking down as they dug after it. he must have surrounded himself with cons and loonies.


----------



## FrankZapper

Truthspeaker said:


> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I would ask you, fear of what?
> 
> Regime is an interesting word usually ascribed to Dictators, nice touch. We don't have any of those but it's more a "regime" if you will, of like it or not? U want in or out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fear of being tossed out of the church, shunned by your community... That's a VERY powerful weapon. Like if you decided that wearing special underwear was retarded and you told your priest that you're not wearing that dumb shit anymore, they'd boot your ass to the curb.
> 
> Just like the elders of some mormon sects toss out the teenage boys because they don't have enough women to go around after the elders take 5 brides each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My poor dear Frank,
> Why would anyone fear being tossed out of a church that "forces" them to do things they don't believe in? If the church is asking them to do "dumb" things, why would they even want to be part of it? Sounds like a dumb person to me. And define "boot your ass to the curb." please.
> 
> This is america. That means freedom of religion. that means freedom of religions to establish their own rules. The great part about america is that you don't have to be associated with any religion. Good thing it ain't old England where you were labeled a heretic and a criminal punishable by death if you weren't part of the church of England.
> In this country you can form an organization that has rules, religious or not and if members don't follow the rules, they get "booted out", but at least not physically, or punished in any way other than expelled from the group. Ain't this country great!
> 
> 
> And please learn knowledge, and allow education to penetrate your mind at this moment. Here is knowledge if you will be governed by it:
> There are no "mormon sects". There is simply no such thing. That's a term that has been coined by non mormons. If you knew anything in the remotest about our religion you would realize that breakaways are not recognized as legitimate by us. Our law clearly state that a man shall have only one wife. It's written so in the book of Mormon as well as in our church law today. Those who call themselves "Mormons" and engaged in polygamy are either formally expelled members or people who never joined our church to begin with.  Therefore they can call themselves what they want but they are not the genuine article. This is the original church. All others are breakaways.
> 
> Truth allows one to live happily, but often causes an early death.
Click to expand...


So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.

And anyways, elders in the church are always taking the prettiest, youngest brides for themselves and their friends or relatives. You don't agree? You're out.
And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?


----------



## Skeptik

FrankZapper said:


> So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.



No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.[/quote]



FrankZapper said:


> And anyways, elders in the church are always taking the prettiest, youngest brides for themselves and their friends or relatives. You don't agree? You're out.



Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense?  If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life.  There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.



FrankZapper said:


> And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?



More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians.  What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.


----------



## FrankZapper

Skeptik said:


> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.
Click to expand...




FrankZapper said:


> And anyways, elders in the church are always taking the prettiest, youngest brides for themselves and their friends or relatives. You don't agree? You're out.





> Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense?  If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life.  There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians.  What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess mormons are lucky that they don't have to wear the special underwear on their head!

So you agree that children marrying old men goes on in mormonism.

If NG does a cover story on you as a mormon polygamist, that's what you are. You're like a catholic trying to say that baptists aren't real christians. Hmmm.


----------



## Skeptik

FrankZapper said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense?  If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life.  There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians.  What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess mormons are lucky that they don't have to wear the special underwear on their head!
> 
> So you agree that children marrying old men goes on in mormonism.
> 
> If NG does a cover story on you as a mormon polygamist, that's what you are. You're like a catholic trying to say that baptists aren't real christians. Hmmm.
Click to expand...


Yes, they would look funny with underwear on their heads.  

No, I didn't say anything about old men marrying children.  You made that one up, I suppose. it was not part of my post at any rate.

If NG does a cover story claiming you're a worshipper of Zeus, that doesn't make it so.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Account of 1826 Trial published in Fraser's Magazine, Feb. 1873
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
> Neither was done in this "document" of yours.
> He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.
> 
> From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
> If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion.
> To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
> Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
> Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.
> 
> Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're silly oh wait a minute that what Mormons do they read something and the make up stories about what they've read, typical Joey Smith. How anyone could believe he found the treasure box but couldn't retrieve it because it kept sinking down as they dug after it. he must have surrounded himself with cons and loonies.
Click to expand...


Ever heard of a sink hole? They exist. and it wasn't Joseph who said the chest kept sinking it was others.


----------



## Truthspeaker

FrankZapper said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't find that having to wear special underwear is dumb? Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dumber than wearing a crucifix or whatever the Sikhs call their symbolic swords, or a turban, or any other religious artifact, and, since it is worn out of sight, it is for the wearer, not to show off religion to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where on Earth did you get that bit of nonsense?  If you look at the stats, you will see that Mormons generally marry when both husband and wife are fairly young, raise several children together, and stay together for life.  There are exceptions, of course, but that is the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> FrankZapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why would National geographic do a cover story and call them Mormon polygamists? You saying that NG has shit for brains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More like the "Mormon" polygamists are calling themselves that, much like self described conservatives who are really social authoritarians.  What people call themselves and what they are are often two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess mormons are lucky that they don't have to wear the special underwear on their head!
> 
> So you agree that children marrying old men goes on in mormonism.
> 
> If NG does a cover story on you as a mormon polygamist, that's what you are. You're like a catholic trying to say that baptists aren't real christians. Hmmm.
Click to expand...


NG is as ignorant of the issue as you are. They are doing their job. Interviewing people who claim to be "Mormons" but are not part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the original church. 
So NG is not stupid but they just don't know the difference between real member of the church and so called "Mormons." They're just reporting the claims of these publicity seekers, not reporting the actual truth. There's a big difference between ignorant and stupid.
I've seen both examples on this thread many times.


----------



## Truthspeaker

It is against our religion to break the law. the law of the land is that women cannot marry till age 18.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS of Joseph Smith III to be the real descendants of the church of Joseph Smith, not the LDS Church, Truthspeaker.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> It is against our religion to break the law. the law of the land is that women cannot marry till age 18.



I agree that you guys to do not marry polygamously and that you excommunicate (I nearly wrote 'execute') members that do when you catch them out.

However, more than 100 years ago, the age for marrying in Utah was 13.  Same in Idaho.  The Saints from Star Valley in Wyoming (the wild cowboy country north of Evanston) would take their little girls across the state line into Idaho or Utah to marry them off to some old goat.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Froggy so pay attention closely since that's what I do but I'm not sure if you're capable of doing the same. I read the whole fishy case. Here's the main problem. In a court of law, you must be formally charged with some offense and formally convicted for said offense.
> Neither was done in this "document" of yours.
> He was arrested for the belief that he was a "disorderly person", a truly vicious crime and an imposter which he was never charged with.
> 
> From the accounts it seems as though he succeeded in his claims of finding things he claimed to have found. Others thought he was tricking them somehow but couldn't prove in any way that he was an imposter.
> If this is even a real case at all, and a quack jury actually found him guilty of something, don't u think they would have mentioned what he was guilty of? Instead they just said guilty. Guilty of what? Guilty of finding the things and seeing the things he said he saw? Simply because you don't believe something doesn't mean it isn't true. It's merely a statement of your opinion.
> To call someone an imposter who backed up his claims with actual findings is a bit of a witch hunt don't u think?
> Anyway you still haven't provided an actual court document acusing him of a crime and convicting him of a crime at the same time. It shouldn't be too hard to find if it actually existed.
> Why don't you look at all the records that show his being acquitted even in the presence of hostile judges, juries and lawyers because the law could simply have no hold on him. He died with a conscience void of offense toward man and God.
> 
> Truth.... It has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're silly oh wait a minute that what Mormons do they read something and the make up stories about what they've read, typical Joey Smith. How anyone could believe he found the treasure box but couldn't retrieve it because it kept sinking down as they dug after it. he must have surrounded himself with cons and loonies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever heard of a sink hole? They exist. and it wasn't Joseph who said the chest kept sinking it was others.
Click to expand...


A natural depression in a land surface formed by the dissolution and collapse of a cavern roof. Sinkholes are roughly funnel-shaped and on the order of tens of meters in size. They generally occur in limestone regions and are connected to subteranean passages.


----------



## froggy

Scammer tactics: convince you to depend only on the scammer and to believe only in the scammer; convince you that your friends and family, banks and law enforcement, are all lying and that only the scammer is telling the truth.

and distract you from what is really going on using lies laced with enough truth to make the patter believable.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Scammer tactics: convince you to depend only on the scammer and to believe only in the scammer; convince you that your friends and family, banks and law enforcement, are all lying and that only the scammer is telling the truth.
> 
> and distract you from what is really going on using lies laced with enough truth to make the patter believable.



Well thank you. By the standards you just articulated, Joseph Smith was a good man.

It's always been one of the weakness of the critics of the Restoration that they can't explain why Joseph was always telling people to find out for themselves through study and prayer, to recieve their own revelations. Nor do the critics ever account for the numerous other witnesses.

Take Oliver Cowdery. He was the scribe during the translation process. Along with Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, he was one of the 3 witnesses who saw the plates and the Angel Moroni. He was present at the Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, the Melchesidek Priesthood, and the Restoration of the Priesthood Keys when Elijah came to turn the hearts to the Fathers at the Kirtland Temple.

Then, of course, Oliver and Joseph had a falling out. He was excommunicated from the Church. If there was a scam between the two of them, this would naturally have terminated it. Instead, He continued to testify that the Book of Mormon was true. He continued to testify that He saw the angel. We know from his Personal letters with David Whitmer that Oliver stilled testified of the visitation and Priesthood authority bestowed upon him, including the Keys from Kirtland. 

If this was a fraud, he had every motivation to deny this and be honest about it. He ran for Governor of Wisconsin and lost because he wouldn't deny his experiences. And eventually came back to the Church even though he would not have any position of authority in it. And he died still sharing that testimony

Does this sound like someone who was helping to perpetuate a fraud? Oliver is far from the only witness. Many of whom had disagreements with Joseph, yet still maintained their testimony. David Whitmer, for example, separated from the Church and never returned, but still made it a point to call the local media and publish his testimony toward the end of his life.

Or take Sidney Rigdon. He was present for many of the revelations including the Vision of the 3 degrees of glory. He saw the living Christ. And continued his testimony for the rest of his life despite falling outs with leadership.

That's one of the amazing things about Joseph Smith. The thing that makes him an anomoly. He didn't come along and say believe me. He said come along and see what I've seen and the people around him _did_ see what he saw. And testified of that for the rest of their days despite a number of them having public disagreements and falling outs with Joseph. Some even martyred because of what they saw. 

The Lord will reveal anything He has revealed to Joseph to the Twelve and even the least of the Saints. The critics fail to adress this, in fact, they try to pretend this isn't something Joseph clearly taught throughout His life. God calls Prophets and Apostles. But you aren't supposed to blindly follow them. That's not what the scriptures teach. You are supposed to learn for yourself and get the Holy Spirit to teach you. And He will confirm what the Lord teaches elsewhere.

God isn't silent. Learn for yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sigh.  I am glad for you that you are fulfilled, Avatar.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS of Joseph Smith III to be the real descendants of the church of Joseph Smith, not the LDS Church, Truthspeaker.



The RLDS can have all claims to "the church of Joseph Smith" for all I care. Especially since it's not a church that Joseph established. We'll take the the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.


----------



## froggy

Quotes Originally from Avatar.



> Take Oliver Cowdery. He was the scribe during the translation process. Along with Martin Harris, and David Whitmer, he was one of the 3 witnesses who saw the plates and the Angel Moroni. He was present at the Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, the Melchesidek Priesthood, and the Restoration of the Priesthood Keys when Elijah came to turn the hearts to the Fathers at the Kirtland Temple.



The original scammers With joeys dad being a known religious man that made it easier putting joey as front man . AND joey loved it




> Then, of course, Oliver and Joseph had a falling out. He was excommunicated from the Church. If there was a scam between the two of them, this would naturally have terminated it. Instead, He continued to testify that the Book of Mormon was true. He continued to testify that He saw the angel. We know from his Personal letters with David Whitmer that Oliver stilled testified of the visitation and Priesthood authority bestowed upon him, including the Keys from Kirtland.



Joey want more control of the scam this led to the falling out. Oliver was in to deep to do other wise he didn't want any jail time.

If this was a fraud, he had every motivation to deny this and be honest about it. He ran for Governor of Wisconsin and lost because he wouldn't deny his experiences. And eventually came back to the Church even though he would not have any position of authority in it. And he died still sharing that testimony



> Does this sound like someone who was helping to perpetuate a fraud? Oliver is far from the only witness. Many of whom had disagreements with Joseph, yet still maintained their testimony. David Whitmer, for example, separated from the Church and never returned, but still made it a point to call the local media and publish his testimony toward the end of his life.



sounds exactly like it in the time they were. He ranks with all the other religious scammers




> Or take Sidney Rigdon. He was present for many of the revelations including the Vision of the 3 degrees of glory. He saw the living Christ. And continued his testimony for the rest of his life despite falling outs with leadership.



Going to jail scared all of them, so none could tell the truth



> That's one of the amazing things about Joseph Smith. The thing that makes him an anomoly. He didn't come along and say believe me. He said come along and see what I've seen and the people around him _did_ see what he saw. And testified of that for the rest of their days despite a number of them having public disagreements and falling outs with Joseph. Some even martyred because of what they saw.



Scammer



> The Lord will reveal anything He has revealed to Joseph to the Twelve and even the least of the Saints. The critics fail to adress this, in fact, they try to pretend this isn't something Joseph clearly taught throughout His life. God calls Prophets and Apostles. But you aren't supposed to blindly follow them. That's not what the scriptures teach. You are supposed to learn for yourself and get the Holy Spirit to teach you. And He will confirm what the Lord teaches elsewhere.



His short life of scamming, but he did scam to the very end.

God isn't silent. Learn for yourself.[/QUOTE]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS of Joseph Smith III to be the real descendants of the church of Joseph Smith, not the LDS Church, Truthspeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RLDS can have all claims to "the church of Joseph Smith" for all I care. Especially since it's not a church that Joseph established. We'll take the the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Click to expand...


Clearly the federal case ruling, which makes it _law_, does not agree with your _opinion_.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS of Joseph Smith III to be the real descendants of the church of Joseph Smith, not the LDS Church, Truthspeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RLDS can have all claims to "the church of Joseph Smith" for all I care. Especially since it's not a church that Joseph established. We'll take the the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly the federal case ruling, which makes it _law_, does not agree with your _opinion_.
Click to expand...


Definitions of fact (n)
fact [ fakt ]  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened despite statements of JakeStarkey to the contrary.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something independant of opposing statements of JakeStarkey.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth which oftentimes may elude discovery by JakeStarkey.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Synonyms: piece of information, detail, datum, circumstance, statistic, element, point. All which may or may not come to attention of said starkey.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The fact in this matter is that the official church begun by Joseph Smith on the legal record is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

In whatever quack case you're referring to I haven't seen the feds deregulate us(as if they actually could) and turn over our assets and authorities over to the Reorganites, RLDS, Community of Christ or whatever name they decide to give themselves next. Major Fail by Starkey.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Temple Lot Case (1893) found the RLDS of Joseph Smith III to be the real descendants of the church of Joseph Smith, not the LDS Church, Truthspeaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The RLDS can have all claims to "the church of Joseph Smith" for all I care. Especially since it's not a church that Joseph established. We'll take the the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly the federal case ruling, which makes it _law_, does not agree with your _opinion_.
Click to expand...


The temple lot case was about a disputed property, and had nothing to do with with the legitimacy of the Mormon Church vs. the Reorganized church.

Moreover, the case was overturned on appeal, not that it matters now.

Saying the RLDS or FLDS are Mormons is like saying that the Baptists and Lutherans are Catholic.  It's absurd.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RLDS can have all claims to "the church of Joseph Smith" for all I care. Especially since it's not a church that Joseph established. We'll take the the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly the federal case ruling, which makes it _law_, does not agree with your _opinion_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definitions of fact (n)
> fact [ fakt ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened despite statements of JakeStarkey to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something independant of opposing statements of JakeStarkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth which oftentimes may elude discovery by JakeStarkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synonyms: piece of information, detail, datum, circumstance, statistic, element, point. All which may or may not come to attention of said starkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact in this matter is that the official church begun by Joseph Smith on the legal record is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."
> 
> In whatever quack case you're referring to I haven't seen the feds deregulate us(as if they actually could) and turn over our assets and authorities over to the Reorganites, RLDS, Community of Christ or whatever name they decide to give themselves next. Major Fail by Starkey.
Click to expand...


Then go read the case, Truthspeaker, at Temple Lot Case Information, Temple Lot Case Reference Articles - FindTarget Reference.  There is a hidden bonus for you in it if you do.  Go find it, and you will truly be pleased.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptic, you misread the document, and you know iit.  Where your parallel falls apart is that Lutherans and Baptists and Catholics are Christian.  The RLDS and FLDS are Mormons, as are the Hedrickites, Wightites, the Latter Day Saints, and so on.  Knowledgable and informed LDS mormons know they are not the only mormons.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptic, you misread the document, and you know iit.  Where your parallel falls apart is that Lutherans and Baptists and Catholics are Christian.  The RLDS and FLDS are Mormons, as are the Hedrickites, Wightites, the Latter Day Saints, and so on.  Knowledgable and informed LDS mormons know they are not the only mormons.



From your source in the previous post:



> The Temple Lot Case also known as the Temple Lot Suit and formally known as "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, complainant, vs. the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri" was a United States legal case in the 1890s which addressed legal ownership of the Temple Lot, a significant parcel of land in the Latter Day Saint movement. In the case, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church) claimed legal title of the land and asked the court to order the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) to cease its occupation of the property. The RLDS Church won the case at trial, but the decision was reversed on appeal.



Sounds like Skeptic had it right on regarding the case.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Snap.  I was waiting for it.  I don't care about how the case turned out, but used it to remove a message-point here that has been trumpeted over and over.  The error has been that only LDS are Mormons.  Nonsense.  More than 117 years ago the federal court did not discriminate among "Mormon" denominations.  The court obviously accepted the validity they all followed Joseph Smith and the Restoration, thus all had a part, and all were Mormons.

Now let's hear that nonsense again, that only LDS are Mormons, which is an absolute fallacy.


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Snap.  I was waiting for it.  I don't care about how the case turned out, but used it to remove a message-point here that has been trumpeted over and over.  The error has been that only LDS are Mormons.  Nonsense.  More than 117 years ago the federal court did not discriminate among "Mormon" denominations.  The court obviously accepted the validity they all followed Joseph Smith and the Restoration, thus all had a part, and all were Mormons.
> 
> Now let's hear that nonsense again, that only LDS are Mormons, which is an absolute fallacy.



Definitions change over time, that is the way it is.  However, current definitions for Mormon seem to be consistent:

Mormon - Definition of Mormon at YourDictionary.com


> a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormon Church), founded in the U.S. in 1830 by Joseph Smith: among its sacred books is the Book of Mormon, represented by Smith as his translation of an account of some ancient American peoples by a prophet among them named Mormon



Mormon - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


> A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And you can find other dictionaries that define the term appropriately, which is that any follower of Joseph Smith and the Restorations are mormons.  The various denominations of Mormonisn include the LDS, the RLDS, the CoC, the Restoration and Reorganization branches, the various fundamentalist polygmous branches, such as the FLDS, and so on.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> And you can find other dictionaries that define the term appropriately, which is that any follower of Joseph Smith and the Restorations are mormons.  The various denominations of Mormonisn include the LDS, the RLDS, the CoC, the Restoration and Reorganization branches, the various fundamentalist polygmous branches, such as the FLDS, and so on.



No, I seriously doubt that you can find a dictionary that doesn't have an anti Mormon agenda that would define the church that way.  

Getting back to the analogy of Lutherans and Baptists being Catholic, those two denominations are called "protestant" as they came about through protest against the Catholic church.  The RLDS and FLDS came about in much the same way.  Calling churches that came about as a protest against the mainstream as denominations of the mainstream church is much like saying that the Lutherans are a Catholic denomination.  

Since Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons all worship Christ and believe in the atonement, all of them are Christian churches by definition.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptic: two words ~ grow up.  The persecution complex gets tiring for all of us, you know.  And your ending sentences only support the concept that Mormons applies to followers of Joseph Smith.  Try again.

OK, famous anti-Mormon sites that hates the LDS.

Mormon Church.  n.  Mormon: Definition from *Answers.com*   1. An ancient prophet believed to have compiled a sacred history of the Americas, which were translated and published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon in 1830.
   2. A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint* [which the RLDS loved to call themselves].*  adj.  Of or relating to the Mormons, their religion, or the Mormon Church.

*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language*
Mor·mon  (môrmn) Mormon Church  n.  1. An ancient prophet believed to have compiled a sacred history of the Americas, which were translated and published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon in 1830.
2. A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint.   adj.  Of or relating to the Mormons, their religion, or the Mormon Church.   Mormon·ism n.  The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Another example that 'Mormon' is not an exclusive property of the LDS Church is how it is used in history works.  One respected scholar defines Mormonism in terms as those who "still practiced those tenants marking them as a sect of nineteenth-century Mormonism: temple ritual, economic communitarianism, and polygamy."  Scholars about Mormon history including active temple-card temple going LDS historians, such as Richard E. Bennett and Richard E. Bushman and Todd Compton, do not use it exclusively any more than inactive LDS historians like Will Bagley, or excommunicated former LDS historians like Mike Quinn or Lavina F. Anderson, or non-LDS Mormon historians like Steven Shields or Ron Romig or Newell Bringhurst or Bill Russell, or non-LDS historians beloved by the LDS like Jan Shipps.

Skeptic, simply put, you LDS can use your definitions as you wish, but when you put them in the public forum, do not think they will be automatically excepted or that you rebut successfully.  The rest of the world is not held hostage to 13mm peoples' beliefs.

And, oh, all should note that when a LDS defender starts talking about "apostate" or "anti-Mormon" this or that, you will know automatically such person is on tenuous ground and knows it.  In my research, I have seen a concerted effort by LDS folks to try to dominate the 'definition' game with a small amount of success.  The real place to look is how those who deal with the term socially, politically, culturally, economically, and philosophically use it.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptic: two words ~ grow up.  The persecution complex gets tiring for all of us, you know.  And your ending sentences only support the concept that Mormons applies to followers of Joseph Smith.  Try again.



Persecution complex?  Please.  I just don't like to see misinformation being spread around.  



JakeStarkey said:


> OK, famous anti-Mormon sites that hates the LDS.
> 
> Mormon Church.  n.  Mormon: Definition from *Answers.com*   1. An ancient prophet believed to have compiled a sacred history of the Americas, which were translated and published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon in 1830.
> 2. A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint* [which the RLDS loved to call themselves].*  adj.  Of or relating to the Mormons, their religion, or the Mormon Church.
> 
> *The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language*
> Mor·mon  (môrmn) Mormon Church  n.  1. An ancient prophet believed to have compiled a sacred history of the Americas, which were translated and published by Joseph Smith as the Book of Mormon in 1830.
> 2. A member of the Mormon Church. Also called Latter-day Saint.   adj.  Of or relating to the Mormons, their religion, or the Mormon Church.   Mormon·ism n.  The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.



"A member of the Mormon Church, AKA Latter Day Saint"

"A member of the Mormon church"

Both good definitions.  Neither one mentions RLDS or FLDS, only LDS, regardless of what the RLDS "loved to call themselves."



JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptic, simply put, you LDS can use your definitions as you wish, but when you put them in the public forum, do not think they will be automatically excepted or that you rebut successfully.  The rest of the world is not held hostage to 13mm peoples' beliefs.



Thanks, I will.  You can except them if you want, but I'm not sure what you're excepting them from.  

13mm people?  I think most people are taller than that.  I have no idea what you might mean by that.



JakeStarkey said:


> And, oh, all should note that when a LDS defender starts talking about "apostate" or "anti-Mormon" this or that, you will know automatically such person is on tenuous ground and knows it.  In my research, I have seen a concerted effort by LDS folks to try to dominate the 'definition' game with a small amount of success.  The real place to look is how those who deal with the term socially, politically, culturally, economically, and philosophically use it.



No, I'll accept the definitions given by the dictionaries you have cited.  No need to defend them.  I'm not sure just where the word "apostate" came from, but it wasn't in my post.  

There is nothing wrong with the FLDS or the RLDS.  They just aren't LDS, not any more than the Lutherans are Catholics.  That doesn't mean that Lutherans are apostate Catholics, does it?

Oh, yes, and the term "LDS Defender" tells us exactly where you're coming from. I'm not trying to defend anything other than the facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you!  

1.  You admit the FLDS and the CoC and all the rest are not of the CoJCofLDS.  Yet all of them are Mormon becaue they follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration.

2.  Mormon historians use the term to define all of the followers of Joseph Smith and the Restoration.  

3.  My sites above demonstrate that the term is not exclusive to the LDS, or they would have made that inclusiveness as part of the definition.

The rest of the world is not confined or confounded by your desire for a limited definition of the term.

And, yes, every time the word "anti-Mormon" or "apostate" or whatever is used, users of those words are whinging, revealing a persecution complex.  Two words: grow up.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Snap.  I was waiting for it.  I don't care about how the case turned out, but used it to remove a message-point here that has been trumpeted over and over.  The error has been that only LDS are Mormons.  Nonsense.  More than 117 years ago the federal court did not discriminate among "Mormon" denominations.  The court obviously accepted the validity they all followed Joseph Smith and the Restoration, thus all had a part, and all were Mormons.
> 
> Now let's hear that nonsense again, that only LDS are Mormons, which is an absolute fallacy.



For this notion of yours I revert back to my original statement that "Mormons" is a nickname given to us by people who didn't understand us and persecuted us. How would they know the difference between a "Mormon" and an ex-"Mormon". It's a nickname we never asked for anyway. You are entitled to nickname anyone anything you want. I've said before I wish we could somehow get away from the nickname label. If I could give it to polygamists and let them keep it, I'd be happy with it if we could get our real name out there. 
The Fact of the matter is that there is one church that Joseph Smith established. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There are no sects of this church even if defected members call themselves a sect of our church because we have no respect for their authority, and recognize none of their ordinances.

That being said, when the nickname "Mormons" is heard, 99% of all people in the world understand that it is the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that is being referred to. Perception is not reality.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> 1.  You admit the FLDS and the CoC and all the rest are not of the CoJCofLDS.  Yet all of them are Mormon becaue they follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration.


Do they? If Joseph Smith clearly and explicitly told them "He who leaves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has lost his way.", are they really following Joseph Smith? I'm sure they think by their interpretation somehow they're following him. But if they really followed him they would have stayed in the Church and not renamed the inspired name of the Church into something else that was not revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants. 
They've broken so many of the laws in our books that it's impossible to say they're followers of Joseph Smith. They are not followers of Christ via Joseph Smith either.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nonetheless, Mormonism and being Mormon encompasses anyone who believes in Joseph Smith and the Restoration.  It is not solely for use to identify only LDS as Mormons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

All who follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration are Mormons and part of Mormonism.

Thus, LDS, FLDS, CoC, RLDS, TSLDS, AvatarLDS are all part of Mormonism and are Mormons.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> All who follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration are Mormons and part of Mormonism.
> 
> Thus, LDS, FLDS, CoC, RLDS, TSLDS, AvatarLDS are all part of Mormonism and are Mormons.



and by that same logic, the Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, etc. are all the same since they are all Christians.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians.  Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons.  Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.

I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which  is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings).  The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians.  Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons.  Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.
> 
> I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which  is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings).  The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.



It will be interesting to see what labels people are given by God at the last day and what labels they had given themselves which get stripped away.

You forget to question the authority of the labelers. Whoever they are. Who has the right to dish out a label I might ask you Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians.  Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons.  Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.
> 
> I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which  is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings).  The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see what labels people are given by God at the last day and what labels they had given themselves which get stripped away.
> 
> You forget to question the authority of the labelers. Whoever they are. Who has the right to dish out a label I might ask you Jake?
Click to expand...


You are talking who has the authority to label.  In the matters of men, then man does.  In the matters of God, then God does.  I have waited a long time for you to come this far.  Go ahead and finish it, Truthspeaker.  I may disagree with you, but I will be respectful, which is far more than you and Avatar and others have gotten from others here.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians.  Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons.  Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.
> 
> I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which  is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings).  The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be interesting to see what labels people are given by God at the last day and what labels they had given themselves which get stripped away.
> 
> You forget to question the authority of the labelers. Whoever they are. Who has the right to dish out a label I might ask you Jake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking who has the authority to label.  In the matters of men, then man does.  In the matters of God, then God does.  I have waited a long time for you to come this far.  Go ahead and finish it, Truthspeaker.  I may disagree with you, but I will be respectful, which is far more than you and Avatar and others have gotten from others here.
Click to expand...


You have been somewhat respectful on here and for that I appreciate you. What have you been waiting for from me? What do you mean by "Come this far?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Far more than "somewhat respectful", Truthspeaker.  I like Mormons generally and in some way the LDS church is great.  There are things I don't like about it, but that puts it with all churches in my opinion, and that includes my own denomination.

The LDS have the right to define for themselves what Mormonism means and is.  But in no way is any of that obligatory for the rest of the world, particularly for the professional and academic disciplines, to accept the LDS definition.  The historians and sociologists, including most of those as LDS, adopt the more expansive definition of "Mormonism" to describe denominations and individuals who follow Joseph Smith and the Restoration.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> You are almost there, Skeptic, they are all the same in that they are Christians.  Thus, LDS and FLDS etc are all the same in that they are Mormons.  Now the parsing comes in what kind of Christian or Mormon might be.
> 
> I suspect you are a member of the LDS of Mormonism, which  is part of Christianity (and to those of you who say 'no' to Mormon as Christian, you are willful morons - the worst kind - who don't learn your own scriptures and teachings).  The difference then comes in the parsing of Christianity.



I suppose if you think all Christians are the same, then you have a point.

And, in a way, they all have much in common, just different dogmas.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Those who follow the Christ are Christians, in my book (it's such a little book, and certainly not authoritative).  Joseph Smith said he was a Christian, your church's name includes the name of the Lord, so that makes you Christians.  Now when the enemies of your church try to say that Mormons are not Christians, who cares?  Not a one of them speaks for the Lord.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Those who follow the Christ are Christians, in my book (it's such a little book, and certainly not authoritative).  Joseph Smith said he was a Christian, your church's name includes the name of the Lord, so that makes you Christians.  Now when the enemies of your church try to say that Mormons are not Christians, who cares?  Not a one of them speaks for the Lord.



True enough.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And neither do the leaders of any church, in my humble opinion.

Here is a hymn that I like: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weBT5FgApKY&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Christopher

JakeStarkey said:


> Those who follow the Christ are Christians, in my book (it's such a little book, and certainly not authoritative).  Joseph Smith said he was a Christian, your church's name includes the name of the Lord, so that makes you Christians.  Now when the enemies of your church try to say that Mormons are not Christians, who cares?  Not a one of them speaks for the Lord.



Exactly.


----------



## Eightball

Totally Disagree:

The very definition of a Christian is a "Christ One" or "Follower of Christ".

Now one must define "who" Christ is.  

Jesus said that to be one of His, one must be born again or born from above.  I.E.  one must receive His life(Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ) in order to be born from above/again.

The Mormon church as well as other religions do not define the "Christian" according to those parameters.

Just go to any website and compare the "Jesus" of the bible, and the "jesus" of Mormonism, Watch Tower, Moonies, Islam, and on and on and you will find that this isn't the Jesus of the bible.

Now you can say that Jesus or Christianity is defined according to my religion and or my prophets, and the bible is just one possibility, but one must look hard and deep at all the prophecies of the bible that have come true, and not one has been untrue.

Also one must look at the accuracy of the bible in respect to the most ancient parchments of the Torah from the Dead Sea find, and realize that with the exception of the missing book of Esther, all the partial and complete partchements validate the accuracy of our nowadays translations of the O.T..

What seems to come into question with the bible is the LDS churchs' premise that the bible is not accurate as it has been re-translated so many times over the centuries that "human fallibility" has  "skewed" the bible's in respect to original or very old copies of God's Word to humanity.

Therefore:  Joseph Smith Jr. was picked by God to receive the new, corrected revelation for all mankind back in the early 1800's.

As I have posted so many times before, one of God's, or our Creator's atributes is "omnipotence".  What does that mean?  Well, it means a myriad of things...........but most importantly, it means a dynamic power, and control over creation that is infinitly great.......a power that leaves not one infinite speck that isn't under His supervision, and direction and or Holy will.  

Now, how is it that God had to "re-do" his revelation of Christ, and Himself and His very "will" for mankind and creation........"IF" He is the "I AM".......Yahweh........Jehovah......Lord Almighty....Emanuel...

Is God fallible........and somehow overlooked His written revelation that He "inspired" man to write down?  The very fact that His Word the bible was written down by men "inspired" by Him.........That means the Holy Spirit was urging/prompting/directing these men and women who wrote down what God wanted them to communicate from Him to mankind.
******
No:  Calling oneself a Christian doesn't add up to a hill of beans unless that person has received the Holy Spirit.................and is born again............Yes one of those crazy old bible thump'n ones that says that the bible is his/her's most special compass for living out a Godly and Holy life in Christ.

Christ claimed Himself the "I AM"...........That is an eternal/infinite statement of identity or being.  It is not a statement of once being nothing or a spirit baby and then a human being or a created being.

Christ was never "once a mere mortal/man and later was to become a glorified god".  He was God incarnate at His virgin birth.........God didn't fertilize one of Mary's eggs.............He/Jesus was miraculously placed in that young virgins' womb.  He/Jesus was still called Son of David as His earthly parents were of David's lineage, but Jesus was not born a sinner as He did not physically come via the loins and lineage of Adam and Eve.  This is the only way that He/Jesus could be the perfect, unblemished sacrifice for our sins.

The Mormon Jesus is a mere Adamic human who received godhood from the Mormon God the Father.  He wasn't sinless, but had to "earn" his stature or position via works not unlike how Mormons nowadays must earn their glorification post-death by how they "worked" to further their Mormon religion's doctrine of christ.

All throughout the N.T. it is stressed by various authors that Christ was the perfect sacrifice............the Passover Lamb..........the "acceptable" replacement for "us" and the full judgement of God.......Romans 3:23..........For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"........There is not one human being on earth since Adam and Eve...........to present that has escaped being a decendent of Adam and Eve...........therefore we have all inherited at birth the curse of death and the sin nature of fallen man.

Christ is clearly described as the "new Adam"..........who's death brings life to the many who believe by faith in His substution death for us.

Jesus literally faced/endured eternal separation from God the Father, and all the sins of mankind............and was raised on the 3rd day, Victor over sin and death.

90 % of Americans call themselves Christian...........but if you dig deep into their explanation of what it means to be a Christian you will find that their "identity" or "meaning" in life is not based on being a sinful being saved by grace of God through His Son's death, and now are "new creatures/creations in Christ Jesus.....Seated in the heavenlies in Christ.........Crucified with Christ, and raised up with Christ(Galatians 2:20) to newness of life.

No, they are christians based on going/attending church, being baptized, being raised by Christian parents, being an American or whatever. 

Few will define themselves by their actual identity or "life" abiding in Christ and having the indwelling Holy Spirit as the guarranteer/seal sent by Christ.

Mormons base their conversion on visions, dreams, and church/temple rituals.  This totally contradicts what Christ said about being one of His in the N.T. books/epistles.

Faith is not a vision, nor a feeling...........but is believing, even when everything around you wants to contradict your stand to believe.

Yes, the Holy Spirit also conforts, counsels, and allows the "true" Christian to understand the scriptures.  This is why people will say over and over how they would try and try to read the bible and it just didn't seem to help or mean much.............Just a nice story book, but once they truly receive salvation, the words in the bible start to have meaning that neve was understood before.

That is the work of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus told His disciples that when He left them that He would send them the Comforter(Holy Spirit).  He/Jesus said that He/Holy Spirit would bring counsel, peace, and open up His Word to them in ways of great understanding.  This Holy Spirit would give them power to proclaim the Good News of Christ's death, burial, and ressurrection...........The New Life that would be freely given to those who believe..............

Jesus said that many will call out in the end times to Him and say Lord, Lord!, But He will say, "I DON'T KNOW YOU"............

There is definitely a true distinction between the Jesus's of many religions, and the Jesus of the bible.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Nope, Eighball, you don't get to define who is a Christian.  That's not part of your authority.  I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.


----------



## Eightball

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, rat, you don't get to define who is a Christian.  That's not part of your authority.  I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.



Fellow Poster(You are *not* a rat as I apparently am.) :

I've chosen the bible as the final "authority"; not myself, Joseph Smith Jr., angels, visions, dreams, feelings, intuition, or alleged latter day prophets.  That is clearly revealed in my previous post.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, rat, you don't get to define who is a Christian.  That's not part of your authority.  I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fellow Poster(You are not a rat as I apparently am.) :
> 
> I've chosen the bible as the final "authority"; not myself, Joseph Smith Jr., angels, visions, dreams, feelings, intuition, or alleged latter day prophets.  That is clearly revealed in my previous post.
Click to expand...


My fault, Eightball, and forgive me.  I thought I was talking to the Rat in the Hat or the Rat who wears a Hat or whatever.  I certainly did not intend to insult you.  My apology.

Anyway, FellowPoster, I understand that you claim biblical authority.  Many of my evangelical and pentecostal friends say the same thing.  The LDS are right when they claim the follow the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly."  Major, major issues exist with the Bible.  However, the LDS are wrong in believing their made-up scriptures have any authority.

So, yes, with all, due respect, I reject your interpretation.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, rat, you don't get to define who is a Christian.  That's not part of your authority.  I understand your concern, I understand your opinion, but it means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fellow Poster(You are *not* a rat as I apparently am.) :
> 
> I've chosen the bible as the final "authority"; not myself, Joseph Smith Jr., angels, visions, dreams, feelings, intuition, or alleged latter day prophets.  That is clearly revealed in my previous post.
Click to expand...


Does that mean you accept the Bible as a text to be taken literally?  Was the Garden of Eden real?  Noah's flood?  Turning water into wine?  Are all of those accounts to be taken as literal truth to be taken as having been inspired?

And if so, then there must have been prophets, visions, inspiration, etc. thousands of years ago.  Why wouldn't there be now?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible.  I would be careful of what you assert.  I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible.  I would be careful of what you assert.  I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.



If he starts pointing out inconsistencies in the BOM, probably so.  If he starts telling us that the Bible is literally true, then no.

However, I have had debates with Biblical literalists before, and they never, but never admit that their position is untenable.


----------



## Mrs Missus

I'd love to buy some "magic underwear" for my husband for xmas, what is it exactly and where can I get some?


----------



## Skeptik

Mrs Missus said:


> I'd love to buy some "magic underwear" for my husband for xmas, what is it exactly and where can I get some?



You could go here.  How magic the effect on him might be depends a lot on you, however.


----------



## Eightball

MSNBC's Chris Matthews claimed a "tingling" sensation up his leg a couple years ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible.  I would be careful of what you assert.  I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he starts pointing out inconsistencies in the BOM, probably so.  If he starts telling us that the Bible is literally true, then no.
> 
> However, I have had debates with Biblical literalists before, and they never, but never admit that their position is untenable.
Click to expand...


I wish the literalists would realize that the Bible is best intepreted metaphorically (imho) and that faith is not objective.  Sure, I believe a dead guy sat up in a tomb 2000 years ago, and somebody not of our culture might think I was telling a ghost story.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptic, your BoM is every bit as flawed with inconsistency and contradictions as the Bible.  I would be careful of what you assert.  I guarantee that Eightball is perfectly capable of laying your arguments in the boneyard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he starts pointing out inconsistencies in the BOM, probably so.  If he starts telling us that the Bible is literally true, then no.
> 
> However, I have had debates with Biblical literalists before, and they never, but never admit that their position is untenable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish the literalists would realize that the Bible is best intepreted metaphorically (imho) and that faith is not objective.  Sure, I believe a dead guy sat up in a tomb 2000 years ago, and somebody not of our culture might think I was telling a ghost story.
Click to expand...


Most of the Bible was meant as allegory and metaphor.  The problems come when the assertion is made that there was actually a world wide flood, that the human race came from two individuals, that the Earth is really only a few thousand years old, and so on.  The Bible is a collection of books, just as its name implies.  Some of it is historical, some is fiction, some is much like Aesop's fables, and a lot of it was written in languages long forgotten and is open to many interpretations.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well, this is a debate that will never end until we all sit at the judgment bar of Christ and review the dvd of the history of mankind. One thing I am absolutely certain of is that scientists as well as all the rest of us will have our jaws on the floor when we compare our assumptions to reality. Oh the things that will be revealed, oh the regret so many will have, oh the light bulb moments that we should have realized earlier.
So since none of us know everything despite some of our learned backgrounds, let's worry about our own individual lives and admit that we are not so learned compared to God.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Very good, Truthspeaker, and we should also remember to not be so pompous that we should tell another person how to reach God.  God's own way for each of us suffices.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Very good JakeStarkey,
I'm telling people how I think they should if they ask. But I'm not insulting anyone else's belief structure.


----------



## Eightball

Bumpity Bump


----------



## froggy

If you don't know Joseph was a con man by now you are never gonna get it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I guess i'm never gonna get it then Frogger.  Happy New Year to all!!!


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> I guess i'm never gonna get it then Frogger.  Happy New Year to all!!!



make this the year u get out of denial. Happy New Year to you and bess wishes.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Very good, Truthspeaker, and we should also remember to not be so pompous that we should tell another person how to reach God.  God's own way for each of us suffices.



Not exactly sure how telling people to actually talk with God and find out from Him what He wants from you is pompous. Could you explain that?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> If you don't know Joseph was a con man by now you are never gonna get it.



Can you know something that is false?

How do you know that Jesus rose from the grave?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good, Truthspeaker, and we should also remember to not be so pompous that we should tell another person how to reach God.  God's own way for each of us suffices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly sure how telling people to actually talk with God and find out from Him what He wants from you is pompous. Could you explain that?
Click to expand...


My point, exactly.  I am glad you understand.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Please don't ever equate faith in Jesus with faith in Joseph Smith.  Shudder.


----------



## froggy

isn't it true that the mormons consider Joseph Smith to be God.


----------



## Eightball

froggy said:


> isn't it true that the mormons consider Joseph Smith to be God.



I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.

Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.

Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.

It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.


----------



## froggy

Eightball said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn't it true that the mormons consider Joseph Smith to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.
> 
> Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.
> 
> Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.
> 
> It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


Just because some con says you can doesn't make it true.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn't it true that the mormons consider Joseph Smith to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.
> 
> Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.
> 
> Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.
> 
> It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


That's a gross distortion of Mormon theology.

First, Smith is not considered to be a god, any more than any of the prophets of the Old Testament are considered to be gods by the Jewish or Catholic community.

Second, the doctrine that man is destined for godhood doesn't mean in this life, or very soon into the next.  Do you believe in eternal life?  Where do you see yourself in ten million more years?  A hundred?  If life is eternal, then it's a valid question, isn't it?


----------



## froggy

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn't it true that the mormons consider Joseph Smith to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.
> 
> Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.
> 
> Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.
> 
> It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a gross distortion of Mormon theology.
> 
> First, Smith is not considered to be a god, any more than any of the prophets of the Old Testament are considered to be gods by the Jewish or Catholic community.
> 
> Second, the doctrine that man is destined for godhood doesn't mean in this life, or very soon into the next.  Do you believe in eternal life?  Where do you see yourself in ten million more years?  A hundred?  If life is eternal, then it's a valid question, isn't it?
Click to expand...


how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.


----------



## Eightball

froggy said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.
> 
> Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.
> 
> Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.
> 
> It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a gross distortion of Mormon theology.
> 
> First, Smith is not considered to be a god, any more than any of the prophets of the Old Testament are considered to be gods by the Jewish or Catholic community.
> 
> Second, the doctrine that man is destined for godhood doesn't mean in this life, or very soon into the next.  Do you believe in eternal life?  Where do you see yourself in ten million more years?  A hundred?  If life is eternal, then it's a valid question, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Click to expand...


Excellent point Froggy!

Also they(Mormons) know very well that this godhood reference from me is not about earthly/human life but is after their death.

They are splitting hairs and trying to find fault in my statement.

I did not in my post say that they become gods in this present life.
******
Never the less, as you said Froggy, Jesus does say that there is one God, and not a multitude of them as the Mormon doctrine teaches.

Also, Jesus says that "No one can come to the Father(God) except through/by Me."

The Mormon Jesus is a contorted strange being.  

Another striking and apostate teaching from the Mormons is that Satan/Lucifer and Jesus were once brothers, with the same Papa.  Jesus got the nod from Papa God to go down to earth and be the savior of mankind, and his brother Satan/Lucifer jealously rebelled because of that.

Jesus refers to Lucifer as a fallen angel who rebelled against his Creator, God.  As a result he/Satan along with a third of the angels that joined ranks with Lucifer were also cast down/out of heaven to earth.  Today, they can be referred-to as demons, and Satan/Lucifer the old Serpent from the Garden is their Command and Chief.

God apparently gave "free-will" both to man and to the heavenly host of angelic beings that minister to Him in the heavenlies.
*****
Anyway, Froggy, your are straight-on with your inquirey about Jesus explaining how to pray, and "Whom" to pray too.


----------



## Skeptik

froggy said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.
> 
> Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.
> 
> Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.
> 
> It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a gross distortion of Mormon theology.
> 
> First, Smith is not considered to be a god, any more than any of the prophets of the Old Testament are considered to be gods by the Jewish or Catholic community.
> 
> Second, the doctrine that man is destined for godhood doesn't mean in this life, or very soon into the next.  Do you believe in eternal life?  Where do you see yourself in ten million more years?  A hundred?  If life is eternal, then it's a valid question, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question.  God is your father.  What child doesn't want to grow up to be like his father?


----------



## Eightball

Skeptik said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a gross distortion of Mormon theology.
> 
> First, Smith is not considered to be a god, any more than any of the prophets of the Old Testament are considered to be gods by the Jewish or Catholic community.
> 
> Second, the doctrine that man is destined for godhood doesn't mean in this life, or very soon into the next.  Do you believe in eternal life?  Where do you see yourself in ten million more years?  A hundred?  If life is eternal, then it's a valid question, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just answered your own question.  God is your father.  What child doesn't want to grow up to be like his father?
Click to expand...


Problem is you want to jump the Creator-creation gap which totally diminishes God's total "I AM" position.

Mormons like so many religions can't accept that God is not them nor are they able to become Him.  Never the less like most religions, it's humanistic origins feed into the comfort zone and safety of fallible humanity by offering godhood after death.....I.E. a type of immortality that is so off-base.

Jesus said He has prepared a place for all believers, but never did He say that "You too, can become just like Me".  Try and find that in both the old and new testament?

He is the Shepherd and we are the sheep.  That is if we are His, and that involves salvation, and Jesus laid that out pretty clearly.  "You must be born from above Nicodemus".

Also Mormons have such difficulty with just believing without the input of feelings, emotions, dreams, burning bosom experiences to re-inforce their belief system.  Instead the God says that faith comes from believing on His Word(Holy Scripture), which does not involve the eyes, dreams, smell.......etc...

Phillip met the Ethiopan Eunoch who was a very high rank in his country.  The gentleman was actually reading OT scripture on his way back to his native country from Jerusalem.  Phillip noticed and asked the Ethiopian if He undeerstood what he was reading?  The Ethiopian did not, and Phillip proceeded to show him how the OT foretold of the Messiah/Christ/Savior from no doubt Isaiah, Micah, Amos, Jeremiah, and many other OT books.  The Ethiopian "Believed!", and was baptized.  Phillip went on his way as God led, and the Ethiopian went home rejoicing in His new found faith and salvation.

It is the Word of God that transforms.......whether it was Jesus in person speaking or the scriptures working with the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent in His stead.
*******
Mormons don't realize that the enemy, Satan, is alive and well and keeps this world in perpetual detours from finding salvation, as he/Satan works on the ego, and Adamic/lost souls hopelessness with tantalizing little and big carrots to lead folks away from the Gospel.

There is absolutely know way to be sure that a vision or dream or urging is of God without going to the scriptures and seeing if it is in agreement.

Satan does not project himself as evil, but as a beautiful light and way for all.  He is the gread deceiver, and he has authored most of the religions of the world.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*"Problem is you want to jump the Creator-creation gap which totally diminishes God's total "I AM" position."*

Mormon alert: here is the point that the rest of traditional and historical Christianity gets pissed with you folks.  There is one God and His name is Jesus, and when you talk about maybe myriads of Jesuses working their way up the God chart, Christians get really, really pissed.  They won't take your heads off, though.


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
> 
> 
> 
> You just answered your own question.  God is your father.  What child doesn't want to grow up to be like his father?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem is you want to jump the Creator-creation gap which totally diminishes God's total "I AM" position.
> 
> Mormons like so many religions can't accept that God is not them nor are they able to become Him.  Never the less like most religions, it's humanistic origins feed into the comfort zone and safety of fallible humanity by offering godhood after death.....I.E. a type of immortality that is so off-base.
> 
> Jesus said He has prepared a place for all believers, but never did He say that "You too, can become just like Me".  Try and find that in both the old and new testament?
> 
> He is the Shepherd and we are the sheep.  That is if we are His, and that involves salvation, and Jesus laid that out pretty clearly.  "You must be born from above Nicodemus".
Click to expand...


If we are simply sheep, how can we be the children of god also?  Is god a sheep?



Eightball said:


> Also Mormons have such difficulty with just believing without the input of feelings, emotions, dreams, burning bosom experiences to re-inforce their belief system.  Instead the God says that faith comes from believing on His Word(Holy Scripture), which does not involve the eyes, dreams, smell.......etc...



How else can you possibly know?  You can't prove god by reading the Bible, nor by science, nor by any other means than personal revelation.  When Jesus asks Simon who he (Jesus) is, and Simon replies that Jesus is the Christ, son of God, Jesus says, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17).  That raises some interesting questions.  How, for example can one believe that Jesus is the Christ unless it is revealed to him by the Father?  Further, how is the father the same as Jesus (the trinity)?





Eightball said:


> It is the Word of God that transforms.......whether it was Jesus in person speaking or the scriptures working with the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent in His stead.



And how is one to prove whether the Bible is the word of god?  It is, after all, just a collection of ancient writings.
*******


Eightball said:


> Mormons don't realize that the enemy, Satan, is alive and well and keeps this world in perpetual detours from finding salvation, as he/Satan works on the ego, and Adamic/lost souls hopelessness with tantalizing little and big carrots to lead folks away from the Gospel.
> 
> There is absolutely know way to be sure that a vision or dream or urging is of God without going to the scriptures and seeing if it is in agreement.
> 
> Satan does not project himself as evil, but as a beautiful light and way for all.  He is the gread deceiver, and he has authored most of the religions of the world.




Actually, Mormons believe exactly that, except that they would be more likely to rely on personal inspiration.  Scripture, after all, can be difficult to interpret, and can be contradictory.


----------



## froggy

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just answered your own question.  God is your father.  What child doesn't want to grow up to be like his father?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is you want to jump the Creator-creation gap which totally diminishes God's total "I AM" position.
> 
> Mormons like so many religions can't accept that God is not them nor are they able to become Him.  Never the less like most religions, it's humanistic origins feed into the comfort zone and safety of fallible humanity by offering godhood after death.....I.E. a type of immortality that is so off-base.
> 
> Jesus said He has prepared a place for all believers, but never did He say that "You too, can become just like Me".  Try and find that in both the old and new testament?
> 
> He is the Shepherd and we are the sheep.  That is if we are His, and that involves salvation, and Jesus laid that out pretty clearly.  "You must be born from above Nicodemus".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we are simply sheep, how can we be the children of god also?  Is god a sheep?
> 
> 
> 
> How else can you possibly know?  You can't prove god by reading the Bible, nor by science, nor by any other means than personal revelation.  When Jesus asks Simon who he (Jesus) is, and Simon replies that Jesus is the Christ, son of God, Jesus says, &#8220;Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 16:17).  That raises some interesting questions.  How, for example can one believe that Jesus is the Christ unless it is revealed to him by the Father?  Further, how is the father the same as Jesus (the trinity)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Word of God that transforms.......whether it was Jesus in person speaking or the scriptures working with the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent in His stead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is one to prove whether the Bible is the word of god?  It is, after all, just a collection of ancient writings.
> *******
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons don't realize that the enemy, Satan, is alive and well and keeps this world in perpetual detours from finding salvation, as he/Satan works on the ego, and Adamic/lost souls hopelessness with tantalizing little and big carrots to lead folks away from the Gospel.
> 
> There is absolutely know way to be sure that a vision or dream or urging is of God without going to the scriptures and seeing if it is in agreement.
> 
> Satan does not project himself as evil, but as a beautiful light and way for all.  He is the gread deceiver, and he has authored most of the religions of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Mormons believe exactly that, except that they would be more likely to rely on personal inspiration.  Scripture, after all, can be difficult to interpret, and can be contradictory.
Click to expand...


God said there is one god we will never be gods. John 17:3 Jesus addresses his Father, saying, "And this is eternal life, that they know you&#8212;the only true God."


----------



## froggy

Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35 
See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39 
"Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4 
"You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" 2 Samuel 7:22 
"O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You" 1 Chronicles 17:20 
I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5 
"Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14 
"I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18 
"Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21 
"I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9 
"And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be the only one [echad], and His name the only one[echad]." Zechariah 14:9


----------



## Skeptik

froggy said:


> Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35
> See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39
> "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4
> "You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" 2 Samuel 7:22
> "O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You" 1 Chronicles 17:20
> I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5
> "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14
> "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18
> "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21
> "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9
> "And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be the only one [echad], and His name the only one[echad]." Zechariah 14:9



We have only one god, one father in heaven.  By the same token, we have only one father on earth as well.  What's the difference?


----------



## HUGGY

Ha...Ha...

Here is a "Truth" about the More Mans..  Desperate!  For over two weeks this thread was hovering at 102-103 thousand views.. Then as miraculously as the seagulls over The Great Salt Lake with "The List" threatening to bump this stupid thread off the most viewed list...*3000* views just popped up out of nowhere in less than 6 hours.  Truth Speaker is trying too hard.   Couldn't do it with replies so now it's down to the "hard work" of looking at his thread every 10 seconds...  WOW!  Give it up sport!  I buried you fair and square.

You should list your little reprieve as another Morman miracle. *TRUTH*speaker..


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35
> See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39
> "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4
> "You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" 2 Samuel 7:22
> "O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You" 1 Chronicles 17:20
> I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5
> "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14
> "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18
> "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21
> "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9
> "And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be the only one [echad], and His name the only one[echad]." Zechariah 14:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have only one god, one father in heaven.  By the same token, we have only one father on earth as well.  What's the difference?
Click to expand...


*You don't want to understand, *is that it, how the others think?  They believe in the one God, creator of ALL ALL ALL ALL.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Please don't ever equate faith in Jesus with faith in Joseph Smith.  Shudder.



Faith in any thing is proven by the same method. The power of the Holy Ghost.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> isn't it true that the mormons consider Joseph Smith to be God.



The answer to this question is a firm NO.


----------



## froggy

Skeptik said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him." Deuteronomy 4:35
> See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me" Deuteronomy 32:39
> "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" Deuteronomy 6:4
> "You are great, O Lord God; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You" 2 Samuel 7:22
> "O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You" 1 Chronicles 17:20
> I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God." Isaiah 45:5
> "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God." Isaiah 45:14
> "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18
> "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21
> "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me" Isaiah 46:9
> "And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; in that day Yahweh will be the only one [echad], and His name the only one[echad]." Zechariah 14:9
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have only one god, one father in heaven.  By the same token, we have only one father on earth as well.  What's the difference?
Click to expand...


we will never be gods.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> isn't it true that the mormons consider Joseph Smith to be God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.
> 
> Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.
> 
> Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.
> 
> It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...


Truth is often strange the first time you hear it. But things cease to be strange when they become known for a while. Try telling someone from the 5th century about cell phones, or walking on the moon, or the internet.

But Joseph is probably not a god yet. since it takes more than a couple hundred years to gain all knowledge.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't ever equate faith in Jesus with faith in Joseph Smith.  Shudder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in any thing is proven by the same method. The power of the Holy Ghost.
Click to expand...


Minority opinion on that.  Also you are in the minority of Joseph as a God.  Easily found on lds.org.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that he/Smith is figured to be a "god" of the highest order in their religion.
> 
> Why?  Because all Mormons can become "gods" if they live a good obedient life according to their church doctrines.
> 
> Their prophets said that they can also be gods of their own planets like our earth.
> 
> It is indeed amazing how so many have embraced Mormonism, but I think it has a lot to do with most LDS members not knowing the full extent of how strange, and outlandish their churchs' core beliefs are in respect to the nature of Christ/God/salvation/hell/Holy Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a gross distortion of Mormon theology.
> 
> First, Smith is not considered to be a god, any more than any of the prophets of the Old Testament are considered to be gods by the Jewish or Catholic community.
> 
> Second, the doctrine that man is destined for godhood doesn't mean in this life, or very soon into the next.  Do you believe in eternal life?  Where do you see yourself in ten million more years?  A hundred?  If life is eternal, then it's a valid question, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Click to expand...


You can become a god if God teaches you to be like him and he says so.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Eightball said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a gross distortion of Mormon theology.
> 
> First, Smith is not considered to be a god, any more than any of the prophets of the Old Testament are considered to be gods by the Jewish or Catholic community.
> 
> Second, the doctrine that man is destined for godhood doesn't mean in this life, or very soon into the next.  Do you believe in eternal life?  Where do you see yourself in ten million more years?  A hundred?  If life is eternal, then it's a valid question, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent point Froggy!
> 
> Also they(Mormons) know very well that this godhood reference from me is not about earthly/human life but is after their death.
> 
> They are splitting hairs and trying to find fault in my statement.
> 
> I did not in my post say that they become gods in this present life.
> ******
> Never the less, as you said Froggy, Jesus does say that there is one God, and not a multitude of them as the Mormon doctrine teaches.
> 
> Also, Jesus says that "No one can come to the Father(God) except through/by Me."
> 
> The Mormon Jesus is a contorted strange being.
> 
> Another striking and apostate teaching from the Mormons is that Satan/Lucifer and Jesus were once brothers, with the same Papa.  Jesus got the nod from Papa God to go down to earth and be the savior of mankind, and his brother Satan/Lucifer jealously rebelled because of that.
> 
> Jesus refers to Lucifer as a fallen angel who rebelled against his Creator, God.  As a result he/Satan along with a third of the angels that joined ranks with Lucifer were also cast down/out of heaven to earth.  Today, they can be referred-to as demons, and Satan/Lucifer the old Serpent from the Garden is their Command and Chief.
> 
> God apparently gave "free-will" both to man and to the heavenly host of angelic beings that minister to Him in the heavenlies.
> *****
> Anyway, Froggy, your are straight-on with your inquirey about Jesus explaining how to pray, and "Whom" to pray too.
Click to expand...


You actually explained it acurately, even if condescendingly. But those are our beliefs and we have our reasons for believing it.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> how can you become a god when jesus said God is your father: And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point Froggy!
> 
> Also they(Mormons) know very well that this godhood reference from me is not about earthly/human life but is after their death.
> 
> They are splitting hairs and trying to find fault in my statement.
> 
> I did not in my post say that they become gods in this present life.
> ******
> Never the less, as you said Froggy, Jesus does say that there is one God, and not a multitude of them as the Mormon doctrine teaches.
> 
> Also, Jesus says that "No one can come to the Father(God) except through/by Me."
> 
> The Mormon Jesus is a contorted strange being.
> 
> Another striking and apostate teaching from the Mormons is that Satan/Lucifer and Jesus were once brothers, with the same Papa.  Jesus got the nod from Papa God to go down to earth and be the savior of mankind, and his brother Satan/Lucifer jealously rebelled because of that.
> 
> Jesus refers to Lucifer as a fallen angel who rebelled against his Creator, God.  As a result he/Satan along with a third of the angels that joined ranks with Lucifer were also cast down/out of heaven to earth.  Today, they can be referred-to as demons, and Satan/Lucifer the old Serpent from the Garden is their Command and Chief.
> 
> God apparently gave "free-will" both to man and to the heavenly host of angelic beings that minister to Him in the heavenlies.
> *****
> Anyway, Froggy, your are straight-on with your inquirey about Jesus explaining how to pray, and "Whom" to pray too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually explained it acurately, even if condescendingly. But those are our beliefs and we have our reasons for believing it.
Click to expand...


because joe told you to believe that way.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Ha...Ha...
> 
> Here is a "Truth" about the More Mans..  Desperate!  For over two weeks this thread was hovering at 102-103 thousand views.. Then as miraculously as the seagulls over The Great Salt Lake with "The List" threatening to bump this stupid thread off the most viewed list...*3000* views just popped up out of nowhere in less than 6 hours.  Truth Speaker is trying too hard.   Couldn't do it with replies so now it's down to the "hard work" of looking at his thread every 10 seconds...  WOW!  Give it up sport!  I buried you fair and square.
> 
> You should list your little reprieve as another Morman miracle. *TRUTH*speaker..



I'll say this much Hugster about that: I don't even know where to look for the "most viewed threads". I really don't care. I certainly haven't spent much time on here so it couldn't be me viewing my own thread that much without saying something. it's a new year and i popped in to say happy new year and then people just started chiming in again. 
Is your thread still going? if so that's fantastic for you

But I care as much about that as I do for your opinions.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't ever equate faith in Jesus with faith in Joseph Smith.  Shudder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in any thing is proven by the same method. The power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minority opinion on that.  Also you are in the minority of Joseph as a God.  Easily found on lds.org.
Click to expand...


It is trivial to wonder what Joseph's status is at this time. I didn't say he was a god yet. He probably is not yet, but who knows. it has nothing to do with my salvation.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> *You don't want to understand, *is that it, how the others think?  They believe in the one God, creator of ALL ALL ALL ALL.



The scriptures that say that one god is the creator of ALL ALL ALL were written at a time when ALL ALL ALL meant the lands around the Mediterranean Sea.  The idea of endless stars and planets was not known and understood at the time.  People didn't even realize that the Earth was  round and that there were two unknown continents on the other side, let alone that there were countless other worlds.


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point Froggy!
> 
> Also they(Mormons) know very well that this godhood reference from me is not about earthly/human life but is after their death.
> 
> They are splitting hairs and trying to find fault in my statement.
> 
> I did not in my post say that they become gods in this present life.
> ******
> Never the less, as you said Froggy, Jesus does say that there is one God, and not a multitude of them as the Mormon doctrine teaches.
> 
> Also, Jesus says that "No one can come to the Father(God) except through/by Me."
> 
> The Mormon Jesus is a contorted strange being.
> 
> Another striking and apostate teaching from the Mormons is that Satan/Lucifer and Jesus were once brothers, with the same Papa.  Jesus got the nod from Papa God to go down to earth and be the savior of mankind, and his brother Satan/Lucifer jealously rebelled because of that.
> 
> Jesus refers to Lucifer as a fallen angel who rebelled against his Creator, God.  As a result he/Satan along with a third of the angels that joined ranks with Lucifer were also cast down/out of heaven to earth.  Today, they can be referred-to as demons, and Satan/Lucifer the old Serpent from the Garden is their Command and Chief.
> 
> God apparently gave "free-will" both to man and to the heavenly host of angelic beings that minister to Him in the heavenlies.
> *****
> Anyway, Froggy, your are straight-on with your inquirey about Jesus explaining how to pray, and "Whom" to pray too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually explained it acurately, even if condescendingly. But those are our beliefs and we have our reasons for believing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because joe told you to believe that way.
Click to expand...



NOT SO MUCH


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha...Ha...
> 
> Here is a "Truth" about the More Mans..  Desperate!  For over two weeks this thread was hovering at 102-103 thousand views.. Then as miraculously as the seagulls over The Great Salt Lake with "The List" threatening to bump this stupid thread off the most viewed list...*3000* views just popped up out of nowhere in less than 6 hours.  Truth Speaker is trying too hard.   Couldn't do it with replies so now it's down to the "hard work" of looking at his thread every 10 seconds...  WOW!  Give it up sport!  I buried you fair and square.
> 
> You should list your little reprieve as another Morman miracle. *TRUTH*speaker..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say this much Hugster about that: *I don't even know where to look for the "most viewed threads".* I really don't care. I certainly haven't spent much time on here so it couldn't be me viewing my own thread that much without saying something. it's a new year and i popped in to say happy new year and then people just started chiming in again.
> Is your thread still going? if so that's fantastic for you
> 
> But I care as much about that as I do for your opinions.
Click to expand...


Truthspeaker?  Maybe not so much...


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith in any thing is proven by the same method. The power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minority opinion on that.  Also you are in the minority of Joseph as a God.  Easily found on lds.org.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is trivial to wonder what Joseph's status is at this time. I didn't say he was a god yet. He probably is not yet, but who knows. it has nothing to do with my salvation.
Click to expand...


So your emphatic "No he isn't!" changed to a "Maybe, in time, but probably not yet?"?

If Joe can't cut it as a god of another planet then what Mormon can make it?  He's your founder/prophet................If you have your quibbles whether J. Smith will become a god, then you don't have much to stand on in your belief system.
********
Also, "We have our reasons for believing....." is about as deflective or vague as one can be in response.
*****
Biblical believing Christians know exactly why they believe and can articulate it clearly, and it isn't vague.
******
For 2,000 years the words withing the bible have transforming lives, bringing peace, strength, and major change from pride to humility to souls, but it isn't enough for the Mormon.

The Mormon wants to jump the Creator/created canyon and ururpt the "One God" Yahweh who said through His Son that there will and isn't any other Gods before me.

Intelligent design didn't come from a fallible human being who became a god.

Also the reference that Mormons love to quote from Jesus about the reminder to the Jews that they were referred to as gods, is totally used with a complete lack of scriptural/cultural understanding of the use of the word, "gods" in reference to the Jews.  Any good bible theologian knows that.

It is a poor attempt to hold-together their blasphemous doctrine of ascending to godhood through works or any means.

The clay can never become the Potter.  The Potter knows whats best for the clay and will do with it as He pleases as He is without sin, is Holy, and omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Mormons want to become potters, or God.  This is blasphemous teaching, would be considered apostatesy in the Christian church of the Apostles day as well as now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't want to understand, *is that it, how the others think?  They believe in the one God, creator of ALL ALL ALL ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures that say that one god is the creator of ALL ALL ALL were written at a time when ALL ALL ALL meant the lands around the Mediterranean Sea.  The idea of endless stars and planets was not known and understood at the time.  People didn't even realize that the Earth was  round and that there were two unknown continents on the other side, let alone that there were countless other worlds.
Click to expand...


Your comment is myopic to the question.  Folks today know the endlessness of creation yet more than a billion believe in the one God Who created all.  When you talk about many gods, they feel as if you are spitting on Jesus.  I am not exaggerating; that is how mainline Christians feel about the issue of many or endless gods.  To them you slight scriptures and insult God, and that is why they sometimes get very emotional about the issue.  You don't have to agree but you should truly try to understand.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't want to understand, *is that it, how the others think?  They believe in the one God, creator of ALL ALL ALL ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures that say that one god is the creator of ALL ALL ALL were written at a time when ALL ALL ALL meant the lands around the Mediterranean Sea.  The idea of endless stars and planets was not known and understood at the time.  People didn't even realize that the Earth was  round and that there were two unknown continents on the other side, let alone that there were countless other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is myopic to the question.  Folks today know the endlessness of creation yet more than a billion believe in the one God Who created all.  When you talk about many gods, they feel as if you are spitting on Jesus.  I am not exaggerating; that is how mainline Christians feel about the issue of many or endless gods.  To them you slight scriptures and insult God, and that is why they sometimes get very emotional about the issue.  You don't have to agree but you should truly try to understand.
Click to expand...


Folks today who know of endless creation, and yet believe that only one god created it all are basing their opinions on scripture written long before anyone understood that there could even be other worlds. That's why modern revelation is important:  God could not reveal everything to people of limited understanding, and still can't  There are no doubt many things to be revealed, as we become ready.

It's not "spitting on Jesus" to say that he is not alone.  Why would he want to be alone?  Is he some kind of hermit or something?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures that say that one god is the creator of ALL ALL ALL were written at a time when ALL ALL ALL meant the lands around the Mediterranean Sea.  The idea of endless stars and planets was not known and understood at the time.  People didn't even realize that the Earth was  round and that there were two unknown continents on the other side, let alone that there were countless other worlds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is myopic to the question.  Folks today know the endlessness of creation yet more than a billion believe in the one God Who created all.  When you talk about many gods, they feel as if you are spitting on Jesus.  I am not exaggerating; that is how mainline Christians feel about the issue of many or endless gods.  To them you slight scriptures and insult God, and that is why they sometimes get very emotional about the issue.  You don't have to agree but you should truly try to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks today who know of endless creation, and yet believe that only one god created it all are basing their opinions on scripture written long before anyone understood that there could even be other worlds. That's why modern revelation is important:  God could not reveal everything to people of limited understanding, and still can't  There are no doubt many things to be revealed, as we become ready.
> 
> It's not "spitting on Jesus" to say that he is not alone.  Why would he want to be alone?  Is he some kind of hermit or something?
Click to expand...


Not to you it isn't.  But if you talk down to them, you will not get the result you desire.  Certainly not if you equate Him with a "hermit."

That's my point.  You are not getting it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> So your emphatic "No he isn't!" changed to a "Maybe, in time, but probably not yet?"?


You must brush up on your reading comprehension skills. my emphatic "no he isn't" referred to the comment claiming we believe Joseph Smith is "God", not "a god". please read all the lettering in my sentencing.



> If Joe can't cut it as a god of another planet then what Mormon can make it?  He's your founder/prophet................If you have your quibbles whether J. Smith will become a god, then you don't have much to stand on in your belief system.


We never said anything about Joseph "not being able to cut it". It's just completely irrelevant to speculate about Joseph's plight in the afterlife. His purpose that has much to do with our salvation are the teachings he received from Jesus during his mortal life on earth. Beyond that is not necessary for us to know.



> Also, "We have our reasons for believing....." is about as deflective or vague as one can be in response.
> *****



On the contrary. The reasons i've said are the same reasons I've said since november of 2008. There's nothing in that statement that doesn't blanket all the doctrines i've already laid out in this thread. There is no hint of deflection.



> Biblical believing Christians know exactly why they believe and can articulate it clearly, and it isn't vague.
> ******


"Biblical Christians" is a vague term.

But what is it that you don't understand about our doctrines that seems so vague? Really? I haven't been as clear as noon day on this? Gimme a break. 



> For 2,000 years the words withing the bible have transforming lives, bringing peace, strength, and major change from pride to humility to souls, but it isn't enough for the Mormon.



That's right, the Book of Mormon isn't enough either, because man shall not live by bread or books alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God, whose words never cease.



> The Mormon wants to jump the Creator/created canyon and ururpt the "One God" Yahweh who said through His Son that there will and isn't any other Gods before me.



No we don't. We don't have any gods before Him. He is "The Most High". So if he is the "Most High" then logic would dictate that there are other gods who are "high" but not the "Most High". Genesis tried to make it clear by saying "let us" create man in "our" image. But the plural uses have some how escaped you. Disagree if you like but forgive us for interpreting that literally instead of wresting the scriptures as you have done.



> Intelligent design didn't come from a fallible human being who became a god.



Were you there? so then how can you prove otherwise? You believe one thing. We believe another. God knows.



> Also the reference that Mormons love to quote from Jesus about the reminder to the Jews that they were referred to as gods, is totally used with a complete lack of scriptural/cultural understanding of the use of the word, "gods" in reference to the Jews.  Any good bible theologian knows that.



Do they?



> It is a poor attempt to hold-together their blasphemous doctrine of ascending to godhood through works or any means.



"What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily verily I say unto you? Even as I AM."

That's a commandment for us to be like Him. Not a suggestion. So how can we be like Him if we don't receive all He has? How can we keep a commandment that is impossible? Simply, it is possible only through Jesus.



> The clay can never become the Potter.  The Potter knows whats best for the clay and will do with it as He pleases as He is without sin, is Holy, and omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.


Again your logic and analogy is fatally flawed. The potter is a live person. Clay is an object to be acted upon. We are not clay. We are the Potters children.



> Mormons want to become potters, or God.  This is blasphemous teaching, would be considered apostatesy in the Christian church of the Apostles day as well as now.



Yes we do want to become potters. But more importantly, God wants us to have all He has. It wasn't our idea. God knows.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is myopic to the question.  Folks today know the endlessness of creation yet more than a billion believe in the one God Who created all.  When you talk about many gods, they feel as if you are spitting on Jesus.  I am not exaggerating; that is how mainline Christians feel about the issue of many or endless gods.  To them you slight scriptures and insult God, and that is why they sometimes get very emotional about the issue.  You don't have to agree but you should truly try to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks today who know of endless creation, and yet believe that only one god created it all are basing their opinions on scripture written long before anyone understood that there could even be other worlds. That's why modern revelation is important:  God could not reveal everything to people of limited understanding, and still can't  There are no doubt many things to be revealed, as we become ready.
> 
> It's not "spitting on Jesus" to say that he is not alone.  Why would he want to be alone?  Is he some kind of hermit or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to you it isn't.  But if you talk down to them, you will not get the result you desire.  Certainly not if you equate Him with a "hermit."
> 
> That's my point.  You are not getting it.
Click to expand...


People who get incensed because someone believes differently than they do have a problem they will have to answer to God for.

People who are in the business of condemning others who believe differently to an endless Hell, have a problem they will have to answer for to God.

One of the greatest dangers of all mankind is to judge others when they are the ones who will be judged. That's how people "miss the mark" so to speak. Focusing on others beliefs when they should be focusing on their own. God is not the god of one group of people. He is everyone's god, even if they don't worship Him. He will judge with respect to all the factors we never consider. That is why we better not judge others. 

It is a common mistake made everyday by people who gain a little knowledge, to immediately suppose that they have more than they really have. Then pride sets in and they assume the judgment seat of God and commit great sin.

This is truth!!!! Who will hear it! I am happy to stand judgment at the last day for this last statement!


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, the issue is not with more than a billion folks who think you are mocking Jesus, truthspeaker.  The issue is with those who believe they can present a discussion without keeping in mind the issue in the first statement.  That is the only issue in play.

Your missionaries would be moe successful if they understood this about their subject audience.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the issue is not with more than a billion folks who think you are mocking Jesus, truthspeaker.  The issue is with those who believe they can present a discussion without keeping in mind the issue in the first statement.  That is the only issue in play.
> 
> Your missionaries would be moe successful if they understood this about their subject audience.



They've done a good job as is. And I would venture to say that they do understand said issue.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> No, the issue is not with more than a billion folks who think you are mocking Jesus, truthspeaker.  The issue is with those who believe they can present a discussion without keeping in mind the issue in the first statement.  That is the only issue in play.
> 
> Your missionaries would be moe successful if they understood this about their subject audience.



We mock Jesus by teaching about his Atonement? By teaching His life, death, and resurrection? By serving Him? And by teaching others to do the same?

Ever consider that it's not us that has the problem there?


----------



## Booster Bob

Mormons are a bunch of imbecile douchers. Golden plates, magic underwear... you couldn't be dumber if you tried.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Booster Bob said:


> Mormons are a bunch of imbecile douchers. Golden plates, magic underwear... you couldn't be dumber if you tried.



Thank you for your insightful remarks. It's clear you've done your research. Everyone!!! Hear Hear!! I have an announcement to make! It is Booster Bob that has finally made me realize that my religion is false. My life is now wrecked and my foundation crumbled. How will I go on with life


All this time. Thanks Bob


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the issue is not with more than a billion folks who think you are mocking Jesus, truthspeaker.  The issue is with those who believe they can present a discussion without keeping in mind the issue in the first statement.  That is the only issue in play.
> 
> Your missionaries would be moe successful if they understood this about their subject audience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We mock Jesus by teaching about his Atonement? By teaching His life, death, and resurrection? By serving Him? And by teaching others to do the same?
> 
> Ever consider that it's not us that has the problem there?
Click to expand...


You are making your determination by your standards without considering how potential evangelical, fundamentalist, and other conservative Christians "understand" what you are saying about the Christ.

That is simply foolish.


----------



## Booster Bob

Truthspeaker said:


> Booster Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are a bunch of imbecile douchers. Golden plates, magic underwear... you couldn't be dumber if you tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your insightful remarks. It's clear you've done your research. Everyone!!! Hear Hear!! I have an announcement to make! It is Booster Bob that has finally made me realize that my religion is false. My life is now wrecked and my foundation crumbled. How will I go on with life
> 
> 
> All this time. Thanks Bob
Click to expand...


No problem, if you have any more delusions, don't hesitate to ask for my help.


----------



## Eightball

Truthspeaker said:


> Booster Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are a bunch of imbecile douchers. Golden plates, magic underwear... you couldn't be dumber if you tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your insightful remarks. It's clear you've done your research. Everyone!!! Hear Hear!! I have an announcement to make! It is Booster Bob that has finally made me realize that my religion is false. My life is now wrecked and my foundation crumbled. How will I go on with life
> 
> 
> All this time. Thanks Bob
Click to expand...


Booster Bob aside:  You might think seriously about the "foundation" of your faith.........What is it built upon?  A solid rock or sand?


----------



## Skeptik

Eightball said:


> Booster Bob aside:  You might think seriously about the "foundation" of your faith.........What is it built upon?  A solid rock or sand?



Modern day prophecy is at least as firm of a foundation as Christianity itself.  Do you believe that Jesus raised Lazerus, turned water into wine, and fed a whole crowd from one little kid's lunchpail?  Was there really a universal flood?  Did the human race spring from two individuals?  Was Mary a virgin in the modern meaning of the word, or just a young woman who had yet to give birth?  Are Jesus, the father, and the holy ghost one and the same? How can a father and son be the same entity?  

No, if Christianity is correct, then Mormonism is most likely correct also.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

What does the mormon Church believe about the worship and praising of Christ the son instead of El-Yahweh the Father?

Furthermore, what does the Mormon Church belive about the Sabbath and the Rapture?

What is the origin of the name `Jesus', and what is his real biblical name?

Does it agree with research in the linlks provided...Why?

Sunday is NOT the Sabbath!

From Sabbath to Sunday

Secret Rapture Truth - Bible Prophecy

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RAPTURE

Yeshua, the real name of Jesus

How Did the Name Jesus Originate?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP5AD0AtK-4[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> You are making your determination by your standards without considering how potential evangelical, fundamentalist, and other conservative Christians "understand" what you are saying about the Christ.
> 
> That is simply foolish.



No. What would be foolish would be caring what they think of my faith in Christ.

Let them worship according to the dictates of their hearts. If I can't convince them that my way is better, ill do what I can to help them serve Christ their way.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

With so much progressive evil and deception at work in the world it's all we can do as Christians.... A house divided can not stand....


----------



## Avatar4321

Eightball said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Booster Bob said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are a bunch of imbecile douchers. Golden plates, magic underwear... you couldn't be dumber if you tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your insightful remarks. It's clear you've done your research. Everyone!!! Hear Hear!! I have an announcement to make! It is Booster Bob that has finally made me realize that my religion is false. My life is now wrecked and my foundation crumbled. How will I go on with life
> 
> 
> All this time. Thanks Bob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Booster Bob aside:  You might think seriously about the "foundation" of your faith.........What is it built upon?  A solid rock or sand?
Click to expand...


It's built upon the testimony of the Apostles, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God was born in the Meridean of Time, preached the Gospel to the people of Palestine, Called 12 Apostles, among other disciples, and then suffered, atoned, and died for our sins, rising the third day. Everything else is an appendage to that.

I find Christ to be a very solid foundation. It's His Church. He guides it today.

The only main difference between us is that I believe that Christ still speaks and you deny revelation after the Bible.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

I'm not a Mormon.... However, well said....


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Eightball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Booster Bob aside:  You might think seriously about the "foundation" of your faith.........What is it built upon?  A solid rock or sand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern day prophecy is at least as firm of a foundation as Christianity itself.  Do you believe that Jesus raised Lazerus, turned water into wine, and fed a whole crowd from one little kid's lunchpail?  Was there really a universal flood?  Did the human race spring from two individuals?  Was Mary a virgin in the modern meaning of the word, or just a young woman who had yet to give birth?  Are Jesus, the father, and the holy ghost one and the same? How can a father and son be the same entity?
> 
> No, if Christianity is correct, then Mormonism is most likely correct also.
Click to expand...


The beauty of it all is we don't have to remain in ignorance. We can study and ask the Lord and He will reveal Himself to us according to His time and pleasure.

In fact, I would contend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the strongest claim to being correct specifically because of revelation. We are to presume that the Lord who spoke so freely with those in the past have ceased to speak today? It's absurd. God doesn't love us any less today then He loved our Ancestors.

I find it amazing that despite the amount of times the Lord tells us to ask, search, etc. And makes it completely clear that the only way to know Him is through revelation from the Spirit, there are still many who would deny revelation and prophecy and according the Bible they believe "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy". (Rev 19:10)

I've this point far better articulated by Oliver Cowdery than myself:



> No men, in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up His Church, and especially when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
> 
> After writing the account given of the Saviors ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easy to be seen, as the prophet said it would be, that darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. *On reflecting further it was as easy to be seen that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. For the question might be asked, have men authority to administer in the name of Christ, who deny revelations, when His testimony is no less than the spirit of prophecy, and His religion based, built, and sustained by immediate revelations, in all ages of the world when He has had a people on earth?* If these facts were buried, and carefully concealed by men whose craft would have been in danger if once permitted to shine in the faces of men, they were no longer to us; and we only waited for the commandment to be given Arise and be baptized.



One has to ask, can those who deny that God can speak truly speak for God?

And especially those who argued that the Church needed to be reformed. Can the Church of God be reformed by man? I would argue no. If the Church was corrupted, the Church would need to be restored.

The Lord isn't silent. Nor will He be. Especially in the time in preparation for His coming. There is alot to do and no one can prepare without His help and guidence.

The beauty of it all is there will always be hope. Because of Christ. To take another quote from Oliver:



> Man may deceive his fellow-men, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till naught but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind.


----------



## Avatar4321

zeitgeist2012 said:


> With so much progressive evil and deception at work in the world it's all we can do as Christians.... A house divided can not stand....



I would gladly stand with you.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

God Bless....


----------



## Booster Bob

Mormons have their magic underwear wrapped too tightly around their head.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Wishing they are yours...pervert....


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> What does the mormon Church believe about the worship and praising of Christ the son instead of El-Yahweh the Father?



that it's not an instead of, but an also.  The first Article of Faith addresses this: "We believe in God, the Father, and his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost."



zeitgeist2012 said:


> Furthermore, what does the Mormon Church belive about the Sabbath and the Rapture?



Mormons believe that Christ will return soon, thus the term "latter days".  They believe that it really doesn't matter which day of the week is the Sabbath, so they worship on Sunday out of convenience.  



zeitgeist2012 said:


> What is the origin of the name `Jesus', and what is his real biblical name?



Not sure about that one.  Obviously, anyone born in Jesus time would have a name that would sound strange to our English speaking ears.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

It matters to God that his chosen day of worship is kept. Have you ever read up on the fourth commandment? Remember my day (the Sabbath) and keep it holy. This is a mark on my people.... Those who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Yahshua....

God said his name will be known throughout the land...this is so you will be without excuse.... Not the name some evil jerk made up and passed off on the rest of us....


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> It matters to God that his chosen day of worship is kept. Have you ever read up on the fourth commandment? Remember my day (the Sabbath) and keep it holy. This is a mark on my people.... Those who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Yahshua....
> 
> God said his name will be known throughout the land...this is so you will be without excuse.... Not the name some evil jerk made up and passed off on the rest of us....



Do you seriously believe that the calendar hasn't changed since the time of Jesus?  

Early Roman Calendar


> The Romans borrowed parts of their earliest known calendar from the Greeks. The calendar consisted of 10 months in a year of 304 days. The Romans seem to have ignored the remaining 61 days, which fell in the middle of winter. The 10 months were named Martius, Aprilis, Maius, Junius, Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November, and December. The last six names were taken from the words for five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten. Romulus, the legendary first ruler of Rome, is supposed to have introduced this calendar in the 700s B.C.E.
> 
> According to tradition, the Roman ruler Numa Pompilius added January and February to the calendar. This made the Roman year 355 days long. To make the calendar correspond approximately to the solar year, Numa also ordered the addition every other year of a month called Mercedinus. Mercedinus was inserted after February 23 or 24, and the last days of February were moved to the end of Mercedinus. In years when it was inserted, Mercedinus added 22 or 23 days to the year.



So, which day in the modern calendar is the Sabbath again?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

The calendar was in fact changed by the the Vicar of the pagan holy Roman empire to reflect the names of pagan gods and their pagan holy days. However, the Hebrew calendar still exists and is used, and is very accurate. God would not allow us to forget the day he made for us to keep holy or make it impossible for us to remember which day it was after telling us to remember it in a commandment.... Computers and astronomers can track and compute time very accuratly by planetary position over time....

Satuday has been and will remain God's holy day according to which day is marked as the last day of the week wherein God rested and made holy and not the first day which is sun god day...Sunday....


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> The calendar was in fact changed by the the Vicar of the pagan holy Roman empire to reflect the names of pagan gods and their pagan holy days. However, the Hebrew calendar still exists and is used, and is very accurate. God would not allow us to forget the day he made for us to keep holy or make it impossible for us to remember which day it was after telling us to remember it in a commandment.... Computers and astronomers can track and compute time very accuratly by planetary position over time....
> 
> Satuday has been and will remain God's holy day according to which day is marked as the last day of the week wherein God rested and made holy and not the first day which is sun god day...Sunday....



hmmmm.. and you're sure that Saturday is the same day that it was in the time of Christ?  How could that be done without modern prophecy?

How else would we know Saturn's day (saturday) or Sunday (the day of the sun), from  Wodensday (the day of Woden) or perphaps Thorsday?  We have to keep our gods days straight, of course.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

I believe I already answered that for you.... Why would we need prophecy to remember the day? The People of Israel never lost their identity or religion after being scattered for a couple thousand years and came back to re-establish Israel in a day just as prophecied.... So, what makes you believe it was forgotten?


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> I believe I already answered that for you.... Why would we need prophecy to remember the day? The People of Israel never lost their identity or religion after being scattered for a couple thousand years and came back to re-establish Israel in a day just as prophecied.... So, what makes you believe it was forgotten?



The fact that the calendar is not the same as it was back then, for one.  If you were to start with Saturday, then count the number of days since the proclamation was made about the Sabbath, then divided by seven, the odds of it being a Saturday would be about one in seven.  Record keeping that far back is a crapshoot at best.  

Do you know when Jesus birthday really is? How about his death and resurrection?  Shall we delve into the reasons why we celebrate December 25 and the way we schedule the Easter holiday?


----------



## Avatar4321

Christ was born in April. It was tax time.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Christ was born in April. It was tax time.



LOL!  I hadn't thought of that.  They were going to pay their taxes.  Had to get it done by midnight, April 15 no doubt.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> What does the mormon Church believe about the worship and praising of Christ the son instead of El-Yahweh the Father?


 The Church of Jesus Christ believes that the Son is equal to the Father but not the same person. All the Glory goes to the Father who asks us to worship him by worshipping his son also. We pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ who allows us to return to Him. The Father is the "Most High".




> Furthermore, what does the Mormon Church belive about the Sabbath and the Rapture?


The Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints believes that the Sabbath which used to be on Saturday was changed by Jesus to Sunday after his resurrection on the first day. We also believe that the righteous souls will be caught up in the clouds before Christ comes down to destroy the wicked at his second coming.



> What is the origin of the name `Jesus', and what is his real biblical name?


 Jesus is the anglicized version of the latin transliteration Ie-so-us, which came from the greek Ie-s-ous which was transliterated from the Hebrew name Yahshua
Does it agree with research in the linlks provided...Why? But no matter how it's transliterated and what we call him or pronounce, it is the same man we are referring to and that's why he has so many names. 

Sunday is NOT the Sabbath!

From Sabbath to Sunday

Secret Rapture Truth - Bible Prophecy

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RAPTURE

Yeshua, the real name of Jesus

How Did the Name Jesus Originate?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP5AD0AtK-4[/ame][/QUOTE]

I appreciate you contributing real substance to this discussion. Also if you're a 7th day adventists with a not-so-thinly-veiled agenda of arguing Saturday over Sunday, I will not engage in the argument. I have better things to debate, like politics. I am not going to debate religion. I will only clarify what we believe and debate falsehoods presented as "mormon doctrine".


----------



## Truthspeaker

So much bickering over issues, although important, like Sunday or Saturday(7th day adventist focus), or crucified vs. torture stake(jehovah's witness focus) I believe miss the mark and are not so important for our salvation. 
While proper symbolism, name pronunciation and historical facts can help us remember Christ and His Father, they become trivial things if they cause us to "miss the mark" by causing contentions and arguments and offend the spirit of God.

That's why Christ accused the Pharisees of missing the mark, telling them "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."

There is truth. let him who is not offended by it embrace it.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

That is your opinion, and not scriptual at all....


----------



## Avatar4321

zeitgeist2012 said:


> That is your opinion, and not scriptual at all....



it is if you don't limit the scriptures to only what's in the Bible.

Modern Revelation. Changes everything.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Avatar4321 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, and not scriptual at all....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is if you don't limit the scriptures to only what's in the Bible.
> 
> Modern Revelation. Changes everything.
Click to expand...



LOL....


----------



## HUGGY

Pity Bump.


----------



## Truthspeaker

zeitgeist2012 said:


> That is your opinion, and not scriptual at all....



What scriptures are you referring to? There are many.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

I'm not of this denomination. However, I do listen to many of this denominations lectures along with others who are not part of the Catholic Sunday Sabbath Doctine....

I find their teachings on scripture to be very accurate in all areas except for their interpretation of a couple pieces of scripture to justify saying Yahshua is God.... This is another issue in and of itself....

Listen to the videos with an open mind and bible in your hand and tell me what you think.... Mr. Asscherick covers the 70 week prophecy in detail, and I know it will suprise you...


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Pity Bump.



Admit it. You actually enjoy the conversation.


----------



## Avatar4321

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, and not scriptual at all....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is if you don't limit the scriptures to only what's in the Bible.
> 
> Modern Revelation. Changes everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL....
Click to expand...


Not sure exactly for your purpose in laughing. Could you expound?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

This is what I think about all the insanity in the world...


----------



## JohnA

The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy 
  are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?

  i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy


----------



## zeitgeist2012

JohnA said:


> The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy
> are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?
> 
> i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy




I guess the only thing left for you to believe and put your faith in is this...

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf


----------



## Truthspeaker

JohnA said:


> The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy
> are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?
> 
> i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy



That's fine for you I'm sure but people thought Joseph Smith was crazy too when he said there would be people walking on the moon back in the 19th century.


----------



## Truthspeaker

zeitgeist2012 said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy
> are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?
> 
> i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the only thing left for you to believe and put your faith in is this...
> 
> http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf
Click to expand...


I don't have time to read your book but i took a peek at it and it seems that the book is all about proving the "Born Gay" theory a hoax. I'm not sure how that fits in with our discussion.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy
> are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?
> 
> i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the only thing left for you to believe and put your faith in is this...
> 
> http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time to read your book but i took a peek at it and it seems that the book is all about proving the "Born Gay" theory a hoax. I'm not sure how that fits in with our discussion.
Click to expand...


It's called a diversion, to be used when there is no real argument left.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Actually, it is a slam against secular humanists, and biblical subversives who promote and practice perversion-Godlessness-lawlessness....


----------



## JohnA

zeitgeist2012 said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy
> are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?
> 
> i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the only thing left for you to believe and put your faith in is this...
> 
> http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf
Click to expand...

 And your point is sir ?????


----------



## JohnA

JakeStarkey said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't want to understand, *is that it, how the others think?  They believe in the one God, creator of ALL ALL ALL ALL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures that say that one god is the creator of ALL ALL ALL were written at a time when ALL ALL ALL meant the lands around the Mediterranean Sea.  The idea of endless stars and planets was not known and understood at the time.  People didn't even realize that the Earth was  round and that there were two unknown continents on the other side, let alone that there were countless other worlds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comment is myopic to the question.  Folks today know the endlessness of creation yet more than a billion believe in the one God Who created all.  When you talk about many gods, they feel as if you are spitting on Jesus.  I am not exaggerating; that is how mainline Christians feel about the issue of many or endless gods.  To them you slight scriptures and insult God, and that is why they sometimes get very emotional about the issue.  You don't have to agree but you should truly try to understand.
Click to expand...

to christians  there is only one god ,many other gods have  been recorded and wrote  about in papers (you only  acknowledge  yours as  scripture )  what  prove have  you got that other gods worshiped  in the past are  not as real as yours  ?
 secondly other than some writing in a ancient book  not in the first person what evidence have you got that  your god even exists ?

 there has never been found any proof of any god past or present
 you slight others who dont believe  the same as you do by denying  them there beliefs 
 so shut the fuck up


----------



## zeitgeist2012

In the words of yahshua who actually existed as a man and is recorded in history...GET THEE BEHIND ME...SATAN....


----------



## zeitgeist2012

JohnA said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The scriptures that say that one god is the creator of ALL ALL ALL were written at a time when ALL ALL ALL meant the lands around the Mediterranean Sea.  The idea of endless stars and planets was not known and understood at the time.  People didn't even realize that the Earth was  round and that there were two unknown continents on the other side, let alone that there were countless other worlds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comment is myopic to the question.  Folks today know the endlessness of creation yet more than a billion believe in the one God Who created all.  When you talk about many gods, they feel as if you are spitting on Jesus.  I am not exaggerating; that is how mainline Christians feel about the issue of many or endless gods.  To them you slight scriptures and insult God, and that is why they sometimes get very emotional about the issue.  You don't have to agree but you should truly try to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to christians  there is only one god ,many other gods have  been recorded and wrote  about in papers (you only  acknowledge  yours as  scripture )  what  prove have  you got that other gods worshiped  in the past are  not as real as yours  ?
> secondly other than some writing in a ancient book  not in the first person what evidence have you got that  your god even exists ?
> 
> there has never been found any proof of any god past or present
> you slight others who dont believe  the same as you do by denying  them there beliefs
> so shut the fuck up
Click to expand...


Creation science evidence...

Carl Baugh

Creation Evidence Museum, in Texas - Dr. Carl Baugh

Dr. Carl Baugh - 03/31/01 - KeelyNet

Creation Evidence Museum Online - General Information

The real face of Jesus...

Is This the Real Face of Jesus Christ? - ABC News

All documented scientific facts presented. Here are more facts:

The Zeitgeist Challenge | Refutations, Links, Videos and More | The Zeitgeist Challenge

Scientific evidence that evolution is a myth and the universe was created by God.... Learn my progressive little parrots....


http://www.reasons.org/evolution-mythology-part-1-5-theory-evolution-myth

Dr. Hugh Ross PhD. Lectures on "Creation as Science"


----------



## JohnA

Truthspeaker said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy
> are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?
> 
> i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine for you I'm sure but people thought Joseph Smith was crazy too when he said there would be people walking on the moon back in the 19th century.
Click to expand...

 Many pundits, scholers ,  writers , etc over the years have accurately predicted future events  .
 not all of them proclaim to be a prophet .
smith was a fiction story  writer nothing more .


----------



## JohnA

zeitgeist2012 said:


> In the words of yahshua who actually existed as a man and is recorded in history...GET THEE BEHIND ME...SATAN....


 I M BEHIND YEE ... NOW BEND OVER


----------



## zeitgeist2012

JohnA said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of yahshua who actually existed as a man and is recorded in history...GET THEE BEHIND ME...SATAN....
> 
> 
> 
> I M BEHIND YEE ... NOW BEND OVER
Click to expand...


Couldn't help coming out of your preverted closet.... Progressive liberal intelligence at its best.... A regular chip off the old nob.... So, give it back...it's not yours.....

If you had balls on your chin where would my log be????


----------



## JohnA

zeitgeist2012 said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of yahshua who actually existed as a man and is recorded in history...GET THEE BEHIND ME...SATAN....
> 
> 
> 
> I M BEHIND YEE ... NOW BEND OVER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Couldn't help coming out of your preverted closet.... Progressive liberal intelligence at its best.... A regular chip off the old nob.... So, give it back...it's not yours.....
> 
> If you had balls on your chin where would my log be????
Click to expand...

 not a liberal
 not gay 
 no god 
 no satan


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Atleast your only half wrong...anyway....


----------



## Avatar4321

JohnA said:


> The nearest to what they are  in the poll is crazy
> are not  all believers in a supreme being  as stupid as each other . ?
> 
> i give no more credence  to their   beliefs than  i do to those who believe   in the loch ness monster   or  the sugar   plum fairy



That's because you dont understand them nor do you try to understand them. That's your perogative.

Personally, I prefer not to be ignorant of what others think.


----------



## Avatar4321

JohnA said:


> Many pundits, scholers ,  writers , etc over the years have accurately predicted future events  .
> not all of them proclaim to be a prophet .
> smith was a fiction story  writer nothing more .



And how much of his writings have you actually read?


----------



## Avatar4321

Can we actually have some discussion here or is it just going to be "You're gay" crap?


----------



## JohnA

Avatar4321 said:


> Can we actually have some discussion here or is it just going to be "You're gay" crap?


 Your the one who started the gay crap with this  reply which is now defunct 


MassResistance - Page not found!

 if you cant finish it dont start it .


----------



## Christopher

JohnA said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we actually have some discussion here or is it just going to be "You're gay" crap?
> 
> 
> 
> Your the one who started the gay crap with this  reply which is now defunct
> 
> 
> MassResistance - Page not found!
> 
> if you cant finish it dont start it .
Click to expand...


Avatar did not start it, nor participate in it.  Go back and read the post from the person who did.


----------



## Avatar4321

Christopher said:


> Avatar did not start it, nor participate in it.  Go back and read the post from the person who did.



I don't get the impression that he really cares.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar did not start it, nor participate in it.  Go back and read the post from the person who did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't get the impression that he really cares.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure you're right.  
Facts and logic seldom sway anyone's opinions on this or any other forum where politics and religion are being discussed.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

These links work fine for me...

MassResistance!

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Avatar4321 said:


> Can we actually have some discussion here or is it just going to be "You're gay" crap?



Here is some serious info...

What do Creation Scientists Believe?

What do Creation Scientists Believe?

THE WORLDS GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS

World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K

Creation Scientists with Outstanding Achievements 

Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

Fossil Discovery Reshuffles Dino Evolution Again

A newly discovered dinosaur has forced another re-write of the evolutionary dinosaur origins story. The tiny Eodromaeus skeleton unearthed in South America "boots out" the previously designated dinosaur common ancestor.

Evolutionary "history" continuously morphs to accommodate fossil data, showing that evolution is primarily conceptualnot scientific. More...

The Institute for Creation Research


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we actually have some discussion here or is it just going to be "You're gay" crap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some serious info...
> 
> What do Creation Scientists Believe?
> 
> What do Creation Scientists Believe?
> 
> THE WORLD&#8217;S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS
> 
> World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K
> 
> Creation Scientists with Outstanding Achievements
> 
> Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials
> 
> Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
> 
> Fossil Discovery Reshuffles Dino Evolution Again
> 
> A newly discovered dinosaur has forced another re-write of the evolutionary dinosaur origins story. The tiny Eodromaeus skeleton unearthed in South America "boots out" the previously designated dinosaur common ancestor.
> 
> Evolutionary "history" continuously morphs to accommodate fossil data, showing that evolution is primarily conceptual&#8212;not scientific. More...
> 
> The Institute for Creation Research
Click to expand...


1.  There is no such thing as "creation science."  Creationism is a religious interpretation of ancient writings, and not supported by science in any way whatsoever.

2.  So what?  This is a thread about Mormon beliefs. Mormons don't have a problem with evolution and don't subscribe to the absurd "young Earth" notion.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

You are crazy and know not what you say....


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> You are crazy and know not what you say....



Now, *there's* a brilliant reparte.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Well as far as my personal belief about creation I believe God created the world in 6 periods of time. Who knows what years he was referring to. it couldn't have been earth years if earth wasn't created yet. Do I believe the world is 6000 years old. No, for now I don't think so. But what I have learned is that the mysteries of the past will all be unfolded in due time of the Lord. 

Do I believe we evolved from lesser apes? no absolutely not. It is illogical the more I think about it. I'm not a scientist but the evolution of humans theory is completely baseless as far as i'm concerned. All argument's I've heard to the contrary, at the end of the day, have nothing but theoretic speculation behind them.

I believe that things evolve to a point, but not to the ridiculous proportions imagined by some scientists. I dislike the theory of evolution being taught as though it were law. I hate it immenseley actually. There is so much to learn about the past that we should be keeping theories theories until proof is actually found. 

Anywhoo. It is far more important to learn to excercise faith than to scramble around looking for proof. Faith is the shortest route to proof in the universe.

I kinda like that quote. I'm gonna quote it and make T-shirts for believers.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Do I believe we evolved from lesser apes? no absolutely not. It is illogical the more I think about it. I'm not a scientist but the evolution of humans theory is completely baseless as far as i'm concerned. All argument's I've heard to the contrary, at the end of the day, have nothing but theoretic speculation behind them.



Despite the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?  

What is it that is so unique about humans that you don't believe that we evolved like every other creature on Earth?  Is it our bodies, or our spirits?


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I believe we evolved from lesser apes? no absolutely not. It is illogical the more I think about it. I'm not a scientist but the evolution of humans theory is completely baseless as far as i'm concerned. All argument's I've heard to the contrary, at the end of the day, have nothing but theoretic speculation behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?
> 
> What is it that is so unique about humans that you don't believe that we evolved like every other creature on Earth?  Is it our bodies, or our spirits?
Click to expand...


Agency


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I believe we evolved from lesser apes? no absolutely not. It is illogical the more I think about it. I'm not a scientist but the evolution of humans theory is completely baseless as far as i'm concerned. All argument's I've heard to the contrary, at the end of the day, have nothing but theoretic speculation behind them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?
> 
> What is it that is so unique about humans that you don't believe that we evolved like every other creature on Earth?  Is it our bodies, or our spirits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agency
Click to expand...


agency resides in the spirit, not in the physical body.  So, why couldn't modern humans have evolved like every other creature on earth?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Modern scientist have no evidece of real evolution.... And, You can not get life from non-life.... If you dig down into the earth you will hit a layer where no life existed.... No cow has ever turned into a horse....


----------



## JakeStarkey

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Modern scientist have no evidece of real evolution.... And, You can not get life from non-life.... If you dig down into the earth you will hit a layer where no life existed.... No cow has ever turned into a horse....



You conflate the origins of species with the origins of life.  Until you demonstrate you know the difference, what you have to say here is meaningless.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Yeah Right.... Back it up progressive parrot! I can...

Top Evidences for Creation
(and Against Evolution)

Evidence Against Evolution

Top Evidences for Creation

Fossil data
Fossil Formation

Evidence Against Evolution


----------



## JakeStarkey

"progressive parrot" is a born again Christian, so I am not concerned about that.  Until you demonstrate that you understand the difference between, instead of conflating, the origins of life and the origins of species, then you can't be taken seriously.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

You just keep on convincing yourself of that and ignor the fact...and you will remain progressively ignorant...polly want a cracker....


----------



## JakeStarkey

zeitgeist2012 said:


> You just keep on convincing yourself of that and ignor the fact...and you will remain progressively ignorant...polly want a cracker....



In other words, your cards are busted.  That's OK.


----------



## Da Word

Truthspeaker said:


> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
Click to expand...


Is that when all the anal sex goes on?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Despite the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?


the percentage is irrelevant to me. I think all it does is illustrate the difference between a body controlled by a spirit child of God with the gift of agency and supreme intelligence, compared to bodies of apes with spirits of apes, not given the gift, and I emphasize the word gift, of agency and the one physical gift we have that other animals don't have, the supremely dexterous human hand. It also illustrates God's workmanship.  



> What is it that is so unique about humans that you don't believe that we evolved like every other creature on Earth?  Is it our bodies, or our spirits?



As I mentioned earlier, agency, intelligence and dexterity of hand are the main difference. Not just any difference though. It's a quantum leap in all three areas. The quantum leap alone shows that the evolution theory is illogical in my opinion. Evolution in theory is supposed to be, at least from my understanding a very slow process of change over time. My simpleton mind would have me reason that if that was so, humans wouldn't be the only ones with this level of intelligence after millions of years of evolution. surely there would be other ape species that were more advanced mentally than they were millions of years ago but they simply haven't evolved any more intelligently since then. 

More simply put. We should have many species of apes and other animals sitting next to us in our cubicles by now.

That's why evolution doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Despite the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?
> 
> 
> 
> the percentage is irrelevant to me. I think all it does is illustrate the difference between a body controlled by a spirit child of God with the gift of agency and supreme intelligence, compared to bodies of apes with spirits of apes, not given the gift, and I emphasize the word gift, of agency and the one physical gift we have that other animals don't have, the supremely dexterous human hand. It also illustrates God's workmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that is so unique about humans that you don't believe that we evolved like every other creature on Earth?  Is it our bodies, or our spirits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, agency, intelligence and dexterity of hand are the main difference. Not just any difference though. It's a quantum leap in all three areas. The quantum leap alone shows that the evolution theory is illogical in my opinion. Evolution in theory is supposed to be, at least from my understanding a very slow process of change over time. My simpleton mind would have me reason that if that was so, humans wouldn't be the only ones with this level of intelligence after millions of years of evolution. surely there would be other ape species that were more advanced mentally than they were millions of years ago but they simply haven't evolved any more intelligently since then.
> 
> More simply put. We should have many species of apes and other animals sitting next to us in our cubicles by now.
> 
> That's why evolution doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...


That  quantum leap didn't happen all at once.  First, there were hominids that walked upright.  That led to the forelegs being adapted to carrying things and manipulating things, as they were no longer used for walking.  Meanwhile, the head, no longer held at an angle, could be heavier and still supported by the neck.  Then, there were several species of the genus homo.  Just why they all died out is not known, but it does appear that homo sapiens was more adaptable, and so survived, just as other adaptable species have survived and continue to do so.  Once the body and brain were sufficiently evolved, then the human spirit was ready to inhabit the body.  Spirits don't evolve, but bodies do, including ours.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees?
> 
> 
> 
> the percentage is irrelevant to me. I think all it does is illustrate the difference between a body controlled by a spirit child of God with the gift of agency and supreme intelligence, compared to bodies of apes with spirits of apes, not given the gift, and I emphasize the word gift, of agency and the one physical gift we have that other animals don't have, the supremely dexterous human hand. It also illustrates God's workmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it that is so unique about humans that you don't believe that we evolved like every other creature on Earth?  Is it our bodies, or our spirits?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, agency, intelligence and dexterity of hand are the main difference. Not just any difference though. It's a quantum leap in all three areas. The quantum leap alone shows that the evolution theory is illogical in my opinion. Evolution in theory is supposed to be, at least from my understanding a very slow process of change over time. My simpleton mind would have me reason that if that was so, humans wouldn't be the only ones with this level of intelligence after millions of years of evolution. surely there would be other ape species that were more advanced mentally than they were millions of years ago but they simply haven't evolved any more intelligently since then.
> 
> More simply put. We should have many species of apes and other animals sitting next to us in our cubicles by now.
> 
> That's why evolution doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That  quantum leap didn't happen all at once.  First, there were hominids that walked upright.  That led to the forelegs being adapted to carrying things and manipulating things, as they were no longer used for walking.  Meanwhile, the head, no longer held at an angle, could be heavier and still supported by the neck.  Then, there were several species of the genus homo.  Just why they all died out is not known, but it does appear that homo sapiens was more adaptable, and so survived, just as other adaptable species have survived and continue to do so.  Once the body and brain were sufficiently evolved, then the human spirit was ready to inhabit the body.  Spirits don't evolve, but bodies do, including ours.
Click to expand...


Well this theory is too much of a whopper for me to believe. Just as many may say the miracles we believe in our religion are too much of a whopper for them to believe. Anything is possible with God and if God did choose to evolve our bodies over millions of years then so be it. But I believe the Bible with regard to the matter as God "placed" man here, not evolved him over time. 
The evolution of our bodies still has too many holes in the story for me to believe. I believe all adaptations over time are caused by God, not by the bodies themselves. I believe God's timing is used in causing adaptations but I don't think bodies adapt themselves without his direction.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Creationist Anti-Evolution Fraud Exposed at Dinosaur Valley Texas
Creationist Anti-Evolution Fraud Exposed at Dinosaur Valley Texas

Evolution Fraud

Evolution is false, say many reputable scientists who are not blinded by a hatred for God - The Science of Today

Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation - Conservapedia

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Textbook Fraud

Evolution Fraud in School Scienfic Textbooks


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> the percentage is irrelevant to me. I think all it does is illustrate the difference between a body controlled by a spirit child of God with the gift of agency and supreme intelligence, compared to bodies of apes with spirits of apes, not given the gift, and I emphasize the word gift, of agency and the one physical gift we have that other animals don't have, the supremely dexterous human hand. It also illustrates God's workmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, agency, intelligence and dexterity of hand are the main difference. Not just any difference though. It's a quantum leap in all three areas. The quantum leap alone shows that the evolution theory is illogical in my opinion. Evolution in theory is supposed to be, at least from my understanding a very slow process of change over time. My simpleton mind would have me reason that if that was so, humans wouldn't be the only ones with this level of intelligence after millions of years of evolution. surely there would be other ape species that were more advanced mentally than they were millions of years ago but they simply haven't evolved any more intelligently since then.
> 
> More simply put. We should have many species of apes and other animals sitting next to us in our cubicles by now.
> 
> That's why evolution doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That  quantum leap didn't happen all at once.  First, there were hominids that walked upright.  That led to the forelegs being adapted to carrying things and manipulating things, as they were no longer used for walking.  Meanwhile, the head, no longer held at an angle, could be heavier and still supported by the neck.  Then, there were several species of the genus homo.  Just why they all died out is not known, but it does appear that homo sapiens was more adaptable, and so survived, just as other adaptable species have survived and continue to do so.  Once the body and brain were sufficiently evolved, then the human spirit was ready to inhabit the body.  Spirits don't evolve, but bodies do, including ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well this theory is too much of a whopper for me to believe. Just as many may say the miracles we believe in our religion are too much of a whopper for them to believe. Anything is possible with God and if God did choose to evolve our bodies over millions of years then so be it. But I believe the Bible with regard to the matter as God "placed" man here, not evolved him over time.
> The evolution of our bodies still has too many holes in the story for me to believe. I believe all adaptations over time are caused by God, not by the bodies themselves. I believe God's timing is used in causing adaptations but I don't think bodies adapt themselves without his direction.
Click to expand...


One thing that makes Mormonism easier to swallow than the evangelical view of Christianity is  the idea that the Earth was created in six "periods of time" rather than in six days, thus making it unnecessary to stand reason on its head or use the "with god all things are possible" argument to try to discredit a century and a half of scientific research.  Sure, if all things are possible with god, then it follows that he could have simply started molding dust into human form and breathed life into it, as described to a people who had no concept of modern science.  The evidence, however, is that god started with a single cell, then gradually created all life as we know it, including human life.  If we are indeed so much different from the other creatures on this Earth, it is because of our spirits and not out bodies.

Further, we're not as different from our fellow creatures as many humans would like to think.


----------



## JakeStarkey

skeptik, you are assigning the "evangelical" POV to an entire series of groups, many who would chide for so doing.  This would be similar to assigning Cleon Skousen's nonsense to all of Mormonism.

Think through what you say before you broad brush, something you resent done to Mormonism.


----------



## froggy

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> the percentage is irrelevant to me. I think all it does is illustrate the difference between a body controlled by a spirit child of God with the gift of agency and supreme intelligence, compared to bodies of apes with spirits of apes, not given the gift, and I emphasize the word gift, of agency and the one physical gift we have that other animals don't have, the supremely dexterous human hand. It also illustrates God's workmanship.
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned earlier, agency, intelligence and dexterity of hand are the main difference. Not just any difference though. It's a quantum leap in all three areas. The quantum leap alone shows that the evolution theory is illogical in my opinion. Evolution in theory is supposed to be, at least from my understanding a very slow process of change over time. My simpleton mind would have me reason that if that was so, humans wouldn't be the only ones with this level of intelligence after millions of years of evolution. surely there would be other ape species that were more advanced mentally than they were millions of years ago but they simply haven't evolved any more intelligently since then.
> 
> More simply put. We should have many species of apes and other animals sitting next to us in our cubicles by now.
> 
> That's why evolution doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That  quantum leap didn't happen all at once.  First, there were hominids that walked upright.  That led to the forelegs being adapted to carrying things and manipulating things, as they were no longer used for walking.  Meanwhile, the head, no longer held at an angle, could be heavier and still supported by the neck.  Then, there were several species of the genus homo.  Just why they all died out is not known, but it does appear that homo sapiens was more adaptable, and so survived, just as other adaptable species have survived and continue to do so.  Once the body and brain were sufficiently evolved, then the human spirit was ready to inhabit the body.  Spirits don't evolve, but bodies do, including ours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well this theory is too much of a whopper for me to believe. Just as many may say the miracles we believe in our religion are too much of a whopper for them to believe. Anything is possible with God and if God did choose to evolve our bodies over millions of years then so be it. But I believe the Bible with regard to the matter as God "placed" man here, not evolved him over time.
> The evolution of our bodies still has too many holes in the story for me to believe. I believe all adaptations over time are caused by God, not by the bodies themselves. I believe God's timing is used in causing adaptations but I don't think bodies adapt themselves without his direction.
Click to expand...


that just proves the same creator created everything.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> skeptik, you are assigning the "evangelical" POV to an entire series of groups, many who would chide for so doing.  This would be similar to assigning Cleon Skousen's nonsense to all of Mormonism.
> 
> Think through what you say before you broad brush, something you resent done to Mormonism.



OK, point taken.  What do we call those fundamentalist churches that continue to claim that 150 years of science has to be mistaken because of their interpretation of ancient writings?  

Other than simply wrong, of course.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> skeptik, you are assigning the "evangelical" POV to an entire series of groups, many who would chide for so doing.  This would be similar to assigning Cleon Skousen's nonsense to all of Mormonism.
> 
> Think through what you say before you broad brush, something you resent done to Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, point taken.  What do we call those fundamentalist churches that continue to claim that 150 years of science has to be mistaken because of their interpretation of ancient writings?
> 
> Other than simply wrong, of course.
Click to expand...


Those church groups that do such are not speaking in the name of Christ, only in their own.

And, yes, they are wrong.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> skeptik, you are assigning the "evangelical" POV to an entire series of groups, many who would chide for so doing.  This would be similar to assigning Cleon Skousen's nonsense to all of Mormonism.
> 
> Think through what you say before you broad brush, something you resent done to Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, point taken.  What do we call those fundamentalist churches that continue to claim that 150 years of science has to be mistaken because of their interpretation of ancient writings?
> 
> Other than simply wrong, of course.
Click to expand...


What evolutionists don't understand is that they do the same thing that creationists do. They interpret their findings without anything "concrete" to stand on. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. Science is always changing and reinterpreting it's theories in light of the most recent findings. Science is only as up to date as it's most recent findings. Scientists know as little about the mysteries of the universe as the so called creationists.  I think both sides are privy to information the other doesn't care to consider. This happens all too often. Therein lies the problem. 

I believe I have found revelation on this matter through the words of prophets and the answers generally tend to be somewhere in the middle when it comes to these type of subjects.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.



Im fairly confident that what you are describing isn't evolution.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im fairly confident that what you are describing isn't evolution.
Click to expand...


I don't think that Truth thinks that.  I believe he is saying that the Lord's creation is ever amazing and astonishing.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Mormons are nothing more than another Christian sect who believe they follow Christ.... It's not really that complicated.... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.... They just happen to have a different prophet who provides an early South and North American history which is very interesting to say the least.... Don't knock it until you have read it.... I would not have a problem with the Mormon religion if they did not practice the Catholic sunday sabbath which ties them and their prophet Joe Smith in with the corrupted modern day protestant movement negating the teachings of Christ, believe circumcision is null, or that the real name of the Christ is Jesus instead of Yahshua....

Why the Protestant Reformation Failed!

Why the Protestant Reformation Failed

The Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham 

#6. The Covenant of Circumcision with Abraham (Genesis 17)

Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus Or Jesus 

The Sacred Name or True Name 

Yahshua, Yehoshua, Y'shua, Yeshua, Iesous, Iesus, or Jesus The Sacred Name or True Name

Think To Change Times And Laws:
Daniel 7:25 In The Catechism Of The Catholic Church

Daniel 7:25 In The Catechism Of The Catholic Church

Remnant Church...

True Personal Testimonies: CARLO TOGNONI

Remnant Church of God


----------



## Avatar4321

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Mormons are nothing more than another Christian sect who believe they follow Christ.... It's not really that complicated.... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.... They just happen to have a different prophet who provides an early South and North American history which is very interesting to say the least.... Don't knock it until you have read it.... I would not have a problem with the Mormon religion if they did not practice the Catholic sunday sabbath which ties them and their prophet Joe Smith in with the corrupted modern day protestant movement negating the teachings of Christ, believe circumcision is null, or that the real name of the Christ is Jesus instead of Yahshua....



Still have a problem with revelation eh?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

No...and Yes.... It is being fulfilled.... Should I rejoyce or cry?


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.



Not very tasty food.

What you're describing is metamorphosis, not evolution.  

 Evolution describes how god created life on Earth, including human life.  It is supported by a century and a half of scientific research.  Creationism is supported by thin air, and nothing more.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im fairly confident that what you are describing isn't evolution.
Click to expand...


I guess you could call in Metamorphosis.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very tasty food.
> 
> What you're describing is metamorphosis, not evolution.
> 
> Evolution describes how god created life on Earth, including human life.  It is supported by a century and a half of scientific research.  Creationism is supported by thin air, and nothing more.
Click to expand...


Well the theory of evolution describes how things change over time. "Scientific" is a very subjective term in my opinion. Because the science, doesn't have any concrete information. Only speculation after a certain point. That's why it's called a theory, not a law, like the law of Gravity.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im fairly confident that what you are describing isn't evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you could call in Metamorphosis.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that would be exactly what you call it.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it is fascinating how quickly evolution can happen sometimes, like how a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly so quickly. Or Tadpoles into Frogs, or larvae into mosquitoes. Just food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very tasty food.
> 
> What you're describing is metamorphosis, not evolution.
> 
> Evolution describes how god created life on Earth, including human life.  It is supported by a century and a half of scientific research.  Creationism is supported by thin air, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the theory of evolution describes how things change over time. "Scientific" is a very subjective term in my opinion. Because the science, doesn't have any concrete information. Only speculation after a certain point. That's why it's called a theory, not a law, like the law of Gravity.
Click to expand...


Science is well defined.  The scientific method is the basis for any theories and hypotheses that the scientists support.  

A theory does not become a theory until it has been proven over and over by many different people in many different places.  The theory of evolution, like the germ theory of disease, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  No one tries to use leeches to cure tuberculosis any more. 

New  discoveries are being made all of the time, some of which change the details of how life evolved, but none of which has challenged the basic theory of life having evolved.  Until recently, for example, the generally accepted hypothesis was that the dinosaurs were much like today's reptiles.  Recent findings of dinos with feathers, however, have challenged that and made the mainstream hypothesis that the birds descended from dinosaurs.  Note the difference:  that is still the hypothesis, which is quite different from a theory. 

Interesting, isn't it, to think that the hummingbird may have a T Rex in its ancestry?  It's just one of the wonders of creation, yet the creationists keep trying to deny such wonders in the mistaken belief that evolution precludes a creator.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Scientifically speaking, a theory is an educated guess, and it does not have to be vailid as long as it is workable.... The problem with evolution is that it is not workable unless they concoct collected evidence to give validity to a bogus theory....


----------



## Eightball

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Scientifically speaking, a theory is an educated guess, and it does not have to be vailid as long as it is workable.... The problem with evolution is that it is not workable unless they concoct collected evidence to give validity to a bogus theory....



How about we get back to the "Evolution Of Mormonism". 

Seems like this topic is way off the original, and in some ways is being subtley "hijacked".


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Scientifically speaking, a theory is an educated guess, and it does not have to be vailid as long as it is workable.... The problem with evolution is that it is not workable unless they concoct collected evidence to give validity to a bogus theory....



No, an hypothesis is an educated guess, while a theory is one that has proven correct, over and over.  Mormons and Catholics have no problem with the theory of evolution, only fundamentalist Christians who insist on a literal interpretation of ancient writings.  

But eightball is right:  This is getting off topic some.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Wrong... A theory can only be proven to be valid if the results can be duplicated on a consistant basis....

Modern findings in human biology, genetics, earth science, archeology, and astophysics have proven evolution to be largly false, and only feeble attempts to present falsified evidence in support of evolution has been presented to the world thus far....


----------



## JakeStarkey

The following statement "Modern findings in human biology, genetics, earth science, archeology, and astophysics have proven evolution to be largly false" is nothing than a feeble falsehood.  Let's move on.


----------



## Avatar4321

Yes, let's move on.

Assertion: Mormons are cool

Discuss.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormon are cool under the fan and in the AC.


----------



## zeitgeist2012




----------



## Avatar4321

zeitgeist2012 said:


>



Okay? Care to elaborate?


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd says dey's harmless...

... `cept when dey go marryin' all dem white womens.


----------



## Avatar4321

ok?


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Yes, let's move on.
> 
> Assertion: Mormons are cool
> 
> Discuss.



Agreed.

Mormons are cool.  They hate abortion, but don't bomb abortion clinics.
They take religion very seriously, but don't believe in jihad.
They believe in god, but don't try to deny modern science.
They are family oriented to a fault.  As a result, their children are more likely than most to succeed in life.

Feel free to add to the list.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Avatar4321 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay? Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...


Just a prayer for the blind and deaf lost souls....


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not very tasty food.
> 
> What you're describing is metamorphosis, not evolution.
> 
> Evolution describes how god created life on Earth, including human life.  It is supported by a century and a half of scientific research.  Creationism is supported by thin air, and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the theory of evolution describes how things change over time. "Scientific" is a very subjective term in my opinion. Because the science, doesn't have any concrete information. Only speculation after a certain point. That's why it's called a theory, not a law, like the law of Gravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is well defined.  The scientific method is the basis for any theories and hypotheses that the scientists support.
> 
> A theory does not become a theory until it has been proven over and over by many different people in many different places.  The theory of evolution, like the germ theory of disease, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  No one tries to use leeches to cure tuberculosis any more.
> 
> New  discoveries are being made all of the time, some of which change the details of how life evolved, but none of which has challenged the basic theory of life having evolved.  Until recently, for example, the generally accepted hypothesis was that the dinosaurs were much like today's reptiles.  Recent findings of dinos with feathers, however, have challenged that and made the mainstream hypothesis that the birds descended from dinosaurs.  Note the difference:  that is still the hypothesis, which is quite different from a theory.
> 
> Interesting, isn't it, to think that the hummingbird may have a T Rex in its ancestry?  It's just one of the wonders of creation, yet the creationists keep trying to deny such wonders in the mistaken belief that evolution precludes a creator.
Click to expand...


The Mirriam Webster Dictionary is quite clear on the definition of a theory.  By all accounts, nothing is proven. That's why they're theories.

Theory:
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture


----------



## Truthspeaker

I actually didn't mind the temporary hijack this time. I thought it was relevant because a statement was made that we accepted evolution as a whole that God used evolution to create Adam and Eve,  and that is not true.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

JakeStarkey said:


> The following statement "Modern findings in human biology, genetics, earth science, archeology, and astophysics have proven evolution to be largly false" is nothing than a feeble falsehood.  Let's move on.



Another one who does not read the info provided.... Can lead a horse to water but, you can't make it drink....

They are too busy drinking the progressive parrot coolaide...


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the theory of evolution describes how things change over time. "Scientific" is a very subjective term in my opinion. Because the science, doesn't have any concrete information. Only speculation after a certain point. That's why it's called a theory, not a law, like the law of Gravity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science is well defined.  The scientific method is the basis for any theories and hypotheses that the scientists support.
> 
> A theory does not become a theory until it has been proven over and over by many different people in many different places.  The theory of evolution, like the germ theory of disease, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  No one tries to use leeches to cure tuberculosis any more.
> 
> New  discoveries are being made all of the time, some of which change the details of how life evolved, but none of which has challenged the basic theory of life having evolved.  Until recently, for example, the generally accepted hypothesis was that the dinosaurs were much like today's reptiles.  Recent findings of dinos with feathers, however, have challenged that and made the mainstream hypothesis that the birds descended from dinosaurs.  Note the difference:  that is still the hypothesis, which is quite different from a theory.
> 
> Interesting, isn't it, to think that the hummingbird may have a T Rex in its ancestry?  It's just one of the wonders of creation, yet the creationists keep trying to deny such wonders in the mistaken belief that evolution precludes a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mirriam Webster Dictionary is quite clear on the definition of a theory.  By all accounts, nothing is proven. That's why they're theories.
> 
> Theory:
> 1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
> 2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
> 3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
Click to expand...


There are lots of kinds of theories, ranging from conspiracy theories to just someone's idea about how things work.  A scientific theory is different.  It starts out as an hypothesis, and educated guess to try to explain observed facts.  Once the hypothesis has been tested over and over, by different people in different places and at different times, then it becomes a theory and is accepted until and unless new facts come to light that cast doubt on it.  There are no new facts that have come to light that don't confirm the theory of evolution, not in a century and a half of observation and research. The new field of DNA research confirms evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.  

So no, a theory is not just an educated guess, and saying that evolution, the germ theory of disease, or  any other *scientific* theory is just a theory and therefore not more credible than someone else's opinion is proof positive that the speaker does not know what a scientific theory really is.  

Like it or not, the Earth really is round and life really did evolve on it.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Here is a scientific evolution theory for you to contemplate...

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Here is a scientific evolution theory for you to contemplate...
> 
> http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf



So, that's where the anti evolution, anti science nonsense is coming from.  The first line is absurd.  No need to read further to see what you have posted:



> A little over one&#8208;hundred and fifty years ago, the first concept of an inborn
> homosexual condition began to circulate in Germany.



First, homosexuality actually predates humanity by millions of years.  Second, even a cursory glance at the table of contents tells anyone that (1) it has nothing to do with evolution, and (2) it has nothing to do with science.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Sure it does.... It is a choice of evolutionary thought in sexual preference....

Or freak genetic natural selection wherein one becomes very sexually confused, and can't help mutilating oneself in a obsessive frenzy to resolve the sexual emotional turmoil....


----------



## Skeptik

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Sure it does.... It is a choice of evolutionary thought in sexual preference....
> 
> Or freak genetic natural selection wherein one becomes very sexually confused, and can't help mutilating oneself in a obsessive frenzy to resolve the sexual emotional turmoil....



The most likely explanation for an individual's obsession with homosexuality is the lack of confidence  in his (her) masculinity (femininity).

And homosexuality has nothing to do with evolution.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Could be right...but better be careful don't want the ACLU to shut down the site or arrest anyone for hate speech....


----------



## waltky

Granny wonderin'...

... if dem Mormon men can have mulitple wives...

... den shouldn't the wives be able to have multiple husbands?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is well defined.  The scientific method is the basis for any theories and hypotheses that the scientists support.
> 
> A theory does not become a theory until it has been proven over and over by many different people in many different places.  The theory of evolution, like the germ theory of disease, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.  No one tries to use leeches to cure tuberculosis any more.
> 
> New  discoveries are being made all of the time, some of which change the details of how life evolved, but none of which has challenged the basic theory of life having evolved.  Until recently, for example, the generally accepted hypothesis was that the dinosaurs were much like today's reptiles.  Recent findings of dinos with feathers, however, have challenged that and made the mainstream hypothesis that the birds descended from dinosaurs.  Note the difference:  that is still the hypothesis, which is quite different from a theory.
> 
> Interesting, isn't it, to think that the hummingbird may have a T Rex in its ancestry?  It's just one of the wonders of creation, yet the creationists keep trying to deny such wonders in the mistaken belief that evolution precludes a creator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mirriam Webster Dictionary is quite clear on the definition of a theory.  By all accounts, nothing is proven. That's why they're theories.
> 
> Theory:
> 1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
> 2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
> 3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of kinds of theories, ranging from conspiracy theories to just someone's idea about how things work.  A scientific theory is different.  It starts out as an hypothesis, and educated guess to try to explain observed facts.  Once the hypothesis has been tested over and over, by different people in different places and at different times, then it becomes a theory and is accepted until and unless new facts come to light that cast doubt on it.  There are no new facts that have come to light that don't confirm the theory of evolution, not in a century and a half of observation and research. The new field of DNA research confirms evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
> 
> So no, a theory is not just an educated guess, and saying that evolution, the germ theory of disease, or  any other *scientific* theory is just a theory and therefore not more credible than someone else's opinion is proof positive that the speaker does not know what a scientific theory really is.
> 
> Like it or not, the Earth really is round and life really did evolve on it.
Click to expand...


You surprise me Skeptik. For the first time you seem close minded. You've made your mind up that evolution as you see it, is fact. That's fine for you to believe, but I don't understand why. I don't see the evidence of it the same way you seem to. All I've heard you say is that it's "scientific" which to me is a very vague term. I need more specifics before i'll accept some idea. 

The raw fact is that Evolution is a theory. Scientists arrved at their theories eventually after a point, through speculation. However educated they may be, they are still speculating. Therefore it is not proof. Therefore there is reasonable doubt. There is always reasonable doubt when it comes to theories. That's why they're theories instead of laws as I said before. They are not proof because they are not repeatable.

Theories could be true but are missing a piece or many pieces of the puzzle to confirm what the truth actually is.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Well said....


----------



## JakeStarkey

skeptik is said his piece well and you two have fallen short other than saying you disagree.  That's your right.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

*A few articles, and research on the continued progressive attack on our families:*

*The Progressive Era and the Family*

The Progressive Era and the Family by Murray N. Rothbard

*How Obama Revolution Came to America*

How Obama Revolution Came to America

*George Soros *

*Revealing the evil deceptive ploys and tactics of George Soros, progressive liberals, Marxists, Communists, Socialists, et. al. all to create a One World Government of unrepresentative control, in the same manner Radical Islam wants to create a caliphate.*

George Soros

*Proteus:* Two definitions

The Proteus Fund: Donor Money In; Out to Designated Causes. Money Laundering or Hidden agenda? « Romanticpoet's Weblog

*Judicial Activism Gone Wild: California Legalizes Gay Marriage and Attacks Family Values*

Judicial Activism Gone Wild: California Legalizes Gay Marriage and Attacks Family Values

*Homosexual Media Target Christians*

Homosexual Media Target Christians

*American Family Association*

American Family Association | Right Wing Watch

The Dirty Dozen: 12 New Policies That Undermine Civil Society | The Heritage Foundation

SSRN-Redefining the Family: Undermining the Family by John Gregory

The Obama Budget: Expanding the Welfare state and Undermining Marriage | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

The Welfare State's Attack on the Family - Vedran Vuk - Mises Daily

The Illegal Attack on the Family » Americans for Truth

The Attack Against The Family

The Howard Center: The Family In America

Summary of Obama Actions Against Life, Family, Faith in First 50 Days of Presidency | LifeSiteNews.com

Cohabitation Versus Marriage - Is Lack of Marriage Undermining the Family Structure?, Page 2 of 2 - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

http://coeweb.fiu.edu/Research_Conf...s_files/Thompson-Hawkins[1].Normore.FINAL.pdf

The exodus Decoded part 1


You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make it drink. When a person is miraculously cured of cancer or some other disease that medical science cannot explain then is it magic or natural selection?

Medical science only provides treatment of maladies rather than cures in most serious cases. They specialize in bandaides or attempted removals rather then actual cures sometimes causing more serious side effects. Medical science is not god and does not have the power of god even if they can save or prolong a life by treatment. In many cases they are still powerless to even affect real positive treatments....

It is apparent that the indoctrinated parrots rather stick with real myth and fables rather then admit the truth or facts presented by science validating the truths or facts found within Judeo-Christianity. Like carbon dating is accurrate when it has proven false by scientific discovery that rate of radioactive decay has been found different in many areas of earhtly material existence and not constant.

The Judeo-Christian scriptures do deal with many sciences...Earth science...Sociology...Psychology...Warfare...Philosophy...Political science...Religion (Prophecy)...Economics...Health science...Mathmatics...Astronomy...etc..... No other original religion comes close though many have borrowed from it in an attempt to subvert it....

*Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God*

Stephen Hawking, The Big Bang, and God


*Creation science evidence...*

Carl Baugh

Creation Evidence Museum, in Texas - Dr. Carl Baugh

Dr. Carl Baugh - 03/31/01 - KeelyNet

Creation Evidence Museum Online - General Information

*The real face of Jesus...*

Is This the Real Face of Jesus Christ? - ABC News

 
*All are documented scientific facts presented in the links in this post. Here are more facts:*

The Zeitgeist Challenge | Refutations, Links, Videos and More | The Zeitgeist Challenge

*Scientific evidence that evolution is a myth and the universe was created by God* 


Evolution as Mythology, Part 1 (of 5): The Theory of Evolution is a Myth | Reasons To Believe

Dr. Hugh Ross PhD. Lectures on "Creation as Science"

http://gallery.mac.com/bill144#gallery

*"Fingerprints of Creation"*

"Fingerprints of Creation"

Dr. Robert Gentry, World renowned Nuclear Physicist files lawsuit over alleged censorship of scientific evidence against the Big Bang theory BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Evidence for Creation


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mirriam Webster Dictionary is quite clear on the definition of a theory.  By all accounts, nothing is proven. That's why they're theories.
> 
> Theory:
> 1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
> 2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation
> 3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of kinds of theories, ranging from conspiracy theories to just someone's idea about how things work.  A scientific theory is different.  It starts out as an hypothesis, and educated guess to try to explain observed facts.  Once the hypothesis has been tested over and over, by different people in different places and at different times, then it becomes a theory and is accepted until and unless new facts come to light that cast doubt on it.  There are no new facts that have come to light that don't confirm the theory of evolution, not in a century and a half of observation and research. The new field of DNA research confirms evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
> 
> So no, a theory is not just an educated guess, and saying that evolution, the germ theory of disease, or  any other *scientific* theory is just a theory and therefore not more credible than someone else's opinion is proof positive that the speaker does not know what a scientific theory really is.
> 
> Like it or not, the Earth really is round and life really did evolve on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You surprise me Skeptik. For the first time you seem close minded. You've made your mind up that evolution as you see it, is fact. That's fine for you to believe, but I don't understand why. I don't see the evidence of it the same way you seem to. All I've heard you say is that it's "scientific" which to me is a very vague term. I need more specifics before i'll accept some idea.
> 
> The raw fact is that Evolution is a theory. Scientists arrved at their theories eventually after a point, through speculation. However educated they may be, they are still speculating. Therefore it is not proof. Therefore there is reasonable doubt. There is always reasonable doubt when it comes to theories. That's why they're theories instead of laws as I said before. They are not proof because they are not repeatable.
> 
> Theories could be true but are missing a piece or many pieces of the puzzle to confirm what the truth actually is.
Click to expand...


I explained what makes a scientific theory.  The only way that a theory can be dismissed is if new facts come to light.  As of now, all of the facts that have been discovered or observed have supported the theory of evolution.  

It's much like the germ theory of disease that I mention.  We know now that not all diseases are caused by human pathogens, but we do know that most are, and further we know which pathogens cause what diseases.  To say that the germ theory of disease is "just a theory" and simply speculation is simply absurd. Are we to go back to blaming the evil eye for unknown maladies or bad air for malaria?  

The problem seems to be semantics:  We say that someone's idea of why something is or is not so is a "theory", but that is not a scientific theory.  In order to be considered a scientific theory, and not merely an hypothesis, takes a high degree of proof, and has to be proven by different people in different places using different methods.  

You don't have to question your Mormon faith to accept the theory of evolution.  There are some faiths that do have to refute modern science, which simply proves them wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

more evolution *yawn*

Sorry. I find the principles of the Gospel more much interesting and yet we havent talked about anything for pages. It's rather disappointing.

I do have to say though, I'm reading the tags at the bottom of the page and people look up some weird stuff about Mormons.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Avatar4321 said:


> more evolution *yawn*
> 
> Sorry. I find the principles of the Gospel more much interesting and yet we havent talked about anything for pages. It's rather disappointing.
> 
> I do have to say though, I'm reading the tags at the bottom of the page and people look up some weird stuff about Mormons.



It is hard to have a discussion on a Christian denomination if people do not believe in God or his son and lack information on the subject....

This is why I have posted on the foundations of Judeo-Christianity, and its affects on our thinking and society....


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of kinds of theories, ranging from conspiracy theories to just someone's idea about how things work.  A scientific theory is different.  It starts out as an hypothesis, and educated guess to try to explain observed facts.  Once the hypothesis has been tested over and over, by different people in different places and at different times, then it becomes a theory and is accepted until and unless new facts come to light that cast doubt on it.  There are no new facts that have come to light that don't confirm the theory of evolution, not in a century and a half of observation and research. The new field of DNA research confirms evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.
> 
> So no, a theory is not just an educated guess, and saying that evolution, the germ theory of disease, or  any other *scientific* theory is just a theory and therefore not more credible than someone else's opinion is proof positive that the speaker does not know what a scientific theory really is.
> 
> Like it or not, the Earth really is round and life really did evolve on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You surprise me Skeptik. For the first time you seem close minded. You've made your mind up that evolution as you see it, is fact. That's fine for you to believe, but I don't understand why. I don't see the evidence of it the same way you seem to. All I've heard you say is that it's "scientific" which to me is a very vague term. I need more specifics before i'll accept some idea.
> 
> The raw fact is that Evolution is a theory. Scientists arrved at their theories eventually after a point, through speculation. However educated they may be, they are still speculating. Therefore it is not proof. Therefore there is reasonable doubt. There is always reasonable doubt when it comes to theories. That's why they're theories instead of laws as I said before. They are not proof because they are not repeatable.
> 
> Theories could be true but are missing a piece or many pieces of the puzzle to confirm what the truth actually is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I explained what makes a scientific theory.  The only way that a theory can be dismissed is if new facts come to light.  As of now, all of the facts that have been discovered or observed have supported the theory of evolution.
> 
> It's much like the germ theory of disease that I mention.  We know now that not all diseases are caused by human pathogens, but we do know that most are, and further we know which pathogens cause what diseases.  To say that the germ theory of disease is "just a theory" and simply speculation is simply absurd. Are we to go back to blaming the evil eye for unknown maladies or bad air for malaria?
> 
> The problem seems to be semantics:  We say that someone's idea of why something is or is not so is a "theory", but that is not a scientific theory.  In order to be considered a scientific theory, and not merely an hypothesis, takes a high degree of proof, and has to be proven by different people in different places using different methods.
> 
> You don't have to question your Mormon faith to accept the theory of evolution.  There are some faiths that do have to refute modern science, which simply proves them wrong.
Click to expand...


Theories are theories because they might be true, and have some evidence to support them. but not enought to be considered laws. 
For me, the evolution theory has not presented enough evidence to accept. If it were true, I would have no problem accepting it. I reject no truth. All truth is valuable and we must accept it despite what our religion teaches.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Theories are theories because they might be true, and have some evidence to support them. but not enought to be considered laws.
> For me, the evolution theory has not presented enough evidence to accept. If it were true, I would have no problem accepting it. I reject no truth. All truth is valuable and we must accept it despite what our religion teaches.



When you get sick, and the doctor says you have an infection, do you take the antibiotic, or do you look around to see who gave you the evil eye? 

The theory of evolution is just as proven as the germ theory of disease.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The theory of evolution is far more scientific than an angel told the Virgin Mary, "That weren't a drunken Roman solider, child, it was the Spirit of God!" The first rests on scientific evidence much of what is irrefutable.  The latter rests on my faith.  The first belongs in the biology class room.  The second belongs in comparative religions.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

NUTZ!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, you are, zeit.  Mary had faith, I have faith, you have faith.  Evolution has factual evidence.  Our faith does not.  That's just how it is, and it is OK.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Stop looking through your pink progressive shades and you will see the truth of creation instead of the fallacies of wannabe progressive monkey-gods....


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> Yes, you are, zeit.  Mary had faith, I have faith, you have faith.  Evolution has factual evidence.  Our faith does not.  That's just how it is, and it is OK.



Exactly right.  Religion is based on faith, while science is based on empirical evidence.  That' just how it is.  Nothing wrong with faith, we all have faith in something.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

I SEE...you both have a lot of faith in that pile of surrealistic horse dung of an outlook.... Eventhough you can't see the smell of dung it still sure stinks.... You know it is some place close by...you know you can have faith in that.....


----------



## Truthspeaker

Proven is not the word you are looking for Skeptik. Plausible is not Proven. Otherwise it would be called the Law of Evolution.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Proven is not the word you are looking for Skeptik. Plausible is not Proven. Otherwise it would be called the Law of Evolution.



The idea that a scientific theory is "just a theory and not proven" is a common misconception.  In colloquial terms, we use the word "theory" to mean something that someone believes to be true, but isn't proven.  In scientific terms, however, the word has quite a different meaning:

What is a scientific theory?



> Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
> 
> In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.



Verify:

ver·i·fy  (vr-f)
tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis. See Synonyms at confirm.
3. Law
a. To affirm formally or under oath.
b. To append a verification to (a pleading); conclude with a verification.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven is not the word you are looking for Skeptik. Plausible is not Proven. Otherwise it would be called the Law of Evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that a scientific theory is "just a theory and not proven" is a common misconception.  In colloquial terms, we use the word "theory" to mean something that someone believes to be true, but isn't proven.  In scientific terms, however, the word has quite a different meaning:
> 
> What is a scientific theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
> 
> In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Verify:
> 
> ver·i·fy  (vr-f)
> tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
> 1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
> 2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis. See Synonyms at confirm.
> 3. Law
> a. To affirm formally or under oath.
> b. To append a verification to (a pleading); conclude with a verification.
Click to expand...


Skeptik I've respected just about everything you've ever said, but this is ridiculous. First I don't know the source of this claim you've made and it's a pretty raunchy statement to say that the "scientific community as a whole" is united on ANYTHING. There is so much debate over this among scientists that it insults my intelligence to suggest that they are united on this. A majority opinion means nothing to me. If there is even one right minded scientist who doubts this proposed Law of Evolution, then there is reasonable doubt. 

You say it's been verified, but by whom? and what is exactly verified? The origin of man? Really you think that's been verified? Do I really need to cite sources of scientists arguing the matter. I don't think so. 

Scientists, however smart they think they are, cannot change the definition of theory. Even if they call it scientific theory, what they're really suggesting is not that dissimilar from ancient Catholic Dogmas; which is accept what we tell you and don't question. 

Theory is theory, and law is law. Scientists are guilty of dogmas too.


----------



## Skeptik

Truthspeaker said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proven is not the word you are looking for Skeptik. Plausible is not Proven. Otherwise it would be called the Law of Evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that a scientific theory is "just a theory and not proven" is a common misconception.  In colloquial terms, we use the word "theory" to mean something that someone believes to be true, but isn't proven.  In scientific terms, however, the word has quite a different meaning:
> 
> What is a scientific theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.
> 
> In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Verify:
> 
> ver·i·fy  (vr-f)
> tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
> 1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
> 2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis. See Synonyms at confirm.
> 3. Law
> a. To affirm formally or under oath.
> b. To append a verification to (a pleading); conclude with a verification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Skeptik I've respected just about everything you've ever said, but this is ridiculous. First I don't know the source of this claim you've made and it's a pretty raunchy statement to say that the "scientific community as a whole" is united on ANYTHING. There is so much debate over this among scientists that it insults my intelligence to suggest that they are united on this. A majority opinion means nothing to me. If there is even one right minded scientist who doubts this proposed Law of Evolution, then there is reasonable doubt.
> 
> You say it's been verified, but by whom? and what is exactly verified? The origin of man? Really you think that's been verified? Do I really need to cite sources of scientists arguing the matter. I don't think so.
> 
> Scientists, however smart they think they are, cannot change the definition of theory. Even if they call it scientific theory, what they're really suggesting is not that dissimilar from ancient Catholic Dogmas; which is accept what we tell you and don't question.
> 
> Theory is theory, and law is law. Scientists are guilty of dogmas too.
Click to expand...


The theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, has been proven over and over by people from all over the world.  It will never be proven to the satisfaction of people who insist on taking ancient writings as historical fact, of course, but your religion does not insist that you believe in the young Earth nonsense.  

Then, there is the misconception that evolution is somehow connected with atheism.  That simply is not true.  There is no conflict between god and evolution, as the latter shows just how life was created on Earth, at least to the believer.  While there is no evidence for god (other than his creation), there is proof that creatures on this Earth evolved.  

Are humans somehow different, created by some other process?  If you maintain that, then you must dismiss the known fact that there once were other species of the genus homo, and that the genus astralopithecus preceded them all.  Moreover, the human genome is not all that different from that of other primates.  No, the fossil record is quite clear on the origin of man, and the modern science of genetics supports it.  Once in a while, there is a new discovery that sheds new light on the story, but nothing at all that refutes it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

zeitgeist2012 said:


> I SEE...you both have a lot of faith in that pile of surrealistic horse dung of an outlook.... Eventhough you can't see the smell of dung it still sure stinks.... You know it is some place close by...you know you can have faith in that.....



We (and I am speaking for Skeptic as well as me) have faith that your emotional and psychological center have been stained by life's lack of concern for your well being.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

I see your still kicking a dead horse.... How much more can be said about Mormonism, and evolution/creation/theory.....

I know...your wrong...your right....your wrong...your right... I don't know....


----------



## Truthspeaker

Skeptik said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that a scientific theory is "just a theory and not proven" is a common misconception.  In colloquial terms, we use the word "theory" to mean something that someone believes to be true, but isn't proven.  In scientific terms, however, the word has quite a different meaning:
> 
> What is a scientific theory?
> 
> 
> 
> Verify:
> 
> ver·i·fy  (vr-f)
> tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies
> 1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
> 2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis. See Synonyms at confirm.
> 3. Law
> a. To affirm formally or under oath.
> b. To append a verification to (a pleading); conclude with a verification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik I've respected just about everything you've ever said, but this is ridiculous. First I don't know the source of this claim you've made and it's a pretty raunchy statement to say that the "scientific community as a whole" is united on ANYTHING. There is so much debate over this among scientists that it insults my intelligence to suggest that they are united on this. A majority opinion means nothing to me. If there is even one right minded scientist who doubts this proposed Law of Evolution, then there is reasonable doubt.
> 
> You say it's been verified, but by whom? and what is exactly verified? The origin of man? Really you think that's been verified? Do I really need to cite sources of scientists arguing the matter. I don't think so.
> 
> Scientists, however smart they think they are, cannot change the definition of theory. Even if they call it scientific theory, what they're really suggesting is not that dissimilar from ancient Catholic Dogmas; which is accept what we tell you and don't question.
> 
> Theory is theory, and law is law. Scientists are guilty of dogmas too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, has been proven over and over by people from all over the world.  It will never be proven to the satisfaction of people who insist on taking ancient writings as historical fact, of course, but your religion does not insist that you believe in the young Earth nonsense.
> 
> Then, there is the misconception that evolution is somehow connected with atheism.  That simply is not true.  There is no conflict between god and evolution, as the latter shows just how life was created on Earth, at least to the believer.  While there is no evidence for god (other than his creation), there is proof that creatures on this Earth evolved.
> 
> Are humans somehow different, created by some other process?  If you maintain that, then you must dismiss the known fact that there once were other species of the genus homo, and that the genus astralopithecus preceded them all.  Moreover, the human genome is not all that different from that of other primates.  No, the fossil record is quite clear on the origin of man, and the modern science of genetics supports it.  Once in a while, there is a new discovery that sheds new light on the story, but nothing at all that refutes it.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that there is no argument from the pro evolution theorists I'm just saying I'm not thoroughly convinced and there will be more evidence that comes to light that changes all the evolutionists theories again. I also think your stretching when you're saying the theory has been proven. Plausible makes more sense than the word proven. We'll have to agree to disagree, but that's fine. Now onto more doctrinal issues finally


----------



## JakeStarkey

The pro-evolution and the ID are not salvation arguments, simply curiosity.

Evolution and ID should be taught in our schools, the first in the biology and the second in liberal arts classroom.

I am absolutely convinced that it takes greater faith to believe in no God than in a God.  No philosophical argument can withstand being pulled apart in the first two syllogisms.  Very funny to watch the atheists react to the same arguments used on them that they so poorly try to use on the believe3rs.


----------



## Skeptik

While I agree with Truthspeaker that the discussion of evolution/creationism has run its course, this one was just too funny not to post.  

If you're a Palinista and a creationist, you might be offended, at least I hope so.


----------



## Truthspeaker

this is funny indeed.


----------



## Avatar4321

So out of curiosity, how many people here have actually read the Book of Mormon?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Front to back?  Once in high school, two times again since then, and since posting on the Board, I check the BoM against LDS posters statements here for consistency,


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Front to back?  Once in high school, two times again since then, and since posting on the Board, I check the BoM against LDS posters statements here for consistency,



Glad you've read it. I just wish you would have understood it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Amazing that we've lasted this long on here. Hey How about some BYU Comments!!! Pretty interesting Honor code violation situation from the center Brandon Davies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Front to back?  Once in high school, two times again since then, and since posting on the Board, I check the BoM against LDS posters statements here for consistency,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you've read it. I just wish you would have understood it.
Click to expand...


I understand that is a fictional creation of Joseph Smith, one of the most unusual Americans of the first half of the 1800s.  Religious scripture.  No, the holy spirit of God witnesses against it.  But God will judge you by your heart's intentions as well as your behavior, and grace and mercy come from that.  We are all believers, Avatar4321, and I wish you would follow the BoM's doctrines of taking care of the poor.  Remember that King Benjamin ruled a theocracy, fusion of religion and state.  There, was no such things as private charity.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Was that the dude with semi-nude LDS missionary calendar guys?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Front to back?  Once in high school, two times again since then, and since posting on the Board, I check the BoM against LDS posters statements here for consistency,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you've read it. I just wish you would have understood it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand that is a fictional creation of Joseph Smith, one of the most unusual Americans of the first half of the 1800s.  Religious scripture.  No, the holy spirit of God witnesses against it.  But God will judge you by your heart's intentions as well as your behavior, and grace and mercy come from that.  We are all believers, Avatar4321, and I wish you would follow the BoM's doctrines of taking care of the poor.  Remember that King Benjamin ruled a theocracy, fusion of religion and state.  There, was no such things as private charity.
Click to expand...


This is exactly why I wish you would understand it. Because you clearly don't. One of the most beautiful sermons in existance on the need to take care of the poor and you think it means we are to outsource our responsibilities to our government. 

King Benjamin was known for his personal service as King. He encouraged his people to serve one another:



> 12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;
> 
> 13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you
> 
> 14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borneand of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
> 
> 15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.
> 
> 16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.
> 
> 17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
> 
> 18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another? (Mosiah 2: 12-18



Now, how can you read that and conclude that he was telling them that they should pay more taxes so the government can take care of others? God doesn't ask us to hand over our money to other people to serve our fellow man. He doesn't ask us to take money from others to serve our fellow man. He asks us to give of our time, talents, and money to serve one another and lift up the poor. It is our duty as _individuals_ to act. We are called and commanded to be disciples and lift up those that our poor. Not burden the people with taxes and then use the money of others and the time of others to give to others.

It was the wicked King Noah who laid heavy taxes on the people to do "public works." (Ironically King Noah's tax rate, which the scriptures say was oppressive, is significantly lower than ours. Only 20%).

How will you find the Holy Spirit in the text if you don't understand it? Stop pretending that a government program fulfills your obligations to serve and just serve. Stop making excuses and just let go. Go to work and put it in the hands of the Lord. He will magnify your efforts and you will accomplish far more than any government program will.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Was that the dude with semi-nude LDS missionary calendar guys?



No. This guy is a Basketball player.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you've read it. I just wish you would have understood it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that is a fictional creation of Joseph Smith, one of the most unusual Americans of the first half of the 1800s.  Religious scripture.  No, the holy spirit of God witnesses against it.  But God will judge you by your heart's intentions as well as your behavior, and grace and mercy come from that.  We are all believers, Avatar4321, and I wish you would follow the BoM's doctrines of taking care of the poor.  Remember that King Benjamin ruled a theocracy, fusion of religion and state.  There, was no such things as private charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly why I wish you would understand it. Because you clearly don't. One of the most beautiful sermons in existance on the need to take care of the poor and you think it means we are to outsource our responsibilities to our government.
> 
> King Benjamin was known for his personal service as King. He encouraged his people to serve one another:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;
> 
> 13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you
> 
> 14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borneand of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
> 
> 15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.
> 
> 16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.
> 
> 17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
> 
> 18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another? (Mosiah 2: 12-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, how can you read that and conclude that he was telling them that they should pay more taxes so the government can take care of others? God doesn't ask us to hand over our money to other people to serve our fellow man. He doesn't ask us to take money from others to serve our fellow man. He asks us to give of our time, talents, and money to serve one another and lift up the poor. It is our duty as _individuals_ to act. We are called and commanded to be disciples and lift up those that our poor. Not burden the people with taxes and then use the money of others and the time of others to give to others.
> 
> It was the wicked King Noah who laid heavy taxes on the people to do "public works." (Ironically King Noah's tax rate, which the scriptures say was oppressive, is significantly lower than ours. Only 20%).
> 
> How will you find the Holy Spirit in the text if you don't understand it? Stop pretending that a government program fulfills your obligations to serve and just serve. Stop making excuses and just let go. Go to work and put it in the hands of the Lord. He will magnify your efforts and you will accomplish far more than any government program will.
Click to expand...


You simply do not believe the words of King Benjamin about this anymore than you believe the words of BY about certain things.  You have faith.  Good for you.  You don't have the evidence to support your faith, but so what.  Best to you in your walk.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

The Bible and the Constitution

There is a lot of discussion today about the U.S. Constitution for it and against it. However, all of the critics and supporters of the Constitution miss the foundational point.

The Constitution cannot be used to solve our problems unless we have the spirit of those who founded it. That spirit came mainly from the Bible. Our history and the Constitution itself prove that point.

The constitution is the supreme law of America the foundation of our republic. Our Founding Fathers did their best to make the Bible the foundation of that great document.

They said that only religion and private morality based on the Bible would make the Constitution work. James Madison said,"We have staked the whole future of America's civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.

The Bible and the Constitution &mdash; theTrumpet.com

*Step to forming a One World Government/Social unrest/Luke 21:25 roaring seas and waves/War and rumors of war/What did Jesus show us about gold and silver in the end times?/Sept. 25, 2010...*

http://frankdimora.typepad.com/the_...d-waveswar-and-rumors-of-warsept-25-2010.html

*This is what I think about homosexuality, abortion and them who revel in decadence...*

*Chapter 5. Demonic possession: The Exception for Direct Confrontation*

http://www.spiritualwarfaredeliverance.com/html/demonic-possession-vs-influenc.html


----------



## zeitgeist2012

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that is a fictional creation of Joseph Smith, one of the most unusual Americans of the first half of the 1800s.  Religious scripture.  No, the holy spirit of God witnesses against it.  But God will judge you by your heart's intentions as well as your behavior, and grace and mercy come from that.  We are all believers, Avatar4321, and I wish you would follow the BoM's doctrines of taking care of the poor.  Remember that King Benjamin ruled a theocracy, fusion of religion and state.  There, was no such things as private charity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why I wish you would understand it. Because you clearly don't. One of the most beautiful sermons in existance on the need to take care of the poor and you think it means we are to outsource our responsibilities to our government.
> 
> King Benjamin was known for his personal service as King. He encouraged his people to serve one another:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;
> 
> 13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you
> 
> 14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borneand of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
> 
> 15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.
> 
> 16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.
> 
> 17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
> 
> 18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another? (Mosiah 2: 12-18
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, how can you read that and conclude that he was telling them that they should pay more taxes so the government can take care of others? God doesn't ask us to hand over our money to other people to serve our fellow man. He doesn't ask us to take money from others to serve our fellow man. He asks us to give of our time, talents, and money to serve one another and lift up the poor. It is our duty as _individuals_ to act. We are called and commanded to be disciples and lift up those that our poor. Not burden the people with taxes and then use the money of others and the time of others to give to others.
> 
> It was the wicked King Noah who laid heavy taxes on the people to do "public works." (Ironically King Noah's tax rate, which the scriptures say was oppressive, is significantly lower than ours. Only 20%).
> 
> How will you find the Holy Spirit in the text if you don't understand it? Stop pretending that a government program fulfills your obligations to serve and just serve. Stop making excuses and just let go. Go to work and put it in the hands of the Lord. He will magnify your efforts and you will accomplish far more than any government program will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply do not believe the words of King Benjamin about this anymore than you believe the words of BY about certain things.  You have faith.  Good for you.  You don't have the evidence to support your faith, but so what.  Best to you in your walk.
Click to expand...




*Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief*

Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief - John E. Clark - Journal of Book of Mormon Studies - Volume 14 - Issue 2

*Articles by John P. Pratt*

Articles by John P. Pratt

Forum Presentations | Book of Mormon Archaeological Forum


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> You simply do not believe the words of King Benjamin about this anymore than you believe the words of BY about certain things.  You have faith.  Good for you.  You don't have the evidence to support your faith, but so what.  Best to you in your walk.



Jake, I believe the words of King Benjamin and Brigham Young whole heartedly. I just dont believe your willful misinterpretation of them. That's the different.

I believe that we all have a responsibility to serve and uplift others. You think we have to advocate that responsibility to the government. And for some reason you think they advocated the same thing when I just quoted the very text saying the exact opposite.

I hope someday the Spirit opens your eyes to the truth.


----------



## froggy

serving mere men like Benjamin and Brigham Young is blasphemy.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Was that the dude with semi-nude LDS missionary calendar guys?



I don't know what you're talking about but Brandon Davies was the center for the BYU Basketball team.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply do not believe the words of King Benjamin about this anymore than you believe the words of BY about certain things.  You have faith.  Good for you.  You don't have the evidence to support your faith, but so what.  Best to you in your walk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, I believe the words of King Benjamin and Brigham Young whole heartedly. I just dont believe your willful misinterpretation of them. That's the different.  I believe that we all have a responsibility to serve and uplift others. You think we have to advocate that responsibility to the government. And for some reason you think they advocated the same thing when I just quoted the very text saying the exact opposite.  I hope someday the Spirit opens your eyes to the truth.
Click to expand...


You misunderstand the text.  I understand that.  I understand LDS John Birchers misunderstand the American experiment.  What I find very interesting is that JS and BY's desire for complete theocracy would have made our discussion irrelevant if they had succeeded.  They would have followed King Benjamin and would have compelled to do as they wanted in these matters.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that the dude with semi-nude LDS missionary calendar guys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about but Brandon Davies was the center for the BYU Basketball team.
Click to expand...


I am with you now.  Yeah, I support BYU on this call.  If a young man who knows he is going to boink signs with BYU and accepts the honor code, then, guess what: he is responsible.

BYU made a real mistake with Jim McMahon before he later became legend with the  Bears in Super Bowl XX.  The officials let the quarterback lead one of the most immoral and fast lane lives in the history of BYU sports because he was a winner on the field.  The next administration immediately corrected that behavior.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Why Starskey...I can't believe you found honor and morality something worth standing for.... Come on...tell the truth...you were being oxymoronic in your empathy?

Here is a god you can believe in that teaches children how to deal with infadels....

http://ajuaa.com/lookme/play.php?vid=153


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are simply screwy, Zeit.  You don't even know God.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Facts are not conspiracy. I've never heard of trillions of our tax dollars being spent on conspiracy even after world leaders denounced multiculturalism for ripping apart and bankrupting their countries.... Maybe you should read the right articles and books.... Islam has been a very big part of the secular elites scheme to destroy all Godly based dominant cultures by playing one against the other in order to rob its populace by obtaining control over the worlds resources and wealth to establish their monkey god rule over our world. This is not a conspiracy. All the economical and sociological facts exist. You just have to be smart enough to find them and put them together....


----------



## JakeStarkey

zounds like a far wack fundamentalist wet dream.  enjoy yourself.  Westboro Baptist has some openinngs for your type.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Thay's what I thought ... more silly remarks instead of real work and reseach....


----------



## JakeStarkey

zeit, you have not offered what you are requesting.  You gots to pays in order to plays.


----------



## Avatar4321

What constitutes real research and work? 

How do you present it to the satisfaction of others?

How can I show research for my personal experiences with the Spirit?

I think we need to look on each other with love and compassion. We don't all understand the same things equally. That doesnt mean one of us is smart and the other is stupid. It simply means we are on different levels of understanding. There may be something you understand that I don't and vice versa.

That is why we have discussions so we can all learn and be edified by each other. We all need to realize our propensity to be fools because we can learn to be wise.


----------



## AmericanFirst

Remember Jesus warned of FALSE PROPHETS? I read a book about two authors that would infiltrate certain religous and other organizations to get the truth. Usually not that flatering, mormonism was one of them. What I read goes against the teachings of the Bible.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Be careful AmericanFirst that you did not fit your own definition of false prophets.  Stick to your own belief and worry about yours.  Truly, Jesus can do His work without your unguided help.


----------



## Avatar4321

AmericanFirst said:


> Remember Jesus warned of FALSE PROPHETS? I read a book about two authors that would infiltrate certain religous and other organizations to get the truth. Usually not that flatering, mormonism was one of them. What I read goes against the teachings of the Bible.



Of course, Jesus warned about false prophets. We warn against them as well. But in order to be false prophets there has to be true prophets.

Read the New Testament, there are prophets mentioned with the early Saints throughout the books and Epistles _after_ Christ ascended into heaven.

In fact, Paul clearly taught that Apostles and Prophets were the foundation of the Church, with Christ being the Chief Cornorstone (Eph 2:19-20). In fact, two chapters later Paul promised the Church that there would be Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and teachers given to the saints for their perfection, for the work of the ministry and edification of the body of Christ until we all come to a unity of faith and knowledge of Christ (Eph 4:11-13).

So clearly if there are no Apostles and Prophets, there is no church, since they are the Foundation of it. And since Christianity is not united in faith or knowledge of Christ, I would contend that Apostles and Prophets are still a necessary component to the Church. Unless you wish to argue that God has for some reason changed His method for how He teaches the Plan of Happiness to people. Do you?

I would also note that key to the end time prophecies is one that two prophets will preach in Jerusalem for 3 1/2 years. I would suggest that since these two are mentioned in Prophecy that they are in fact true prophets of God. Which likewise supports my assertion that Christ condemned merely false prophets and did not condemn the true ones as well. His explanation on how to identify false prophets from true prophets (by their fruits) would be rather pointless if God was not sending any more true prophets.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Zeitgeist and JakeStarkey: I find some truth to what Z said about Islam and divide and conquer techniques. It's more like unconsciously taking advantage of conflicts to dominate both and destroy. We do it to ourselves with bipartisan politics (that waste energy money and other resources and distract people from investing in solutions) and also polarizing religious debates instead of valuing conflict resolution.

With Jihadists, the split in interpretation from peaceful Islamic practice is caused by not resolving conflicts in the first place. The concept that is abused is "should there be conflicting" interpretations, the latter teaching of Mohammad takes precedence. The problem is that:
1. In the Quran, his peaceful teachings came before
2. His violent military instructions to kill religious enemies came later
3. the SURA 109 (about parting ways if you believe differently) came near the very end of the Quran
4. the teaching of Mohammad to interpret this passage as "peaceful coexistence" came after that but is NOT in the Quran (so it is overridden by Jihadists who put the Quran first to justify following the wartime instructions and declaring war against infidels, since those passages came after the peaceful ones)
I checked with Muslim friends, who acknowledged that this concept of taking the latter teachings is considered true across all Islam, and the instructions that SURA 109 means peaceful coexistence is not in the Quran.

Also, since Muslims are called to follow the Bible, if the scriptures on redressing grievances to restore relations were equally following as sent by God, then all conflicts could be resolved or else people could agree to party ways civilly. The Contitutional laws on due process and peaceful petitioning to redress grievances could also be taught as sent by God, and thus required for Muslims to respect these laws.

But as long as conflicts are left unresolved, there are groups that use this to justify invoking violent interpretations; there is not enouch check to stop these abuses, if these militant jihadists do not follow the Bible or Constitutional laws as Sent by God.

All Muslims are supposed to receive and respect "all sent by God."

The peaceful Muslims who do respect different ways practice peaceful coexistence, but do not always take responsibility for resolving conflicts, but submit to God's will in this.
This opens the door for violent Jihadists to act on their interpretations without proactively resolving the conflicts instead. So that is where division and conflict are exploited.

I don't believe this is a conscious decision.
It seems clear that people HONESTLY believe they cannot reconcile and that the other truly is an infidel or enemy. Even if they weren't sure, they talk themselves into staying angry.

I believe it is an unconscious drive that is inflamed by political greed for dominance.

So I don't believe a lot of these conspiracies are conscious concerted efforts.
Much of it is unconscious, but moblike collusion anyway.

As for Jake, there is some truth in what anyone says.
God is guiding all of us, in these conversations and interactions.

It is up to each of us to recognize what wisdom or insight God is trying to show us.

It is not for us to say who does or does not know God.
But to make sure we recognize which part is truth from God and at least accept that.

We can still learn something from anyone, even if they are mistaken or misguided.
No need to reject someone, as long as we can gain some points from them.

Thank you for your messages.
I hope you gain something from these exchanges and
learn to appreciate each other's insights
and correct each other's faults for mutual benefit and greater understanding.

That is ultimately what God is trying to lead us to.
Even if we make mistakes in judgments or statements.
We are in this process together. Let us not allow
our differences to be exploited as divisions. We can do better than that!


----------



## Avatar4321

We are getting close to 5000 replies.


----------



## Dr.House

Avatar4321 said:


> We are getting close to 5000 replies.



Good thread....


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr.House said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting close to 5000 replies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thread....
Click to expand...


at times yes.


----------



## Dr.House

Avatar4321 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting close to 5000 replies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thread....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at times yes.
Click to expand...


Yes...

It certainly doesn't need to rely on music videos to retain interest, though....lol


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr.House said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thread....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at times yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes...
> 
> It certainly doesn't need to rely on music videos to retain interest, though....lol
Click to expand...


no. It doesn't. But music videos are fun. Especially Mormon Music videos


----------



## Dr.House

And there's always the choir...


----------



## Avatar4321

Hehe I always liked this one:


----------



## Avatar4321

Couldn't get direct links. But I always liked the Lord of the Engagement Rings parodies. All three episodes can be found here:

Archived Videos H-M | Divine Comedy

Amusing

Now im alittle annoyed they dont have the full first episode. looks like the other two are there though

First episode on youtube:



alittle better


----------



## Avatar4321

You can tell im alittle bored


----------



## Avatar4321

To be more serious, General conference was this past weekend. I haven't had a chance to listen to all the talks yet. But it's been really good. If you have time, listen to as much as you can. I'm listening to the First sessions through right now. There is an amazing talk on healing from pain that I know I am going to study more.

Watch Live

If you want to listen to the talks individually, rather than as full sessions (Which are 2 hours long), you can find them here

April 2011 General Conference Sessions

If you have time and are interested in learning more, please do so! I encourage everyone to listen to something that peaks their interest.


----------



## Avatar4321

Bump (cause I can)


----------



## Dr.House

Of all the threads here, this one is consistantly of interest to the posters of USMB...

My hats off to those who participate in it...


----------



## Liability

Those al qaeda reps were wearing ties.  What self respecting Muslim would wear a tie?

Other than that, I liked the attention to detail!

I'd give it TWO thumbs WAY up.


----------



## froggy

The truth about Mormons is: that Joe and his cohorts were cons and the entire belief that they started were false. So it must have been founded on false religion.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> The truth about Mormons is: that Joe and his cohorts were cons and the entire belief that they started were false. So it must have been founded on false religion.



That might mean something to us if you could actually support your assertions.

The problem is the evidence doesn't support your position.

1) Joseph went to his death for his belief. That's not something someone who knew he was lying about things would do.

2) Joseph provided witnesses who saw and experienced the things he did who continued to testify to these things after they had falling out with Joseph. 

3) The Book of Mormon. The Book is here. There is no satisfactory way to explain it away. Anyone who likes can read it and find out for themselves the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon was testified to by 12 witnesses. But the beauty of it is that no one has to trust the witnesses. They can learn for themselves by reading, pondering, and praying about it. The Holy Spirit will testify that the Book of Mormon is true.

I invite you to read the Book of Mormon one of these days Froggy. Youll be very surprised by what you read. It's not what you think it is.


----------



## Dr.House

Liability said:


> Those al qaeda reps were wearing ties.  What self respecting Muslim would wear a tie?
> 
> Other than that, I liked the attention to detail!
> 
> I'd give it TWO thumbs WAY up.



Definitely something to come back to now and again...

Some really interesting conversations in these pages...


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr.House said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those al qaeda reps were wearing ties.  What self respecting Muslim would wear a tie?
> 
> Other than that, I liked the attention to detail!
> 
> I'd give it TWO thumbs WAY up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely something to come back to now and again...
> 
> Some really interesting conversations in these pages...
Click to expand...


The principles of the Gospel are interesting.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth about Mormons is: that Joe and his cohorts were cons and the entire belief that they started were false. So it must have been founded on false religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might mean something to us if you could actually support your assertions.
> 
> The problem is the evidence doesn't support your position.
> 
> 1) Joseph went to his death for his belief. That's not something someone who knew he was lying about things would do.
> 
> 2) Joseph provided witnesses who saw and experienced the things he did who continued to testify to these things after they had falling out with Joseph.
> 
> 3) The Book of Mormon. The Book is here. There is no satisfactory way to explain it away. Anyone who likes can read it and find out for themselves the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon was testified to by 12 witnesses. But the beauty of it is that no one has to trust the witnesses. They can learn for themselves by reading, pondering, and praying about it. The Holy Spirit will testify that the Book of Mormon is true.
> 
> I invite you to read the Book of Mormon one of these days Froggy. Youll be very surprised by what you read. It's not what you think it is.
Click to expand...


a copy of the Nuremberg Chronicle surfaced in Sandy Utah, this is probably the book Joe and his cohorts used to make up the Mormon religion.


----------



## sinister59

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



the truth about mormons ? they want political power and are active in state laws that disagree with mormon doctrine , whether the law effect mormonism or not . the truth is mormon are a separate part of the CR 

 hows that ?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

If we don't stand on our common Christian principles and values we will fall and our Republic will fall even further than it has already. We must have leaders that stay true to our Christian heritage and character or we as a nation are doomed; unless you all think God is a liar?


----------



## sinister59

zeitgeist2012 said:


> If we don't stand on our common Christian principles and values we will fall and our Republic will fall even further than it has already. We must have leaders that stay true to our Christian heritage and character or we as a nation are doomed; unless you all think God is a liar?



do what you gotta do but stay the shit out of my political life , or life in general .

I don't care if you marry your brother . just stay out of public law .


----------



## zeitgeist2012

sinister59 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't stand on our common Christian principles and values we will fall and our Republic will fall even further than it has already. We must have leaders that stay true to our Christian heritage and character or we as a nation are doomed; unless you all think God is a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do what you gotta do but stay the shit out of my political life , or life in general .
> 
> I don't care if you marry your brother . just stay out of public law .
Click to expand...


Is that you SATAN!


----------



## sinister59

zeitgeist2012 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't stand on our common Christian principles and values we will fall and our Republic will fall even further than it has already. We must have leaders that stay true to our Christian heritage and character or we as a nation are doomed; unless you all think God is a liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do what you gotta do but stay the shit out of my political life , or life in general .
> 
> I don't care if you marry your brother . just stay out of public law .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that you SATAN!
Click to expand...


as much as mormon worship Satan you should know him by now . 

your religion is anti-American , you think like the RC that you can interfere with politics to make this a christian country , except most christian think your evil thats why your boy lost his bid for repig candidate . and why your nasty little religion is running adds to try and prove your just American regulor guys , 

look at how they backed Romney . lol


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Multiculturalism is a progressive weapon being used to fan the flames of social, and political conflict and subversion in many countries around the world. It is spread in music, media, education, politics, addiction, sex, dependency on gov't, and religion whether foreign or secular.

Thanks to the progressives promoting the mass immigration invasion taking place in our Country, I believe racial conflict will intensify as our economic and political failings intensify.

People are very protective of their culture, heritage, religion, liberty and form of gov't if it reflects who they are as a nation of people....


----------



## Avatar4321

If we intend to win the culture war, we have to choose what we do more carefully. Legislating is not a sign of winning the culture war, it's a sign that we are losing it.

First step is changing our own life, our own traditions our own culture. and then persuading others to follow.

And yes we participate in politics. We have a responsibility to ourselves and our fellow Americans to stand for good principles in government. Not to mention the right to. If you don't like that, feel free to speak out against us.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> a copy of the Nuremberg Chronicle surfaced in Sandy Utah, this is probably the book Joe and his cohorts used to make up the Mormon religion.



And how did you reach that ridiculous conclusion?


----------



## sinister59

Avatar4321 said:


> If we intend to win the culture war, we have to choose what we do more carefully. Legislating is not a sign of winning the culture war, it's a sign that we are losing it.
> 
> First step is changing our own life, our own traditions our own culture. and then persuading others to follow.
> 
> And yes we participate in politics. We have a responsibility to ourselves and our fellow Americans to stand for good principles in government. Not to mention the right to. If you don't like that, feel free to speak out against us.



participate ? really ? 
Californa has a percentage of 7 in the moron community yet mormons from around the country sent money to california to influence a bill . yes gay marriage . 

why ? 
 there participation and trying to flat out rule 
 your not the only ones , the catholics try it by withholding sacrament from politician that vote against vatican wishes , 
 the protestant built collages to try and train infiltrates into government . 
 look you can go be a god in other universe if thats your belief but your not god here .


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Avatar4321 said:


> If we intend to win the culture war, we have to choose what we do more carefully. Legislating is not a sign of winning the culture war, it's a sign that we are losing it.
> 
> First step is changing our own life, our own traditions our own culture. and then persuading others to follow.
> 
> And yes we participate in politics. We have a responsibility to ourselves and our fellow Americans to stand for good principles in government. Not to mention the right to. If you don't like that, feel free to speak out against us.



Right.... Checkout my blog...

New age global Babylon? « My Blog


----------



## Avatar4321

So I take it you don't like it when people you don't like voice their opinion in politics? Too bad. We aren't going to stop


----------



## sinister59

Avatar4321 said:


> So I take it you don't like it when people you don't like voice their opinion in politics? Too bad. We aren't going to stop



what a moron 
 no one like it when a religion tries to take control of government , and you run adds all you like trying to convince people your descent but people wont care , Romney didn't make it and neither will any other , 

people wake up and they'll see what a peace4 of shit you are . 
 you dumb ass were kicked out of every state , only a territory would allow you . thing haven't change . you don't like it ? to damn bad .


----------



## Dr.House

I love the "tolerant left"....


----------



## Avatar4321

You don't have to like us. Doesn't mean we don't have to right to speak up. Nor does it mean we don't have the right to engage in the politican process for causes we believe in. Nor does it mean we can't exercise our faith freely in our lives.

Simply because you don't like it, doesn't make us second class citizens.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Ditto....

The individual sounds like one of the uneducated savages who snuck into the US to vote for more free stuff from Sheik O'Buzzard and his progressive Harlots in Washington....


----------



## sinister59

Dr.House said:


> I love the "tolerant left"....



me too , but not enough to be one .


----------



## Avatar4321

sinister59 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the "tolerant left"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me too , but not enough to be one .
Click to expand...


Sarcasm is lost on you isn't it?


----------



## sinister59

Avatar4321 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the "tolerant left"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me too , but not enough to be one .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is lost on you isn't it?
Click to expand...


mst things arec .


----------



## zeitgeist2012

sinister59 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> me too , but not enough to be one .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is lost on you isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mst things arec .
Click to expand...


YIKES!!!


----------



## Dr.House

Avatar4321 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the "tolerant left"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me too , but not enough to be one .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is lost on you isn't it?
Click to expand...


He's probably serious...  I doubt he wants to be tolerant of anything outside of his 0bama worship...


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Well said....

Let him worship an Imposter President who needs to be Impeached...

*Obama's Birth Certificate Is A Fake!!!!*

YouTube - PROOF!!! Obama Birth Certificate Fraud


----------



## sinister59

Dr.House said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> me too , but not enough to be one .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is lost on you isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's probably serious...  I doubt he wants to be tolerant of anything outside of his 0bama worship...
Click to expand...


you poor little people you can't get past Obama , you hate black people sp much that he is the reason for all your hate derected at you . 


 but the grown up answer is I'm entolerable to religous groups trying to  gain control over political in the entire country . your opwn flock of sheep is just fine but all of us? even the magarety of us because we are non believer ? no FUCKING WAY , the protestants try it , now you clown , and you pathetic dicks think its because of Obama ? n
\ hi am a clown and a mormon . love those TV  bull shit adds ot evber the Democrat party . it YOU !!!


----------



## zeitgeist2012

A treasonist criminal is just that whether black, white, or green....


----------



## Dr.House

Wow...

Just wow....


----------



## ROBESPIERRE

I dated a young LDS lady when I was in school. It was quite an intersting experience. I met her whole family and learned quite a bit about the Morman way of life.  She and her family definately had big plans for the both of us. I made a startegic exit. Being a dedicated Atheist, I was not about to marry a Morman . . .

Much water has passed under the bridge since those days. Looking at how the world has changed in the past 50 years, I have come to respect many things about the Mormans.  I especially like the Radical Morman Sect which still practices ploygamy. I actually met a couple of these people when I was in the US Military. I could never subscribe to their beliefs. But I like the fact that they hold together in a solid community. They endorse and support many of the values of Western Civilization. They are completely self supporting and they are not affraid to have plenty of offspring. I think America benefits from White/Western offspring. I don't care what religion the parents espouse. I respect them for their Western Ways and for their self-sufficient productivity!


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Well said...and very true....


----------



## sinister59

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Well said....
> 
> Let him worship an Imposter President who needs to be Impeached...
> 
> *Obama's Birth Certificate Is A Fake!!!!*
> 
> YouTube - PROOF!!! Obama Birth Certificate Fraud



your a idiot nothing more ,, I knew clowns like you would come up with some load of shit and here you are .


----------



## sinister59

zeitgeist2012 said:


> A treasonist criminal is just that whether black, white, or green....



how old are you ?

you throw around words like treasonous and fascist , prove them lets start with treason a serous word it is , so boy please show where president Obama commit treason ? 
 I can throw around word to like smith was a child molester and rapist < is that true ? no , is there any foundation for it well ya ignorance is one bigotry is another . grow up kid you can't call people names that are untrue just because your a sheet wearing ass hole


----------



## Avatar4321

sinister59 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is lost on you isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's probably serious...  I doubt he wants to be tolerant of anything outside of his 0bama worship...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you poor little people you can't get past Obama , you hate black people sp much that he is the reason for all your hate derected at you .
> 
> 
> but the grown up answer is I'm entolerable to religous groups trying to  gain control over political in the entire country . your opwn flock of sheep is just fine but all of us? even the magarety of us because we are non believer ? no FUCKING WAY , the protestants try it , now you clown , and you pathetic dicks think its because of Obama ? n
> \ hi am a clown and a mormon . love those TV  bull shit adds ot evber the Democrat party . it YOU !!!
Click to expand...


We live in a representative Republic. We have the right to petition the government to pass laws and to preserve laws we think are moral and just. We have the right to speak out for said laws, vote for said law, and persuade others to join us in support of those laws. I'm sorry you don't like that. But that's our system and I rather like it that way.

Oh, and contrary to your opinion, opposition to Obama is because of his poor policies, his lack of leadership, and his lack of character. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Nor does it have anything to do with Mormonism.


----------



## Avatar4321

sinister59 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A treasonist criminal is just that whether black, white, or green....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how old are you ?
> 
> you throw around words like treasonous and fascist , prove them lets start with treason a serous word it is , so boy please show where president Obama commit treason ?
> I can throw around word to like smith was a child molester and rapist < is that true ? no , is there any foundation for it well ya ignorance is one bigotry is another . grow up kid you can't call people names that are untrue just because your a sheet wearing ass hole
Click to expand...


Ah, but you can?

when will people start living the standards they desire to attack others for violating?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Learn of the treason taking place in America...

My Blog


----------



## zeitgeist2012

sinister59 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A treasonist criminal is just that whether black, white, or green....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how old are you ?
> 
> you throw around words like treasonous and fascist , prove them lets start with treason a serous word it is , so boy please show where president Obama commit treason ?
> I can throw around word to like smith was a child molester and rapist < is that true ? no , is there any foundation for it well ya ignorance is one bigotry is another . grow up kid you can't call people names that are untrue just because your a sheet wearing ass hole
Click to expand...


Poly wanna CRACKER! You are the personification of what an indoctinated progressive parrot sounds like and thinks like.... You take the prize for throwing around progressive buzz words to hide your ignorance.... Take off the progressive liberal blinders and fly like an Eagle instead of a parrot....


----------



## sinister59

zeitgeist2012 said:


> A treasonist criminal is just that whether black, white, or green....



so if you can prove he committed treason then do it , black white or green . prove it and I'll call for his trail . 
as for  my beliefs ? their not christian ,so anything other regurgitation of the quire? is not going to happen .
 but all I want from you is proof thats all .when or how did he commit treason thats a crime you are hung for . 
 and treason is not same same as criminal act, thats like saying petty theft , child molestation same same . you have to be a real bum ass to think that . so I await your proof Obama committed treason


----------



## zeitgeist2012

sinister59 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A treasonist criminal is just that whether black, white, or green....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if you can prove he committed treason then do it , black white or green . prove it and I'll call for his trail .
> as for  my beliefs ? their not christian ,so anything other regurgitation of the quire? is not going to happen .
> but all I want from you is proof thats all .when or how did he commit treason thats a crime you are hung for .
> and treason is not same same as criminal act, thats like saying petty theft , child molestation same same . you have to be a real bum ass to think that . so I await your proof Obama committed treason
Click to expand...


Learn of the treason taking place in America...

My Blog


----------



## sinister59

zeitgeist2012 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A treasonist criminal is just that whether black, white, or green....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so if you can prove he committed treason then do it , black white or green . prove it and I'll call for his trail .
> as for  my beliefs ? their not christian ,so anything other regurgitation of the quire? is not going to happen .
> but all I want from you is proof thats all .when or how did he commit treason thats a crime you are hung for .
> and treason is not same same as criminal act, thats like saying petty theft , child molestation same same . you have to be a real bum ass to think that . so I await your proof Obama committed treason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Learn of the treason taking place in America...
> 
> My Blog
Click to expand...

your right I'm learning Spanish and dealing with muslims . but its not easy


----------



## zeitgeist2012

It's a start....


----------



## Avatar4321

sinister59 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so if you can prove he committed treason then do it , black white or green . prove it and I'll call for his trail .
> as for  my beliefs ? their not christian ,so anything other regurgitation of the quire? is not going to happen .
> but all I want from you is proof thats all .when or how did he commit treason thats a crime you are hung for .
> and treason is not same same as criminal act, thats like saying petty theft , child molestation same same . you have to be a real bum ass to think that . so I await your proof Obama committed treason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn of the treason taking place in America...
> 
> My Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your right I'm learning Spanish and dealing with muslims . but its not easy
Click to expand...


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Avatar4321 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn of the treason taking place in America...
> 
> My Blog
> 
> 
> 
> your right I'm learning Spanish and dealing with muslims . but its not easy
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


LOL.... Leave good enough...alone....


----------



## sinister59

zeigy , learn of treason everyday in America ? really I'd love learn who what where ? the treason's I know of where  trough wikileak from a specialist that gave secret document to a ass hole from australia . 

and a CIA employ that solid information . you have more?any connection to the white house ? 
 could you please be pacific ? just a little , your like a movie teaser no substance ,


----------



## sinister59

Avatar4321 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn of the treason taking place in America...
> 
> My Blog
> 
> 
> 
> your right I'm learning Spanish and dealing with muslims . but its not easy
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


didn't I tell you really don't read my post you don't like then . but really I knew I'd get you on the last one I answered .

you really should learn discipline and ignore my post . 
or I'll keep answer your like that .


----------



## Avatar4321

I've gone down the rabbit hole haven't I?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

LOL....


----------



## BolshevikHunter

sinister59 said:


> zeigy , learn of treason everyday in America ? really I'd love learn who what where ? the treason's I know of where  trough wikileak from a specialist that gave secret document to a ass hole from australia .
> 
> and a CIA employ that solid information . you have more?any connection to the white house ?
> could you please be pacific ? just a little , your like a movie teaser no substance ,



sin, How about for a start allowing millions and millions of illegal aliens into the country on purpose, during a so-called war on terra by the way, so they can eventually sway the Democratic vote? Not to mention provide more tax revenue for the corrupt Government to blow even more money on bullshit once they grant them all amnesty? How is that for a start? I got many more examples for yuh too my friend. Just saying.   ~BH


----------



## Avatar4321

I would argue if we all lived the principles of Mormonism, we wouldn't have nearly as many problems as we have in this world.

Just saying.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

sinister59 said:


> zeigy , learn of treason everyday in America ? really I'd love learn who what where ? the treason's I know of where  trough wikileak from a specialist that gave secret document to a ass hole from australia .
> 
> and a CIA employ that solid information . you have more?any connection to the white house ?
> could you please be pacific ? just a little , your like a movie teaser no substance ,



Do you want me to read it for you?

Economic & Multicultural Terrorism 

My Blog
Economic Terrorism In America I « My Blog
Economic Terrorism In America II « My Blog
Economic Terrorism In America III « My Blog
Multiculturalism:America&#8217;s Destruction I « My Blog
Multiculturalism:America&#8217;s Destruction II « My Blog
Multiculturalism:America&#8217;s Destruction III « My Blog
New age global Babylon? « My Blog


----------



## sinister59

BolshevikHunter said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> zeigy , learn of treason everyday in America ? really I'd love learn who what where ? the treason's I know of where  trough wikileak from a specialist that gave secret document to a ass hole from australia .
> 
> and a CIA employ that solid information . you have more?any connection to the white house ?
> could you please be pacific ? just a little , your like a movie teaser no substance ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sin, How about for a start allowing millions and millions of illegal aliens into the country on purpose, during a so-called war on terra by the way, so they can eventually sway the Democratic vote? Not to mention provide more tax revenue for the corrupt Government to blow even more money on bullshit once they grant them all amnesty? How is that for a start? I got many more examples for you too my friend. Just saying.   ~BH
Click to expand...


now look allowing  millions of illegals is bad but bush is out of office , obama's problem is you white people selling military grade weaponry to drug cartels . 

if  you would let just marijuana be legal you would cut them out of it enrich our farmers , then use the money you save from DEA to focus on hard drugs , weapons crossing the border . violence , 
 the moneys to tax , the money not spent on prison rehabilitation and so on .
 now U know right winger admire the Chinese , read it enough , they don't imprison you they just shoot you in the back of the head right there in the courthouse in a special room then bill you relives for the bullet .

but no . 

but who's committed treason ? your governors are the responsible for their boarders , Obama has increased the boarder patrol , they are finding some , laws have been past to fine employees of illegals , two republican have been caught , 
 Arizona is now demanding papers . 
 to me its why the hell would they come here ? low employment , nut jobs running for office , ass holes cutting social programs , really whats the point ? 

but Americans , we always have to have someone to hate , someone we think is inferiors
 religion race sexuality , left handed ,short . some one . we have to feel superior , 
 where the hell did I leave the point ? 
 oh well it is 10:45


----------



## BolshevikHunter

sinister59 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> zeigy , learn of treason everyday in America ? really I'd love learn who what where ? the treason's I know of where  trough wikileak from a specialist that gave secret document to a ass hole from australia .
> 
> and a CIA employ that solid information . you have more?any connection to the white house ?
> could you please be pacific ? just a little , your like a movie teaser no substance ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sin, How about for a start allowing millions and millions of illegal aliens into the country on purpose, during a so-called war on terra by the way, so they can eventually sway the Democratic vote? Not to mention provide more tax revenue for the corrupt Government to blow even more money on bullshit once they grant them all amnesty? How is that for a start? I got many more examples for you too my friend. Just saying.   ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> now look allowing  millions of illegals is bad but bush is out of office , obama's problem is you white people selling military grade weaponry to drug cartels .
> 
> if  you would let just marijuana be legal you would cut them out of it enrich our farmers , then use the money you save from DEA to focus on hard drugs , weapons crossing the border . violence ,
> the moneys to tax , the money not spent on prison rehabilitation and so on .
> now U know right winger admire the Chinese , read it enough , they don't imprison you they just shoot you in the back of the head right there in the courthouse in a special room then bill you relives for the bullet .
> 
> but no .
> 
> but who's committed treason ? your governors are the responsible for their boarders , Obama has increased the boarder patrol , they are finding some , laws have been past to fine employees of illegals , two republican have been caught ,
> Arizona is now demanding papers .
> to me its why the hell would they come here ? low employment , nut jobs running for office , ass holes cutting social programs , really whats the point ?
> 
> but Americans , we always have to have someone to hate , someone we think is inferiors
> religion race sexuality , left handed ,short . some one . we have to feel superior ,
> where the hell did I leave the point ?
> oh well it is 10:45
Click to expand...


Arizona's Governor passed that law asking for papers, Not Obama. Obama hasn't done shit bro. "White people" are sending firearms over the border? WTF? ~BH


----------



## sinister59

BolshevikHunter said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sin, How about for a start allowing millions and millions of illegal aliens into the country on purpose, during a so-called war on terra by the way, so they can eventually sway the Democratic vote? Not to mention provide more tax revenue for the corrupt Government to blow even more money on bullshit once they grant them all amnesty? How is that for a start? I got many more examples for you too my friend. Just saying.   ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now look allowing  millions of illegals is bad but bush is out of office , obama's problem is you white people selling military grade weaponry to drug cartels .
> 
> if  you would let just marijuana be legal you would cut them out of it enrich our farmers , then use the money you save from DEA to focus on hard drugs , weapons crossing the border . violence ,
> the moneys to tax , the money not spent on prison rehabilitation and so on .
> now U know right winger admire the Chinese , read it enough , they don't imprison you they just shoot you in the back of the head right there in the courthouse in a special room then bill you relives for the bullet .
> 
> but no .
> 
> but who's committed treason ? your governors are the responsible for their boarders , Obama has increased the boarder patrol , they are finding some , laws have been past to fine employees of illegals , two republican have been caught ,
> Arizona is now demanding papers .
> to me its why the hell would they come here ? low employment , nut jobs running for office , ass holes cutting social programs , really whats the point ?
> 
> but Americans , we always have to have someone to hate , someone we think is inferiors
> religion race sexuality , left handed ,short . some one . we have to feel superior ,
> where the hell did I leave the point ?
> oh well it is 10:45
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Arizona's Governor passed that law asking for papers, Not Obama. Obama hasn't done shit bro. "White people" are sending firearms over the border? WTF? ~BH
Click to expand...


hay WTF  are really this dense or just like attention ? the FBI has been following bicker gangs and white supremacist sell illegal firearm to cartels , you really can't expect anyone that hispanics are sell to hispanics ? give me a break lady , 
I see you hate hispanics the viol crap you spew , but it is entertaining , so thanks . 

oh President Obama has sent more border guard then Bush did , and the one time bush sent reinforcement he pulled out after one month , 

taxas arizona all border state are getting money for patrol how the spend it ? you got me , the reinforcement for patrol is still there as fare as I know . but teabagger don't lye about our leader .


----------



## BolshevikHunter

sinister59 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> now look allowing  millions of illegals is bad but bush is out of office , obama's problem is you white people selling military grade weaponry to drug cartels .
> 
> if  you would let just marijuana be legal you would cut them out of it enrich our farmers , then use the money you save from DEA to focus on hard drugs , weapons crossing the border . violence ,
> the moneys to tax , the money not spent on prison rehabilitation and so on .
> now U know right winger admire the Chinese , read it enough , they don't imprison you they just shoot you in the back of the head right there in the courthouse in a special room then bill you relives for the bullet .
> 
> but no .
> 
> but who's committed treason ? your governors are the responsible for their boarders , Obama has increased the boarder patrol , they are finding some , laws have been past to fine employees of illegals , two republican have been caught ,
> Arizona is now demanding papers .
> to me its why the hell would they come here ? low employment , nut jobs running for office , ass holes cutting social programs , really whats the point ?
> 
> but Americans , we always have to have someone to hate , someone we think is inferiors
> religion race sexuality , left handed ,short . some one . we have to feel superior ,
> where the hell did I leave the point ?
> oh well it is 10:45
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Governor passed that law asking for papers, Not Obama. Obama hasn't done shit bro. "White people" are sending firearms over the border? WTF? ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hay WTF  are really this dense or just like attention ? the FBI has been following bicker gangs and white supremacist sell illegal firearm to cartels , you really can't expect anyone that hispanics are sell to hispanics ? give me a break lady ,
> I see you hate hispanics the viol crap you spew , but it is entertaining , so thanks .
> 
> oh President Obama has sent more border guard then Bush did , and the one time bush sent reinforcement he pulled out after one month ,
> 
> taxas arizona all border state are getting money for patrol how the spend it ? you got me , the reinforcement for patrol is still there as fare as I know . but teabagger don't lye about our leader .
Click to expand...


"Biker gangs"? LMAO! You're a fucking idiot. I don't hate hispanics. I don't like illegal immigration. Yeah, I do think that the cartel has members inside the USA selling it back to their own people. Can your weak mind understand that you dumb shit you? ~BH


----------



## sinister59

BolshevikHunter said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Governor passed that law asking for papers, Not Obama. Obama hasn't done shit bro. "White people" are sending firearms over the border? WTF? ~BH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hay WTF  are really this dense or just like attention ? the FBI has been following bicker gangs and white supremacist sell illegal firearm to cartels , you really can't expect anyone that hispanics are sell to hispanics ? give me a break lady ,
> I see you hate hispanics the viol crap you spew , but it is entertaining , so thanks .
> 
> oh President Obama has sent more border guard then Bush did , and the one time bush sent reinforcement he pulled out after one month ,
> 
> taxas arizona all border state are getting money for patrol how the spend it ? you got me , the reinforcement for patrol is still there as fare as I know . but teabagger don't lye about our leader .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Biker gangs"? LMAO! You're a fucking idiot. I don't hate hispanics. I don't like illegal immigration. Yeah, I do think that the cartel has members inside the USA selling it back to their own people. Can your weak mind understand that you dumb shit you? ~BH
Click to expand...


wow ,  you don't believe the feds and you have some idea the cartel sent people here to buy guns and smuggle them back to mexico ? and the way you throw around the word hispanic let me to think you don't like them , glad to see you do .
but you have no idea of what your talking about . so we wont . 

your just to much a fucking ass hole .


----------



## BolshevikHunter

sinister59 said:


> BolshevikHunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hay WTF  are really this dense or just like attention ? the FBI has been following bicker gangs and white supremacist sell illegal firearm to cartels , you really can't expect anyone that hispanics are sell to hispanics ? give me a break lady ,
> I see you hate hispanics the viol crap you spew , but it is entertaining , so thanks .
> 
> oh President Obama has sent more border guard then Bush did , and the one time bush sent reinforcement he pulled out after one month ,
> 
> taxas arizona all border state are getting money for patrol how the spend it ? you got me , the reinforcement for patrol is still there as fare as I know . but teabagger don't lye about our leader .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Biker gangs"? LMAO! You're a fucking idiot. I don't hate hispanics. I don't like illegal immigration. Yeah, I do think that the cartel has members inside the USA selling it back to their own people. Can your weak mind understand that you dumb shit you? ~BH
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow ,  you don't believe the feds and you have some idea the cartel sent people here to buy guns and smuggle them back to mexico ? and the way you throw around the word hispanic let me to think you don't like them , glad to see you do .
> but you have no idea of what your talking about . so we wont .
> 
> your just to much a fucking ass hole .
Click to expand...


Oh I am the asshole now? You insulted me first guy. Then you throw around some race-baiting crap because I don't like illegal immigration? You must have bumped your fucking head, because I like their culture, have visited their country many times and personally know for a fact that most are very kind people. Listen to me you idiot, I don't have to like illegal immigration! "Biker gangs"? LMAO! You sure are dumb bro. However, Because I am not an "asshole", I am willing to give you another chance. ~BH


----------



## sinister59

zeitgeist2012 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> zeigy , learn of treason everyday in America ? really I'd love learn who what where ? the treason's I know of where  trough wikileak from a specialist that gave secret document to a ass hole from australia .
> 
> and a CIA employ that solid information . you have more?any connection to the white house ?
> could you please be pacific ? just a little , your like a movie teaser no substance ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to read it for you?
> 
> Economic & Multicultural Terrorism
> 
> My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America I « My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America II « My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America III « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:Americas Destruction I « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:Americas Destruction II « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:Americas Destruction III « My Blog
> New age global Babylon? « My Blog
Click to expand...


why do people like you have blogs ? how narcissistic are you . 


why would anyone read blogs , no life of their own ? 

when I was a kid there was a saying s he how writes on shit house wall role his shit in little balls , ye how reads theses words of wit , eats those little balls of shit ,

blogs reminded me of that , this was before republicans started tapping their feet in the stalls . 
 people just wrote jokes and limericks .


----------



## sinister59

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



so gods screwing all theses women in heaven and decides you'll go to earth be moron then become a god in another universes ?LOL 

hey on an serious note do black people still go to a separate heave ? a lesser heaven or has that been pulled from church tenets


----------



## Avatar4321

Not sure what most of this has to do with the specifics of Mormonism although I guess since Mormonism encompasses all truth, I suppose you could define some of the stuff as mormonism. 

I'd prefer to talk about the Doctrines of Eternal life rather than this other stuff. But thats just me.


----------



## Dr.House

Avatar4321 said:


> Not sure what most of this has to do with the specifics of Mormonism although I guess since Mormonism encompasses all truth, I suppose you could define some of the stuff as mormonism.
> 
> I'd prefer to talk about the Doctrines of Eternal life rather than this other stuff. But thats just me.



I wouldn't worry about him...  He's not all there....


----------



## sinister59

Dr.House said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what most of this has to do with the specifics of Mormonism although I guess since Mormonism encompasses all truth, I suppose you could define some of the stuff as mormonism.
> 
> I'd prefer to talk about the Doctrines of Eternal life rather than this other stuff. But thats just me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't worry about him...  He's not all there....
Click to expand...


encompasses all truth ? like god screwing all the women in heaven ? till he sends you here then after here you become gods of your own right ? really ? 

eternal life ? explain eternal ? heaven has an end date, where then ? oh ya you become gods . ok god 

but what happened to the old god you replaced ? 

doctrine of eternal life was and is bull shit , as is all religions , but mormons are really nasty . 

hated by christians and non christians alike , thats why romney didn't and wont win . 

eternal life was invented by christians, not even jews believe this . 
 but it was a selling point on the religion , you lived for ever , no death . 
 but thats crap, you die , 


most of you dumb bastards think only of after life , like there was one , and ignore the life you have . 
religion is based on what if . 

not nice to weaken the crutch's of the week , I know , but your arrogance is just irritating . 


death is simple , your organs fail blood stop flowing to the brain , brain cells start to die from lack of blood , your memories start dying off and as they do you relive them , white light , thats from bleeding on the brain , like seeing stars , its an electrical short . 

then your gone , 

eternity ? thats not measured with a clock , its not physical , so no one can explain it .


----------



## sinister59

the truth about mormons? they suck .


----------



## Avatar4321

sinister59 said:


> the truth about mormons? they suck .



If you think insults made out of ignorance bother anyone, you are mistaken. I have no ill will toward you or any other person because the Lord taught me a long time ago that there is no point to. Despite what you might think, you are still my brother and one day I hope you realize that.

I also hope that one day you take the challenge to read the Book of Mormon and ask God to show you whether it's true. Because I can assure you that if you take the challenge provided, and ask God with a sincere heart, in humility to sincerely know the truth that He will manifest to you with power by the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration.

More importantly, He will show you that Jesus is the Christ. That He is the Holy One of Israel and remembers and loves His people no matter where in the world they are or no matter what time they live in.

You don't have to take my word for it. That's what is so beautiful about the Gospel. Every individual in the world is entitled to read for themselves. They are entitled to study and to pray and recieve a witness from the Holy Spirit. And then they are free to either act on that witness or not. Either way you choose, wouldn't it be wise to find out for yourself what we actually teach? 

Wouldn't it provide a better opportunity to understand one another and create greater love and unity between us all? You can seek that out, or you can seek to remain in ignorance, divided, and afraid. I would encourage you to seek knowledge and truth for yourself. Vanquish fear and unite in knowedgible and civil discourse. But again it's up to you.


----------



## sinister59

Avatar4321 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the truth about mormons? they suck .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think insults made out of ignorance bother anyone, you are mistaken. I have no ill will toward you or any other person because the Lord taught me a long time ago that there is no point to. Despite what you might think, you are still my brother and one day I hope you realize that.
> 
> I also hope that one day you take the challenge to read the Book of Mormon and ask God to show you whether it's true. Because I can assure you that if you take the challenge provided, and ask God with a sincere heart, in humility to sincerely know the truth that He will manifest to you with power by the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration.
> 
> More importantly, He will show you that Jesus is the Christ. That He is the Holy One of Israel and remembers and loves His people no matter where in the world they are or no matter what time they live in.
> 
> You don't have to take my word for it. That's what is so beautiful about the Gospel. Every individual in the world is entitled to read for themselves. They are entitled to study and to pray and recieve a witness from the Holy Spirit. And then they are free to either act on that witness or not. Either way you choose, wouldn't it be wise to find out for yourself what we actually teach?
> 
> Wouldn't it provide a better opportunity to understand one another and create greater love and unity between us all? You can seek that out, or you can seek to remain in ignorance, divided, and afraid. I would encourage you to seek knowledge and truth for yourself. Vanquish fear and unite in knowedgible and civil discourse. But again it's up to you.
Click to expand...


if I insulted it wasn't out of ignorance but judgement giving buy mormons ,by their actions , and their fairy tail norcistic crap about becoming gods , thats a hoot . 


knowledge of truth ? LOL 

I travel to Binah a lot , I visit 
Chakhmah almost daily , 
I don't need crap from organized religion the path is open to all , you don't need a guide . 

or crutch , 
  your as a sad person to need and be accepted by others . weak really . 

your religion has shown its ass , sense smith was first run out of town , state to state people hated you , until Utah a territory , 
 now you spend millions to try and convince people your just like them but they still don't like you and still wont vote a mormon into the presidency . 

boo hoo . 
 now go whine to the monitor ,


----------



## Avatar4321

you deny ignorance, yet you display it in your denial. It's your choice.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

sinister59 said:


> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> zeigy , learn of treason everyday in America ? really I'd love learn who what where ? the treason's I know of where  trough wikileak from a specialist that gave secret document to a ass hole from australia .
> 
> and a CIA employ that solid information . you have more?any connection to the white house ?
> could you please be pacific ? just a little , your like a movie teaser no substance ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to read it for you?
> 
> Economic & Multicultural Terrorism
> 
> My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America I « My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America II « My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America III « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:America&#8217;s Destruction I « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:America&#8217;s Destruction II « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:America&#8217;s Destruction III « My Blog
> New age global Babylon? « My Blog
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why do people like you have blogs ? how narcissistic are you .
> 
> 
> why would anyone read blogs , no life of their own ?
> 
> when I was a kid there was a saying s he how writes on shit house wall role his shit in little balls , ye how reads theses words of wit , eats those little balls of shit ,
> 
> blogs reminded me of that , this was before republicans started tapping their feet in the stalls .
> people just wrote jokes and limericks .
Click to expand...



I have heard that some genious created a shit detector for gutter wenches like you.... All ya have to do is go near it to make it beep....

Well, I suppose that if you had any glimmer of higher cognitive function, you would be capable of writing your own blog, and actually be useful to others who seek knowledge and insight into the world we live in.... Cartoons, dope and video games create useful idiots as do many of our schools and universities today.... I believe you fit into these categories somewhere?


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Avatar4321 said:


> You don't have to like us. Doesn't mean we don't have to right to speak up. Nor does it mean we don't have the right to engage in the politican process for causes we believe in. Nor does it mean we can't exercise our faith freely in our lives.
> 
> Simply because you don't like it, doesn't make us second class citizens.



Well Said....


----------



## Avatar4321

zeitgeist2012 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to like us. Doesn't mean we don't have to right to speak up. Nor does it mean we don't have the right to engage in the politican process for causes we believe in. Nor does it mean we can't exercise our faith freely in our lives.
> 
> Simply because you don't like it, doesn't make us second class citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well Said....
Click to expand...


Thank you. I have my moments of articulation. And then other moments where even I think I sound dumb. That's life I suppose.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

It's hard to tell who you are dealing with today. We have so many foreign subversives in our Country today claiming to be Americans just because our gov't allowed them to sneak into our Country or were given visas to add to the invasion....

Many of our real American children have been turned against themselves, and made to feel guilty about their own Religion, race, culture, heritage and form of Republican gov't...all in the name of a socialist utopian open global society ruled by secular monkey gods....


----------



## Truthspeaker

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth about Mormons is: that Joe and his cohorts were cons and the entire belief that they started were false. So it must have been founded on false religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might mean something to us if you could actually support your assertions.
> 
> The problem is the evidence doesn't support your position.
> 
> 1) Joseph went to his death for his belief. That's not something someone who knew he was lying about things would do.
> 
> 2) Joseph provided witnesses who saw and experienced the things he did who continued to testify to these things after they had falling out with Joseph.
> 
> 3) The Book of Mormon. The Book is here. There is no satisfactory way to explain it away. Anyone who likes can read it and find out for themselves the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The truthfulness of the Book of Mormon was testified to by 12 witnesses. But the beauty of it is that no one has to trust the witnesses. They can learn for themselves by reading, pondering, and praying about it. The Holy Spirit will testify that the Book of Mormon is true.
> 
> I invite you to read the Book of Mormon one of these days Froggy. Youll be very surprised by what you read. It's not what you think it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a copy of the Nuremberg Chronicle surfaced in Sandy Utah, this is probably the book Joe and his cohorts used to make up the Mormon religion.
Click to expand...


Ahh it's good to be back.. I've been on hiatus for a while... missed you peeps... now back to the mundane...
Please froggy provide some clips or attachments from this supposed document for review. i'm not gonna chase it down.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sinister59 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sarcasm is lost on you isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's probably serious...  I doubt he wants to be tolerant of anything outside of his 0bama worship...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you poor little people you can't get past Obama , you hate black people sp much that he is the reason for all your hate derected at you .
> 
> 
> but the grown up answer is I'm entolerable to religous groups trying to  gain control over political in the entire country . your opwn flock of sheep is just fine but all of us? even the magarety of us because we are non believer ? no FUCKING WAY , the protestants try it , now you clown , and you pathetic dicks think its because of Obama ? n
> \ hi am a clown and a mormon . love those TV  bull shit adds ot evber the Democrat party . it YOU !!!
Click to expand...


The way you type sounds like you have marbles in your mouth when you're talking. probly a few missing up in the cranial area too. No response to that.


----------



## Truthspeaker

sinister59 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the truth about mormons? they suck .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think insults made out of ignorance bother anyone, you are mistaken. I have no ill will toward you or any other person because the Lord taught me a long time ago that there is no point to. Despite what you might think, you are still my brother and one day I hope you realize that.
> 
> I also hope that one day you take the challenge to read the Book of Mormon and ask God to show you whether it's true. Because I can assure you that if you take the challenge provided, and ask God with a sincere heart, in humility to sincerely know the truth that He will manifest to you with power by the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of the Restoration.
> 
> More importantly, He will show you that Jesus is the Christ. That He is the Holy One of Israel and remembers and loves His people no matter where in the world they are or no matter what time they live in.
> 
> You don't have to take my word for it. That's what is so beautiful about the Gospel. Every individual in the world is entitled to read for themselves. They are entitled to study and to pray and recieve a witness from the Holy Spirit. And then they are free to either act on that witness or not. Either way you choose, wouldn't it be wise to find out for yourself what we actually teach?
> 
> Wouldn't it provide a better opportunity to understand one another and create greater love and unity between us all? You can seek that out, or you can seek to remain in ignorance, divided, and afraid. I would encourage you to seek knowledge and truth for yourself. Vanquish fear and unite in knowedgible and civil discourse. But again it's up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if I insulted it wasn't out of ignorance but judgement giving buy mormons ,by their actions , and their fairy tail norcistic crap about becoming gods , thats a hoot .
> 
> 
> knowledge of truth ? LOL
> 
> I travel to Binah a lot , I visit
> Chakhmah almost daily ,
> I don't need crap from organized religion the path is open to all , you don't need a guide .
> 
> or crutch ,
> your as a sad person to need and be accepted by others . weak really .
> 
> your religion has shown its ass , sense smith was first run out of town , state to state people hated you , until Utah a territory ,
> now you spend millions to try and convince people your just like them but they still don't like you and still wont vote a mormon into the presidency .
> 
> boo hoo .
> now go whine to the monitor ,
Click to expand...


Your life is very bitter I see. There are many things that are true which you will never even consider because of your limited opinions and scope of knowledge. You only speak and know a broken version of one language... ghetto english. Therefore you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand more complicated subjects than welfare and atheism. Have a nice life and I truly hope you snap out of it one day.


----------



## Truthspeaker

zeitgeist2012 said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeitgeist2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want me to read it for you?
> 
> Economic & Multicultural Terrorism
> 
> My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America I « My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America II « My Blog
> Economic Terrorism In America III « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:Americas Destruction I « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:Americas Destruction II « My Blog
> Multiculturalism:Americas Destruction III « My Blog
> New age global Babylon? « My Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like you have blogs ? how narcissistic are you .
> 
> 
> why would anyone read blogs , no life of their own ?
> 
> when I was a kid there was a saying s he how writes on shit house wall role his shit in little balls , ye how reads theses words of wit , eats those little balls of shit ,
> 
> blogs reminded me of that , this was before republicans started tapping their feet in the stalls .
> people just wrote jokes and limericks .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard that some genious created a shit detector for gutter wenches like you.... All ya have to do is go near it to make it beep....
> 
> Well, I suppose that if you had any glimmer of higher cognitive function, you would be capable of writing your own blog, and actually be useful to others who seek knowledge and insight into the world we live in.... Cartoons, dope and video games create useful idiots as do many of our schools and universities today.... I believe you fit into these categories somewhere?
Click to expand...


Hey! don't crush video games! They have their place. but crush the idiots who worship them.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Ok....


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Ahh it's good to be back.. I've been on hiatus for a while... missed you peeps... now back to the mundane...
> Please froggy provide some clips or attachments from this supposed document for review. i'm not gonna chase it down.



i like froggy and all, but he isn't one to provide support for his claim or even articulate it very clearly.


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Your life is very bitter I see. There are many things that are true which you will never even consider because of your limited opinions and scope of knowledge. You only speak and know a broken version of one language... ghetto english. Therefore you do not have the intellectual capacity to understand more complicated subjects than welfare and atheism. Have a nice life and I truly hope you snap out of it one day.



Everyone has the ability to comprehend the Gospel. Unfortunately most choose not to bother trying.


----------



## zeitgeist2012

Good to see your still kickin'....


----------



## zeitgeist2012

I agree AVATAR....


----------



## Avatar4321

zeitgeist2012 said:


> I agree AVATAR....



I tend to agree with myself too


----------



## BentWingedAngel

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



With all due respect I do not think that a practicing Mormon can objetively anwers questions about the faith.  

That being said I was a Mormon for about a yr.  IMO it is a brain washing cult.   They tell you that individuality counts yet ya better be "goose steppin"  to their tune.  They even want you to wear their "magical mystery panties"   Babtise the dead, soo they can say that they are members.  What's wrong with that picture?   They even have a certqin way you have to pray..  $ easy steps. lol  Seems hypocritical too.. For example... A  couple should never be alone/date but yet they wanted me to go to a strange mans house to try to enlist him.


----------



## Avatar4321

BentWingedAngel said:


> With all due respect I do not think that a practicing Mormon can objetively anwers questions about the faith.



So you think that people who are antagonistic and don't practice the faith would know more than those who do? On what basis do you reach that conclusion? In my experience, if you want to know the truth about something, you go to it's source.



> That being said I was a Mormon for about a yr.  IMO it is a brain washing cult.   They tell you that individuality counts yet ya better be "goose steppin"  to their tune.  They even want you to wear their "magical mystery panties"   Babtise the dead, soo they can say that they are members.  What's wrong with that picture?   They even have a certqin way you have to pray..  $ easy steps. lol  Seems hypocritical too.. For example... A  couple should never be alone/date but yet they wanted me to go to a strange mans house to try to enlist him.



I have to say I'm incredibly skeptical of your claim here. However, that may be because i found your thought process difficult to follow coherently. 

Oh and to answer your question, there is nothing wrong with seeking to bless others with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> With all due respect I do not think that a practicing Mormon can objetively anwers questions about the faith.


I think it's funny that you start out with all due respect and then immediately begin harsh disrespect by insulting us by calling us names and making up childish tags for our doctrines.
Also, to echo Avatar's statement... How can you say that you or anyone else who is not a practicing member of our faith is more knowledgeable than someone who is. There's nothing objective or subjective about our relaying of the facts about our church. We simply repeat the doctrine as it has been taught to us by our prophets. Please learn proper use of english. Someone is either objective or subjective when giving an opinion, but we are just repeating facts about our official church's teachings.




> That being said I was a Mormon for about a yr.  IMO it is a brain washing cult.


I highly doubt that you were but if you are telling the truth, then we didn't do a good job brainwashing you obviously.



> They tell you that individuality counts yet ya better be "goose steppin"  to their tune.



I think you are referring to our teachings which encourage us to do the things that we enjoy in life but keep the commandments of God... I don't think that's to much to ask to subscribe to our religion... Could you elaborate further?




> They even want you to wear their "magical mystery panties"



What magical mystery panties? We believe in no such thing... That's why I don't believe you ever were a member of our church.



> Babtise the dead, soo they can say that they are members.  What's wrong with that picture?



We don't baptize the dead... Correction... we perform baptisms FOR the dead who never had a chance for baptism for whatever reason. 

What's wrong with that picture? Nothing... What do you think is wrong with it?



> They even have a certqin way you have to pray..  $ easy steps. lol



lol??? You just said that? who says that any more? so hilarious... you're laughing out loud at what I imagine? 
Yes there is a proper way to pray... news flash... you don't just holler at God and say "Yo dawg... I need u ta git me a favor right quick.."

1. you address God
2. you thank him for things he has done for you
3. you ask him for things you need.
4. you tell him what's on your mind.
5. Close in the name of Jesus Christ... then say Amen..

I know pretty radical huh?




> Seems hypocritical too.. For example... A  couple should never be alone/date but yet they wanted me to go to a strange mans house to try to enlist him.



uhhh.... we don't teach that a couple should never be alone. And we don't want you to go to anyone's home. Only willing missionaries are sent door to door. Please come a little more educated than that please.


----------



## BentWingedAngel

The word "undergarment" or just "garment" has a distinctive meaning to Latter-day Saints. The white undergarment worn by those members who have received the ordinance of the temple Endowment is a ceremonial one. All adults who enter the temple are required to wear it. In mormon temples, men and women who receive priesthood ordinances wear this undergarment and other priestly robes. The garment is worn at all times, but the robes are worn only in the temple. Having made covenants of righteousness, the members wear the garment under their regular clothing for the rest of their lives, day and night, partially to remind them of the sacred covenants they have made with God.


----------



## Avatar4321

I will never understand why people are obsessed with our underwear.


----------



## BentWingedAngel

Avatar4321 said:


> I will never understand why people are obsessed with our underwear.



I only posted about the underwear being that the OP denied that that existed; or was unaware.   HIS QUOTE: "What magical mystery panties? We believe in no such thing... That's why I don't believe you ever were a member of our church."


I do not know of anyone who is obcessed other than possibly the wearer?  I found when I was introduced to the idea, that  was a 'deal breaker" no one gets to pick out my panties but me..  Ohh also I remember I was told I had to be re-babtised.  Apparently the one that I had in the Lutheran church wasn't good enough; or maybe it wore out, just didn't take right?


----------



## Avatar4321

And we don't.

Nevermind the fact that you brought it up. Please don't insult the intelligence of people who can read a few posts up and see that you are the one obsessing over underwear.


----------



## Zona

Something about getting your own planet when you die?  

Seriously, I was just watching a thing on Jim Jones.  What the hell is the difference, a cult is a cult.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Something about getting your own planet when you die?
> 
> Seriously, I was just watching a thing on Jim Jones.  What the hell is the difference, a cult is a cult.



Jim Jones was a communist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something about getting your own planet when you die?
> 
> Seriously, I was just watching a thing on Jim Jones.  What the hell is the difference, a cult is a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jones was a communist.
Click to expand...


JJ was a communitarian, just as was Joseph Smith, Lyman Wight, George Miller, and other early Mormon leaders.  JJ was also a socio-pathic murderous scumbag.  Before you start pumping hot air, friend, understand the Law of Tithing in Missouri required the property of members to be consecrated to the Bishop then returned as part of a stewardship.  If a person left the church, he lost his property.

Please don't show us that you don't understand this anymore than you do Mosiah 4.


----------



## Truthspeaker

BentWingedAngel said:


> The word "undergarment" or just "garment" has a distinctive meaning to Latter-day Saints. The white undergarment worn by those members who have received the ordinance of the temple Endowment is a ceremonial one. All adults who enter the temple are required to wear it. In mormon temples, men and women who receive priesthood ordinances wear this undergarment and other priestly robes. The garment is worn at all times, but the robes are worn only in the temple. Having made covenants of righteousness, the members wear the garment under their regular clothing for the rest of their lives, day and night, partially to remind them of the sacred covenants they have made with God.



My my... how articulate you just became... Or perhaps a copy and paste job?


----------



## Truthspeaker

BentWingedAngel said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand why people are obsessed with our underwear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only posted about the underwear being that the OP denied that that existed; or was unaware.   HIS QUOTE: "What magical mystery panties? We believe in no such thing... That's why I don't believe you ever were a member of our church."
> 
> 
> I do not know of anyone who is obcessed other than possibly the wearer?  I found when I was introduced to the idea, that  was a 'deal breaker" no one gets to pick out my panties but me..  Ohh also I remember I was told I had to be re-babtised.  Apparently the one that I had in the Lutheran church wasn't good enough; or maybe it wore out, just didn't take right?
Click to expand...


no.... I denied the existence of so called "magical mystery panties." Not the existence of our sacred undergarments which you seem to have a keen interest in.

and yes, we believe that unless you were properly baptized by the priesthood of God, all other baptisms are not valid in the eyes of God. God appreciates the intent behind someone's baptism but only recognizes his authorized way. That's why Jesus went out of his way to be baptized by a proper priesthood holder in John.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something about getting your own planet when you die?
> 
> Seriously, I was just watching a thing on Jim Jones.  What the hell is the difference, a cult is a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jones was a communist.
Click to expand...


Well just think about it okay... even if it is crazy... how much crazier is it to believe you're going to live forever after this life any way?

If you do believe you're going to live forever, why doesn't it make sense that eventually after a really long time, your Father, in heaven, would teach you everything he knows and show you how to do what he does and have what he has... 
So really if you're gonna live forever anyway, why wouldn't an intelligent human being continue to progress... Capeesh?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something about getting your own planet when you die?
> 
> Seriously, I was just watching a thing on Jim Jones.  What the hell is the difference, a cult is a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jones was a communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JJ was a communitarian, just as was Joseph Smith, Lyman Wight, George Miller, and other early Mormon leaders.  JJ was also a socio-pathic murderous scumbag.  Before you start pumping hot air, friend, understand the Law of Tithing in Missouri required the property of members to be consecrated to the Bishop then returned as part of a stewardship.  If a person left the church, he lost his property.
> 
> Please don't show us that you don't understand this anymore than you do Mosiah 4.
Click to expand...


Welcome back Jakey...
Well with Joseph Smith the difference is he was not profitting, nor taking advantage of the system and one other detail.... He was inspired of God and the others weren't.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jones was a communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JJ was a communitarian, just as was Joseph Smith, Lyman Wight, George Miller, and other early Mormon leaders.  JJ was also a socio-pathic murderous scumbag.  Before you start pumping hot air, friend, understand the Law of Tithing in Missouri required the property of members to be consecrated to the Bishop then returned as part of a stewardship.  If a person left the church, he lost his property.
> 
> Please don't show us that you don't understand this anymore than you do Mosiah 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome back Jakey...
> Well with Joseph Smith the difference is he was not profitting, nor taking advantage of the system and one other detail.... He was inspired of God and the others weren't.
Click to expand...


You have a right to your opinion, and you have learned somewhat to be fair to the facts.  But, yeah, JS was profiting: check the church books, but, really, that was no big deal in Nauvoo, I think.  He and others sure got the boot economically and physically before that.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Something about getting your own planet when you die?
> 
> Seriously, I was just watching a thing on Jim Jones.  What the hell is the difference, a cult is a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jones was a communist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JJ was a communitarian, just as was Joseph Smith, Lyman Wight, George Miller, and other early Mormon leaders.  JJ was also a socio-pathic murderous scumbag.  Before you start pumping hot air, friend, understand the Law of Tithing in Missouri required the property of members to be consecrated to the Bishop then returned as part of a stewardship.  If a person left the church, he lost his property.
> 
> Please don't show us that you don't understand this anymore than you do Mosiah 4.
Click to expand...


Actually, no if the person left the Church the property that he had stewardship over was his.

And I've demonstrated multiple times that I understand Mosiah 4. It's not my fault you seem to think that telling people about their duties to minister to others means they are obligated to support a big government to do that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Jones was a communist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JJ was a communitarian, just as was Joseph Smith, Lyman Wight, George Miller, and other early Mormon leaders.  JJ was also a socio-pathic murderous scumbag.  Before you start pumping hot air, friend, understand the Law of Tithing in Missouri required the property of members to be consecrated to the Bishop then returned as part of a stewardship.  If a person left the church, he lost his property.
> 
> Please don't show us that you don't understand this anymore than you do Mosiah 4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no if the person left the Church the property that he had stewardship over was his.
> 
> And I've demonstrated multiple times that I understand Mosiah 4. It's not my fault you seem to think that telling people about their duties to minister to others means they are obligated to support a big government to do that.
Click to expand...


Actually, you are wrong.  Phelps, Whitmer, Cowdery, etc., were excommunmicated for selling their property without church approval.

Actually, you are the one who is skiring that King Benjamin's government was a theodemocracy, and his preaching was law unto his followers, just as was Joseph Smith's.

You are out of step and or in denial of your own scriptures and church history.


----------



## Avatar4321

Im not familiar with the Counts of Phelps and Whitmer. But I know Cowdery was excommunicated for "forsaking the ministry". 

When property was deeded to you, it was yours. If you left the Church, you kept the property. That's the way it's always been.

As for King Benjamin, we've rehashed this dozens of times. At no point did he ever advocate handing money over to him so that he as the king could administer to the needs of others. In fact, this activity of taxing the people to take care of others was explicitely condemned as one of the evil practices of King Noah. Your attempt to somehow justify legalized robbery, especially when the scriptures you site clearly speak against it and how all Robbers are condemned in the Book of Mormon as the most evil people in their society lacks any credibility.

King Benjamin, like all disciples of Christ, taught the people to provide charity and service to those they meet in need in their own lives. Those who follow the Lord have always been taught to give willingly and generously. Not to rely on the government to do so.

I don't know why you can't see this. The scriptures are very clear in this regard.


----------



## Avatar4321

In memory of the Martyrdom of Joseph Smith Jr and his brother Hyrum Smith who were murdered at around this time 147 years ago, I wanted to share the memorial written my John Tyler who witnessed the bloodshed.

Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar is narrowing the argument that the King, the rule of the government and whom the people must obey, did not "say" "give me your money for the poor."  Let's remind Avatar what exactly was said: "MOSIAH 4:16. And also, ye *yourselves will succor *those that stand in need of your succor; *ye will administer of your substance *unto him that standeth in need; and *ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish*."

There was no choice in this.  The King said, in effect, that Jake and Truth and Avatar would take care of the poor.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Want to bet this was not voluntary?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Follow the links below for the trials.

Journal, March&#8211;September 1838 - SummaryBut in neither Missouri nor Ohio did events unfold as expected. ... counselors John Whitmer and William W. Phelps of the proceeds from the sale of property .... Cowdery's trial seems to have been the motivating factor for transcribing ...
josephsmithpapers.org/.../journal-march&#8211;september-1838 - Cached
Quest for Refuge &#8211; 05 « The Signature Books LibraryIn the eyes of the high council in Far West the sale of property in Independence ... of $2000 in personal contributions given by Phelps and Whitmer, ..... the turning point in Mormon-Gentile relations in western Missouri.81 Smith ..... and a sheriff went to Far West to bring Joseph Smith and Lyman Wight to trial. ...
signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=5342 - Cached
Church History in the Fulness of Times Institute Student Manual ...The Prophet Joseph and those who accompanied him to Missouri in the summer of ... Seven high priests&#8212;Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, John Whitmer, .... that all &#8220;Gentiles&#8221; (non-Mormons) would be cut off when the millennial ... Some of the old settlers were selling their property to the Mormons and moving away. ...
institute.lds.org/manual/church-history-institute.../chft-11-15-11.asp - Cached
Church History in the Fulness of Times Institute Student Manual ...The members in northern Missouri were already establishing new headquarters ...
institute.lds.org/manual/church-history-institute.../chft-11-15-15.asp - Cached
Show more results from lds.org1838: Joseph Smith in Northern Missouri | Religious Studies CenterIn 1836, using Church funds, W. W. Phelps and John Whitmer, ... [14] The second elder also became partner with the Missouri presidency in selling property in ... On May 11 a trial was held for McLellin wherein he stated he had no ...
rsc.byu.edu/archived/joseph.../1838-joseph-smith-northern-missouri - Cached
Book of John WhitmerNot many days after my brethren, Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Jr., ... of the gospel of Jesus Christ, first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews. .... Therefore they would take each other's clothes and other property and use it ..... The Church at Thompson made all possible haste to leave for Missouri, ...
Book of John Whitmer - Cached - Similar
[PDF] A Community Abandoned: W. W. Phelps' 1839 Letter to Sally Waterman ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
by AL Baugh - Related articles
the Church in Missouri, with William and John Whitmer as counselors.2 ... dency in selling property in Jackson County contrary to the revelations and ... It is not known whether this trial constituted his excommunication, but his ...
http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...itesfoundation.org/.../nj.../NJ10.2_Baugh.pdf - Similar
Church History ch 11-15The Prophet Joseph and those who accompanied him to Missouri in the summer of ... Seven high priests&#8212;Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, John Whitmer, .... that all &#8220;Gentiles&#8221; (non-Mormons) would be cut off when the millennial ... Some of the old settlers were selling their property to the Mormons and moving away. ...
Church History ch 11-15 - Cached - Similar
1838 Senate Document No. 189: Testimony on the Trial of Joseph SmithAug 6, 2006 &#8211; 43 W. W. Phelps' Testimony; (under construction) ... the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Missouri, on the Trial of Joseph Smith, .... a captain who applied to a Dutchman to purchase potatoes, who refused to sell. ..... Oliver Cowdery stole the property, conveyed it to John Whitmer, and John ...
olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1838Sent.htm - Cached - Similar
Sidney Gilbert - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion ...Sep 4, 2010 &#8211; Gilbert moved to Independence, Missouri, and he operated a store there ... W. W. Phelps, Edward Partridge, John Corrill, John Whitmer, ... of Independence should not sell the property they owned there, but that they should retain it ... rather die than go forth and preach the gospel to the Gentiles. ...
www.mormonwiki.com/Sid


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar is narrowing the argument that the King, the rule of the government and whom the people must obey, did not "say" "give me your money for the poor."  Let's remind Avatar what exactly was said: "MOSIAH 4:16. And also, ye *yourselves will succor *those that stand in need of your succor; *ye will administer of your substance *unto him that standeth in need; and *ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish*."
> 
> There was no choice in this.  The King said, in effect, that Jake and Truth and Avatar would take care of the poor.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Want to bet this was not voluntary?



And...this is why we can never have a Morman POTUS.  He will be obligated to give this "property" to the Church of Latter Day Saints.

There is no such thing as a secular Morman.


----------



## Avatar4321

I don't know why you have such a difficult time understanding the difference between government forceably taking money from the people to give to others and individuals ministering to others and lifting up others. You are the only one I know who has ever read that passage to mean that God wants the government to "Redistribute wealth".

Individuals have the obligation to serve their fellow man. We do have the obligation to lift the poor. We are to succor the needy. 

The Lord doesn't force people. He wants a willing mind and a willing heart. Why is that so difficult to understand?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar is narrowing the argument that the King, the rule of the government and whom the people must obey, did not "say" "give me your money for the poor."  Let's remind Avatar what exactly was said: "MOSIAH 4:16. And also, ye *yourselves will succor *those that stand in need of your succor; *ye will administer of your substance *unto him that standeth in need; and *ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish*."
> 
> There was no choice in this.  The King said, in effect, that Jake and Truth and Avatar would take care of the poor.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Want to bet this was not voluntary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And...this is why we can never have a Morman POTUS.  He will be obligated to give this "property" to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> There is no such thing as a secular Morman.
Click to expand...


No there aren't secular mormons. But your conclusion is rather obsurd. What would it matter if a Mormon President gave all his property to the Church? That wouldnt affect his role as President or anything he does for the nation. Your conclusion doesn't follow any sort of logic here.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar is narrowing the argument that the King, the rule of the government and whom the people must obey, did not "say" "give me your money for the poor."  Let's remind Avatar what exactly was said: "MOSIAH 4:16. And also, ye *yourselves will succor *those that stand in need of your succor; *ye will administer of your substance *unto him that standeth in need; and *ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish*."
> 
> There was no choice in this.  The King said, in effect, that Jake and Truth and Avatar would take care of the poor.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Want to bet this was not voluntary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And...this is why we can never have a Morman POTUS.  He will be obligated to give this "property" to the Church of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> There is no such thing as a secular Morman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No there aren't secular mormons. But your conclusion is rather obsurd. What would it matter if a Mormon President gave all his property to the Church? That wouldnt affect his role as President or anything he does for the nation. Your conclusion doesn't follow any sort of logic here.
Click to expand...


I agree with you.  And you need to follow the logic of Mosiah 4 and the links I gave you above.  Your interp economically of Mormon scripture and doctrine is heretical (that means "in error").


----------



## Avatar4321

Jake, I know you think I'm wrong But there is nothing in the Gospel or the scriptures that teaches that the responsibility to take care of the poor and afflicted should be taken care of by the government. It's the responsibilities of individuals to minister to those around them and they must do so voluntarily or it's pointless.

In fact, it speaks nothing but evil for overburdening the people with taxes and Robbing the people through political force.

You can claim otherwise all you want. But you aren't right about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are partially right, but since King Benjamin was the head of government and head of church, yes, to take care of the poor and the sick and the ill and the orphan is indeed part of your scriptures by individual, by church, and by government.  In modern days, theodemocracy fuses church and goveernment.  Your church would practice theodemocracy openly if it could.  So would many churches.  Simple fact.


----------



## Zona

is it true they actually believe they will get their own planet when they die?  Seriously?  

Go beck!  Please.


----------



## BentWingedAngel

Avatar4321 said:


> Jake, I know you think I'm wrong But there is nothing in the Gospel or the scriptures that teaches that the responsibility to take care of the poor and afflicted should be taken care of by the government. It's the responsibilities of individuals to minister to those around them and they must do so voluntarily or it's pointless.
> 
> In fact, it speaks nothing but evil for overburdening the people with taxes and Robbing the people through political force.
> 
> You can claim otherwise all you want. But you aren't right about it.



So the gospels leave no doubt that Jesus taught his followers not only in words, but by example, to give to the government any taxes that are owed. 

In Romans 13:1, Paul brings further clarification to this concept, along with an even broader responsibility to Christians: 

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (NIV)
Therefore, we can conclude from this verse, if we don't pay taxes we are rebelling against the authorities established by God. 
Romans 13:2 gives this warning: 

"Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (NIV)
And finally, regarding the paying of taxes, Paul couldn't make it any clearer in Romans 13:5-7: 

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> is it true they actually believe they will get their own planet when they die?  Seriously?
> 
> Go beck!  Please.



if you'd like to know, you can find out for yourself. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon. You can order one for free.


----------



## Avatar4321

BentWingedAngel said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, I know you think I'm wrong But there is nothing in the Gospel or the scriptures that teaches that the responsibility to take care of the poor and afflicted should be taken care of by the government. It's the responsibilities of individuals to minister to those around them and they must do so voluntarily or it's pointless.
> 
> In fact, it speaks nothing but evil for overburdening the people with taxes and Robbing the people through political force.
> 
> You can claim otherwise all you want. But you aren't right about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the gospels leave no doubt that Jesus taught his followers not only in words, but by example, to give to the government any taxes that are owed.
> 
> In Romans 13:1, Paul brings further clarification to this concept, along with an even broader responsibility to Christians:
> 
> "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (NIV)
> Therefore, we can conclude from this verse, if we don't pay taxes we are rebelling against the authorities established by God.
> Romans 13:2 gives this warning:
> 
> "Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." (NIV)
> And finally, regarding the paying of taxes, Paul couldn't make it any clearer in Romans 13:5-7:
> 
> Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)
Click to expand...


Never said otherwise... So I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## Warrior102

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



I don't know a damned thing about your religion.

Do you believe in Jesus and God?

If so - you pass.


----------



## Zona

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it true they actually believe they will get their own planet when they die?  Seriously?
> 
> Go beck!  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you'd like to know, you can find out for yourself. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon. You can order one for free.
Click to expand...


So these fucking nuts really believe they will get their own planets when they die.  This is a credible religion?  No wonder Beck loves it.  It makes sense to me now.

Their own planet....lololololololol


----------



## Avatar4321

Warrior102 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a damned thing about your religion.
> 
> Do you believe in Jesus and God?
> 
> If so - you pass.
Click to expand...


Our First Article of Faith is that "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost"

So to answer your question in one word: Yes


----------



## Warrior102

Avatar4321 said:


> Warrior102 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a damned thing about your religion.
> 
> Do you believe in Jesus and God?
> 
> If so - you pass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our First Article of Faith is that "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost"
> 
> So to answer your question in one word: Yes
Click to expand...


Cool
You have that whole Trinity thing going.
I'm good with that


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it true they actually believe they will get their own planet when they die?  Seriously?
> 
> Go beck!  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you'd like to know, you can find out for yourself. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon. You can order one for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So these fucking nuts really believe they will get their own planets when they die.  This is a credible religion?  No wonder Beck loves it.  It makes sense to me now.
> 
> Their own planet....lololololololol
Click to expand...


I recommended you read for yourself instead of simply relying on what others say. In fact, Id recommend everyone do that.

Either the Book of Mormon is true or it isn't. And there is an easy way to find out. God has promised that He will reveal the truth through the Holy Spirit. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to order a free copy of the Book of Mormon and reading it for yourself and finding out from the Lord the truth of it.


----------



## Warrior102

Sorry  - You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Avatar4321 again


----------



## Salt Jones

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you'd like to know, you can find out for yourself. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon. You can order one for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So these fucking nuts really believe they will get their own planets when they die.  This is a credible religion?  No wonder Beck loves it.  It makes sense to me now.
> 
> Their own planet....lololololololol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recommended you read for yourself instead of simply relying on what others say. Inf act, Id recommend everyone do that.
> 
> Either the Book of Mormon is true or it isn't. And there is an easy way to find out. God has promised that He will reveal the truth through the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I don't think it's unreasonable to order a free copy of the Book of Mormon and reading it for yourself and finding out from the Lord the truth of it.
Click to expand...


No thanks, all religion is bullshit anyway.


----------



## Avatar4321

Salt Jones said:


> No thanks, all religion is bullshit anyway.



Not sure how you can logically conclude that when you refuse to study religions, but to each his own.


----------



## Zona

Avatar4321 said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks, all religion is bullshit anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how you can logically conclude that when you refuse to study religions, but to each his own.
Click to expand...


So, YOUR understanding of this all, do they really believe in getting a planet when they die?  I am asking YOUR interpretation of all this.  YOURS....

Is that what it says?  No deflection, no misdirection.  YOu read it, what is what you took from it..?  What planet will you get when you die?


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks, all religion is bullshit anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how you can logically conclude that when you refuse to study religions, but to each his own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, YOUR understanding of this all, do they really believe in getting a planet when they die?  I am asking YOUR interpretation of all this.  YOURS....
> 
> Is that what it says?  No deflection, no misdirection.  YOu read it, what is what you took from it..?  What planet will you get when you die?
Click to expand...


I have no clue what happens when we die other than what's been written in scripture. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ we are joint heirs with Christ and will receive all the Father has. The Father does have a number of planets. I can't imagine that wouldn't be part of the package.

The Book of Mormon says nothing on the subject. You'd know that for yourself if you read it.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Zona said:


> is it true they actually believe they will get their own planet when they die?  Seriously?
> 
> Go beck!  Please.



Is it true that when you get bored, you entertain yourself by bobbing for French Fries?


----------



## Avatar4321

Rat in the Hat said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it true they actually believe they will get their own planet when they die?  Seriously?
> 
> Go beck!  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it true that when you get bored, you entertain yourself by bobbing for French Fries?
Click to expand...


That sounds painful, so I hope no one does that.

But the beauty of the Gospel is that even if someone does something that stupid, God can heal them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> You are partially right, but since King Benjamin was the head of government and head of church, yes, to take care of the poor and the sick and the ill and the orphan is indeed part of your scriptures by individual, by church, and by government.  In modern days, theodemocracy fuses church and goveernment.  Your church would practice theodemocracy openly if it could.  So would many churches.  Simple fact.



Of course we would... We've been warning everybody that Jesus is going to insititute his theodemocracy very soon worldwide.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Warrior102 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know a damned thing about your religion.
> 
> Do you believe in Jesus and God?
> 
> If so - you pass.
Click to expand...


Well there are no damned things to know... Only good knowledge that won't get you damned.

btw we pass I guess.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> is it true they actually believe they will get their own planet when they die?  Seriously?
> 
> Go beck!  Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you'd like to know, you can find out for yourself. Feel free to read the Book of Mormon. You can order one for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So these fucking nuts really believe they will get their own planets when they die.  This is a credible religion?  No wonder Beck loves it.  It makes sense to me now.
> 
> Their own planet....lololololololol
Click to expand...


what's more ridiculous?
Believing there is a God who is the literal father of all of us who you're not allowed to see but are supposed to believe in.......... or........
That that same God would give all his has to his children in the next life?......or..... BONUS OPTION.....

Not believing in a God at all..

Choose door number 1 2 or 3 smartypants.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Salt Jones said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> So these fucking nuts really believe they will get their own planets when they die.  This is a credible religion?  No wonder Beck loves it.  It makes sense to me now.
> 
> Their own planet....lololololololol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recommended you read for yourself instead of simply relying on what others say. Inf act, Id recommend everyone do that.
> 
> Either the Book of Mormon is true or it isn't. And there is an easy way to find out. God has promised that He will reveal the truth through the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I don't think it's unreasonable to order a free copy of the Book of Mormon and reading it for yourself and finding out from the Lord the truth of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thanks, all religion is bullshit anyway.
Click to expand...



why?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thanks, all religion is bullshit anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how you can logically conclude that when you refuse to study religions, but to each his own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, YOUR understanding of this all, do they really believe in getting a planet when they die?  I am asking YOUR interpretation of all this.  YOURS....
> 
> Is that what it says?  No deflection, no misdirection.  YOu read it, what is what you took from it..?  What planet will you get when you die?
Click to expand...


What you've heard is a regurgitated piece of anti mormon excriment... It's loosely derived from the fact that we are all Gods in training. What do gods do in the next life? Whatever they want... If they want to build a planet, then the name of the planet hasn't been created yet. So I don't have a name. I might name my planet as a special place where cynical morons are not allowed... Perhaps NOMORONS... Has a nice ring to it eh?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker, 'porn' is concept applied to more than perversion of sex and attitudes about sex.  It applies to religious discussions: not all defenders of Mormonism practice _apologeticsporn_, not all critics of Mormononism practice _apostasyporn_.  If we stay with incontrovertible historical facts, we can discuss without name calling.


----------



## emilynghiem

Truthspeaker said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how you can logically conclude that when you refuse to study religions, but to each his own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, YOUR understanding of this all, do they really believe in getting a planet when they die?  I am asking YOUR interpretation of all this.  YOURS....
> 
> Is that what it says?  No deflection, no misdirection.  YOu read it, what is what you took from it..?  What planet will you get when you die?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you've heard is a regurgitated piece of anti mormon excriment... It's loosely derived from the fact that we are all Gods in training. What do gods do in the next life? Whatever they want... If they want to build a planet, then the name of the planet hasn't been created yet. So I don't have a name. I might name my planet as a special place where cynical morons are not allowed... Perhaps NOMORONS... Has a nice ring to it eh?
Click to expand...


Dear SaltJones TruthSpeaker et al:
1. I would agree that all religions (and secular laws as well) can be abused to espouse and perpetuate "BS". As I have long argued, the scourge of legal/judicial abuse is just as rampant if not worse than religious/cult abuse (in part because legal/judicial authority is mandatory to follow while religious authority is optional; but both can be abused to induce severe psychological and physical damage, even PTSD for harm that is otherwise hidden)

But I also recognize any law or system can be used for good equally as bad.
If we only focus on the bad, and the unforgiveable offenses there, 
that can bias our judgment instead of putting all things in balanced perspective.
Yes, the wrongs should be addressed, but in all systems equally across the spectrum.
And so should the good contributions from all groups be encouraged and recognized.

2. TS I misread your post at first, and thought it said NOMORMONS
instead of NOMORONS!

How I would interpret the vision of having a new planet:
when the false ways of the world come to their own end for they are unsustainable
then it is like a new world being reborn, so that can seem like a new planet.

On a literal level, there are some people who believe mankind is destined to develop
our technology to be able to move to another planet since the earth will eventually
move too close to the sun. 

Either way, both futures would require humanity to reach spiritual maturity
and cooperate in perfect harmony instead of haggling over details and issues
carried over from the past as we do now.

So no matter what our future holds, or what these visions mean,
the common factor is making peace and rising above our differences
to establish universal truth so we can align in purpose and action to be more productive
and resourceful, instead of wasting so much on conflict.

The peacemaking process will humble us all, and compel correction or elimination of every fault on all sides. When we are all equally humble that way, we will not pick on each other for how we say or see things, because we all are going to be different, so what.

I believe the learning curve bends toward truth and justice and harmony,
so thank you for abiding in faith until all hearts and minds align in peace.

The more we struggle to understand each other,
the greater the rewards in the process.
Wishing you the best, Thanks!


----------



## Avatar4321

If you are seeking the Truth, then you will accept the Book of Mormon, because the Holy Spirit says it contains the Truth. It preaches the Fulness of the Gospel and establishes the Bible as Truth as well. The Record of Joseph and the Record of Judah are in the hands of descendants of Jacob and reminding them that God will keep the covenants He has made with the House of Israel and Establishing that Jesus is the Christ.

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a reality. He appeared to people throughout the world. The Book of Mormon records the appearance of the Risen Lord to those who lived in America. Their witness is true. Read it. Study it. Pray over it. The Lord has told us to prove all things. He has told us that the Spirit will show us the Truth of all things. And that all scripture is profitable for us.

You can read it for free. You can pray about it. Every person can find out for themselves that the Book of Mormon is true. God has made a promise that all may learn.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker, 'porn' is concept applied to more than perversion of sex and attitudes about sex.  It applies to religious discussions: not all defenders of Mormonism practice _apologeticsporn_, not all critics of Mormononism practice _apostasyporn_.  If we stay with incontrovertible historical facts, we can discuss without name calling.



Porn? I miss your point...

As to the name calling... I called no one any name.


----------



## HUGGY

Pity bump


----------



## JakeStarkey

pity bump bump


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Pity bump



idle curiosity here. What is a pity bump?


----------



## Avatar4321

LaterTrader said:


> ANY variety of "CHRISTIAN" is a screwed up mystical believing, intellectually lazy, wishful thinking, arrogant, self-serving, childishly acting human being.



I humbly disagree. Christianity, accurately taught and in it's fullness, is the Lord's Plan of happiness and Redemption. It is an answer to the Fall of man and the inherent corruption in ourselves. The Doctrines are designed to help us overcome both sin and death, and thus find true joy in this life and in the life to come. 

The unfortunate truth, however, is that few end up using the Atonement of Christ to it's fullest potential. There are intellectally lazy Christians. There are wishful thinking, arogant, self-serving, childish Christians. The fact that Christians as a whole are imperfect or fail to understand the power of godliness found in their faith, doesn't invalidate (or validate) whether that faith is true.

There is only one way to determine whether Jesus is the Christ, and that is the way Peter did.

Tell me, have you studied the scriptures? Have you read the Bible? Have you read any other scripture such as the Book of Mormon? Or do you simply base your conclusions on what you percieve Christians to be or do?



> To elevate ANY ONE human being above another, from the moment of birth and baptism......this is the ultimate kind of tribal lunacy that we see in a 21st century world.



How is it lunacy? merely because you say so? Christ descended below all things to lift us above all things. If we elevate Christ to the position He rightly holds, we are merely rising ourselves to the same level because through His Atonement we have become Joint Heirs with Christ. We shall recieve the blessings He has recieved from the Father. And unlike us, He was actually worthy of those blessings.



> It really DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS OR THE EASTER BUNNY... OR JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE..........THEY ARE ALL FANTASIES!!!!!



Again, why?  Because you say so? We have the testimony of countless eye witnesses. I have my own personal witness from the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ. The only reason I truly know is because God revealed it to me. I've asked myself "why me?" many times. I am no more worthy to know than anyone else. There are many more worthy. But who am I to deny God? Why should I deny what I know to be true simply because you make claims you don't back up? Is ridicule truly the only evidence you have?



> Please people, grow up and let your brains grow up, too!  We don't need to be fighting amongst each other, killing over a million people with American tax dollars in the last ten years, all based upon "Christianity is better than..." kind of thinking.



No we don't need to fight against each other. Truth be told, I don't consider myself fighting with you. You are my brother. You may not believe that, but it's true. And I have no doubt that you truly believe what you are saying. We simply disagree on whether it's true.

There is no reason that Christians, or anyone from any other faith for that matter, doesn't use thteir brains or let their intellect grow. Do you honestly believe that unless someone agrees completely with you that they aren't using their brains? Everyone has different experiences. Everyone is privy to different facts. Some have learned "facts" that simply aren't true, but honestly don't realize it. 

Is this ridicule really necessary? If you're points are correct, shouldn't you be able to simply rely on the merits of your arguments rather than ridicule your opponents? Obviously, we are all imperfect and we can get caught up in the emotion of debate. It's human tendency, but insulting someone doesn't prove yourself correct. In fact, it shows immaturity in regards to the debate and creates insincerity in discussion. How are we going to be united and come to any sort of understanding when we poison the discussion with insults rather than discuss things on the merits? 

I truly feel ashamed that I ever engage in that, especially, when i hurt a brother because of it and the merits of the truth to my faith are obscured in the emotion and hurt produced by it. The weakness of man is difficult to overcome sometimes.

And also, there hasnt been any killing or tax dollars spent to show Christianity is better than other ideals in the past ten years. Our government doesnt spend tax money to promote any religion, let alone Christianity. I

However, some ideas are superior to others. That is the truth. Thankfully, we have the freedom to speak our minds and debate and discuss what those ideas are. We can study and learn for ourselves and persuade others as well. 



> Please, Christians, of any and all varieties, get over your mythologies, and fight for human beings being able to co-exist in peace and mutual support upon this planet. Believe what fairy tales you want to believe about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Moses parting the seas, whatever.......I don't really think it makes a bit of difference what you believe.....just get on with saving the people... all the people.. on the planet,



I think you are falsely assuming that Christians don't already seek to coexist in peace and mutual support with our brethren. I have no doubt that some Christians may seek contention and violence, but the Spirit of Contention and disunity does not come from Christ. The Fruits of the Spirit are "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance" (Gal 5:22-23). 

Those are the fruit of the Christian faith. 

But I would also warn you against denying the power of godliness. I don't think that is wise. I've seen miracles. and the powers of God manifest. I've been healed from a serious injury instantaneously by the Spirit. (Quite unexpectedly too which was nice). There is power in Christianity. But the powers of heaven can only be maintained and controlled upon the principles of righteousness.



> AND STOP THIS SILLY BICKERING AND INTERNET VOTING !!!  Get to work fixing stuff.  Get an education, get busy doing something to make this planet a better place to live and stop fighting with each other over which mythology you prefer!!



More presumptions brother. I don't see how communication with my fellow man is silly bickering. Internet voting, you may have a point, but when two people are communicating and teaching and learning from one another, how does it not make the planet better place? likewise, how do you reconcile your own attitude in our internet discussions with your own desire? Do you really believe that everyone, but you is engaged in this behavior which you detest?

I find that is what seems to be the problem with alot of people. They want others to change, but they don't apply their own standards to themselves. I agree that we need to encourage others to do better. We need to preach, exhort, teach, and minister to the needs of others, but we need to make sure we are working on ourselves as well. We need to make sure we are practicing what we teach and encourage others to.

I consider this as part of ministry. (at least when im talking about religion, the political stuff is just more fun). It's also an exercise to help me grow and love others. Even when they are insulting.

I also think you might want to stop presuming people aren't educated simply because they believe and disagree with you. If you don't mind me asking, what is your educational background? How often do you read books for educational purposes? How do you study and learn?



> Get to work!



I have no doubt that many of us already are, even if you deny such. I suggest you do the same. I would encourage you to continue to lift your brothers as well. Stop ridiculing them and lift them. If they disagree with you so what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormons are Christian, no doubt.  Just not the one, true church is all.


----------



## Moonglow

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Do you always wear ur fundie undies.?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Mormons are Christian, no doubt.  Just not the one, true church is all.



Then who holds the keys to bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven? Who then has authority from God?


----------



## Truthspeaker

LaterTrader said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY variety of "CHRISTIAN" is a screwed up mystical believing, intellectually lazy, wishful thinking, arrogant, self-serving, childishly acting human being.
> 
> To elevate ANY ONE human being above another, from the moment of birth and baptism......this is the ultimate kind of tribal lunacy that we see in a 21st century world.
> 
> It really DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS OR THE EASTER BUNNY... OR JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE..........THEY ARE ALL FANTASIES!!!!!
> 
> Please people, grow up and let your brains grow up, too!  We don't need to be fighting amongst each other, killing over a million people with American tax dollars in the last ten years, all based upon "Christianity is better than..." kind of thinking.
> 
> Please, Christians, of any and all varieties, get over your mythologies, and fight for human beings being able to co-exist in peace and mutual support upon this planet. Believe what fairy tales you want to believe about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Moses parting the seas, whatever.......I don't really think it makes a bit of difference what you believe.....just get on with saving the people... all the people.. on the planet,
> 
> AND STOP THIS SILLY BICKERING AND INTERNET VOTING !!!  Get to work fixing stuff.  Get an education, get busy doing something to make this planet a better place to live and stop fighting with each other over which mythology you prefer!!
> 
> Get to work!
Click to expand...


In response to your heavy insults all I would say to you is get yourself an education. You have obviously done zero research on my religion because if you had then you would realize our entire religion revolves around making a difference among mankind for the better. 
Did you ever consider that Atheism is also mythology?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Moonglow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always wear ur fundie undies.?
Click to expand...


Cute avatar Mooner... will you contribute anything of substance?


----------



## MoistTrout

I can't say I have gone into any indepth analysis of the Mormon religion. As far as I know, there aren't many Mormons where I live, and I have never been a big fan of organized religion. In all honesty, most of my knowledge about Mormons probably comes from South Park. While I don't recommend animated TV shows as being the primary source for knowledge on any subject, it does lend me the base of what my general opinion is.

I don't remember the exact line, but the Mormon charecter that has been the center of the episode tells the boys he doesn't care what the origins of the religion were, what was important was what it teached today. Because of it, he was a good person, close with his family, and involved in his community.

Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and *disciplined* and if necessary, excommunicated.
Click to expand...


You guys do lashes also? Or just a stern finger wagging?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are Christian, no doubt.  Just not the one, true church is all.
> 
> 
> 
> Then who holds the keys to bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven? Who then has authority from God?
Click to expand...

False definitions.  God through Jesus Christ makes His grace and will known to the individual.  Remember that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are written by men.


----------



## ananias

LaterTrader said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY variety of "CHRISTIAN" is a screwed up mystical believing, intellectually lazy, wishful thinking, arrogant, self-serving, childishly acting human being.
> 
> To elevate ANY ONE human being above another, from the moment of birth and baptism......this is the ultimate kind of tribal lunacy that we see in a 21st century world.
> 
> It really DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS OR THE EASTER BUNNY... OR JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE..........THEY ARE ALL FANTASIES!!!!!
> 
> Please people, grow up and let your brains grow up, too!  We don't need to be fighting amongst each other, killing over a million people with American tax dollars in the last ten years, all based upon "Christianity is better than..." kind of thinking.
> 
> Please, Christians, of any and all varieties, get over your mythologies, and fight for human beings being able to co-exist in peace and mutual support upon this planet. Believe what fairy tales you want to believe about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Moses parting the seas, whatever.......I don't really think it makes a bit of difference what you believe.....just get on with saving the people... all the people.. on the planet,
> 
> AND STOP THIS SILLY BICKERING AND INTERNET VOTING !!!  Get to work fixing stuff.  Get an education, get busy doing something to make this planet a better place to live and stop fighting with each other over which mythology you prefer!!
> 
> Get to work!
Click to expand...

It's nice to see someone speak the truth to these loathsome irresponsible people.  It strikes me as phenomenally reckless and immoral to exploit the naivety of young children yet that is precisely what every religion does.  They are such filthy hypocrites; claiming to cherish the "freedom of religion" that protects all faiths while simultaneously denying their own children that very same privilege.  No child can defend themselves from such an insidious indoctrination and so it is passed on--like an infectious disease.  A truly decent person would wait until their children were adults--fully capable of evaluating those theories and aware of their own rights and responsibilities--before introducing them to religious ideas and materials.

I believe that religion is on the outs.  It seems to thrive on ignorance, oppression, and poverty; and all three of those things are rapidly being undermined by the global internet.  I think it will ultimately evolve to make our political capital as tangible and fungible as currency makes our other wealth, and that this will allow free market forces to make us into a genuinely wise and competent global electorate.  And that that will lead to the protection of children from the industries that seek to exploit them, and hence the death of religion as we know it today.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheists waste much time on being unable to prove that God does not exist, so most of us consider that part of their values system rather stupid.  But, hey, it's their lives.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are Christian, no doubt.  Just not the one, true church is all.
> 
> 
> 
> Then who holds the keys to bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven? Who then has authority from God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False definitions.  God through Jesus Christ makes His grace and will known to the individual.  Remember that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are written by men.
Click to expand...


How can it be a false definition? The scriptures clearly mention Christ telling Peter that he would be given the keys to the bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven. Who alive has those keys today?


----------



## Avatar4321

ananias said:


> It's nice to see someone speak the truth to these loathsome irresponsible people.  It strikes me as phenomenally reckless and immoral to exploit the naivety of young children yet that is precisely what every religion does.  They are such filthy hypocrites; claiming to cherish the "freedom of religion" that protects all faiths while simultaneously denying their own children that very same privilege.  No child can defend themselves from such an insidious indoctrination and so it is passed on--like an infectious disease.  A truly decent person would wait until their children were adults--fully capable of evaluating those theories and aware of their own rights and responsibilities--before introducing them to religious ideas and materials.
> 
> I believe that religion is on the outs.  It seems to thrive on ignorance, oppression, and poverty; and all three of those things are rapidly being undermined by the global internet.  I think it will ultimately evolve to make our political capital as tangible and fungible as currency makes our other wealth, and that this will allow free market forces to make us into a genuinely wise and competent global electorate.  And that that will lead to the protection of children from the industries that seek to exploit them, and hence the death of religion as we know it today.



I hate to disappoint you, but you're wrong. Faith in Christ is reviving in the world.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then who holds the keys to bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven? Who then has authority from God?
> 
> 
> 
> False definitions.  God through Jesus Christ makes His grace and will known to the individual.  Remember that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are written by men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can it be a false definition? The scriptures clearly mention Christ telling Peter that he would be given the keys to the bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven. Who alive has those keys today?
Click to expand...


That's one interp of the scripture but not the only  one, and certainly not the one favored by the overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faith.

Don't worry.  I don't Catholicism is any more a "true church" than I do any of those various sects of Mormonism that follow Joseph Smith.


----------



## Monnagonna

Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormon girls in the mainstream sect, the LDS, are more educated than the average American girl.

If you are talking about Mormon girls in the small FLDS polygamous sect, yes, you are right.


----------



## Truthspeaker

MoistTrout said:


> I can't say I have gone into any indepth analysis of the Mormon religion. As far as I know, there aren't many Mormons where I live, and I have never been a big fan of organized religion. In all honesty, most of my knowledge about Mormons probably comes from South Park. While I don't recommend animated TV shows as being the primary source for knowledge on any subject, it does lend me the base of what my general opinion is.
> 
> I don't remember the exact line, but the Mormon charecter that has been the center of the episode tells the boys he doesn't care what the origins of the religion were, what was important was what it teached today. Because of it, he was a good person, close with his family, and involved in his community.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that.



I appreciate your level headed statements, however, the origins of my religion are very important to me. And the origins are the very best and by some of the very best people God ever chose to do any of His work. I'd love to talk origins with you. What part of our origins do you have problem with? There are many misconceptions that I am constantly correcting.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and *disciplined* and if necessary, excommunicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys do lashes also? Or just a stern finger wagging?
Click to expand...


My sarcasmeter detects mockage...

that's ok... but no physical discipline of course.


----------



## Moonglow

Truthspeaker said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always wear ur fundie undies.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute avatar Mooner... will you contribute anything of substance?
Click to expand...


Do u know where in  NE Missouri that the Mormons expect Christ to alit on the second coming? Do u always wear ur fundie undies?


----------



## Truthspeaker

ananias said:


> LaterTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANY variety of "CHRISTIAN" is a screwed up mystical believing, intellectually lazy, wishful thinking, arrogant, self-serving, childishly acting human being.
> 
> To elevate ANY ONE human being above another, from the moment of birth and baptism......this is the ultimate kind of tribal lunacy that we see in a 21st century world.
> 
> It really DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU BELIEVE IN SANTA CLAUS OR THE EASTER BUNNY... OR JESUS CHRIST OF THE BIBLE..........THEY ARE ALL FANTASIES!!!!!
> 
> Please people, grow up and let your brains grow up, too!  We don't need to be fighting amongst each other, killing over a million people with American tax dollars in the last ten years, all based upon "Christianity is better than..." kind of thinking.
> 
> Please, Christians, of any and all varieties, get over your mythologies, and fight for human beings being able to co-exist in peace and mutual support upon this planet. Believe what fairy tales you want to believe about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Jesus, Moses parting the seas, whatever.......I don't really think it makes a bit of difference what you believe.....just get on with saving the people... all the people.. on the planet,
> 
> AND STOP THIS SILLY BICKERING AND INTERNET VOTING !!!  Get to work fixing stuff.  Get an education, get busy doing something to make this planet a better place to live and stop fighting with each other over which mythology you prefer!!
> 
> Get to work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's nice to see someone speak the truth to these loathsome irresponsible people.  It strikes me as phenomenally reckless and immoral to exploit the naivety of young children yet that is precisely what every religion does.  They are such filthy hypocrites; claiming to cherish the "freedom of religion" that protects all faiths while simultaneously denying their own children that very same privilege.  No child can defend themselves from such an insidious indoctrination and so it is passed on--like an infectious disease.  A truly decent person would wait until their children were adults--fully capable of evaluating those theories and aware of their own rights and responsibilities--before introducing them to religious ideas and materials.
> 
> I believe that religion is on the outs.  It seems to thrive on ignorance, oppression, and poverty; and all three of those things are rapidly being undermined by the global internet.  I think it will ultimately evolve to make our political capital as tangible and fungible as currency makes our other wealth, and that this will allow free market forces to make us into a genuinely wise and competent global electorate.  And that that will lead to the protection of children from the industries that seek to exploit them, and hence the death of religion as we know it today.
Click to expand...


I almost agree with a small portion of your conceited rant.
Yes many religions do exploit the ignorant and young for money. But certainly not all. Certainly not mine that's for sure.
Tell me, do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is either evil, an idiot, or a brainwashed sheep? If not, why then do your responses indicate that's what you think of us?
It appears in your opinion that anyone who believes in something they haven't seen with their own physical eyeballs is grossly ignorant and incapable if independant thought. It's a good thing you're not in power because you would probably wipe out all who disagree with you like an infectious disease. I think we've seen that done before by several dictators who saw opponents as a scourge on society and a disease worth wiping out. 

Good job on being an embryotic dictator Mr. Syllabillic Scientific Smartypants.

btw... care to bring up any specifics next time, o educated one?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False definitions.  God through Jesus Christ makes His grace and will known to the individual.  Remember that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are written by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be a false definition? The scriptures clearly mention Christ telling Peter that he would be given the keys to the bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven. Who alive has those keys today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one interp of the scripture but not the only  one, and certainly not the one favored by the overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faith.
> 
> Don't worry.  I don't Catholicism is any more a "true church" than I do any of those various sects of Mormonism that follow Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...


please understand, despite how often you claim this, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has no sects...

You are either a recognized member, or not.. There are no affiliates. Others leave and start their own deals. We don't recognize any of them as legitimate.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...



what planet have you been on the last 100 years? we do all of those things for our women that you suggested. 90% of our women go to college, they have always been allowed to choose who they marry and we believe men to be absolutely equal to women if not slightly less valuable.

You got us mixed up with some pedophile cults... learn knowledge... do research..


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Do u know where in  NE Missouri that the Mormons expect Christ to alit on the second coming?


Yes, Jackson County Missouri. Further than that, the exact lattitude, longitude, I don't have for ya.



> Do u always wear ur fundie undies?


I don't have any "fundie undies" I don't even know what those are? So to answer directly, since I don't know what they are, I certainly don't own any and therefore have never worn "fundie undies".


----------



## MoistTrout

Truthspeaker said:


> MoistTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I have gone into any indepth analysis of the Mormon religion. As far as I know, there aren't many Mormons where I live, and I have never been a big fan of organized religion. In all honesty, most of my knowledge about Mormons probably comes from South Park. While I don't recommend animated TV shows as being the primary source for knowledge on any subject, it does lend me the base of what my general opinion is.
> 
> I don't remember the exact line, but the Mormon charecter that has been the center of the episode tells the boys he doesn't care what the origins of the religion were, what was important was what it teached today. Because of it, he was a good person, close with his family, and involved in his community.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your level headed statements, however, the origins of my religion are very important to me. And the origins are the very best and by some of the very best people God ever chose to do any of His work. I'd love to talk origins with you. What part of our origins do you have problem with? There are many misconceptions that I am constantly correcting.
Click to expand...


I don't have a particular problem with it. It's not my religion to have a problem with. But it's a little tough to buy into Indians (Native Americans, whatever) being part of lost tribes of Israel. And, of course, I don't see how anybody couldn't question someone who claimed to find a book of gold plates that nobody ever saw and translated them by putting a stone in his hat.

But whatever. Every religion has it's share of stories that are hard to believe when you boil them down. A woman turns into a pillar of salt, a man dies and comes back three days later, only 144,000 people will go to Heaven... But that's why they call it faith.

Even if someone is an Athiest it takes a certain form of faith. You have to buy into the belief that everything we have here is purely by accident. That the Earth just happen to land just far enough away from the sun not to roast us, but close enough to prevent us from freezing. A piece of that Earth broke off and went out just enough to keep us in an orbit. Out of the entire universe, we just happened to have all of the things happen to sustain life with odds roughly equivalent to winning the lottery... a hundred times... in a hundred consecutive drawings... with the exact same numbers.

But anyway,  I kind of got off the path there. If Mormonism is what somebody is comfortable with and that's where their heart leads them, more power to them. While a Mormon is spending two years as a missionary lending hands on assistance to people that need it, people who claim to be all about helping people are sitting at a computer whining and complaining. Some of them are probably taking shots at Mormons.


----------



## Moonglow

Truthspeaker said:


> Do u know where in  NE Missouri that the Mormons expect Christ to alit on the second coming?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jackson County Missouri. Further than that, the exact lattitude, longitude, I don't have for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do u always wear ur fundie undies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have any "fundie undies" I don't even know what those are? So to answer directly, since I don't know what they are, I certainly don't own any and therefore have never worn "fundie undies".
Click to expand...


Fundie undies are sacred under garments worn by Mormons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be a false definition? The scriptures clearly mention Christ telling Peter that he would be given the keys to the bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven. Who alive has those keys today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's one interp of the scripture but not the only  one, and certainly not the one favored by the overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faith.
> 
> Don't worry.  I don't Catholicism is any more a "true church" than I do any of those various sects of Mormonism that follow Joseph Smith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> please understand, despite how often you claim this, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has no sects...
> 
> You are either a recognized member, or not.. There are no affiliates. Others leave and start their own deals. We don't recognize any of them as legitimate.
Click to expand...


No matter how much you deny the incontestable fact that Mormonism is all those who follow the Restoration of Joseph Smith does not change the fact that the LDS are merely a sect of Mormonism.  

Tis what tis.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> False definitions.  God through Jesus Christ makes His grace and will known to the individual.  Remember that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are written by men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be a false definition? The scriptures clearly mention Christ telling Peter that he would be given the keys to the bind on earth and in heaven and loose on earth and in heaven. Who alive has those keys today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's one interp of the scripture but not the only  one, and certainly not the one favored by the overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faith.
> 
> Don't worry.  I don't Catholicism is any more a "true church" than I do any of those various sects of Mormonism that follow Joseph Smith.
Click to expand...


You are avoiding the question. If you understand it better, please educate us.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's one interp of the scripture but not the only  one, and certainly not the one favored by the overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faith.
> 
> Don't worry.  I don't Catholicism is any more a "true church" than I do any of those various sects of Mormonism that follow Joseph Smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please understand, despite how often you claim this, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has no sects...
> 
> You are either a recognized member, or not.. There are no affiliates. Others leave and start their own deals. We don't recognize any of them as legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny the incontestable fact that Mormonism is all those who follow the Restoration of Joseph Smith does not change the fact that the LDS are merely a sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Tis what tis.
Click to expand...


You can keep claiming that. But there is a clear way to tell if someone is mormon or not. If they are baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and havent been excommunicted, they are Mormon. Those who have never been baptized or have been exommunicted are not members.


----------



## Salt Jones

I don't believe in religion, but I don't fault someone for being religious. I live in Phoenix and work with alot of Mormons, I hear all kinds of anti-Mormon rants. Since I'm black I guess coworkers assume I'm not Mormon and feel it's ok to let loose. People refuse to buy from Mormon car dealers or other businesses, it's sad. I have only been treated with kindness and respect from every Mormon that I know.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> please understand, despite how often you claim this, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has no sects...
> 
> You are either a recognized member, or not.. There are no affiliates. Others leave and start their own deals. We don't recognize any of them as legitimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny the incontestable fact that Mormonism is all those who follow the Restoration of Joseph Smith does not change the fact that the LDS are merely a sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep claiming that. But there is a clear way to tell if someone is Mormon or not. If they are baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and haven't been excommunicated, they are Mormon. Those who have never been baptized or have been excommunicated are not members.
Click to expand...


That's only what the LDS say, and they are only one sect of Mormonism, so I suspect your definition is suspect.  That is the same as Roman Catholics saying they are the only true church, or, even better, the churchofchristers saying they are the only Christians.

What you believe does not make it so.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Yes, Jackson County Missouri. Further than that, the exact lattitude, longitude, I don't have for ya.



You aren't familiar with Adam Ondi Ahman?

Adam-ondi-Ahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> I don't have any "fundie undies" I don't even know what those are? So to answer directly, since I don't know what they are, I certainly don't own any and therefore have never worn "fundie undies".



So, you haven't received your temple endowments?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Moonglow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do u know where in  NE Missouri that the Mormons expect Christ to alit on the second coming?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jackson County Missouri. Further than that, the exact lattitude, longitude, I don't have for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do u always wear ur fundie undies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have any "fundie undies" I don't even know what those are? So to answer directly, since I don't know what they are, I certainly don't own any and therefore have never worn "fundie undies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fundie undies are sacred under garments worn by Mormons.
Click to expand...


No, they are two different things. I don't know what Fundie undies are, but I do know what sacred garments are.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's one interp of the scripture but not the only  one, and certainly not the one favored by the overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faith.
> 
> Don't worry.  I don't Catholicism is any more a "true church" than I do any of those various sects of Mormonism that follow Joseph Smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please understand, despite how often you claim this, that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has no sects...
> 
> You are either a recognized member, or not.. There are no affiliates. Others leave and start their own deals. We don't recognize any of them as legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny the incontestable fact that Mormonism is all those who follow the Restoration of Joseph Smith does not change the fact that the LDS are merely a sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Tis what tis.
Click to expand...


How bout this for an indisputable fact Mr. Schrute...: Mormonism is no more than a nicknamed label slapped on us by people like you, not created by members of our church. So officially we don't follow "Mormonism". Since you folks created the term, you are free to define it however you like, but it doesn't mean we have to subscribe to it, therefore, call it what you like, we as Christians, follow the doctrine of Christ, not "Mormonism" which you have proven, has no concrete definition except to yourself. 

We never called ourselves Mormons. We only respond to it as a result of people like you who don't know what we really are. Just so you could feel like you could relate to us somehow. The nickname "Mormons" was slapped on us by our persecutors and somehow has stuck as the only alternative to describe us to you folks.

So therefore, since Mormonism is an erroneous term, you cannot use it to define our religion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Salt Jones said:


> I don't believe in religion, but I don't fault someone for being religious. I live in Phoenix and work with alot of Mormons, I hear all kinds of anti-Mormon rants. Since I'm black I guess coworkers assume I'm not Mormon and feel it's ok to let loose. People refuse to buy from Mormon car dealers or other businesses, it's sad. I have only been treated with kindness and respect from every Mormon that I know.



And you can expect more of the same from me brother...


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how much you deny the incontestable fact that Mormonism is all those who follow the Restoration of Joseph Smith does not change the fact that the LDS are merely a sect of Mormonism.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep claiming that. But there is a clear way to tell if someone is Mormon or not. If they are baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and haven't been excommunicated, they are Mormon. Those who have never been baptized or have been excommunicated are not members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only what the LDS say, and they are only one sect of Mormonism, so I suspect your definition is suspect.  That is the same as Roman Catholics saying they are the only true church, or, even better, the churchofchristers saying they are the only Christians.
> 
> What you believe does not make it so.
Click to expand...



Even if what you are claiming is true, which it's not, and "Mormonism" really is divided into sects, then wouldn't your "LDS" folks be the first one's since the name of the first and only church established by Joseph Smith was titled "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"? So if that's the only church Joseph established, then that's the "Mother Church" and any church purported to have come from said church would be a sect of that church. Your logic is flawed. Check it with Spock and he would incontrovertibly agree.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Jackson County Missouri. Further than that, the exact lattitude, longitude, I don't have for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't familiar with Adam Ondi Ahman?
> 
> Adam-ondi-Ahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any "fundie undies" I don't even know what those are? So to answer directly, since I don't know what they are, I certainly don't own any and therefore have never worn "fundie undies".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you haven't received your temple endowments?
Click to expand...


Yes, but I'm not casting all my pearls before swine, or feline for that matter. But I guess feral cats are good at digging up things.

Good to see you again. Been a while. Just couldn't stay away could you?


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Yes, but I'm not casting all my pearls before swine, or feline for that matter. But I guess feral cats are good at digging up things.



Remember?  I lived the dream for several years.



> Good to see you again. Been a while. Just couldn't stay away could you?



I missed this board.  Thanks for the w/b.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what planet have you been on the last 100 years? we do all of those things for our women that you suggested. 90% of our women go to college, they have always been allowed to choose who they marry and we believe men to be absolutely equal to women if not slightly less valuable.
> 
> You got us mixed up with some pedophile cults... learn knowledge... do research..
Click to expand...


Sorry I got you confused with the Mormons in Bountiful, British Columbia and in Utah. You're obviously not a real mormon.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what planet have you been on the last 100 years? we do all of those things for our women that you suggested. 90% of our women go to college, they have always been allowed to choose who they marry and we believe men to be absolutely equal to women if not slightly less valuable.
> 
> You got us mixed up with some pedophile cults... learn knowledge... do research..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry I got you confused with the Mormons in Bountiful, British Columbia and in Utah. You're obviously not a real mormon.
Click to expand...


----------



## catzmeow

Monnagonna said:


> Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...



This is simply not factual.  I lived and worked in Utah for 10 years (Layton, Midvale, Salt Lake City and Roy).  Female suffrage was instituted in Utah in 1870, 25 years ahead of the date at which women could vote in the rest of the U.S.   Women in Utah are frequently highly educated (in fact, Mormons in general are much more highly educated, per capita, than the rest of the U.S.).   As a working woman in Utah, I was treated very well.

Doctrinally, I don't agree with the LDS Church--AT ALL.  I think that Joseph Smith was a con-man and fraud.  But, your claims about the LDS people are abhorrent and false.


----------



## geauxtohell

Have I mentioned that they are collectively the nicest group of people I have ever known?  

Seriously.  I don't believe in their religion, but they are some good people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can keep claiming that. But there is a clear way to tell if someone is Mormon or not. If they are baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and haven't been excommunicated, they are Mormon. Those who have never been baptized or have been excommunicated are not members.
> 
> 
> 
> That's only what the LDS say, and they are only one sect of Mormonism, so I suspect your definition is suspect.  That is the same as Roman Catholics saying they are the only true church, or, even better, the churchofchristers saying they are the only Christians.  What you believe does not make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even if what you are claiming is true, which it's not, and "Mormonism" really is divided into sects, then wouldn't your "LDS" folks be the first one's since the name of the first and only church established by Joseph Smith was titled "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"? So if that's the only church Joseph established, then that's the "Mother Church" and any church purported to have come from said church would be a sect of that church. Your logic is flawed. Check it with Spock and he would incontrovertibly agree.
Click to expand...


I would certainly agree that the LDS is the mother church but not the only Mormon church.  The LDS are the first major group of Mormon, of course.  Most of the other sects dissenting from LDS'ism claim reasons for the split, such as Joseph a fallen prophet or Wilford Woodruff apostatized over plural marriage and took the LDS with him into Mormon perdition.  That's normal for all religions, I guess.

Spock would say, "That computes, Starkey."


----------



## JakeStarkey

Here is an online Topography of Faith in the United States.  Neat!

USATODAY.com - Topography of religion


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idle curiosity here. What is a pity bump?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sQELbOflO4&NR=1]&#x202a;I Pity Da Foo&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idle curiosity here. What is a pity bump?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sQELbOflO4&NR=1]&#x202a;I Pity Da Foo&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


As entertaining as Mr. T. is. I don't really think that answers my question.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> I would certainly agree that the LDS is the mother church but the only Mormon church.  The LDS are the first major group of Mormon, of course.  Most of the other sects dissenting from LDS'ism claim reasons for the split, such as Joseph a fallen prophet or Wilford Woodruff apostatized over plural marriage and took the LDS with him into Mormon perdition.  That's normal for all religions, I guess.
> 
> Spock would say, "That computes, Starkey."



The dissenters are as mormon as a Protestants are Catholic.

As I said earlier, only way to be mormon is to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Attempts to blur the lines are meant to confuse people who don't know any better.


----------



## Monnagonna

catzmeow said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply not factual.  I lived and worked in Utah for 10 years (Layton, Midvale, Salt Lake City and Roy).  Female suffrage was instituted in Utah in 1870, 25 years ahead of the date at which women could vote in the rest of the U.S.   Women in Utah are frequently highly educated (in fact, Mormons in general are much more highly educated, per capita, than the rest of the U.S.).   As a working woman in Utah, I was treated very well.
> 
> Doctrinally, I don't agree with the LDS Church--AT ALL.  I think that Joseph Smith was a con-man and fraud.  But, your claims about the LDS people are abhorrent and false.
Click to expand...


I guess you haven't been to Bountiful, have you?

The National Geographic did a piece a couple of years ago on mormons in utah, women were forced into marriage, no university... so stop trying to cover up the truth, it won't work.

Truth, no prob, I won't feed your wives.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply not factual.  I lived and worked in Utah for 10 years (Layton, Midvale, Salt Lake City and Roy).  Female suffrage was instituted in Utah in 1870, 25 years ahead of the date at which women could vote in the rest of the U.S.   Women in Utah are frequently highly educated (in fact, Mormons in general are much more highly educated, per capita, than the rest of the U.S.).   As a working woman in Utah, I was treated very well.
> 
> Doctrinally, I don't agree with the LDS Church--AT ALL.  I think that Joseph Smith was a con-man and fraud.  But, your claims about the LDS people are abhorrent and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't been to Bountiful, have you?
> 
> The National Geographic did a piece a couple of years ago on mormons in utah, women were forced into marriage, no university... so stop trying to cover up the truth, it won't work.
> 
> Truth, no prob, I won't feed your wives.
Click to expand...


Mormons arent forced into marriage and go to school at a higher rate than the men do (which is kind of sad when you think about it). You can repeat it again and again, but you are still going to be wrong.


----------



## Monnagonna

Avatar4321 said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply not factual.  I lived and worked in Utah for 10 years (Layton, Midvale, Salt Lake City and Roy).  Female suffrage was instituted in Utah in 1870, 25 years ahead of the date at which women could vote in the rest of the U.S.   Women in Utah are frequently highly educated (in fact, Mormons in general are much more highly educated, per capita, than the rest of the U.S.).   As a working woman in Utah, I was treated very well.
> 
> Doctrinally, I don't agree with the LDS Church--AT ALL.  I think that Joseph Smith was a con-man and fraud.  But, your claims about the LDS people are abhorrent and false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't been to Bountiful, have you?
> 
> The National Geographic did a piece a couple of years ago on mormons in utah, women were forced into marriage, no university... so stop trying to cover up the truth, it won't work.
> 
> Truth, no prob, I won't feed your wives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Mormons arent forced into marriage* and go to school at a higher rate than the men do (which is kind of sad when you think about it). You can repeat it again and again, but you are still going to be wrong.
Click to expand...


So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormonism is a cult that abuses young girls. if it wasn't, you would empower the girls through education then once an adult, let them decide who they'll marry, or if they go to college...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply not factual.  I lived and worked in Utah for 10 years (Layton, Midvale, Salt Lake City and Roy).  Female suffrage was instituted in Utah in 1870, 25 years ahead of the date at which women could vote in the rest of the U.S.   Women in Utah are frequently highly educated (in fact, Mormons in general are much more highly educated, per capita, than the rest of the U.S.).   As a working woman in Utah, I was treated very well.
> 
> Doctrinally, I don't agree with the LDS Church--AT ALL.  I think that Joseph Smith was a con-man and fraud.  But, your claims about the LDS people are abhorrent and false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't been to Bountiful, have you?
> 
> The National Geographic did a piece a couple of years ago on mormons in utah, women were forced into marriage, no university... so stop trying to cover up the truth, it won't work.
> 
> Truth, no prob, I won't feed your wives.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't been to Bountiful, have you?
> 
> The National Geographic did a piece a couple of years ago on mormons in utah, women were forced into marriage, no university... so stop trying to cover up the truth, it won't work.
> 
> Truth, no prob, I won't feed your wives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormons arent forced into marriage* and go to school at a higher rate than the men do (which is kind of sad when you think about it). You can repeat it again and again, but you are still going to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would certainly agree that the LDS is the mother church but the only Mormon church.  The LDS are the first major group of Mormon, of course.  Most of the other sects dissenting from LDS'ism claim reasons for the split, such as Joseph a fallen prophet or Wilford Woodruff apostatized over plural marriage and took the LDS with him into Mormon perdition.  That's normal for all religions, I guess.
> 
> Spock would say, "That computes, Starkey."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dissenters are as mormon as a Protestants are Catholic.
> 
> As I said earlier, only way to be mormon is to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Attempts to blur the lines are meant to confuse people who don't know any better.
Click to expand...


You are correct that you do not know better.  Try this: Christianity can be divided amongst Protestants, Catholics, Mormons,and hosts of other sects. Mormonism is divided amongst the LDS, FLDS, TLC, and so forth and so on.

The LDS are simply a part of larger Mormonism.

That computes, Starkey.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you haven't been to Bountiful, have you?
> 
> The National Geographic did a piece a couple of years ago on mormons in utah, women were forced into marriage, no university... so stop trying to cover up the truth, it won't work.
> 
> Truth, no prob, I won't feed your wives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormons arent forced into marriage* and go to school at a higher rate than the men do (which is kind of sad when you think about it). You can repeat it again and again, but you are still going to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
Click to expand...


That argument is simply silly, and I will leave it at that.


----------



## Monnagonna

JakeStarkey said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Mormons arent forced into marriage* and go to school at a higher rate than the men do (which is kind of sad when you think about it). You can repeat it again and again, but you are still going to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That argument is simply silly, and I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...


Jake, fuck you, I was talking to the people with an IQ over 80.

Tru, you a funny guy! Too bad you don't actually have a real answer to what I say.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.



Nope. Because thankfully, a majority of mormon couples do what's right.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is simply silly, and I will leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, fuck you, I was talking to the people with an IQ over 80.
> 
> Tru, you a funny guy! Too bad you don't actually have a real answer to what I say.
Click to expand...


Actually, anyone with an IQ over 80, would agree with Jake on this one. 

You're argument really doesn't make any sense. Apparently people only get married if they are forced to in your world.


----------



## catzmeow

Monnagonna said:


> I guess you haven't been to Bountiful, have you?
> 
> The National Geographic did a piece a couple of years ago on mormons in utah, women were forced into marriage, no university... so stop trying to cover up the truth, it won't work.
> 
> Truth, no prob, I won't feed your wives.



Bountiful is in Davis County, and was about 10 miles south of the town where I lived for about 4 years.  I drove through it daily going to and from work, and we frequently went out to eat there.  It's about 5 miles north of Salt Lake City.  

I think the case you're referring to involved the Kingston clan, where girls were being forced into polygamist marriages.  However, the Kingstons are fundamentalist mormons, not mainstream mormons.  Fundamentalist mormons (those who practice polygamy) are considered apostate by the LDS Church.  And, groups like the Kingston family consider the LDS church to be apostate as well.  You can't hold the LDS Church accountable for what a completely separate organization does.  And they are, indeed, completely separate.  These groups despise each other.  The LDS Church wants nothing to do with the polygamist groups, and considers them a huge embarrassment.

Patterns of Polygamy Davis County's Kingston clan - County's polygamy roots run deep


----------



## catzmeow

Avatar4321 said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Because thankfully, a majority of mormon couples do what's right.
Click to expand...


Actually, you've used "people who are baptised into the LDS Church" as the definition of Mormon.  There are plenty of people, in Utah, who were baptised into the LDS Church, but end up cohabitating.  Not all Mormons marry, nor are Mormons more moral/righteous than any other group of religious folks.  Utah has the highest rates, per capita, of child sexual abuse, porn consumption, and abuse of prescription drugs in the U.S.  Also, they're in the top 5 for suicide.


----------



## Avatar4321

catzmeow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Because thankfully, a majority of mormon couples do what's right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you've used "people who are baptised into the LDS Church" as the definition of Mormon.  There are plenty of people, in Utah, who were baptised into the LDS Church, but end up cohabitating.  Not all Mormons marry, nor are Mormons more moral/righteous than any other group of religious folks.  Utah has the highest rates, per capita, of child sexual abuse, porn consumption, and abuse of prescription drugs in the U.S.  Also, they're in the top 5 for suicide.
Click to expand...


I have. and i stand by it. Of course, I don't have hard statistics. but Im fairly confident that it's true for 51%. And Utah and Mormon arent the same.


----------



## catzmeow

Avatar4321 said:


> I have. and i stand by it. Of course, I don't have hard statistics. but Im fairly confident that it's true for 51%. And Utah and Mormon arent the same.



Historically, you've been fairly confident about a lot of things, but you've been mistaken.  Feel free to provide stats.  Otherwise, I find your paradigm flawed.

Have you ever even lived in Utah?


----------



## Monnagonna

Bountiful up in Canada has old geezers with 30 young girls as wives...
Mormon=polygamy. Always has, always will, no matter how much you want to white wash things. Jo Smith was a polygamist and so were all his friends, that 's why they moved to utah, a place that at the time no sane person would go to.
And gimme a break, the mormon church allows couple to attend if they're not married but living together with children? As if.


----------



## catzmeow

Monnagonna said:


> Bountiful up in Canada has old geezers with 30 young girls as wives...
> Mormon=polygamy. Always has, always will, no matter how much you want to white wash things. Jo Smith was a polygamist and so were all his friends, that 's why they moved to utah, a place that at the time no sane person would go to.
> And gimme a break, the mormon church allows couple to attend if they're not married but living together with children? As if.



Again...polygamists aren't Mormon.  They have their own prophets and religious hierarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bountiful,_British_Columbia



> The Mormon fundamentalists in Bountiful have divided into two groups: about half are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church), and the other half are members of an FLDS-offshoot based on the teachings of their bishop, Winston Blackmore, who split with the FLDS Church after concluding the president of the church, Warren Jeffs, had exceeded his authority and become too dictatorial.



http://www.economist.com/node/2907136?story_id=2907136


> The commune was quietly set up in 1947, after a few men excommunicated by the mainstream Mormon Church in Utah (which banned polygamy in 1890) moved north. Today the 1,000-odd residents are almost all the progeny of half-a-dozen men. The place is dominated by the &#8220;bishop&#8221;, James Oler, and by his deposed predecessor, Winston Blackmore, who now heads a splinter group.


----------



## Monnagonna

catzmeow said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bountiful up in Canada has old geezers with 30 young girls as wives...
> Mormon=polygamy. Always has, always will, no matter how much you want to white wash things. Jo Smith was a polygamist and so were all his friends, that 's why they moved to utah, a place that at the time no sane person would go to.
> And gimme a break, the mormon church allows couple to attend if they're not married but living together with children? As if.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bountiful is a city in Northern Utah, *turd for brains.*
Click to expand...


Is that a phrase that was commonly used by jesus?

PS there's a bountiful in canada too. Do you know where canada is?


----------



## catzmeow

Monnagonna said:


> Is that a phrase that was commonly used by jesus?



Why would I care?  I'm not part of the god squad.



> PS there's a bountiful in canada too. Do you know where canada is?



If you know about Bountiful, B.C., then I'd hope you'd be smart enough to google the fact that the polygamists in Bountiful AREN'T MORMONS.  Their founders were excommunicated by the LDS church for practicing polygamy.

Of course, I'm not sure you're smart enough to avoid choking to death on your own saliva, you mouth-breathing moron.


----------



## Avatar4321

catzmeow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. and i stand by it. Of course, I don't have hard statistics. but Im fairly confident that it's true for 51%. And Utah and Mormon arent the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, you've been fairly confident about a lot of things, but you've been mistaken.  Feel free to provide stats.  Otherwise, I find your paradigm flawed.
> 
> Have you ever even lived in Utah?
Click to expand...


Yes. I have. And Ive already told you I don't have stats. Im merely going off experience. So yes I could be wrong. 

And I am confident about alot of things. If I'm wrong, I can fix that when I learn otherwise. But i strive to be right, so why not be confident? Living a life of self doubt just doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is simply silly, and I will leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, fuck you, I was talking to the people with an IQ over 80.
> 
> Tru, you a funny guy! Too bad you don't actually have a real answer to what I say.
Click to expand...


ask real questions and you'll get a real answer


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. and i stand by it. Of course, I don't have hard statistics. but Im fairly confident that it's true for 51%. And Utah and Mormon arent the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, you've been fairly confident about a lot of things, but you've been mistaken.  Feel free to provide stats.  Otherwise, I find your paradigm flawed.
> 
> Have you ever even lived in Utah?
Click to expand...


You've never provided hard stats yourself since the beginning. You spew out these numbers but never site an actual source.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is simply silly, and I will leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, fuck you, I was talking to the people with an IQ over 80.
> 
> Tru, you a funny guy! Too bad you don't actually have a real answer to what I say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ask real questions and you'll get a real answer
Click to expand...


I'll ask a real mormon. Thanks anyways.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Monnagonna said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you must know tons of mormon couples who live together and have children without being married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That argument is simply silly, and I will leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake, fuck you, I was talking to the people with an IQ over 80.
> 
> Tru, you a funny guy! Too bad you don't actually have a real answer to what I say.
Click to expand...


Your argument is stupid, without logic, mean spirited, and you have nothing of worth to offer here.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, fuck you, I was talking to the people with an IQ over 80.
> 
> Tru, you a funny guy! Too bad you don't actually have a real answer to what I say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ask real questions and you'll get a real answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll ask a real mormon. Thanks anyways.
Click to expand...


Good riddance, don't let the moderator hit you on the way out... Just put the GONNA in Monnagonna if you don't mind.


----------



## Monnagonna

So can a real mormon answer me why you all like to disassociate yourselves from your polygamist roots? You ashamed of the history of your church?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Monnagonna said:


> So can a real mormon answer me why you all like to disassociate yourselves from your polygamist roots? You ashamed of the history of your church?



LDS are not answerable to you Monnagonna, and your rudeness is only that, rudeness.

I am not LDS, but I guarantee I will forget far, far more than you will ever know.

So stand and deliver, puke, or slink off.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. and i stand by it. Of course, I don't have hard statistics. but Im fairly confident that it's true for 51%. And Utah and Mormon arent the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, you've been fairly confident about a lot of things, but you've been mistaken.  Feel free to provide stats.  Otherwise, I find your paradigm flawed.
> 
> Have you ever even lived in Utah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've never provided hard stats yourself since the beginning. You spew out these numbers but never site an actual source.
Click to expand...


*Utah leads the nation in porn consumption:*Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers - science-in-society - 27 February 2009 - New Scientist


> The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.



*Utah is #7 in suicide rate:*Violence & Injury Prevention Program


> Utah had the 7th highest suicide rate in the nation for the years 2000-2004. The top 10 states for suicide rates are all in the Western U.S. *Utah's rate has remained among the highest in the nation for more than two decades (14.34 per 100,000 population in Utah vs. 10.81 per 100,000 population nationwide for the years 2000-2004). Suicide rates in Utah are higher than the U.S. rate in every age group*.



*Utah leads the nation in rapes per capita:*
Violence & Injury Prevention Program


> Rape is the only violent crime in Utah that occurs at a higher rate than the rest of the nation. One in three Utah women will experience some type of sexual assault in their lifetime and one in eight will be raped. In 2008, Utah&#8217;s reported rape rate was 63.7 per 100,000 females compared to the U.S. rate of 57.4 per 100,000 females. However, the majority of rapes (88.2%) are never reported to law enforcement, indicating that sexual violence in Utah is grossly underestimated. (Sources: Utah Department of Health and 2007 Rape in Utah Survey)



*Utah is #8 in the U.S. for substantiated child abuse rate*
Child Maltreatment 2005 : Table 3-3 Disposition and Rate of Victims, 2005


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> So can a real mormon answer me why you all like to disassociate yourselves from your polygamist roots? You ashamed of the history of your church?



Now we're talkin...

First of all let's evaluate polygamy again for the ... hmm... 437th time on here... Ok alright..

POLYGAMY isn't all that bad if everyone involved is voluntary and they're following the commandments of God and the male is taking great care of his wives. There are lots of excellent people all over the world who truly love their wives and respect them and are fully committed to the families they've raised.
Now answer me this.. Why is polygamy demonized more than... say... a bestial or a homosexual relationship, or people who sleep with far more than a handful of different women then run away and flee any kind of committment. Why are these people not demonized like the polygamist. At least the polygamist stays with his wives.

Now do I agree with polygamy? No, that's why I don't do it. 

But what you'll never understand with your current mindset is that God has his reasons for doing things. There was real and honorable purpose in His institution of plural marriage in the early days of the church. There is nothing for us to be ashamed of in our past. We don't deny those things happened, we defend God's reasons for instituting the practice. When the timing was right, he removed the institution as the people no longer needed it.
You are absolutely free to disagree as much as you want but there were very important reasons for it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, you've been fairly confident about a lot of things, but you've been mistaken.  Feel free to provide stats.  Otherwise, I find your paradigm flawed.
> 
> Have you ever even lived in Utah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've never provided hard stats yourself since the beginning. You spew out these numbers but never site an actual source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Utah leads the nation in porn consumption:*Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers - science-in-society - 27 February 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> 
> *Utah is #7 in suicide rate:*Violence & Injury Prevention Program
> 
> 
> 
> Utah had the 7th highest suicide rate in the nation for the years 2000-2004. The top 10 states for suicide rates are all in the Western U.S. *Utah's rate has remained among the highest in the nation for more than two decades (14.34 per 100,000 population in Utah vs. 10.81 per 100,000 population nationwide for the years 2000-2004). Suicide rates in Utah are higher than the U.S. rate in every age group*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Utah leads the nation in rapes per capita:*
> Violence & Injury Prevention Program
> 
> 
> 
> Rape is the only violent crime in Utah that occurs at a higher rate than the rest of the nation. One in three Utah women will experience some type of sexual assault in their lifetime and one in eight will be raped. In 2008, Utah&#8217;s reported rape rate was 63.7 per 100,000 females compared to the U.S. rate of 57.4 per 100,000 females. However, the majority of rapes (88.2%) are never reported to law enforcement, indicating that sexual violence in Utah is grossly underestimated. (Sources: Utah Department of Health and 2007 Rape in Utah Survey)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Utah is #8 in the U.S. for substantiated child abuse rate*
> Child Maltreatment 2005 : Table 3-3 Disposition and Rate of Victims, 2005
Click to expand...


All these figures have so many variables to consider:

1. 70% of our membership is inactive and often rebels against their childhood teachings as a tactic of exploration.
2. Utah is not "Mormonism". 
3. Generally i'd like to think rapes are higher because our women are taught to speak up and i believe they would report at a higher rate than others.
4. I'd like to see the same statistics  done on active members of the church. (active being those who attend at least 80 percent of their sunday meetings. Those numbers would plummet to near Utopian unbelievability.
5. you'd probably find nearly the same numbers from semi-active members who at least attended their church meetings between 10 and 50 percent of the time.
6. People who leave the church are more indulgent in sin, generally, than those who never were members of the church to begin with. That's what people don't understand from these numbers. These people have already chosen to reject the commandments of God to Abstain from sin. So now these numbers make sense to those who don't know the background. Perhaps you never realized these facts yourself, living in Utah. BTW me and my family will soon be moving there and making the cultural transition from California to Utah. it's gonna be weird for me. Almost an identity crisis.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> All these figures have so many variables to consider:
> 
> 1. 70% of our membership is inactive and often rebels against their childhood teachings as a tactic of exploration.
> 2. Utah is not "Mormonism".
> 3. Generally i'd like to think rapes are higher because our women are taught to speak up and i believe they would report at a higher rate than others.
> 4. I'd like to see the same statistics  done on active members of the church. (active being those who attend at least 80 percent of their sunday meetings. Those numbers would plummet to near Utopian unbelievability.



More mormons live in Utah than in any part of the U.S., and active LDS make up a substantial portion of the population.  If the LDS Church represented a path to living a better life, Utah wouldn't be leading the U.S. in these areas, because there are certainly enough active Mormons in Utah to skew the stats.  Nice backpedal, though.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these figures have so many variables to consider:
> 
> 1. 70% of our membership is inactive and often rebels against their childhood teachings as a tactic of exploration.
> 2. Utah is not "Mormonism".
> 3. Generally i'd like to think rapes are higher because our women are taught to speak up and i believe they would report at a higher rate than others.
> 4. I'd like to see the same statistics  done on active members of the church. (active being those who attend at least 80 percent of their sunday meetings. Those numbers would plummet to near Utopian unbelievability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More mormons live in Utah than in any part of the U.S., and active LDS make up a substantial portion of the population.  If the LDS Church represented a path to living a better life, Utah wouldn't be leading the U.S. in these areas, because there are certainly enough active Mormons in Utah to skew the stats.  Nice backpedal, though.
Click to expand...


not a backpedal at all.. my logic is sound. maybe you could address even 1 of the points I brought up instead of backpedaling yourself. The heavily promiscuous inactive "jack mormons" would outskew any skewing the active minority would do. Couple that with the 50% of non mormons already living in the state. It would also be interesting to see these stats divided up by regions in Utah as some populations are 90% "Mormon" and larger City areas (Salt Lake) have a majority of non Mormons. The percentage of people in Salt Lake who are active members is probably around 15% to 25%


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these figures have so many variables to consider:
> 
> 1. 70% of our membership is inactive and often rebels against their childhood teachings as a tactic of exploration.
> 2. Utah is not "Mormonism".
> 3. Generally i'd like to think rapes are higher because our women are taught to speak up and i believe they would report at a higher rate than others.
> 4. I'd like to see the same statistics  done on active members of the church. (active being those who attend at least 80 percent of their sunday meetings. Those numbers would plummet to near Utopian unbelievability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More mormons live in Utah than in any part of the U.S., and active LDS make up a substantial portion of the population.  If the LDS Church represented a path to living a better life, Utah wouldn't be leading the U.S. in these areas, because there are certainly enough active Mormons in Utah to skew the stats.  Nice backpedal, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not a backpedal at all.. my logic is sound. maybe you could address even 1 of the points I brought up instead of backpedaling yourself. The heavily promiscuous inactive "jack mormons" would outskew any skewing the active minority would do. Couple that with the 50% of non mormons already living in the state. It would also be interesting to see these stats divided up by regions in Utah as some populations are 90% "Mormon" and larger City areas (Salt Lake) have a majority of non Mormons. The percentage of people in Salt Lake who are active members is probably around 15% to 25%
Click to expand...


catmeowz has you on this.  Your logic does not stand up to her comments.  Tis what tis.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a real mormon answer me why you all like to disassociate yourselves from your polygamist roots? You ashamed of the history of your church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're talkin...
> 
> First of all let's evaluate polygamy again for the ... hmm... 437th time on here... Ok alright..
> 
> POLYGAMY isn't all that bad if everyone involved is voluntary and they're following the commandments of God and the male is taking great care of his wives. There are lots of excellent people all over the world who truly love their wives and respect them and are fully committed to the families they've raised.
> Now answer me this.. Why is polygamy demonized more than... say... a bestial or a homosexual relationship, or people who sleep with far more than a handful of different women then run away and flee any kind of committment. Why are these people not demonized like the polygamist. At least the polygamist stays with his wives.
> 
> Now do I agree with polygamy? No, that's why I don't do it.
> 
> But what you'll never understand with your current mindset is that God has his reasons for doing things. There was real and honorable purpose in His institution of plural marriage in the early days of the church. There is nothing for us to be ashamed of in our past. We don't deny those things happened, we defend God's reasons for instituting the practice. When the timing was right, he removed the institution as the people no longer needed it.
> You are absolutely free to disagree as much as you want but there were very important reasons for it.
Click to expand...


Like in islam, the women don't have a choice but to accept polygamy. If you think they all consent, then you're deluded. And god didn't marry several wives, men did, so this isn't god's plan, it's man's.
You're not even a real mormon if you don't agree with polygamy. Give it up, you faker.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> 
> More mormons live in Utah than in any part of the U.S., and active LDS make up a substantial portion of the population.  If the LDS Church represented a path to living a better life, Utah wouldn't be leading the U.S. in these areas, because there are certainly enough active Mormons in Utah to skew the stats.  Nice backpedal, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not a backpedal at all.. my logic is sound. maybe you could address even 1 of the points I brought up instead of backpedaling yourself. The heavily promiscuous inactive "jack mormons" would outskew any skewing the active minority would do. Couple that with the 50% of non mormons already living in the state. It would also be interesting to see these stats divided up by regions in Utah as some populations are 90% "Mormon" and larger City areas (Salt Lake) have a majority of non Mormons. The percentage of people in Salt Lake who are active members is probably around 15% to 25%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> catmeowz has you on this.  Your logic does not stand up to her comments.  Tis what tis.
Click to expand...


negative... how so? anyone care to address my points?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a real mormon answer me why you all like to disassociate yourselves from your polygamist roots? You ashamed of the history of your church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we're talkin...
> 
> First of all let's evaluate polygamy again for the ... hmm... 437th time on here... Ok alright..
> 
> POLYGAMY isn't all that bad if everyone involved is voluntary and they're following the commandments of God and the male is taking great care of his wives. There are lots of excellent people all over the world who truly love their wives and respect them and are fully committed to the families they've raised.
> Now answer me this.. Why is polygamy demonized more than... say... a bestial or a homosexual relationship, or people who sleep with far more than a handful of different women then run away and flee any kind of committment. Why are these people not demonized like the polygamist. At least the polygamist stays with his wives.
> 
> Now do I agree with polygamy? No, that's why I don't do it.
> 
> But what you'll never understand with your current mindset is that God has his reasons for doing things. There was real and honorable purpose in His institution of plural marriage in the early days of the church. There is nothing for us to be ashamed of in our past. We don't deny those things happened, we defend God's reasons for instituting the practice. When the timing was right, he removed the institution as the people no longer needed it.
> You are absolutely free to disagree as much as you want but there were very important reasons for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like in islam, the women don't have a choice but to accept polygamy. If you think they all consent, then you're deluded. And god didn't marry several wives, men did, so this isn't god's plan, it's man's.
> You're not even a real mormon if you don't agree with polygamy. Give it up, you faker.
Click to expand...


I'm ok with the deluded thinking i'm deluded? Got anything else?


----------



## Truthspeaker

nevertheless... I digress... The teachings of the church inspire people to stay away from sin. The statistics, which are questionable, mean nothing, no matter how accurate.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> nevertheless... I digress... The teachings of the church inspire people to stay away from sin. The statistics, which are questionable, mean nothing, no matter how accurate.



Antoine Dodd does a better job of preventing rape than the Book of Mormon does, bro.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw]&#x202a;BED INTRUDER SONG!!! (now on iTunes)&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> nevertheless... I digress... The teachings of the church inspire people to stay away from sin. The statistics, which are questionable, mean nothing, no matter how accurate.



The stats are not questionable; however, your unwillingness to see clearly is questionable.


----------



## catzmeow

JakeStarkey said:


> The stats are not questionable; however, your unwillingness to see clearly is questionable.



He can't think about this subject.  If he allowed himself to do so, his entire paradigm would collapse.  

His worldview, as formed by the church, is:

"I know the church is true."
"I know Joseph Smith was a prophet."
"People who belong to this church are more righteous because they have the gospel."
"If they aren't righteous, they aren't 'real' mormons."

I lived in Utah for 10 years, I understand how they think.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stats are not questionable; however, your unwillingness to see clearly is questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't think about this subject.  If he allowed himself to do so, his entire paradigm would collapse.
> 
> His worldview, as formed by the church, is:
> 
> "I know the church is true."
> "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet."
> "People who belong to this church are more righteous because they have the gospel."
> "If they aren't righteous, they aren't 'real' mormons."
> 
> I lived in Utah for 10 years, I understand how they think.
Click to expand...


au contraire kitty kalamity.

if everyone else in the church fell away, it would still be true. You can call "Jack Mormons" mormons if you want to. But again those statistics mean nothing with regard to our teachings. The Book of Mormon doesn't prevent any evils from happening... Apparently neither does the Bible.. People prevent evils. Not books that teach how to be good.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> nevertheless... I digress... The teachings of the church inspire people to stay away from sin. The statistics, which are questionable, mean nothing, no matter how accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stats are not questionable; however, your unwillingness to see clearly is questionable.
Click to expand...


as per my variables listed, which you still haven't addressed, I am quite willing to explain said statistics as I have done already... Questionable as in you can ask questions as to why such numbers appear the way they do Things are what they are but they also deserve explanation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> nevertheless... I digress... The teachings of the church inspire people to stay away from sin. The statistics, which are questionable, mean nothing, no matter how accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stats are not questionable; however, your unwillingness to see clearly is questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as per my variables listed, which you still haven't addressed, I am quite willing to explain said statistics as I have done already... Questionable as in you can ask questions as to why such numbers appear the way they do Things are what they are but they also deserve explanation.
Click to expand...


Your explanations are not valid.  You are acting as hinky as bigreb or crusaderfrank when they get pinned.  Tis what tis.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> nevertheless... I digress... The teachings of the church inspire people to stay away from sin. The statistics, which are questionable, mean nothing, no matter how accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stats are not questionable; however, your unwillingness to see clearly is questionable.
Click to expand...


Stats are always questionable. It's the very nature of statistics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> nevertheless... I digress... The teachings of the church inspire people to stay away from sin. The statistics, which are questionable, mean nothing, no matter how accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stats are not questionable; however, your unwillingness to see clearly is questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stats are always questionable. It's the very nature of statistics.
Click to expand...


Or tomes written from secret plates of gold?


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> au contraire kitty kalamity.
> 
> if everyone else in the church fell away, it would still be true. You can call "Jack Mormons" mormons if you want to. But again those statistics mean nothing with regard to our teachings. The Book of Mormon doesn't prevent any evils from happening... Apparently neither does the Bible.. People prevent evils. Not books that teach how to be good.



If your magic book taught people to be good, Utah has more Mormons, per capita, than any other state in the U.S. (and a smaller population than most).  Your statistics would be the BEST in the U.S., not the worst.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> au contraire kitty kalamity.
> 
> if everyone else in the church fell away, it would still be true. You can call "Jack Mormons" mormons if you want to. But again those statistics mean nothing with regard to our teachings. The Book of Mormon doesn't prevent any evils from happening... Apparently neither does the Bible.. People prevent evils. Not books that teach how to be good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your magic book taught people to be good, Utah has more Mormons, per capita, than any other state in the U.S. (and a smaller population than most).  Your statistics would be the BEST in the U.S., not the worst.
Click to expand...


 Really? 
So stats are the be all tell all revealer about everything? Gimme a break... You wanna blame the book for bad stats? Now you're really off your rocker. Now you're acting like the Book of Mormon really does have magical powers over the minds of people. So you're telling me that the Book of Mormon has a supernatural ability to brainwash the minds of inactive members to commit suicide, rape and abuse children at a higher rate than other states in the country? Now you're really reaching. 
Again, I'd like to see the stats on active members. It's probably near zero criminal activity, and near zero suicide rate. Show me those stats miss cat and i might actually have to concede to you...
But these numbers are coming from Jack Mormons, who are the worst offenders of any, and guess where the highest concentration of Jack Mormons is? Utah!


----------



## Truthspeaker

So I decided to do so stat searching of my own from some more reputable sources like the US Census Bureau 2006. This one ranks violent crimes per 100,000 people by state... Curiously Utah ranks 45 out of 50, topped only by states who are either extremely tiny or extremely sparsely populated. Put this in your pipe and smoke it. More coming soon
State Rankings--Statistical Abstract of the United States--Violent Crime Rate


----------



## Truthspeaker

Forcible rape by state 2006, Utah comes in at 34 out of 51(includes DC)
Forcible rape statistics - states compared - StateMaster

my, I'm starting to wonder about the source of your previous stats...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Suicide Statistics by state 2007: Utah Comes in 33rd by volume, 16th by rate
AFSP: Facts and Figures: State Statistics
These are rather middle of the pack numbers and again I don't know where you were getting your stats from but I never heard of those sources before... hmmm.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Another report from 2007 but recently enough to be relevant shows Utah with the lowest reported rates of depression of all states and districts... and ranks them 45th overall in suicide rate as of 2007.. Wait a second, the last report I just showed was also from 2007... my how sources seem not to agree... Perhaps stats don't really tell the whole story do they kitty?

My how your statistics don't add up
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-11-28-depression-suicide-numbers_N.htm


----------



## JakeStarkey

There you go, Truth, I knew you coud do it.

However, the porn and the prescription psychotropic drug rates do place Utah very, very high in those lists.

Hmmm?

All is not well, all is not well in Zion.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> There you go, Truth, I knew you coud do it.
> 
> However, the porn and the prescription psychotropic drug rates do place Utah very, very high in those lists.
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> All is not well, all is not well in Zion.



Well, nobody's perfect, even Mormons. Especially Jack Mormons


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank you, and that's the point.  Part of the problem is that a good works high stakes value system wreaks havoc on a good portion of its would be followership, is also part of the point.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> There you go, Truth, I knew you coud do it.
> 
> However, the porn and the prescription psychotropic drug rates do place Utah very, very high in those lists.
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> All is not well, all is not well in Zion.



not in the least. But is anyone pretending they are?

We need to step up.


----------



## Truthspeaker

​


JakeStarkey said:


> Thank you, and that's the point.  Part of the problem is that a good works high stakes value system wreaks havoc on a good portion of its would be followership, is also part of the point.



Off topic but I couldn't resist showing you this beautiful Dodger Jersey I just bought.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> Forcible rape by state 2006, Utah comes in at 34 out of 51(includes DC)
> Forcible rape statistics - states compared - StateMaster
> 
> my, I'm starting to wonder about the source of your previous stats...



These stats are older than the stats I posted.


----------



## Truthspeaker

catzmeow said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcible rape by state 2006, Utah comes in at 34 out of 51(includes DC)
> Forcible rape statistics - states compared - StateMaster
> 
> my, I'm starting to wonder about the source of your previous stats...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These stats are older than the stats I posted.
Click to expand...


When are your stats from? It also seems strange that they would spike so differently from the years in which Utah was consistently ranked for so long in the same position. Perhaps your stats were an abberration. What year were they from? Perhaps your stats were provided by a source that didn't do the best research? There's always a perhaps.... God knows.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, Truth, I knew you coud do it.
> 
> However, the porn and the prescription psychotropic drug rates do place Utah very, very high in those lists.
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> All is not well, all is not well in Zion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not in the least. But is anyone pretending they are?
> 
> We need to step up.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, Truth, I knew you coud do it.
> 
> However, the porn and the prescription psychotropic drug rates do place Utah very, very high in those lists.
> 
> Hmmm?
> 
> All is not well, all is not well in Zion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not in the least. But is anyone pretending they are?
> 
> We need to step up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...


That surprises me alittle. I was expecting more indifference, I suppose. Just goes to show people don't always do what you expect them too.


----------



## JakeStarkey

John Wesley would say that all good Christian men must offer one another their right hand in fellowship in Christ.


----------



## waltky

Granny says next thing ya know dem polygamists gonna want their marriage rights - just like dem gays an' Hispexicans...

*Has Warren Jeffs turned his trial into a sermon on polygamy?*
_July 30, 2011 - Warren Jeffs, the polygamist leader charged with sexually assaulting two underage girls, broke his silence at the trial with an hour-long invective Friday._


> In a single dramatic hour Friday, the course of the San Angelo, Texas, trial against polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs might have changed course.  With a rambling outburst that included a malediction against the prosecutors, a defense of polygamy, and direct quotes from "the Lord God," Jeffs broke his prolonged silence in the trial, then continued to interrupt proceedings throughout the rest of the day.  The outbursts could merely be a continuation of Mr. Jeffs's apparent legal tactic: delay. But they also have also effectively turned the courtroom into a pulpit for the leader of the breakaway Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who is now representing himself in the proceedings.
> 
> "No longer is it really a trial. He just wanted an occasion to give a sermon," Laurie Levenson, professor at the Loyola Law School, told CBS News.  Jeffs is charged with sexually assaulting two underage girls. If convicted, he could receive life in prison. He has claimed that, as the head of his church, he has the constitutional right to practice his own religion, which includes polygamy. The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, repudiated polygamy more than a century ago.  Until 10:25 a.m. Friday, Mr. Jeffs had been spectator at his own trial. Before the trial had begun, he had fired his team of attorneys, saying they could not present "a pure defense."
> 
> Then, in opening statements, he said nothing as prosecutors vowed to provide evidence that he raped a 12-year-old girl and impregnated a 15 year old.  His silence had extended to the point that District Judge Barbara Walther eventually implored: "You've sat here now for an hour and not said a word," suggesting that further silence could yield "a very bad result."  Jeffs broke that silence Friday when prosecutors introduced as evidence a list of his wives and children they said lived at Jeffs's Yearning for Zion Ranch in 2004.  Jeffs stood up to object, and it was 55 minutes before that objection was over. The objection was overruled, though Judge Walther let him go on because he had not offered an opening statement. The jury was dismissed during his statement.
> 
> By the time the trial adjourned for the day at nearly 5 p.m., Jeffs had interrupted the prosecution so often that the judge had the baliff turn off his microphone.  In some ways, the interruptions fit the pattern of the trial, which has been repeatedly delayed as Jeffs retained and then abandoned attorneys  he has had seven attorneys in six months. Then, when he dismissed his attorneys before the trial, he asked for a further delay so that he could organize his defense.  "Mr. Jeffs, the court is not going to recess these proceedings to let you go to law school," the judge responded.  During the trial, Jeffs has often waited more than a minute to respond to the judge's questions.  But Friday, he was enflamed.
> 
> MORE


----------



## JakeStarkey

Warren Jeffs is the laughing stock of the west, particularly in San Saba, Texas.

The lady judge will make him look absolutely stupid, particularly at sentencing when she points that his judge is a female and superior in all ways.

Warren is nothing but a laughing stock.


----------



## catzmeow

Truthspeaker said:


> \
> When are your stats from? It also seems strange that they would spike so differently from the years in which Utah was consistently ranked for so long in the same position. Perhaps your stats were an abberration. What year were they from? Perhaps your stats were provided by a source that didn't do the best research? There's always a perhaps.... God knows.



Why don't you go back and look at them?  Most came directly from sites that are state funded...by the state of Utah.


----------



## catzmeow

Avatar4321 said:


> not in the least. But is anyone pretending they are?
> 
> We need to step up.



Your friend Truthspeaker, for one.


----------



## Monnagonna

How much does a mormon wife cost?


----------



## Truthspeaker

waltky said:


> Granny says next thing ya know dem polygamists gonna want their marriage rights - just like dem gays an' Hispexicans...
> 
> *Has Warren Jeffs turned his trial into a sermon on polygamy?*
> _July 30, 2011 - Warren Jeffs, the polygamist leader charged with sexually assaulting two underage girls, broke his silence at the trial with an hour-long invective Friday._
> 
> 
> 
> In a single dramatic hour Friday, the course of the San Angelo, Texas, trial against polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs might have changed course.  With a rambling outburst that included a malediction against the prosecutors, a defense of polygamy, and direct quotes from "the Lord God," Jeffs broke his prolonged silence in the trial, then continued to interrupt proceedings throughout the rest of the day.  The outbursts could merely be a continuation of Mr. Jeffs's apparent legal tactic: delay. But they also have also effectively turned the courtroom into a pulpit for the leader of the breakaway Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who is now representing himself in the proceedings.
> 
> "No longer is it really a trial. He just wanted an occasion to give a sermon," Laurie Levenson, professor at the Loyola Law School, told CBS News.  Jeffs is charged with sexually assaulting two underage girls. If convicted, he could receive life in prison. He has claimed that, as the head of his church, he has the constitutional right to practice his own religion, which includes polygamy. The mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, repudiated polygamy more than a century ago.  Until 10:25 a.m. Friday, Mr. Jeffs had been spectator at his own trial. Before the trial had begun, he had fired his team of attorneys, saying they could not present "a pure defense."
> 
> Then, in opening statements, he said nothing as prosecutors vowed to provide evidence that he raped a 12-year-old girl and impregnated a 15 year old.  His silence had extended to the point that District Judge Barbara Walther eventually implored: "You've sat here now for an hour and not said a word," suggesting that further silence could yield "a very bad result."  Jeffs broke that silence Friday when prosecutors introduced as evidence a list of his wives and children they said lived at Jeffs's Yearning for Zion Ranch in 2004.  Jeffs stood up to object, and it was 55 minutes before that objection was over. The objection was overruled, though Judge Walther let him go on because he had not offered an opening statement. The jury was dismissed during his statement.
> 
> By the time the trial adjourned for the day at nearly 5 p.m., Jeffs had interrupted the prosecution so often that the judge had the baliff turn off his microphone.  In some ways, the interruptions fit the pattern of the trial, which has been repeatedly delayed as Jeffs retained and then abandoned attorneys  he has had seven attorneys in six months. Then, when he dismissed his attorneys before the trial, he asked for a further delay so that he could organize his defense.  "Mr. Jeffs, the court is not going to recess these proceedings to let you go to law school," the judge responded.  During the trial, Jeffs has often waited more than a minute to respond to the judge's questions.  But Friday, he was enflamed.
> 
> MORE
Click to expand...


I'm glad u posted this... It's clear to see the difference between us and this dude... This guy is truly wacked. 
So whatever you see him say, you might as well realize that we're the opposite. But then again you may not be much less deluded than he so it's hard for the blind to recognize the error of other blind.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> How much does a mormon wife cost?



More than you can afford...


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much does a mormon wife cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than you can afford...
Click to expand...


You'd be surprised. Now how much?


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am not LDS or any other type of Mormon, and I will never become one.  But . . . the LDS are Christian, just not like Catholics, or Baptists, or Pentecostals, or Church of Christs, or Methodists, or what fricking ever.

I attended an hymnodial meeting yesterday in  a Salt Lake City LDS ward house with friends.  The members who participated chose their favorite hymns, giving a brief testimony to the reason why they chose the hymn and why spiritual music brings them closer to Jesus Christ.

The Spirit of God rested on that congregation.  The final hymn was "I Believe in Christ", written by a man I knew and never liked very much.  The spirit reminded me never to judge others character, only their behavior.  I wept at the Holy Ghost's anointing of that congregation and its testimony of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

Mormons are Christians.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Albert Schweitzer as a theologian was terrible, in my opinion.  Yet he took his Cross up and went to Africa to spend his life in missionary medical work.  Have any of us here done 5% of what he did?

Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun, went to India to serve the poor.  For decades she truly doubted if God lived, yet she served the poor, denied herself, and said her prayers daily.  Have any of us here done 1% of what she did?


----------



## waltky

Granny says he's lyin' an' Jesus gonna put him inna lake o' fire with all dem lefty lib'rals...

*Polygamist leader: God demands judge's removal*
_Aug 1,`11 - Polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs made a third attempt Monday to remove the Texas judge overseeing his child sex assault case - this time based on the claim that God himself demands a change._


> The head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints filed a motion purporting to quote God as saying state District Judge Barbara Walther should "step away from this abuse of power against a religious and pure faith in the Lord."  After a short recess, Walther ruled the trial would continue under new Texas Supreme Court rules that went into effect Monday. They no longer require an immediate hearing to recuse a judge after evidence in a case has been heard. A hearing will eventually be held on Jeffs' motion, but it's unclear when.
> 
> The trial continued with forensic analyst Amy Smuts, of the Human Identification Center at the University of North Texas in Fort Worth, testifying that a DNA sample collected from Jeffs had 15 major markers that matched a DNA sample taken from a girl born to a 15-year-old mother.  Smuts said that made her more than 99.99 percent certain that Jeffs was the child's father.  Jeffs is accused of sexually assaulting two girls, ages 12 and 15, he took as brides in so-called "spiritual marriages." His church is an offshoot of mainstream Mormonism that believes polygamy brings exaltation in Heaven, and followers see Jeffs as God's earthly spokesman.
> 
> The 55-year-old fired his attorneys last week and has been representing himself. He gave a speech defending polygamy Friday, then read a statement he said was from God. It promised "sickness and death" for all involved unless the case was halted immediately.  The charges against Jeffs stem from a massive police raid in April 2008 at Yearning For Zion, a church compound about 45 miles south of the oil and gas town of San Angelo.
> 
> Authorities moved in after receiving an anonymous call to an abuse shelter, alleging that girls on the compound were being forced into polygamist marriages. The call turned out to be a hoax, made by a woman in Colorado, and more than 400 children who had been placed in state custody were returned to their families.  But police saw underage girls at the compound who were clearly pregnant - prompting the charges against Jeffs and 11 other FLDS men. All seven sect members who have been prosecuted so far were convicted of crimes including sexual assault and bigamy and received prison sentences of between six and 75 years.
> 
> MORE


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much does a mormon wife cost?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than you can afford...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd be surprised. Now how much?
Click to expand...


DUNNO I've never tried, 
The price would not be monetary, it would be in self worth... They'd see right through you and would flee immediately.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Albert Schweitzer as a theologian was terrible, in my opinion.  Yet he took his Cross up and went to Africa to spend his life in missionary medical work.  Have any of us here done 5% of what he did?
> 
> Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun, went to India to serve the poor.  For decades she truly doubted if God lived, yet she served the poor, denied herself, and said her prayers daily.  Have any of us here done 1% of what she did?



Great insight. Everyone ought to ask themselves what they've done


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> More than you can afford...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be surprised. Now how much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUNNO I've never tried,
> The price would not be monetary, it would be in self worth... They'd see right through you and would flee immediately.
Click to expand...


I'm looking for a cool religion. Are there any hot broads in the LDS? Or are they all wearing granny dresses down to their ankles with big doofus bonnets?
I also hear that Warren Jeffs is the second coming of John Smith, is that true?


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be surprised. Now how much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUNNO I've never tried,
> The price would not be monetary, it would be in self worth... They'd see right through you and would flee immediately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a cool religion. Are there any hot broads in the LDS? Or are they all wearing granny dresses down to their ankles with big doofus bonnets?
> I also hear that Warren Jeffs is the second coming of John Smith, is that true?
Click to expand...


You know, it helps if you educated yourself just alittle. You wouldn't look as much like an ignorant troll if you just researched alittle.


----------



## waltky

possum thinks dey gonna tie Jeffs up inna bow...

*Texas wrapping up case against polygamist leader*
_2 Aug.`11  Texas prosecutors are close to resting their case against polygamist church leader Warren Jeffs, who is accused of sexually assaulting two underage girls he took as wives._


> The trial resumes Tuesday, a day after prosecutors unveiled a series of photos that show Jeffs cuddling and kissing a 12-year-old girl.
> 
> Jeffs leads the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, an offshoot of mainstream Mormonism that believes polygamy brings exaltation in heaven. Followers see Jeffs as God's earthly spokesman.
> 
> The 55-year-old Jeffs is acting as his own attorney and claims his rights to religious freedom are being trampled. He says God will punish the judge and others involved if the case continues.
> 
> Jeffs isn't expected to call witnesses. He's refused to cross-examine prosecutors' witnesses and gave no opening statement.
> 
> Source



See also:

*Jeffs acts as his own attorney in trial*
_31 July,`11 - Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, accused of sexual assault with two underage girls he took as wives, has cast out his own defense lawyers and is asking a Texas court to follow God's words as he hears them._


> Jeffs, head of a breakaway Mormon group with an estimated 10,000 members, startled a San Angelo, Texas, courtroom Thursday by firing his lawyers and announcing he would defend himself against charges that could put him in prison for the rest of his life.  "I, the Lord God of heaven, call upon the court to cease this open prosecution against my pure, holy way," Jeffs, reading from what he said was a statement from God, told Judge Barbara Walther on Friday after she sent the jury out of the room.
> 
> Jeffs said if the trial continues, God told him, "I will send a scourge upon the counties of prosecutorial zeal to make humbled by sickness and death."  Prosecutor Eric Nichols responded that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 100 years ago that religious freedom does not extend to polygamy. Walther warned Jeffs she would remove him from the courtroom if he threatened jurors.  Jeffs, 55, inherited the leadership of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from his father and regards himself as God's prophet. He directs his followers in how to live their lives and arranges marriages of men to several female members.
> 
> His trial stems from a raid by Texas authorities in 2008 on a large rural church compound near Eldorado, Texas, following allegations that young girls were being forced into polygamist marriages with older men. Child protection officials temporarily took custody of more than 400 children living at the church's Yearning for Zion ranch.  Texas courts later ordered them returned to their families. Authorities said many of the underage girls were pregnant or had given birth.  Prosecutors told jurors they have an audio recording of the defendant raping a 12-year-old girl and DNA evidence showing he impregnated a 15-year-old.
> 
> Jeffs was one of 12 FLDS men charged with crimes including sexual assault and bigamy. The seven prosecuted so far have been convicted and sentenced to prison terms of between six and 75 years.  Former sect member Flora Jessop, who fled an FLDS polygamy family at 16 and wrote a book describing abuses of herself and other children, said the trial offers a rare glimpse into the sect's way of life. Even a conviction of Jeffs won't end the practice of multiple marriages and abuse of children, she said.
> 
> MORE


----------



## AmericanFirst

truthspeaker said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that the people who died in the holocaust were specifically targeted because of their religion. We didn't change our religion during the inquisition. We didn't change our religion during the crusades. We didn't change our religion during the holocaust.... And all the pogroms and swastikas couldn't  make us afraid enough to do that.
> 
> I have no problem with people making choices about what they believe. But dead people aren't making a choice. Personally, i'd be really cranky if i thought i would be baptized. We don't like it much. I understand that it comes from a place where you want to do good... But that's like converting us against our will where even putting us into crematoriums couldn't make us do that.
> 
> Btw, i mean no offense to you by saying that. Just discussing the issue. And, like i said, i find mormonism interesting and don't have any issues with lds (so long as they aren't the guys from the sect who are marrying 14 year olds).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as some might imagine, i get extremely excited when i get a chance to talk to a jew about religion. Nobody respects jews like we do. And again, the nature of the doctrine of baptism for the dead is not one of compulsory nature. As i said before each person in the realm of the afterlife has their own choice to accept that baptism or reject it. They know when it is going to take place and can choose to not show up if they want. There is no forcing here.
> In fact you may be surprised how much we understand about the jews and their faith. We believe that the children of israel are god's chosen people and that he will come to reclaim them and take vengeance on their oppressors.
> The reason some jews are fascinated by the book of mormon is because it tells of a branch of israel which was broken off of the house of joseph and scattered into the nether most part of the lord's vineyard. To follow a parable of the prophet zenock.
Click to expand...

baptism for the dead is a useless practice. Once you are dead you are dead. Every chance for salvation comes in this life on earth. If a church is teaching anything else it is blasphemy. Jesus said not to add to or take away from the words in the bible.


----------



## JakeStarkey

AmericanFirst is not authorized to speak for God or the Bible.  AF is entitled to his or her opinion.  And if AF is evangelical or fundamentalist, then AF is preaching bad theology.


----------



## Monnagonna

Avatar4321 said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUNNO I've never tried,
> The price would not be monetary, it would be in self worth... They'd see right through you and would flee immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a cool religion. Are there any hot broads in the LDS? Or are they all wearing granny dresses down to their ankles with big doofus bonnets?
> I also hear that Warren Jeffs is the second coming of John Smith, is that true?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, it helps if you educated yourself just alittle. You wouldn't look as much like an ignorant troll if you just researched alittle.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that I'm asking questions?
I'm looking for a religion with eternal life, and well, ya, hot broads because I don't want to spend the rest of eternity with my ex-wife.


----------



## Truthspeaker

AmericanFirst said:


> truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is that the people who died in the holocaust were specifically targeted because of their religion. We didn't change our religion during the inquisition. We didn't change our religion during the crusades. We didn't change our religion during the holocaust.... And all the pogroms and swastikas couldn't  make us afraid enough to do that.
> 
> I have no problem with people making choices about what they believe. But dead people aren't making a choice. Personally, i'd be really cranky if i thought i would be baptized. We don't like it much. I understand that it comes from a place where you want to do good... But that's like converting us against our will where even putting us into crematoriums couldn't make us do that.
> 
> Btw, i mean no offense to you by saying that. Just discussing the issue. And, like i said, i find mormonism interesting and don't have any issues with lds (so long as they aren't the guys from the sect who are marrying 14 year olds).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as some might imagine, i get extremely excited when i get a chance to talk to a jew about religion. Nobody respects jews like we do. And again, the nature of the doctrine of baptism for the dead is not one of compulsory nature. As i said before each person in the realm of the afterlife has their own choice to accept that baptism or reject it. They know when it is going to take place and can choose to not show up if they want. There is no forcing here.
> In fact you may be surprised how much we understand about the jews and their faith. We believe that the children of israel are god's chosen people and that he will come to reclaim them and take vengeance on their oppressors.
> The reason some jews are fascinated by the book of mormon is because it tells of a branch of israel which was broken off of the house of joseph and scattered into the nether most part of the lord's vineyard. To follow a parable of the prophet zenock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> baptism for the dead is a useless practice. Once you are dead you are dead. Every chance for salvation comes in this life on earth. If a church is teaching anything else it is blasphemy. Jesus said not to add to or take away from the words in the bible.
Click to expand...


Correction, Jesus never, ever... anywhere... said not to add or take away from the words of the Bible.. That is cramming words down his mouth which I'm sure He wouldn't appreciate. First there never was a Bible in Jesus' day so it immediately destroys your phony statement.

Correction number 2. Jesus himself is the one who was first recorded talking about Baptism for the dead.   It is clear the Jews were practicing this in Jesus time... 
1 Cor 13.29  Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Read the whole chapter if you want the proper context.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a cool religion. Are there any hot broads in the LDS? Or are they all wearing granny dresses down to their ankles with big doofus bonnets?
> I also hear that Warren Jeffs is the second coming of John Smith, is that true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it helps if you educated yourself just alittle. You wouldn't look as much like an ignorant troll if you just researched alittle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that I'm asking questions?
> I'm looking for a religion with eternal life, and well, ya, hot broads because I don't want to spend the rest of eternity with my ex-wife.
Click to expand...


Your reputation preceeds you.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it helps if you educated yourself just alittle. You wouldn't look as much like an ignorant troll if you just researched alittle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that I'm asking questions?
> I'm looking for a religion with eternal life, and well, ya, hot broads because I don't want to spend the rest of eternity with my ex-wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your reputation preceeds you.
Click to expand...


Just tell me this: if I went to a Mormon church service, and I look around, would i go " Whoa! She's Hot!" ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You would go "the spirit of Jesus can be found here."


----------



## waltky

Uncle Ferd says Jeffs as loony as Charlie Manson...

*Polygamist Jeffs says he's persecuted*
_Aug. 3, 2011 -- Polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs said in his opening statement Wednesday his child sexual assault trial in Texas amounts to persecution._


> Jeffs, who made his 30-minute opening statement after prosecutors wrapped up their case, never brought up sex, marriage to underage girls or any specifics of the state's case against him, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.  Instead, he gave a history of Christianity, Mormons, his sect and the nation, and talked about religious persecution in Europe and how Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith was killed by a mob and became a martyr.  "Two times in our history, families carried away with the government, intent to break up families because of prejudiced beliefs," Jeffs said, warning against prosecuting someone on the basis of religion. "If it comes against unpopular religions a persecuting zeal, where should it end?"
> 
> Earlier in the day, a so-called sex tape recording was played in which Jeffs can be heard panting.  Prosecutors rested their case after playing the 21-minute tape recording, in which they allege Jeffs, 55, has sex with a 12-year-old girl he took for his wife in 2006, the Tribune said. Several jurors put hands over their mouths as the tape played.  Jeffs twice refers to the alleged victim by name and a girl's voice is heard at times, the newspaper said. She is not heard resisting, the newspaper said.
> 
> While there are no direct references to sex in the recording, earlier testimony indicated phrases heard on the tape, such as "heavenly comfort" and "heavenly sessions," refer to sexual intercourse, the Tribune said.  Near the conclusion, Jeffs, who had objected unsuccessfully to the prosecution's playing of the tape, is heard saying, "In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen."  A girl's voice is heard responding, "Amen."  It was not clear whether Jeffs, who is representing himself, would call anyone on the stand, the Tribune said.
> 
> Read more: Polygamist Jeffs says he's persecuted - UPI.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jeffs is a classic pedophile, which are often found in patriarchal monogamous and polygamous communities.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Yeah Jeffs is a special predator indeed. He does all this in the name of our Church when he has nothing to do with us. He's trying to put himself up as the new Joseph Smith and he is the exact opposite of Smith He doesn't understand the doctrine and is so far astray there may be no hope for the guy. God knows, but I sure hope everyone understands that this guy is to the LDS religion what terrorists are to proper Islam.

It is interesting to note that all the cases in which Joseph Smith represented himself he was able to legally prove his innocence and the judges and juries were always forced to acquit whereas this Jeffs clown makes no points with regard to the law and only cites his extra-severely misguided interpretation of God's word.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Jesus is our perfect example in all things... Then why not appearance as well?


----------



## Dot Com

Waht about Romney?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Dot Com said:


> Waht about Romney?



People don't vote for people who look like Jesus.. They vote to crucify those guys.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm looking for a cool religion. Are there any hot broads in the LDS? Or are they all wearing granny dresses down to their ankles with big doofus bonnets?
> I also hear that Warren Jeffs is the second coming of John Smith, is that true?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it helps if you educated yourself just alittle. You wouldn't look as much like an ignorant troll if you just researched alittle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think that I'm asking questions?
> I'm looking for a religion with eternal life, and well, ya, hot broads because I don't want to spend the rest of eternity with my ex-wife.
Click to expand...


You are asking questions in futile attempts to mock. I say futile, because your questions are so ignorant that they demonstrate you dont know the first thing about Mormonism.

If you were actually asking questions to learn, you would be asking much different questions. You'd also be reading the scriptures such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Both of which you can recieve for free from the Church.

You'd also be asking God.


----------



## Dot Com

Truthspeaker said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Waht about Romney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't vote for people who look like Jesus.. They vote to crucify those guys.
Click to expand...

Good point. Your thread has gotten A LOT of traffic. Bravo.


----------



## Avatar4321

AmericanFirst said:


> baptism for the dead is a useless practice. Once you are dead you are dead. Every chance for salvation comes in this life on earth. If a church is teaching anything else it is blasphemy. Jesus said not to add to or take away from the words in the bible.




Im sorry to hear that you believe you have no hope for salvation after death. The Bible teaches otherwise as you can see.



> 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. (1 Cor 15:19)



Considering Paul used Baptism for the dead as an evidence for the Resurrection of Christ only 10 versus later, then I must conclude that there is a reason for baptism for the dead. Else why would Paul use it as an evidence for the resurrection?

And of course, you have to completely disregard Christ's preaching to the dead between His death and Resurrection who were disobedient and destroyed by the flood.



> 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> 
> 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:19-20)



And we are told why He preached to the dead in the next chapter:



> For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6)



Why would Christ preach the Gospel to the dead if there was no chance of salvation for the dead? Why would He preach to those who were destroyed by the flood?

If you believe that we are not to take away or add to the words of the Bible, why would you take away these sacred truths about salvation being preached to the dead? Why would you ignore Christ preaching to those in spirit prison who were disobedient in the time of Noah and destroyed by the flood? Why would you suggest that we have hope in Christ for this life only when the scriptures say otherwise?


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that I'm asking questions?
> I'm looking for a religion with eternal life, and well, ya, hot broads because I don't want to spend the rest of eternity with my ex-wife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your reputation preceeds you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just tell me this: if I went to a Mormon church service, and I look around, would i go " Whoa! She's Hot!" ?
Click to expand...


Probably. But you'd miss the entire point of being there.


----------



## Avatar4321

Dot Com said:


> Waht about Romney?



What about him?


----------



## Avatar4321

Dot Com said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Waht about Romney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't vote for people who look like Jesus.. They vote to crucify those guys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point. Your thread has gotten A LOT of traffic. Bravo.
Click to expand...


It's a good thread. and tends not to be as negative as some of the others.


----------



## waltky

Jeffs was a tyrant...

*Witnesses: Polygamist leader ruled with heavy hand*
_Sat Aug 6,`11  Convicted polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs ruled with a heavy and abusive hand, several former followers testified Saturday, recounting how the man they once revered as a prophet banned parades, Sports Illustrated magazine and even the color red upon rising to power._


> The second day of Jeffs' sentencing hearing later ended with a woman, now 28, tearfully alleging that Jeffs also sexually abused her as a young girl. Charges were never filed in that alleged incident. Three jurors cried during the woman's testimony, and state District Judge Barbara Walthers adjourned court until Monday.  The same jury convicted Jeffs on Thursday on charges of sexually assaulting two underage girls he had taken as brides in Texas. He faces up to life in prison, and jurors are likely to decide his punishment early next week.  For the second straight day, Jeffs wasn't in court. He walked out in protest Friday and has continued boycotting the proceedings, choosing instead to remain in another room of the courthouse.
> 
> Jeffs, 55, is the ecclesiastical head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which believes polygamy brings exaltation in heaven. More than 10,000 followers consider him God's spokesman on Earth.  One of them was Ezra Draper, who testified that FLDS men began taking brides younger and younger after Jeffs took over the polygamous group in 2002.  "You could see which girls were with which fellas. It would repeat itself week after week," said Draper, who left the church in 2003. "Then they were with child."
> 
> Prosecutors have tried showing in the sentencing phase that Jeffs ruled the FLDS with a far heavier and crueler hand than his father, who Jeffs succeeded. Draper testified that while Rulon Jeffs allowed fun activities such as parades and dances, his son abruptly put a stop to it in the community.  Draper said Jeffs threw out copies of Sports Illustrated and Car and Driver found in the boys' bedrooms. Books that featured talking animals were banned because Jeffs considered it teaching lies. Even the color red became prohibited, Draper said.
> 
> Jeffs also kept meticulous records  as jurors found out during the conviction phase of the trial. One of the most uncomfortable pieces of evidence so far has been an audiotape of what prosecutors said was Jeffs sexually assaulting one of his victims when she was 12.  On Saturday, prosecutors again dipped into a trove of Jeffs' records seized from a 2008 police raid on a remote FLDS ranch in West Texas. This time it was lengthy instructions on building a bed in the all-white, top-floor room in the ranch's temple. The instructions allegedly written by Jeffs were exact: 5-inch thick table legs, and padded sides on the bed while "the Lord does his work with me."
> 
> MORE


----------



## JoeB131

Joseph Smith was called the Prophet, dum-dum-dum-dum-dum....


----------



## JoeB131

My problem with Mormonism compared to other religions is that other religions are merely based on superstition.  

Mormonism is based on outright fraud.  There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was making it all up, for the express purpose of gaining power, money and teenage girls to have sex with.  

that's what makes it contemptable.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> My problem with Mormonism compared to other religions is that other religions are merely based on superstition.
> 
> Mormonism is based on outright fraud.  There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was making it all up, for the express purpose of gaining power, money and teenage girls to have sex with.
> 
> that's what makes it contemptable.



Which, of course, is why he died penniless and that there is no evidence that he had sex with anyone other than his wife.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem with Mormonism compared to other religions is that other religions are merely based on superstition.
> 
> Mormonism is based on outright fraud.  There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was making it all up, for the express purpose of gaining power, money and teenage girls to have sex with.
> 
> that's what makes it contemptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why he died penniless and that there is no evidence that he had sex with anyone other than his wife.
Click to expand...



You mean other than those 35 women he married? 

Yeah, he died penniless, after a lifetime of pulling one scam after another, and getting chased out of four states for his bad behavior before they shot him like a dog.  

Today we know he was lying. We know he was making it up about golden tablets.  We know that the Kinderhook plates he claimed were proof of the Nehites were fakes, we know the papyrus scrolls he claimed were the book of Abraham were a Ptomoleic funeral scroll.  

 In short, we know he was a con man.  So why do we treat Mormonism seriously?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My problem with Mormonism compared to other religions is that other religions are merely based on superstition.
> 
> Mormonism is based on outright fraud.  There is no doubt that Joseph Smith was making it all up, for the express purpose of gaining power, money and teenage girls to have sex with.
> 
> that's what makes it contemptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why he died penniless and that there is no evidence that he had sex with anyone other than his wife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean other than those 35 women he married?
> 
> Yeah, he died penniless, after a lifetime of pulling one scam after another, and getting chased out of four states for his bad behavior before they shot him like a dog.
> 
> Today we know he was lying. We know he was making it up about golden tablets.  We know that the Kinderhook plates he claimed were proof of the Nehites were fakes, we know the papyrus scrolls he claimed were the book of Abraham were a Ptomoleic funeral scroll.
> 
> In short, we know he was a con man.  So why do we treat Mormonism seriously?
Click to expand...


There may be no doubt in your mind but he obviously caused reasonable doubt for every charge brought against him in a court of law, which is why he was acquitted of the very things you've accused him of. No less in states that were unfavorable. Even rigged judges and juries couldn't convict him, try as they could. 
By the way, Jesus was convicted in a kangaroo court as well so does that make him guilty?

Who is the "we" you are referring to that knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Smith was such the con man you've claimed? Your particular movement? I'd like to know. Your speculations are highly irresponsible and insult your intelligence even more than you've insulted mine. 
Please come stronger with arguments above the level of a whining 6 year old.

Also, a person isn't a bad person simply because they were/are a polygamist. There is a culture of fine people that needs to be understood as opposed to predators who use it to take advantage of the ignorant and young. 
There are polygamists today all around the world who are not demons but good people who take care of their families and love them... It's too bad that the Warren Jeffs of the world make them look terrible.  You must understand the difference between a Jeffs and a Smith or an Abraham or Moses.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> You mean other than those 35 women he married? ?



Most of those women he married were only sealed to him after this life. Many of those sealings took place after his death. He only ever lived with one wife. He only had children with one wife. There is absolutely no evidence that he slept with anyone other than Emma.

That, of course, is a bit of a side issue though. Practicing poylgamy is not evidence of fraud.



> Yeah, he died penniless, after a lifetime of pulling one scam after another, and getting chased out of four states for his bad behavior before they shot him like a dog.



He was chased from state to state and murdered in cold blood because he had the audacity to testify that He had seen the risen Lord. He had been found innocent of crimes again and again. 




> Today we know he was lying. We know he was making it up about golden tablets.



Oh really? And were the 12 other witnesses lying too? And tell me, what exactly was their motivation to reaffirm their testimonies as they did after they had their falling out with Joseph? Take Oliver Cowdery for instance. He had a falling out with Joseph, was excommunicated. Was involved in politics and lost because he was unwilling to deny that He saw the plates or the angel. He later came back to the Church after Joseph's death. Does that sound like he was lying?

Or Martin Harris. He financed the first printing of the Book of Mormon. He too at a falling out. Was excommunicated from the Church. Continued to reaffirm his testimony and eventually came back to the Church.

Or David Whitmer. He was excommunicated and He one that never came back to the Church, but he made it a point to do an interview when he was older reaffirming that He saw the plates and the Angel. He also reaffirmed that Oliver died reaffirming his testimony of the Book of Mormon.

The biggest problem you have with your assertion though is the Book of Mormon itself. We have the Book of Mormon. We can hold it in our hands. We can read it's words. We can study and pray over it. We can learn from the Holy Spirit whether it's true or not. And I can tell you that I know by the Power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true.

You can find out for yourself as well if you read and pray over it.



> We know that the Kinderhook plates he claimed were proof of the Nehites were fakes,



Only problem there is Joseph claimed no such thing. In fact, he showed no interest in the Kinderhook plates whatsoever. Contrast how he reacted with the Book of Abraham where he went out of his way to make sure he purchased it. 



> we know the papyrus scrolls he claimed were the book of Abraham were a Ptomoleic funeral scroll.



Unfortunately, most of the papyra was destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire. So while we have retained some which are funeral scrolls, we don't have the complete collection Joseph had so to claim there is no Book of Abraham among the scrolls is inaccurate.

And considering what we've learned about Abraham through recent discoveries Joseph nailed quite a few things he shouldn't have.



> In short, we know he was a con man.  So why do we treat Mormonism seriously



In short, your summary is inaccurate, laced with unsustainable assertions. 

Mormonism is treated seriously because the doctrines cannot be contended with. That is of course why you are trying to discredit Joseph is it not? The problem is showing that he was a flawed human being doesn't discredit the message. Was he flawed? yes as every human is. Is he guilty of what he is usually accused of, for the most part no.

Take this account from an eyewitness in Nauvoo:



> James Leach was an Englishman who had come to Nauvoo with his convert sister and her husband, Agnes and Henry Nightingale. After looking for work without success, James and Henry determined to ask the Prophet for help. James recalled:
> 
> We  found [the Prophet] in a little store selling a lady some goods. This was the first time I had had an opportunity to be near him and get a good look at him. I felt there was a superior spirit in him. He was different to anyone I had ever met before; and I said in my heart, he is truly a Prophet of the most high God.
> 
> As I was not a member of the Church I wanted Henry to ask him for work, but he did not do so, so I had to. I said, Mr. Smith, if you please, have you any employment you could give us both, so we can get some provisions? He viewed us with a cheerful countenance, and with such a feeling of kindness, said, Well, boys, what can you do? We told him what our employment was before we left our native land.
> 
> Said he, Can you make a ditch? I replied we would do the best we could at it. Thats right, boys, and picking up a tape line, he said, Come along with me.
> 
> He took us a few rods from the store, gave me the ring to hold, and stretched all the tape from the reel and marked a line for us to work by. Now, boys, said he, can you make a ditch three feet wide and two and a half feet deep along this line?
> 
> We said we would do our best, and he left us. We went to work, and when it was finished I went and told him it was done. He came and looked at it and said, Boys, if I had done it myself it could not have been done better. Now come with me.
> 
> He led the way back to his store, and told us to pick the best ham or piece of pork for ourselves. Being rather bashful, I said we would rather he would give us some. So he picked two of the largest and best pieces of meat and a sack of flour for each of us, and asked us if that would do. We told him we would be willing to do more work for it, but he said, If you are satisfied, boys, I am.
> 
> We thanked him kindly, and went on our way home rejoicing in the kindheartedness of the Prophet of our God.
> 
> James Leach was baptized that same year and recorded that he often had the privilege of seeing [the Prophets] noble face lit up by the Spirit and power of God.



Does that sound like someone obsessed with taking money from people? Does it sound like someone who has the disposition to con people?

That's just one of countless eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith's charity. Now either James Leach and the others are lying and he is a con man or you are misinformed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Every major historian at BYU and out agree that JS had sex with his wives.

No LDS general authority will deny that JS had sex with his wives.

Any other suggestion or belief to the contrary is flatly contradicted by the church's history and the facts.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Every major historian at BYU and out agree that JS had sex with his wives.
> 
> No LDS general authority will deny that JS had sex with his wives.
> 
> Any other suggestion or belief to the contrary is flatly contradicted by the church's history and the facts.



Just the same, I have no problem with a man having sex with his wives. I'm sure Abraham and Moses did too. It is more of a sin to have sex with a woman who is not your wife extramaritally


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Every major historian at BYU and out agree that JS had sex with his wives.
> 
> No LDS general authority will deny that JS had sex with his wives.
> 
> Any other suggestion or belief to the contrary is flatly contradicted by the church's history and the facts.



Doesn't matter how many people "agree," fictional or non-fictional. The evidence is still non-existant.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> [
> There may be no doubt in your mind but he obviously caused reasonable doubt for every charge brought against him in a court of law, which is why he was acquitted of the very things you've accused him of. No less in states that were unfavorable. Even rigged judges and juries couldn't convict him, try as they could.



Oh, come on, the guy fled the jurisdiction more often than not. That's what he did in NY when he was convicted on the Gold Selling Scandal and in Ohio after the Kirkland "anti-Bank" scam, and in Missouri when his Danites tried to steal local elections.  So the fine folks in Navou, IL figured they just shoot him. 



> By the way, Jesus was convicted in a kangaroo court as well so does that make him guilty?



Well, I don't think Jesus actually ever existed, I think he was made up. But technically, yeah, Jesus was completely guilty of violating the Mosiac Law and challenging the authority of the priesthood. (In a fictional way, of course.) People were killed all through the bible for doing a lot less than Jesus did. 



> Who is the "we" you are referring to that knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Smith was such the con man you've claimed? Your particular movement? I'd like to know. Your speculations are highly irresponsible and insult your intelligence even more than you've insulted mine.



All of us Americans with a lick of common sense who haven't been brainwashed like you have, apparenlty.  

Come on, man, serious scholars know Mormonism was the 19th century version of Scientology.  you avoided the whole point about Kinderhook and the Abraham Papyrus, both of which Smith said were genuine, but later debunked by serious science.  So I guess I have to be dubious about the Golden Tablets, which no one but Smith Saw, since he's already 0-2.  



> Also, a person isn't a bad person simply because they were/are a polygamist. There is a culture of fine people that needs to be understood as opposed to predators who use it to take advantage of the ignorant and young.



Again, Smith was marrying girls as young as 14. So did Brigham Young. Not to mention in Smith's case, *IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW*. 

On the whole issue of polygamy, yeah, I guess it's okay, in societies where women are second class citizens.  I'm glad I don't live in one of those. 



> There are polygamists today all around the world who are not demons but good people who take care of their families and love them... It's too bad that the Warren Jeffs of the world make them look terrible.  You must understand the difference between a Jeffs and a Smith or an Abraham or Moses.



Actually, if you read the bible, Abraham and Moses were intolerant jerkwads, too. Heck, you don't think Isaac was traumatized after that whole fake out sacrifice thing?  You pull that kind of stuff today, DCFS would be on you like white on rice. And Moses couldn't go five minutes without trying to genocide someone.  (Can you use Genocide as a verb? Heck, I just did. Deal with it, baby.)


----------



## Sky Dancer

What I know about LDS is that money poured in from Utah to California to defeat marriage equality.

I wish LDS in Utah would leave California alone.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> [Most of those women he married were only sealed to him after this life. Many of those sealings took place after his death. He only ever lived with one wife. He only had children with one wife. There is absolutely no evidence that he slept with anyone other than Emma.
> 
> That, of course, is a bit of a side issue though. Practicing poylgamy is not evidence of fraud.



No, but it's a show of bad character, not to mention criminal in IL in 1844. 

Come on, you really think he married these girls who worshipped him and didn't have sex with them?  David Koresh's followers claimed the same thing.  




> He was chased from state to state and murdered in cold blood because he had the audacity to testify that He had seen the risen Lord. He had been found innocent of crimes again and again.



Actually, that's not true. He usually ran away about half an hour before angry neighbors and the authorities came down on him.  Like when he scammed his neighbors in the Gold Finding Scam (where the court DID find him guilty, and he fled the jurisdiction.) Or the Kirkland "anti-Bank" scandal where he showed people trunks full of "gold coins" that turned out to be boxes of sand with a level of coins spread on top.  

Hey, I saw a stew-bum last week who told me he saw Jesus.  I just figured the man needed his medication. Or at least to lay off the Mogan-David 20/20.  







> Oh really? And were the 12 other witnesses lying too? And tell me, what exactly was their motivation to reaffirm their testimonies as they did after they had their falling out with Joseph? Take Oliver Cowdery for instance. He had a falling out with Joseph, was excommunicated. Was involved in politics and lost because he was unwilling to deny that He saw the plates or the angel. He later came back to the Church after Joseph's death. Does that sound like he was lying? Or Martin Harris. He financed the first printing of the Book of Mormon. He too at a falling out. Was excommunicated from the Church. Continued to reaffirm his testimony and eventually came back to the Church.
> 
> Or David Whitmer. He was excommunicated and He one that never came back to the Church, but he made it a point to do an interview when he was older reaffirming that He saw the plates and the Angel. He also reaffirmed that Oliver died reaffirming his testimony of the Book of Mormon.



All three of them just sound like the kind of weak creatures that end up joining cults. Jim Jones and David Koresh had lots of those kinds of people following them, too.  



> The biggest problem you have with your assertion though is the Book of Mormon itself. We have the Book of Mormon. We can hold it in our hands. We can read it's words. We can study and pray over it. We can learn from the Holy Spirit whether it's true or not. And I can tell you that I know by the Power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true.
> 
> You can find out for yourself as well if you read and pray over it.



Actually, the Mormon Chruch  hired a expert to examine the book of Mormon, and he concluded Smith wrote the whole thing.  It is clearly the work of a single author, unlike the Bible, which was written by many people.  



> Only problem there is Joseph claimed no such thing. In fact, he showed no interest in the Kinderhook plates whatsoever. Contrast how he reacted with the Book of Abraham where he went out of his way to make sure he purchased it.



Not true. He made a public statement they were written by a descendent of Ham.  But then he got killed before the guys who made them could punk him.  



> Unfortunately, most of the papyra was destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire. So while we have retained some which are funeral scrolls, we don't have the complete collection Joseph had so to claim there is no Book of Abraham among the scrolls is inaccurate.



But that's not what Smith Claimed. He even reproduced drawings from the Scrolls in the text, and made claims as to what they represented. Which we now know these papyri were 2000 years later than he claimed and were completely pagan in nature. 



> And considering what we've learned about Abraham through recent discoveries Joseph nailed quite a few things he shouldn't have.



Abraham was as fictional as everyone else in the Bible. 





> n short, your summary is inaccurate, laced with unsustainable assertions.
> 
> Mormonism is treated seriously because the doctrines cannot be contended with. That is of course why you are trying to discredit Joseph is it not? The problem is showing that he was a flawed human being doesn't discredit the message. Was he flawed? yes as every human is. Is he guilty of what he is usually accused of, for the most part no..




Mormonism is treated seriously because we are a dumbed down nation of people who believe in bronze age superstitions, who've evolved just high enough to respect other people's silly beliefs.


----------



## Monnagonna

People treat mormonism seriously? Never heard that one before. lol.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Oh, come on, the guy fled the jurisdiction more often than not. That's what he did in NY when he was convicted on the Gold Selling Scandal and in Ohio after the Kirkland "anti-Bank" scam, and in Missouri when his Danites tried to steal local elections.  So the fine folks in Navou, IL figured they just shoot him.



Fled from jurisdiction? That statement doesn't even make sense. I think you're trying to say that he fled from justice... Ok assuming that's what you are trying to say, you're still wrong... He knew he could have run and escaped the trial in Carthage (not Nauvoo), but he knew it was best to stand up to the charges again as he always had. He even publicly proclaimed that he was going to be killed this time by doing so. That's pretty remarkable that a man is willing to die rather than flee. His final prophecy was that he would be murdered in cold blood and it came true.

As to your feigned conviction that you say he was convicted of, you better link up if you're going to be taken seriously. Historians, who have a lot more credibility than USMB trolls, have shown Joseph's record to be clear of conviction.
But again, conviction in a kangaroo court means nothing anyway. And another piece of evidence that shows you talking loudly out of your pet's privates, is that the people of Nauvoo weren't the ones who shot him. It was the mob at Carthage which was gathered from many different places aside from Carthage. Again... learn knowledge.



> Well, I don't think Jesus actually ever existed, I think he was made up. But technically, yeah, Jesus was completely guilty of violating the Mosiac Law and challenging the authority of the priesthood. (In a fictional way, of course.) People were killed all through the bible for doing a lot less than Jesus did.


Well it's clear to me that you will simply not believe anything. You will only consent to it if you see it with your own blurry eyes.

 And even then you won't subscribe to it if you don't like it. Jesus could come and visit your house tomorrow and you wouldn't give a rip one way or the other.

  "Made up", hah, for someone who claims to adhere to "serious scholars" you're really fighting them on this one.

Out of curiousity, how much pornography do you watch each day?



> All of us Americans with a lick of common sense who haven't been brainwashed like you have, apparenlty.


Ok so since you and all the rest of America- who you claim agrees with you and has all the common sense on copyright- believes we're brainwashed, and deluded idiots, why would you waste your time arguing with an idiot. 




That's like harrassing a retarded person and calling him slow... It only makes you look worse than the people you're making fun of. 

So, oh wise one... why would you spend your valuable time arguing with a person who hasn't even a lick of sense like me?
Interesting because you simply can't stand that what we have could help you be a better person but you insist on resisting and attacking that which you do not understand. And because our religion destroys your craft of idolatry and laziness, you feel you need to try and debunk it...

So if we're so crazy, why waste your time at all? Because you're really not interested in truth but you're just a full blown, 12 foot tall Lord of the Rings Troll.




> Come on, man, serious scholars know Mormonism was the 19th century version of Scientology.  you avoided the whole point about Kinderhook and the Abraham Papyrus, both of which Smith said were genuine, but later debunked by serious science.  So I guess I have to be dubious about the Golden Tablets, which no one but Smith Saw, since he's already 0-2.


That's a pretty low blow, except we've grown and grown much more than Scientology and our doctrine is much stronger. Iron clad in fact.  Any problems with our doctrine? Of course you have but you don't have any ammo to attack it.. Only phony and feeble attempts to slander the first president of our church. poor you.

One thing you'll learn about me is that after more than two years on this thread, I don't dodge any issues. The Kinderhook plates were presented to Smith and some of the other leaders of our church and were fabricated. The guys who somehow had the time to fabricate plates with egyptian heiroglyphs on them in an attempt to make our leaders look bad, effectively each became "that guy" who wastes his time trolling around against other's religions. They just didn't have internet blogs to troll around on. So naturally Smith and the others were interested from the start since they had seen a legitimate ancient document already and were eager for more. So Smith started translating the Kinderhook plates out of his curiousity but never had the time to finish and find out the plates were fraudulent because he had more important things to do and everyone was trying to kill him and those "fine people" you spoke of succeeded before he could get the word out that those plates were fraudulent. Big deal.. I don't see your point. Was your point that he was a flawed individual? Of course he was. He made mistakes along the way just like all of us and committed sins just like the rest of us. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a prophet.
And the Abraham Papyrii were not entirely recovered either but those have not been debunked as you somehow claim.. again link up.





> Again, Smith was marrying girls as young as 14. So did Brigham Young. Not to mention in Smith's case, *IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW*.



1. The ages of the girls are speculatory.
2. The age of consent was not set in those times like it is today at 18.
3. Cultures were entirely different among women as most of them primarily wanted to be wives as soon as possible.
4. What law are you referring to? Our modern day law of 18? Sure but that law didn't exist back then.
5. You have no understanding about the situation. His wives were consenting of their own accord and were all of the proper age for the time. 
6. For thousands of years women were considered women much earlier in their lives and it wasn't until the 20th century that 18 became the magic number. Ever watch any Disney Movies? Most of the princesses who were married were announced as 16 years old even as recently as 1990 with The Little Mermaid. Society didn't seem to have a problem with a 16 year old getting married. Guess what happens when you get married? You have sex!  I bet you probably love that movie too. So does that mean that you and Disney both support sex with minors? I thought it was funny when we watched Tangled recently and the princess' age was bumped up to 18 now that it's 2011. Presentism.



> On the whole issue of polygamy, yeah, I guess it's okay, in societies where women are second class citizens.  I'm glad I don't live in one of those.



If women are forced into it then they are being treated like second class citizens. In Joseph's case they were not.


> Actually, if you read the bible


Funny you should say that.. cuz I kinda do it all the time. how bout you?



> Abraham and Moses were intolerant jerkwads, too. Heck, you don't think Isaac was traumatized after that whole fake out sacrifice thing?  You pull that kind of stuff today, DCFS would be on you like white on rice. And Moses couldn't go five minutes without trying to genocide someone.  (Can you use Genocide as a verb? Heck, I just did. Deal with it, baby.)


If God didn't command Abraham and Moses to do what they did, then they would have to be considered dictators on a Hitler scale, so either they were prophets under God's direction and God is to blame for those deaths, or they were tyrants. My view is the former and God does things for his own reasons which I try to understand the wisdom in his actions rather than why God is a bad God. God does things which are often unpopular because he see's what we do not see. But that's hard for someone like you to hear because you think you have it all figured out and that no one knows better than you so it's impossible for there to be a God at all... Because that very God would have to be smarter than you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sky Dancer said:


> What I know about LDS is that money poured in from Utah to California to defeat marriage equality.
> 
> I wish LDS in Utah would leave California alone.



Welcome back Sky... I hope we don't have to go over this discussion again. I'm satisfied we covered it at length with you back in 08.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truth, if the Abraham papyrii have never been found, then there's nothing to debunk, the papirii can only be a theory, not fact.

You admit Jo Smith was flawed? Once someone lies once, you can't believe anything they say after that. Especially when they're a serial liar to start with.

And you have actual proof that Jesus existed? I'd be interested in that.


----------



## waltky

Granny says dat'll teach him not to be pimpin' young ladies to old geezers...

*Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs gets life in prison*
_Aug 09, 2011 - Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs has been sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting two underage followers he took as brides in what his church deemed "spiritual marriages."_


> The 55-year-old head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stood quietly as the decision of the Texas jury was read today, the Associated Press reports.  Jeffs is the eighth FLDS man convicted since a raid of a ranch run by the church, which believes polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.
> 
> Jeffs was convicted last week. During the trial, prosecutors used DNA evidence to show Jeffs fathered a child with a 15-year-old and played an audio recording of what they said was him sexually assaulting a 12-year-old.  "If the world knew what I was doing, they would hang me from the highest tree," Jeffs wrote in 2005, according to one of thousands of pages of notes seized along with the audio recordings from his Texas ranch.  Jeffs, who had been a fugitive for years before his capture in 2006, has more than 10,000 followers who consider Jeffs to be God's spokesman on Earth.
> 
> FBI agent John Broadway testified that fathers who gave their young daughters to Jeffs were rewarded with young brides of their own. Girls who proved reluctant to have sex with Jeffs were sent away, according to excerpts from Jeffs' journals that prosecutors showed to the jury.
> 
> Jeffs claimed that his religious rights were being violated, a view that the prosecution quickly dismissed.  "The evidence in this case shows that this isn't a prosecution of a people," prosecutor Eric Nichols said in his closing argument. "This is a prosecution to protect people."
> 
> Source


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> People treat mormonism seriously? Never heard that one before. lol.



Then you should read more.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truth, if the Abraham papyrii have never been found, then there's nothing to debunk, the papirii can only be a theory, not fact.
> 
> You admit Jo Smith was flawed? Once someone lies once, you can't believe anything they say after that. Especially when they're a serial liar to start with.
> 
> And you have actual proof that Jesus existed? I'd be interested in that.



Gonner,
The papyrii were found, they were mostly destroyed but there are still fragments remaining. Here.
Book of Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and yes, of course, Smith was flawed... Who isn't? So then we should not have any leaders in this world? Is that what you're saying? Because they all can't be trusted? Ok so you would prefer pure anarchy? ok fine..

Now if he is guilty of one thing it's not lying. Any proof on your part that he did lie? link up

Now about proof of the existence of Jesus. I might define proof as one thing whereas you might define proof as video.
Testimonies of millions who have had the name passed down through nearly every religion i'm sure don't count in your book. The History Channel's productions and all the commentary of historians on their programs probably mean nothing to you either. Roman history mentions him. So I guess really there is no proof you would except other than a visitation right now, correct?

actually I really enjoyed this show when I watched it and from the blood and positioning of stains on the shroud of Turin they were able to reconstruct what they feel Jesus looked like at the time of his death. It's pretty gory but you'll probably really like that. 
http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus

you can download the show on itunes for 3.99


----------



## Zona

Its been a long time since I posted on this thread...but remember this...Glenn Beck is a fucking mormon.  I think that says it all!  lolololololol


----------



## Zona

Cults are funny.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Its been a long time since I posted on this thread...but remember this...Glenn Beck is a fucking mormon.  I think that says it all!  lolololololol


----------



## Truthspeaker

waltky said:


> Granny says dat'll teach him not to be pimpin' young ladies to old geezers...
> 
> *Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs gets life in prison*
> _Aug 09, 2011 - Polygamist leader Warren Jeffs has been sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting two underage followers he took as brides in what his church deemed "spiritual marriages."_
> 
> 
> 
> The 55-year-old head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints stood quietly as the decision of the Texas jury was read today, the Associated Press reports.  Jeffs is the eighth FLDS man convicted since a raid of a ranch run by the church, which believes polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.
> 
> Jeffs was convicted last week. During the trial, prosecutors used DNA evidence to show Jeffs fathered a child with a 15-year-old and played an audio recording of what they said was him sexually assaulting a 12-year-old.  "If the world knew what I was doing, they would hang me from the highest tree," Jeffs wrote in 2005, according to one of thousands of pages of notes seized along with the audio recordings from his Texas ranch.  Jeffs, who had been a fugitive for years before his capture in 2006, has more than 10,000 followers who consider Jeffs to be God's spokesman on Earth.
> 
> FBI agent John Broadway testified that fathers who gave their young daughters to Jeffs were rewarded with young brides of their own. Girls who proved reluctant to have sex with Jeffs were sent away, according to excerpts from Jeffs' journals that prosecutors showed to the jury.
> 
> Jeffs claimed that his religious rights were being violated, a view that the prosecution quickly dismissed.  "The evidence in this case shows that this isn't a prosecution of a people," prosecutor Eric Nichols said in his closing argument. "This is a prosecution to protect people."
> 
> Source
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> Fled from jurisdiction? That statement doesn't even make sense. I think you're trying to say that he fled from justice... Ok assuming that's what you are trying to say, you're still wrong... He knew he could have run and escaped the trial in Carthage (not Nauvoo), but he knew it was best to stand up to the charges again as he always had. He even publicly proclaimed that he was going to be killed this time by doing so. That's pretty remarkable that a man is willing to die rather than flee. His final prophecy was that he would be murdered in cold blood and it came true.



Actually, he hid in the woods like a coward waiting for his militia to show up... and they didn't... Heh, heh, heh.. And then they shot him. 




> But again, conviction in a kangaroo court means nothing anyway. And another piece of evidence that shows you talking loudly out of your pet's privates, is that the people of Nauvoo weren't the ones who shot him. It was the mob at Carthage which was gathered from many different places aside from Carthage. Again... learn knowledge



Hey, you know the difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? 

Original and Extra Crispy!!!!   




> Well it's clear to me that you will simply not believe anything. You will only consent to it if you see it with your own blurry eyes.
> 
> And even then you won't subscribe to it if you don't like it. Jesus could come and visit your house tomorrow and you wouldn't give a rip one way or the other.
> 
> "Made up", hah, for someone who claims to adhere to "serious scholars" you're really fighting them on this one.



No, I beleve in things that are rational and logical. If something sound plausible, I accept it. Sky Pixies and Wafer Zombies aren't plausible to me. 



> :Out of curiousity, how much pornography do you watch each day?



Why would you care?  Frankly, I get tired of prudes trying to run my life. 




> So, oh wise one... why would you spend your valuable time arguing with a person who hasn't even a lick of sense like me?
> Interesting because you simply can't stand that what we have could help you be a better person but you insist on resisting and attacking that which you do not understand. And because our religion destroys your craft of idolatry and laziness, you feel you need to try and debunk it...



Well, I would love nothing better than to throw a big fence around Utah and turn it into a cult deprogramming camp. But as long as you clowns are out there trying to establish your crazy theocracy in my country, I'll expose all your silly shit and laugh at it while I do it. 



> That's a pretty low blow, except we've grown and grown much more than Scientology and our doctrine is much stronger. Iron clad in fact.  Any problems with our doctrine? Of course you have but you don't have any ammo to attack it.. Only phony and feeble attempts to slander the first president of our church. poor you.



It ain't slander if it's true, bunky.  He made up a fake religion to screw teenage girls.  Kind of like L. Ron Hubbard did.  But at least L. Ron admitted that was what he was doing. 




> One thing you'll learn about me is that after more than two years on this thread, I don't dodge any issues.



Guy, if you are spending two years on one thread, you seriously need to get a life.  Or maybe buy yourself some porn.  







> The Kinderhook plates were presented to Smith and some of the other leaders of our church and were fabricated. The guys who somehow had the time to fabricate plates with egyptian heiroglyphs on them in an attempt to make our leaders look bad, effectively each became "that guy" who wastes his time trolling around against other's religions. They just didn't have internet blogs to troll around on. So naturally Smith and the others were interested from the start since they had seen a legitimate ancient document already and were eager for more. So Smith started translating the Kinderhook plates out of his curiousity but never had the time to finish and find out the plates were fraudulent because he had more important things to do and everyone was trying to kill him and those "fine people" you spoke of succeeded before he could get the word out that those plates were fraudulent.




Smith claimed they were real... 



> _I have seen 6 brass plates...covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph Smith] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth._



Kinderhook plates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

further, historians of your CHurch claimed their authenticity for years. It wasn't until 1981 that the Church finally admitted they were. 



> Big deal.. I don't see your point. Was your point that he was a flawed individual? Of course he was. He made mistakes along the way just like all of us and committed sins just like the rest of us. But that doesn't mean he wasn't a prophet.



Well, uh, that kind of means he was. I mean, if he was on God's Fav Five, that means he was talking to the Invisible Sky Pixie all the time. Which means God should have said to him, "Errrr, Joe, you neighbors created those plates to make you look dumb.  And that Papyrus? That's a Pagan Funerary scroll."



> And the Abraham Papyrii were not entirely recovered either but those have not been debunked as you somehow claim.. again link up.



Book of Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Some LDS scholars have argued that much of the original papyrus collection is missing,[73] but others have challenged this notion, contending that the majority of the papyri have been recovered.[74]
> 
> There is broad agreement that the recovered papyri are portions of the originals, partly based on the fact that they were pasted onto paper which had "drawings of a temple and maps of the Kirtland, Ohio area" on the back and an accompanying affidavit by Emma Smith, stating that they had been in the possession of Joseph Smith.[62]




And then we get into your tiresome attempt to excuse Smith's pedophilia by claiming that girls got married earlier back then.  Yes, they did- to other teenagers, usually after a pregnancy. A man marrying a bunch of them was against the law because he was already married to someone else, and it was just downright creepy. Which is why his neighbors had the good sense to kill him rather than wasting a court's time. 




> Actually, if you read the bible
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you should say that.. cuz I kinda do it all the time. how bout you?
Click to expand...


Sure, I do. When I need a good laugh. 





> If God didn't command Abraham and Moses to do what they did, then they would have to be considered dictators on a Hitler scale, so either they were prophets under God's direction and God is to blame for those deaths, or they were tyrants. My view is the former and God does things for his own reasons which I try to understand the wisdom in his actions rather than why God is a bad God. God does things which are often unpopular because he see's what we do not see. But that's hard for someone like you to hear because you think you have it all figured out and that no one knows better than you so it's impossible for there to be a God at all... Because that very God would have to be smarter than you.



Hitler thought God was commanding him, too.  Hitler talked about how God wanted him to do all the terrible things he did.  

The God of the Bible is a savage monster because he was made up by savages. Nothing more, nothing less.  If there is a God, he certainly isn't that guy.  A God with a 14 billion year plan to make a universe isn't going to care which bunch of ignorant bronze age goat herders are killing each other or whether someone is watching porn or not.


----------



## JoeB131

Here's something from an Ex-Mormon that pretty much nails it.  

http://packham.n4m.org/nutshell.htm

If somebody should come around to you and say, very seriously, that:

God has been talking personally to him; and

he has an important message for YOU from GOD (even though you know that God has your address and phone number and could easily give you the message himself); and 

the message is that God wants you to do whatever this guy says; 

which includes giving this guy lots of money, time and energy to help him; and 

if you do this, wonderful things will happen to you, but mostly after you're dead; and 

God has told him all kinds of important stuff (but not how to cure AIDS, or cancer, or the common cold; or how to pick a stock that will double in a year; or how to pay off the national debt); and 

It's OK for him to be married to 30 or 40 women at the same time (but it's not OK for YOU); and 

You're not supposed to ask him any questions, but just trust him; and 

If you do everything he says, he'll tell you the secret password and handshake that will get you into Heaven; and

Then, after you die and go to Heaven, you will organize and rule your own world and billions of your own spirit children (even though right now you can't even organize your own desk top, you hire somebody else to prepare your tax return and repair your carburetor, you have absolutely no interest in astronomy, quantum physics or advanced math, and you can't control the three kids you have);

If somebody tells you all this, 

SHOULDN'T YOU BE A LITTLE BIT SUSPICIOUS? 
Chances are pretty good that he is either a lunatic or a fraud, AND YOU SHOULD RUN LIKE HELL!

But this is Joseph Smith's story, in a nutshell.


----------



## hipeter924

Parting a sea, and making water that doesn't have oxygen isn't a more fantastical claim than magically transporting people and changing their DNA. So this is really Christians complaining about other's Christians not following the 'right' book, Mormons are alright; and they don't bomb abortion clinics.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker's defense of underage marriage in the 1840s to 1880s reflects a poor understanding of the psychology and sociology of marriage in America then.  Joseph Smith had sex with underage girls, whose consent had nothing to do with its morality.  TS's defense is exactly that of Warren Jeffs.

That defense is unacceptable and immoral.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Actually, he hid in the woods like a coward waiting for his militia to show up... and they didn't... Heh, heh, heh.. And then they shot him.


Fail. Check the record.



> Hey, you know the difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra Crispy!!!!


Why is it that whoever tends to disagree with Smith can't simply have a disagreement. They have to crack jokes as if they're so clever, yet juvenile. Grow up.




> No, I beleve in things that are rational and logical. If something sound plausible, I accept it. Sky Pixies and Wafer Zombies aren't plausible to me.


Truth is stranger than fiction a lot of the time.



> Why would you care?  Frankly, I get tired of prudes trying to run my life.



Because porn ruins the spirit and damages the brain. I can tell you've engaged in plenty.




> Well, I would love nothing better than to throw a big fence around Utah and turn it into a cult deprogramming camp. But as long as you clowns are out there trying to establish your crazy theocracy in my country, I'll expose all your silly shit and laugh at it while I do it.



Happy exposing. We'll see who's laughing in the end. At least we believe in something and you have no answers to life's questions which is why you're overly cynical as a defense mechanism.



> It ain't slander if it's true, bunky.  He made up a fake religion to screw teenage girls.  Kind of like L. Ron Hubbard did.  But at least L. Ron admitted that was what he was doing.


God bless America for giving us a country in which strange comments like yours are allowed to go public for the rest of our entertainment.




> Guy, if you are spending two years on one thread, you seriously need to get a life.  Or maybe buy yourself some porn.


I enjoy my life's purpose. I'm sorry that you don't have a purpose you choose to subscribe to other than trolling other's religions. That's a sad existence. And trust me, if I were to give myself to the dark side and watch porn, I wouldn't pay for it. There's enough free stuff out there but I guess there's plenty of suckers like you who still pony up. 










> Smith claimed they were real...



Sure he did, but he wasn't done examining them. He also wasn't operating as a prophet yet when it came to these plates. He was checking them out on his own. It's also important to remember he studied them with what he had learned of ancient languages and was seeking more information. He certainly hadn't finished a thorough examination of the plates. 
He didn't use the divine method given to him to translate the Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummim. Again this was a curiosity of his  and not a revelation he claimed to receive. He read the words and interpreted what he saw on a superficial level not a supernatural level.






> Well, uh, that kind of means he was. I mean, if he was on God's Fav Five, that means he was talking to the Invisible Sky Pixie all the time. Which means God should have said to him, "Errrr, Joe, you neighbors created those plates to make you look dumb.  And that Papyrus? That's a Pagan Funerary scroll."



Well, uhh... no it doesn't... That's the conclusion you have drawn due to your instant skepticism and cynicism. I get that and that's ok. But God doesn't do everything for us. He never has. He wants us to be free to figure things out on our own for the most part. Had Joseph attempted a revelation on the subject or prayed about these fake plates, he would have no doubt received an answer. But he didn't consult God on this one. He was just checking it out on his own. That does happen you know. Prophets aren't puppets. They have their own lives.







> And then we get into your tiresome attempt to excuse Smith's pedophilia by claiming that girls got married earlier back then.  Yes, they did- to other teenagers, usually after a pregnancy.


Here's where you really fail in your research. We don't even have to go back to the 1800's we can look at the average marrying age by continent in 2011. It is legally set at 16 in North America countries, South American Countries, European Countries, Asian Countries, Australia and the islands. Many countries have very vague definitions of "proper age" meaning "puberty or physically ready for sex".  Even our beloved US of A has a state called Mississippi which has a legal age of marriage at 15 with "parental consent". 

Many of these countries have legal age of 18 but with "parental consent" in 2011 you can legally get married to a teenager in just about every country. In fact most of these "court consent" or "parental consent" situations require the male to be "at least 18". So you see how much time has really changed things? Not much but Pop culture would have you think that anyone in the world married to a girl less than the magical number of 18 is a pedophile demon. Get a grip... Expose yourself to the world and learn knowledge. 

With what's going on in the world today alone, It's hardly fair to say that Joseph Smith was a monster hell bent on taking advantage of teenage girls.
Marriageable age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> A man marrying a bunch of them was against the law because he was already married to someone else, and it was just downright creepy.


Creepy to you because you have a preconceived 20th century bubble you're looking at and judging 19th century people by. You have no perspective. And check the record. It was not illegal at the time. It wasn't until 1890 that the US outlawed Polygamy. Why didn't they do it earlier I wonder if it was such a bad thing?



> Which is why his neighbors had the good sense to kill him rather than wasting a court's time.



Yeah, drunken and angry mobsters painted black and storming a prison to overthrow law and order sure are people with good sense... I'm sure you would have painted yourself right along with them. Very revealing of your character.


> Funny you should say that.. cuz I kinda do it all the time. how bout you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I do. When I need a good laugh.
Click to expand...

We'll see who's laughing at the last day.



> Hitler thought God was commanding him, too.  Hitler talked about how God wanted him to do all the terrible things he did.


I'm certain that Hitler didn't believe his own lies... He did however know how people could be controlled by religion so he knew that he could get away with atrocities by claiming he was doing God's will. He also knew the religious mindset of his people and how to tug at their heart strings. Don't believe for a second that he really believed he was doing God's work. He just said it to get the people to follow him. You should know better than that.




> The God of the Bible is a savage monster because he was made up by savages. Nothing more, nothing less.  If there is a God, he certainly isn't that guy.  A God with a 14 billion year plan to make a universe isn't going to care which bunch of ignorant bronze age goat herders are killing each other or whether someone is watching porn or not.



How are you different from a "savage"? what do you mean when you say "savages"?
Why do you say that God is a savage monster? 
Because he ordered the deaths of people you do not know? I think God would know if they deserved to die or not. That's why he's God. We shouldn't judge others or kill others because we are not perfect. But God knows what you don't know. Ever think of that?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> If somebody should come around to you and say, very seriously, that:
> 
> God has been talking personally to him; and
> 
> he has an important message for YOU from GOD (even though you know that God has your address and phone number and could easily give you the message himself); and
> 
> the message is that God wants you to do whatever this guy says;
> 
> which includes giving this guy lots of money, time and energy to help him; and
> 
> if you do this, wonderful things will happen to you, but mostly after you're dead;


That's not what Joseph Smith ever said. His message was that "God spoke to me; and he will speak to you too if you want to find out for yourself." Joseph's message never asked for any money to be given to him personally, only the law of tithing as described in the Bible, which monies are clearly documented to have gone only and ever to the church as an organization and no clergyman. Absolutely God can give you the message Himself. His address and phone number can be found on your knees and on your closed eyelids through prayer. He's not going to come to you unless you come to Him and ask Him to be a part of your life. Also many blessings are promised in this life and not just the next.



> and
> 
> God has told him all kinds of important stuff (but not how to cure AIDS, or cancer, or the common cold; or how to pick a stock that will double in a year; or how to pay off the national debt); and


How about more important things like how to properly behave in this life and help others achieve joy and avoid diseases like AIDS and how to properly deal with trials like cancer or financial difficulties?



> It's OK for him to be married to 30 or 40 women at the same time (but it's not OK for YOU); and


That number is a little exaggerated but whether 2 wives or 200 it is still more than one and the number doesn't matter after 1.  At the time there were certain people who were properly prepared for plural marriage while others weren't. It wasn't just for Joseph and wasn't just for all men either. Many circumstances necessitated these marriages. Among those reasons were persecution and providence. 
Also Polygamy has, does and always will be a part of the next life. But it is also a thing governed by free will and choice so if you don't like it, you'll never be forced to do it, male or female. Ever thought of that? People are free to make choices in life.




> You're not supposed to ask him any questions, but just trust him;


That's the biggest lie ever... Joseph Smith Jr, the Prophet of God, never, at any time... Ever, anywhere told people not to question him.. In fact he was proactive in the opposite standpoint. He told everyone to pray to God on their own and ask God, the source of all information if what he was saying was true. He invited all questions and encouraged as much questioning as possible. That's the only leader of any religion who has EVER EVER done that. Ponder that for a moment.



> and
> 
> If you do everything he says, he'll tell you the secret password and handshake that will get you into Heaven; and
> 
> Then, after you die and go to Heaven, you will organize and rule your own world and billions of your own spirit children (even though right now you can't even organize your own desk top, you hire somebody else to prepare your tax return and repair your carburetor, you have absolutely no interest in astronomy, quantum physics or advanced math, and you can't control the three kids you have);


Here's to becoming universally better than we are now... I certainly would like that. You could do a lot worse in the next life.



> If somebody tells you all this,
> 
> SHOULDN'T YOU BE A LITTLE BIT SUSPICIOUS?
> Chances are pretty good that he is either a lunatic or a fraud, AND YOU SHOULD RUN LIKE HELL!



Sure you should ask questions. Weigh it out and decide for yourself. If you don't like it then don't subscribe to it. Just don't be afraid of information.


> But this is Joseph Smith's story, in a nutshell.


No it's not. There's so much more to it. You may never know.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker's defense of underage marriage in the 1840s to 1880s reflects a poor understanding of the psychology and sociology of marriage in America then.  Joseph Smith had sex with underage girls, whose consent had nothing to do with its morality.  TS's defense is exactly that of Warren Jeffs.
> 
> That defense is unacceptable and immoral.



whoa whoa whoa!!! 
Never compare me with that monster. Here's a guy who in 2011 is taking 12 to 14 year olds in plural marriage situations where there is no need for a male guardian in frontier life and these girls are neither widows or old enough to consent for themselves. He's also completely deluded and uses no logic in his arguments or scriptural foundation for his tyrannical behavior.
Compared to Joseph Smith who's variably reported 35 wives range from two at age 14, 0 at age 15, 3 at age 16 and 4 at age 17 and the rest over 18. Those wives who he married spiritually but were already married to other men in earthly terms never consummated their marriages with Joseph. This was 5 legally married women over age 20 who had a temple ceremony performed but not an earthly one.

Warren Jeffs has reportedly 70 wives with the youngest being at least 12 years old, all consummated and more than 20 reportedly under age 17. These are girls who are banned from leaving their society or even watching cartoons with talking animals, whereas Smith's wives were able to do as they pleased and the vast majority were well educated and opinionated women. Let's not compare a 14 year old hard working girl from the frontier landscape and era to a 12 year old girl who is a secluded prisoner in 2011 texas with modern technology and air conditioning who is entirely dependant upon Jeffs for any information. There is a big difference where Jeffs was a fugitive and now finally sentenced to life in prison where Joseph committed no crimes.

Now Jake as a believer in the Bible, how do you justify Mary being married to Joseph as a teenager?   Reports are that she was anywhere from 12 to 15 at the time. Jewish standard custom was betrothal at age 12. How do you justify polygamy of many prophets in the Bible? The same rationale used to explain those relationships can be used for Smith and the early followers who were instructed to do it. 
I'm very interested in your response? It's really time we start taking timelines in perspective.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> Hey, you know the difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra Crispy!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that whoever tends to disagree with Smith can't simply have a disagreement. They have to crack jokes as if they're so clever, yet juvenile. Grow up.:
Click to expand...


As long as you mutants are trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us, I feel just fine mocking you.  





> Because porn ruins the spirit and damages the brain. I can tell you've engaged in plenty.



Not really.  Not that there is anything wrong with it. Only prudes get upset, usually because they are insecure about their own sexuality. 



> Happy exposing. We'll see who's laughing in the end. At least we believe in something and you have no answers to life's questions which is why you're overly cynical as a defense mechanism.


 
Life doesn't have questions. You live, you die. That's pretty much it. That you live in fear of death to where you subscribe to whatever batshit crazy nonsense comes up just shows your own fear.  I'd rather enjoy the time I have, as long as what I do doesn't hurt anyone. 



> Sure he did, but he wasn't done examining them. He also wasn't operating as a prophet yet when it came to these plates. He was checking them out on his own. It's also important to remember he studied them with what he had learned of ancient languages and was seeking more information. He certainly hadn't finished a thorough examination of the plates.
> He didn't use the divine method given to him to translate the Book of Mormon with the Urim and Thummim. Again this was a curiosity of his  and not a revelation he claimed to receive. He read the words and interpreted what he saw on a superficial level not a supernatural level.



But there were no words.  His neighbors just carved some symbols of a language they didn't understand on some bronze plates.  If he was even marginally fluent in "Reformed Egyptian" like he claimed he was, he'd know he was looking at gibberish. 



> Well, uhh... no it doesn't... That's the conclusion you have drawn due to your instant skepticism and cynicism. I get that and that's ok. But God doesn't do everything for us. He never has. He wants us to be free to figure things out on our own for the most part. Had Joseph attempted a revelation on the subject or prayed about these fake plates, he would have no doubt received an answer. But he didn't consult God on this one. He was just checking it out on his own. That does happen you know. Prophets aren't puppets. They have their own lives.



Or maybe he was making all the stuff up.  I mean, we can go on all day about all the stuff he got wrong, all the places he failed as a prophet, like his claim that there were people living on the moon dressed like Quakers.  And you Mormon Apologists do all sorts of handstands about why smith got that wrong or how he never said what people attributed to him or whatever.  Or how the Nephite Civilization could have been what the Roman Civilization was in the Americas, and yet didn't leave ONE shred of Archeological evidence accepted by a non-Mormon Scholar.  Heck, do I need to throw in the Salamander Letter just for fun?   

But applying Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The simplest explanation is that he was a two-bit hustler who made up a religion, and like Koresh and Jones and Hubbard and all the other hucksters who made up religions, started believing his own bullshit. 



> Creepy to you because you have a preconceived 20th century bubble you're looking at and judging 19th century people by. You have no perspective. And check the record. It was not illegal at the time. It wasn't until 1890 that the US outlawed Polygamy. Why didn't they do it earlier I wonder if it was such a bad thing?



In the State of IL, it was illegal in 1844. And honestly, 19th century people were creeped out by Smith, too. That's why the KILLED HIM. 



> I'm certain that Hitler didn't believe his own lies... He did however know how people could be controlled by religion so he knew that he could get away with atrocities by claiming he was doing God's will. He also knew the religious mindset of his people and how to tug at their heart strings. Don't believe for a second that he really believed he was doing God's work. He just said it to get the people to follow him. You should know better than that.



Well, of course, Hitler believed his own BS.  If he didn't, he certainly wouldn't have gone as far as he did.  A cynic never would have murdered millions of people in God's name if he didn't think God wanted them dead. 



> How are you different from a "savage"? what do you mean when you say "savages"?
> Why do you say that God is a savage monster?


B

Where do I even start. (Hey, check out my "How I became an agnostic thread", that's a good place to start. I figured this BS out when I was 10.) This is a God who murders babies.  Babies. 



> That's why he's God. We shouldn't judge others or kill others because we are not perfect. But God knows what you don't know. Ever think of that?



Your reasoning is circular.  It's okay for God to kill because he's God, but God can tell you not to kill, unless of course, it's one of the times he tells you it's okay to kill, like killing gays or adulterers or people who don't believe what you believe.  Then it's okay.


----------



## Monnagonna

Very entertaining watching Joe hand Truth his ass over and over. Keep it up!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker's defense of underage marriage in the 1840s to 1880s reflects a poor understanding of the psychology and sociology of marriage in America then.  Joseph Smith had sex with underage girls, whose consent had nothing to do with its morality.  TS's defense is exactly that of Warren Jeffs.
> 
> That defense is unacceptable and immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whoa whoa whoa!!!
> Never compare me with that monster. Here's a guy who in 2011 is taking 12 to 14 year olds in plural marriage situations where there is no need for a male guardian in frontier life and these girls are neither widows or old enough to consent for themselves. He's also completely deluded and uses no logic in his arguments or scriptural foundation for his tyrannical behavior.
> Compared to Joseph Smith who's variably reported 35 wives range from two at age 14, 0 at age 15, 3 at age 16 and 4 at age 17 and the rest over 18. Those wives who he married spiritually but were already married to other men in earthly terms never consummated their marriages with Joseph. This was 5 legally married women over age 20 who had a temple ceremony performed but not an earthly one.
> 
> Warren Jeffs has reportedly 70 wives with the youngest being at least 12 years old, all consummated and more than 20 reportedly under age 17. These are girls who are banned from leaving their society or even watching cartoons with talking animals, whereas Smith's wives were able to do as they pleased and the vast majority were well educated and opinionated women. Let's not compare a 14 year old hard working girl from the frontier landscape and era to a 12 year old girl who is a secluded prisoner in 2011 texas with modern technology and air conditioning who is entirely dependant upon Jeffs for any information. There is a big difference where Jeffs was a fugitive and now finally sentenced to life in prison where Joseph committed no crimes.
> 
> Now Jake as a believer in the Bible, how do you justify Mary being married to Joseph as a teenager?   Reports are that she was anywhere from 12 to 15 at the time. Jewish standard custom was betrothal at age 12. How do you justify polygamy of many prophets in the Bible? The same rationale used to explain those relationships can be used for Smith and the early followers who were instructed to do it.
> I'm very interested in your response? It's really time we start taking timelines in perspective.
Click to expand...


Perspective, yes, but your timelines are not in perspective.

Your deflection (Joseph and Mary) is 2,000 years out of date.

You have no evidence to indicate that JS's behavior was in line with normative behavior of older men and younger women.  You better go look at the statistical averages of when men and women married in Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio in the 1830s and 1840s.

For a man in is older twenties and then thirties to mess around with young teenage girls, under the rube of plural marriage, is as foul then as it is now.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> As long as you mutants are trying to impose your stupidity on the rest of us, I feel just fine mocking you.


Ok I'll add mutants to the list of insults which include a curious mix:
Crazy, deluded, imposters, deceivers, brainwashed, pedophiles and now mutants.   Tell me, if you're crazy and deluded, how can you be intelligent enough to deceive educated and intelligent people like doctors and lawyers hundreds of years after you're born that what you're saying is true? Especially if you're a mutant pedophile? That Joseph Smith was an impossibly brilliant con-man or He really was a prophet of God. Again, if you Joe, are the opposite of all the insults you've hurled at Smith and the rest of us, why would you waste your time talking to such crazy people? Hmm.. cuz you just can't help fighting against the truth. You and I both know these words will haunt you the rest of your life despite your snide remarks in response. I feel sorry for you genuinely and it's a sad story that people like you can get to the point you're at. It's just too bad. I refuse from this point to jab or make fun of you in any way. I'm simply going to relay the words of God to you because there is nothing else that can help you.





> Not really.  Not that there is anything wrong with it. Only prudes get upset, usually because they are insecure about their own sexuality.


I forgot to add prudes to the list. I have no interest in your sexual life but I can tell that pornography has contributed to your spiritual desensitzation. You may do as you wish, of course. That is God's way, to let you make your own choices. The Devil's way is to force people to do things. Satan's rules are far more restrictive than God's if you really think about it in an eternal perspective. But again you believe that this is it when you die so we can't agree there. I'm 100% certain life continues after your body dies. 100%.
And guess what... sexuality is as much a part of the next life as it is here. Why shouldn't it be? There's nothing to be ashamed of? God created sex and set the boundaries for it's use so that we could enjoy it to the fullest. Quite secure indeed. 





> Life doesn't have questions. You live, you die. That's pretty much it. That you live in fear of death to where you subscribe to whatever batshit crazy nonsense comes up just shows your own fear.  I'd rather enjoy the time I have, as long as what I do doesn't hurt anyone.


You may lie to yourself as much as you like. But if you are saying that you have no questions then you are saying you have all knowledge and you are a regular original know it all. We'll never get anywhere if you think that about yourself. Death is nothing to be afraid of.. it's just the next phase of life. Since I know that, all fear of the unknown is wiped away. So sad that you don't know that.
You also don't know that that selfish attitude does directly hurt people as a whole society. Because you don't seek to help others and only yourself. Again... Sad.



> But there were no words.  His neighbors just carved some symbols of a language they didn't understand on some bronze plates.  If he was even marginally fluent in "Reformed Egyptian" like he claimed he was, he'd know he was looking at gibberish.


As I said before. Joseph didn't have the Urim and Thummim with him. So he could have made errors on his own in interpreting something of his own. When someone presents such a convincing fake it takes a while to figure out that you've been duped. Being fooled isn't a sin. It happens to the best of us. Prophet's aren't infallible. Case in point, the Book of Mormon is obviously true. The evidences spiritually and physically are mountainous. These he claimed to have translated by the power of God. Which he obviously did. So whatever happens with the Kinderhook Plates doesn't matter and there will be more research and explanation done in the future. But since the Book of Mormon is a solid rock of offense to skeptics, That remains the foundation of our argument, not the Kinderhook Plates. By the way he never claimed he was fluent in ancient languages. He claimed he did not understand them. He was a farm boy in the 1800s. How could he be? It was all through the power of God. He didn't use the same method to interpret the Kinderhook Plates. He should have consulted God first but he didn't.




> Or maybe he was making all the stuff up.  I mean, we can go on all day about all the stuff he got wrong, all the places he failed as a prophet, like his claim that there were people living on the moon dressed like Quakers.



You could always go on and on and I'll go on and on with you until you are outlasted. I love it but you'll eventually get tired of it because we have nothing to hide. You can always say he made it up. that's the easy way out rather than hard research coupled with prayer. As far as the moon weirdness, that was an excited young girl who grossly imagined something out of what Joseph said. He never said what you're accusing him of.



> And you Mormon Apologists do all sorts of handstands about why smith got that wrong or how he never said what people attributed to him or whatever.  Or how the Nephite Civilization could have been what the Roman Civilization was in the Americas, and yet didn't leave ONE shred of Archeological evidence accepted by a non-Mormon Scholar.


First of all a scholar is a scholar and you're wrong in assuming that only Mormon Scholars have accepted evidence of the Book of Mormon fact. I've already laid out pages upon pages of evidence on this thread which I'm sure you aren't interested in reading but they're there. "No evidence" is extremely irresponsible on your part to say the least.



> Heck, do I need to throw in the Salamander Letter just for fun?


Salamander letter? ok just for fun only, because that can't be taken seriously. Now that's what you call a hoax.




> But applying Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.


 Usually, not always. but God is a complicated God. He's always been around so he surely does things differently than the rest of us.



> The simplest explanation is that he was a two-bit hustler who made up a religion, and like Koresh and Jones and Hubbard and all the other hucksters who made up religions, started believing his own bullshit.


Unlike those fiends you've mentioned, He knew what he was saying was true and he never asked his followers to kill themselves either. Well I don't know enough about Hubbard to call him a fiend so I'll just retract that label from him. I know he started Scientology right? But with regard to Smith. You could hardly call him 2 bit even if he was really hustling people. He wrote things, he held sermons, he was persecuted, he set up an entire infrastructure an led a faith of many thousands which has grown in to many millions of people who donate of their time and money to help the poor and suffering as well as practice their religion. 
Koresh and Jones were true criminals who operated on a small scale. Your research is severely lacking. Major fail on the comparison. and it's impossible to believe something you know to be a lie. You may still live by those principals but you always know it's untrue. So either you are one of 3 things. A liar, committed to living the lie, deluded and committed to living that life because you think it's true, false as it may be or..... A true prophet of God. 
Joseph Smith was obviously, to the true researcher, a true prophet of God.




> In the State of IL, it was illegal in 1844. And honestly, 19th century people were creeped out by Smith, too. That's why the KILLED HIM.


You're still wrong. The outlawing of polygamy wasn't until the 1890s in the USA. That's why it wasn't illegal. You either just lied or didn't do your research. Which is it?





> Well, of course, Hitler believed his own BS.  If he didn't, he certainly wouldn't have gone as far as he did.  A cynic never would have murdered millions of people in God's name if he didn't think God wanted them dead.



that goes to show your epic ignorance. Killers kill because they want to achieve a goal, or for the pure pleasure of it. Hitler was a goal oriented killer. He knew the commandment in bold writing in the Bible "thou shalt not kill"... You think he never read that passage. gimme a break...
Using God is the best way to get the populous on your side. Please come stronger than that.  You absolutlely know that, being a staunch agnostic. Hitler's goal was to rule the world. The best way to do that is to get the people on your side and crush any resistance quickly.


> Where do I even start. (Hey, check out my "How I became an agnostic thread", that's a good place to start. I figured this BS out when I was 10.) This is a God who murders babies.  Babies.


I heard someone mention this before but they still failed to show me the scripture ordering the death of babies. Please enlighten me. Wow, by 10 years old huh? Your conceipt knows no bounds. So you're so smart that by age 10 you were running intellectual circles around the rest of us peons and sheople. wow. you're just... so smart... you were probably walking by 2 months and talking by 6 too right? Shouldn't you be a pro athlete and a rocket scientist by now smartypants?
You know-it-alls are a real piece of work.



> Your reasoning is circular.  It's okay for God to kill because he's God, but God can tell you not to kill, unless of course, it's one of the times he tells you it's okay to kill, like killing gays or adulterers or people who don't believe what you believe.  Then it's okay.


God does have his reasons. They are often time specific and for a purpose. You'll notice how the command for killing those people hasn't been in effect for over 2000 years. The command is to invite all to come to God and invite all to be cleansed of sin through the atonement of Christ. Yes, God makes the rules.. He's God and if you don't want to follow him then that's just you being unwilling to follow anyone else's tune but your own. You're so wrapped up in yourself. You are probably your own favorite person I bet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Perspective, yes, but your timelines are not in perspective.
> 
> Your deflection (Joseph and Mary) is 2,000 years out of date.


How is that a deflection at all to refer to the family of Jesus Christ, who we both worship?
If a wife of Joseph Smith happens to be 14, and the wife of Joseph is 12, where is Joseph Smith such a criminal... 2000 years or 1 year makes not a shred of difference. Right is right and wrong is wrong, right?



> You have no evidence to indicate that JS's behavior was in line with normative behavior of older men and younger women.  You better go look at the statistical averages of when men and women married in Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio in the 1830s and 1840s.



Who cares? What is right and what is popular and what is wrong etc are not always the same thing? Again you're suffering from presentism. Think outside our 2011 box. The average marriage age in 1830's USA was 21.2. That means there were teenagers below and older ladies above, so it was not uncommon for teenagers(by 2011 standards) to marry. Do you realize that nearly every country in the world today in 2011 allows the marriage of teens under 18. Many under 15. I mean a large percent and some actually define the marriage age as "puberty, or physical ability to have sex." Wow! 2011
This list will shock you.
Marriageable age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Non third world countries of note:
England-16
Scotland-15
Ireland-16
South Africa(under 15 "with special consent")
Hong Kong-16
Japan-16
Denmark-15
Estonia-15
Sweden-under 18 with "special permission"
USA- every state in the union in 2011 allows marriages under age 16 with "permission" Freakin Massachussets as low as 12 for Crimony's sake and Arizona with no specified minimum!  This is 2011 in USA!

This is right under everyone's nose.... today... right now...!



> For a man in is older twenties and then thirties to mess around with young teenage girls, under the rube of plural marriage, is as foul then as it is now.



That's the popular notion in 2011 and has been for about the last 40 years or so. There's still thousands of years of previous human living that must be considered entirely degenerate by 2011 standards. Please consider context.


----------



## barry1960

Mormans  = believe that if they live a good life they will eventually have their own world where they will be a god. 

Joseph Smith = crazy guy who dug holes in his neighbors yards looking for gold. Good book on the subject is "No man knows my history."

Joseph Smith = used magic spectacles to interpret golden tablets. These tablets pre-dated the King James bible, but were mysteriously translated into King James english. In fact, some of the book of morman text is an exact copy of portions of the old testament. 

Brigham Young = my great great grandpappy was complicite in the murder of 145 men, women and children. Might want to consider renaming that university in Salt Lake City.

Archaeology = big battle in upstate eliminated an entire race of people. If Mormans want evidence of the truth of the Book of Morman, why not dig up the bones?

Polygamy = mainstream Mormans got that staightened out as a condition of statehood for the Utah territory long ago. In all fairness, the Morman church should not be held responsible for the deviants in upstate Utah. 

Mormanism = not a part of main stream Christianity. Whatever they religion is, it should be regarded as a cult by orthodox Christians.

Morman people = seem to be good, moral people, who are well educated and contribute to society (although my next door neighbors did not appear to get this memo so perhaps there are exceptions). Just goes to show you can fool some of the people all of the time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> Perspective, yes, but your timelines are not in perspective.
> 
> Your deflection (Joseph and Mary) is 2,000 years out of date.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a deflection at all to refer to the family of Jesus Christ, who we both worship?
> If a wife of Joseph Smith happens to be 14, and the wife of Joseph is 12, where is Joseph Smith such a criminal... 2000 years or 1 year makes not a shred of difference. Right is right and wrong is wrong, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no evidence to indicate that JS's behavior was in line with normative behavior of older men and younger women.  You better go look at the statistical averages of when men and women married in Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio in the 1830s and 1840s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares? What is right and what is popular and what is wrong etc are not always the same thing? Again you're suffering from presentism. Think outside our 2011 box. The average marriage age in 1830's USA was 21.2. That means there were teenagers below and older ladies above, so it was not uncommon for teenagers(by 2011 standards) to marry. Do you realize that nearly every country in the world today in 2011 allows the marriage of teens under 18. Many under 15. I mean a large percent and some actually define the marriage age as "puberty, or physical ability to have sex." Wow! 2011
> This list will shock you.
> Marriageable age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Non third world countries of note:
> England-16
> Scotland-15
> Ireland-16
> South Africa(under 15 "with special consent")
> Hong Kong-16
> Japan-16
> Denmark-15
> Estonia-15
> Sweden-under 18 with "special permission"
> USA- every state in the union in 2011 allows marriages under age 16 with "permission" Freakin Massachussets as low as 12 for Crimony's sake and Arizona with no specified minimum!  This is 2011 in USA!
> 
> This is right under everyone's nose.... today... right now...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a man in is older twenties and then thirties to mess around with young teenage girls, under the rube of plural marriage, is as foul then as it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the popular notion in 2011 and has been for about the last 40 years or so. There's still thousands of years of previous human living that must be considered entirely degenerate by 2011 standards. Please consider context.
Click to expand...


Of course it is a deflection when you are trying to compare JS to the 19th century norms, then when it does not wor, try to compare him to Joseph and Mary!  The majority of folks back then did not make it out of their thirties, many not out of their twenties.

Truth, look up "perspective" and then apply to your argumentation.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormans  = believe that if they live a good life they will eventually have their own world where they will be a god.
> 
> 
> 
> there's a little more to it than that. But essentially we all have a chance to inherit what God has, including the knowledge he has of the Universe and with that knowledge He wants us to be just like Him. That said, you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = crazy guy who dug holes in his neighbors yards looking for gold. Good book on the subject is "No man knows my history."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> come on, at least give an accurate description of the man. He was so organized and such a great natural leader that it was impossible for a genuinely crazy person to achieve the social status he had... At least call him a deceiver or a dictator or something that would be the evil equivalent of a prophet. Because really those are the only two things he could have been. An evil dictator, or a Prophet of God. Nothing lesser would describe him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = used magic spectacles to interpret golden tablets. These tablets pre-dated the King James bible, but were mysteriously translated into King James english. In fact, some of the book of morman text is an exact copy of portions of the old testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spectacles? if you must call them so... But yes he translated by this method. And there's no mystery at all. It's very out in the open. The portions of Isaiah quoted in the books of Nephi are announced quotes of Isaiah from Israelites who followed Isaiah. They used his words to continue to inspire them in the New World. They just brought his writings with them across the sea. No mystery at all.
> The english used in the book of mormon was translated into the best scriptural language understood by the people in 1830's USA and England. It was plain to their understanding and still fairly so for those who read well. Had it been translated today, the language used might have been a little more modern but tell the same story. This is not a problem at all. Why would he translate it any other way? the King James Bible originated in 1611 and language had not changed very much from 1611 to 1830.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brigham Young = my great great grandpappy was complicite in the murder of 145 men, women and children. Might want to consider renaming that university in Salt Lake City.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is tired and irresponsible and so plain to see from all the documents that Brigham Young immediately wrote to people involved in the murders "Let them alone! You must not meddle with them." Too bad his text message didn't arrive in time and had to settle for horse and buggy telegraph to send his message. It arrived a week too late and the murderers were held accountable and punished according to the law.
> Any thing else trying to ascribe this crime to Young is a desperate, hateful, reach.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archaeology = big battle in upstate eliminated an entire race of people. If Mormans want evidence of the truth of the Book of Morman, why not dig up the bones?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the bones aren't there in New York. That was not the cumorah of the battle in the book of Mormon which occured somewhere in Central America. Cumorah of New York is the final place where the exiled Moroni buried the record of the Nephites. He was a wanted fugitive in Central America and he could not stay there as they were butchering all remaining Christians. Ever heard of that happening before?
> 
> 
> 
> Polygamy = mainstream Mormans got that staightened out as a condition of statehood for the Utah territory long ago. In all fairness, the Morman church should not be held responsible for the deviants in upstate Utah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Mormanism = not a part of main stream Christianity. Whatever they religion is, it should be regarded as a cult by orthodox Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's actually spelled Mormonism not Mormanism. and we don't call it that. You do. We call it the gospel of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Morman people = seem to be good, moral people, who are well educated and contribute to society (although my next door neighbors did not appear to get this memo so perhaps there are exceptions). Just goes to show you can fool some of the people all of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Labels can be treacherous.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perspective, yes, but your timelines are not in perspective.
> 
> Your deflection (Joseph and Mary) is 2,000 years out of date.
> 
> 
> 
> How is that a deflection at all to refer to the family of Jesus Christ, who we both worship?
> If a wife of Joseph Smith happens to be 14, and the wife of Joseph is 12, where is Joseph Smith such a criminal... 2000 years or 1 year makes not a shred of difference. Right is right and wrong is wrong, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? What is right and what is popular and what is wrong etc are not always the same thing? Again you're suffering from presentism. Think outside our 2011 box. The average marriage age in 1830's USA was 21.2. That means there were teenagers below and older ladies above, so it was not uncommon for teenagers(by 2011 standards) to marry. Do you realize that nearly every country in the world today in 2011 allows the marriage of teens under 18. Many under 15. I mean a large percent and some actually define the marriage age as "puberty, or physical ability to have sex." Wow! 2011
> This list will shock you.
> Marriageable age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Non third world countries of note:
> England-16
> Scotland-15
> Ireland-16
> South Africa(under 15 "with special consent")
> Hong Kong-16
> Japan-16
> Denmark-15
> Estonia-15
> Sweden-under 18 with "special permission"
> USA- every state in the union in 2011 allows marriages under age 16 with "permission" Freakin Massachussets as low as 12 for Crimony's sake and Arizona with no specified minimum!  This is 2011 in USA!
> 
> This is right under everyone's nose.... today... right now...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a man in is older twenties and then thirties to mess around with young teenage girls, under the rube of plural marriage, is as foul then as it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the popular notion in 2011 and has been for about the last 40 years or so. There's still thousands of years of previous human living that must be considered entirely degenerate by 2011 standards. Please consider context.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is a deflection when you are trying to compare JS to the 19th century norms, then when it does not wor, try to compare him to Joseph and Mary!  The majority of folks back then did not make it out of their thirties, many not out of their twenties.
> 
> Truth, look up "perspective" and then apply to your argumentation.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid the generation gaps of 1000 years are not as great as you think. People and cultures don't justify wrongdoing by saying it was part of the culture and times. People still knew right from wrong as much then as they do now. Don't assume we're so much better and smarter than our grandparents. 

Perspective is my close friend in this discussion and your enemy. Another reason why people got married earlier as life expectancy was lower but really just a minor contributing factor. And the label "life expectancy" is a modern term. They never used it. They all expected to live past 40 but many didn't. The girls and their parents didn't discuss a life expectancy of 40 I'm sure. They just said , God wants you to be a mother as soon as you are able. That's much more what the conversation was like rather than, "hurry up the clock is ticking and you're an old maid at 18." The major contributing factor was readiness and consent. And always has been.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your use of "presentism" as a defense falls short.  I can judge Hitler by today's standards, I can judge JS by today's standards, I can judge Pontius Pilate by today's standards, by which all are judged with a righteous judgement.

Show us the great majority of women who said that "God wants you to be a mother".

What strange world do you live in, Truth?

A 14 year old cannot consent, Truth, and a parent who consents to a marriage like that  enable a Warren Jeffs or a Joseph Smith.

You know better.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> [ That Joseph Smith was an impossibly brilliant con-man or He really was a prophet of God. Again, if you Joe, are the opposite of all the insults you've hurled at Smith and the rest of us, why would you waste your time talking to such crazy people? Hmm.. cuz you just can't help fighting against the truth. You and I both know these words will haunt you the rest of your life despite your snide remarks in response. I feel sorry for you genuinely and it's a sad story that people like you can get to the point you're at. It's just too bad. I refuse from this point to jab or make fun of you in any way. I'm simply going to relay the words of God to you because there is nothing else that can help you..



The truth-

There is no God and there never was.  
Joseph Smith was a slick con man who got what he had coming to him. 
Your God is a savage bronze age sky pixie, whom I find truly laughable. 

The only reason I worry about your sort is because crazy people with money and numbers can be dangerous.  Adolf Hitler proved that pretty effectively.  






> I'm 100% certain life continues after your body dies. 100%.
> And guess what... sexuality is as much a part of the next life as it is here. Why shouldn't it be? There's nothing to be ashamed of? God created sex and set the boundaries for it's use so that we could enjoy it to the fullest. Quite secure indeed.



Well, yeah, I can see why Mormons are afraid of Porn. The wouldn't want their oppressed women to see what a real man looks like in the buff, rather than their pasty-faced white-shirted sissy-boys. 




> ..... Case in point, the Book of Mormon is obviously true. The evidences spiritually and physically are mountainous. .... But since the Book of Mormon is a solid rock of offense to skeptics, That remains the foundation of our argument, not the Kinderhook Plates.....



Or he was just so deluded he started believing his own BS.  You have to put the BS in context. When Smith was makig up his BS, they were just discovering the evidence of the Mound building civilization. And of course, being a lot of racist white crackers, they refused to believe the indiginous people had built these things. (In their defence, their civilization had been decimated by disease and the collapse of trade, going through a dark age.) So a bunch of screwball "Great White Father" myths about Vikings, Hebrews or Phonecians building them were in Vogue.  SMith built his BS off that. Outright plagarism, actually, of someone else's book. 

But here's the thing- Where is the evidence of the Nephite Civilization?  I mean outside of the Book of Mormon.  Where are the ruins, the artifacts, the tales from other civilizations about these people?  If you take the BoM seriously, the Nephite/Lamanite civilization would have been as widespread in America as Rome was in Europe, and lasted about as long.  Today, we know the Romans existed by the remnents- Ruins, coins, statues, artifacts, literature, language, and so on. While there were a bunch of claims of "proof" of the Nephites in the 19th century, no one is trying to piss up that rope today. And most of the artifacts, such as the Kinderhook tablets or the "Michigan Relics", have been proven to be fakes.  But Mormons for a time claimed they were real, until better science proved otherwise. 



> Salamander letter? ok just for fun only, because that can't be taken seriously. Now that's what you call a hoax.



Exactly, guy, it was a hoax.  But the Mormon Church (through intermediaries) paid top dollar for it and other Hoffman fakes because heck, it might be true. In fact, until Hoffman's rather clever method of forging was uncovered - USING SCIENCE, NOT FAITH- the Mormon Church even tried to reconcile the Salamander Letter and his other forgeries with their doctrine.  



> Usually, not always. but God is a complicated God. He's always been around so he surely does things differently than the rest of us.



Actually, there's little evidence than Yahweh was worshipped earlier than 3000 years ago or so.  






> Unlike those fiends you've mentioned, He knew what he was saying was true and he never asked his followers to kill themselves either.



Well, that's a pity... 



> Well I don't know enough about Hubbard to call him a fiend so I'll just retract that label from him. I know he started Scientology right? But with regard to Smith. You could hardly call him 2 bit even if he was really hustling people. He wrote things, he held sermons, he was persecuted, he set up an entire infrastructure an led a faith of many thousands which has grown in to many millions of people who donate of their time and money to help the poor and suffering as well as practice their religion.



A scam is a scam.  If your argument is that Mormonism is growing (it isn't) then by that logic, Islam must be the true faith, as it is the fastest growing religion out there today.




> Koresh and Jones were true criminals who operated on a small scale. Your research is severely lacking. Major fail on the comparison. and it's impossible to believe something you know to be a lie. You may still live by those principals but you always know it's untrue. So either you are one of 3 things. A liar, committed to living the lie, deluded and committed to living that life because you think it's true, false as it may be or..... A true prophet of God. Joseph Smith was obviously, to the true researcher, a true prophet of God.



He was a two-bit, child molesting con-artist that your church is trying to Bowlderize today by whitewashing his shadier aspects.   You know, like taking his racism out of the book of Mormon, where he claimed the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin.   

Sorry, man, Dark skin is beautiful... 




> You're still wrong. The outlawing of polygamy wasn't until the 1890s in the USA. That's why it wasn't illegal. You either just lied or didn't do your research. Which is it?



Marriage laws are determined state by state. There is no "Federal" marriage law. In Illinois, in 1844, it was illegal to be married to more than one woman.  



> that goes to show your epic ignorance. Killers kill because they want to achieve a goal, or for the pure pleasure of it. Hitler was a goal oriented killer. He knew the commandment in bold writing in the Bible "thou shalt not kill"... You think he never read that passage. gimme a break...



So has every other bible thumping asshole who has killed heretics, witches, unbelievers, or guys who just thought that Jesus didn't turn into wafers.  




> I heard someone mention this before but they still failed to show me the scripture ordering the death of babies.



How about the following...

_Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones._ -- Psalm 137:9

How about drowing every baby in the world in the flood. Or burning all the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah. (Well. they were probably gay babies, so they had it coming!) Or ordaining the deaths of David and Bathshebas baby?  How about the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter or the Mauling of children who mocked Elija's bald head?  




> God does have his reasons. They are often time specific and for a purpose. You'll notice how the command for killing those people hasn't been in effect for over 2000 years. The command is to invite all to come to God and invite all to be cleansed of sin through the atonement of Christ. Yes, God makes the rules.. He's God and if you don't want to follow him then that's just you being unwilling to follow anyone else's tune but your own. You're so wrapped up in yourself. You are probably your own favorite person I bet.



Guy, it isn't about me, it's about the absurdity that you believe in, and it looks like I hit a sore spot. 

And I didn't even have to mention the MOuntain Meadow Massacre this time.  A great day in Mormon history...


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Your use of "presentism" as a defense falls short.  I can judge Hitler by today's standards, I can judge JS by today's standards, I can judge Pontius Pilate by today's standards, by which all are judged with a righteous judgement.
> 
> Show us the great majority of women who said that "God wants you to be a mother".
> 
> What strange world do you live in, Truth?
> 
> A 14 year old cannot consent, Truth, and a parent who consents to a marriage like that  enable a Warren Jeffs or a Joseph Smith.
> 
> You know better.



Hey, Jake the Fake, do you really want people like Truthsweeper here to run the country when Romney gets elected?  I don't.


----------



## hipeter924

Not Hitler again, how many recorded speeches have to be recited before people realize that he was publicly a roman catholic, and privately a part of a Nazi cult religion (that virtually all the top officials believed in) or a Christianity of his own making. He certainly wasn't atheist, agnostic or a catholic. He killed everyone who disagreed with him, many catholics, agnostics and atheists were sent to concentration camps. 

Adolf Hitler's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazism and occultism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Your use of "presentism" as a defense falls short.  I can judge Hitler by today's standards, I can judge JS by today's standards, I can judge Pontius Pilate by today's standards, by which all are judged with a righteous judgement.
> 
> Show us the great majority of women who said that "God wants you to be a mother".
> 
> What strange world do you live in, Truth?
> 
> A 14 year old cannot consent, Truth, and a parent who consents to a marriage like that  enable a Warren Jeffs or a Joseph Smith.
> 
> You know better.



Nice dodge... what I'm saying is that if you can judge Hitler and Joseph Smith by todays standards, then you can judge anyone of the past by today's standards. Back to Mary and Joseph. Why don't you call him a pedophile for marrying a girl who was 12 or 13 at the time. 13-14 by the time she had sex with him following the recovery from her first childbirth. Just common custom of the day. 
Don't skirt that issue now.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, Jake the Fake, do you really want people like Truthsweeper here to run the country when Romney gets elected?  I don't.



Well, Joe the Slow, I would rather have a TruthSpeaker to run the country than someone like you, who would endanger us all with your vapid nonsense.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> The truth-
> 
> There is no God and there never was.
> Joseph Smith was a slick con man who got what he had coming to him.
> Your God is a savage bronze age sky pixie, whom I find truly laughable.
> 
> The only reason I worry about your sort is because crazy people with money and numbers can be dangerous.  Adolf Hitler proved that pretty effectively.


Ok so i see you've at least changed your stance on Smith being crazy. We've now upgraded to slick, and con man. At least we've established his mental competency and beyond that we've at least confirmed in your eyes that he was officially a smart guy. For it's impossible to be a con-man without being smart. That's progress.





> Well, yeah, I can see why Mormons are afraid of Porn. The wouldn't want their oppressed women to see what a real man looks like in the buff, rather than their pasty-faced white-shirted sissy-boys.


Our women are officially per capita the most educated women of any religion. and while I might be pasty and white underneath. my wife is well pleased with the buff and everything else. Also all our membership in Africa and South America would laugh at your statement. Ask our women. they could have anyone else they want, but they choose us thank God.




> Or he was just so deluded he started believing his own BS.


Ok so now he's deluded again? Which is it? Smart con man or deluded wacko? You can't be both.



> You have to put the BS in context. When Smith was makig up his BS, they were just discovering the evidence of the Mound building civilization. And of course, being a lot of racist white crackers, they refused to believe the indiginous people had built these things.


My my, "racist white crackers"? That's kinda like saying "racist black *******" isn't it? It goes both ways. How can you accuse someone of being racist and then make a racial slur all in the same sentence? Your credibility continues to decline.




> (In their defence, their civilization had been decimated by disease and the collapse of trade, going through a dark age.) So a bunch of screwball "Great White Father" myths about Vikings, Hebrews or Phonecians building them were in Vogue.  SMith built his BS off that. Outright plagarism, actually, of someone else's book.



Man you've really been fed a line... Your information is not only grossly innacurate but it's downright ignorant.
Not only did we absolutely ascribe the ancient ruins of the americas to the natives of america, we named them to be of the House of Israel, God's chosen people, another idea i'm sure you hate. So at least get your facts straight before your image.... well I don't think it can get any worse... just get your facts straight ok? Direct quote from Joseph Smith proving my point.
"We feel great pleasure in laying before our readers the following interesting account of the Antiquities of Central America, which have been discovered by two eminent travellers who have spent considerable labor, to bring to light the remains of ancient buildings, architecture &c., which prove beyond controversy that, on this vast continent, once flourished a mighty people, skilled in the arts and sciences, and whose splendor would not be eclipsed by any of the nations of Antiquity&#8212;a people once high and exalted in the scale of intelligence, but now like their ancient buildings, fallen into ruins."




> But here's the thing- Where is the evidence of the Nephite Civilization?


 There is ample evidence. Everywhere in South and North America that great civilizations dated to the times mentioned in the Book of Mormon which fit exactly as described.



> I mean outside of the Book of Mormon.  Where are the ruins, the artifacts, the tales from other civilizations about these people?


All you have to do is TRY and look. Just a little effort on your part would yield treasure troves on the subject. But I think you're afraid of such things. I'll give you 5 examples for starters. These examples are all insignificant compared to personal prayer and revelation which you are free to access any time:

1. Stella 5 a depiction of the tree of life described in 1st Nephi
Izapa Stela 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. The Lachish Letters- this one will really open your eyes. Warning! serious intelligence, scholarship and honesty required to read document.
Hugh W. Nibley: "Dark Days in Jerusalem The Lachish Letters and the Book of Mormon"
3. Geography of Arabian penninsula.. Wow!
Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility
4. Mesoamerican hard evidences
Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility
5: Hebrew ancient writing found in America. This is incontrovertible fact...
ancient hebrew in america - Bing Images

6. I know I only said five but this was just too cool to leave out. Critics who claimed that there were no elephants in Meso America in book of Mormon times in contrast to the Book of Mormon's claims ignore such things as this.
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/elephants.jpg



> If you take the BoM seriously, the Nephite/Lamanite civilization would have been as widespread in America as Rome was in Europe, and lasted about as long.  Today, we know the Romans existed by the remnents- Ruins, coins, statues, artifacts, literature, language, and so on. While there were a bunch of claims of "proof" of the Nephites in the 19th century, no one is trying to piss up that rope today. And most of the artifacts, such as the Kinderhook tablets or the "Michigan Relics", have been proven to be fakes.  But Mormons for a time claimed they were real, until better science proved otherwise.


How bout all the cool stuff I just showed you.. btw, that ain't all I got brutha. I can show you mountains more but it won't mean a thing to you if you're close minded.



> Exactly, guy, it was a hoax.  But the Mormon Church (through intermediaries) paid top dollar for it and other Hoffman fakes because heck, it might be true. In fact, until Hoffman's rather clever method of forging was uncovered - USING SCIENCE, NOT FAITH- the Mormon Church even tried to reconcile the Salamander Letter and his other forgeries with their doctrine.



bottom line the church didn't pay a dime for it. Some member of the church did because they were curious and had expendable income but it was proven a fake an i still don't understand your point.



> Actually, there's little evidence than Yahweh was worshipped earlier than 3000 years ago or so.



There's enough and btw, it means nothing.




> Well, that's a pity...



You are one bloodthirsty  person.



> A scam is a scam.  If your argument is that Mormonism is growing (it isn't) then by that logic, Islam must be the true faith, as it is the fastest growing religion out there today.


uhh.. last I checked it is crowing rather rapidly. But that doesn't mean a thing as to the truth of anything. My only point in drawing attention to the scale of our church is that Joseph Smith operated on a much larger scale than the two bit criminals you compared him with.




> He was a two-bit, child molesting con-artist that your church is trying to Bowlderize today by whitewashing his shadier aspects.   You know, like taking his racism out of the book of Mormon, where he claimed the Lamanites were cursed with dark skin.
> 
> Sorry, man, Dark skin is beautiful...


Sure we think so today, but cultures change. A lot of cultures in olden days and still in current days, ignorantly view dark skin as ugly. Can't argue that that is the perception. I don't agree with it but that's how a large portion of the world thinks. 
You're entitled to your erroneous opinion about smith, but I'm entitled to correct your erroneous statements. Namely racism in the book of mormon.:
2 Nephi 26:33
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

That doesn't sound like racism to me there.... guy....

Now the Nephites and Lamanites, especially at the time of the Lamanite cursing were just a few years removed from daily life in Israelite Jerusalem in 600BC, A very Jewish, very Hebrew culture. In those days and times, I'd imagine there was a lot of prejudice towards black people. Culturally they thought black was ugly. It is what it is... So because the Lamanites had already established that they hated Nephites and were trying to kill them and rob them and destroy their religion, God caused a curse of black skin to come on them so that they would not mix.  It is also clear to an intelligent person that this was an isolated small group of people and had nothing to do with people of African descent.

You will read later that this very same curse was permanently lifted in the book of 4th Nephi right around 200 AD. 

So again... you need to read and learn fact. Please try. 





> Marriage laws are determined state by state. There is no "Federal" marriage law. In Illinois, in 1844, it was illegal to be married to more than one woman.


Fail... The "Manifesto" document was the first legislation outlawing polygamy. This affected not only LDS members but the lives of Indiginous tribes were also dictated to as well. 





> So has every other bible thumping asshole who has killed heretics, witches, unbelievers, or guys who just thought that Jesus didn't turn into wafers.



Well, first understand the real Christians from the fake ones who kill but claim to be. Those people are not to be tolerated.


How about the following...



> _Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones._ -- Psalm 137:9


I believe this was a song written either by David or written during this time. It is obviously not inspired of God. Not everything in the Bible is inspired of God. It is a great book of spiritual guidance but contains errors in translation and includes passages that surely could not be condoned by God and in such cases the author is writing on his own. This seems to be one of those cases. It's not a problem for me that the Bible has errors because I know exactly how the Bible came to be put together. It was arranged by a Pagan emperor who forced various Christian leaders who were also doctrinally confused after the Apostacy. The Bible contains the Word of God but also contains a select few points that are clearly not the word of God. 

It's amazing we even have anything left of the Bible at all. I really wish we could have all the documents in their original form and in Chronological order as well.





> How about drowing every baby in the world in the flood.


The Babies were the ones who had it easy in the flood situation. They got to go to Heaven straightaway. The only ones who really would have been punished eternally after the flood were the truly wicked people who fought against God, fully knowing that he did exist. I wouldn't put you in this category. I'd put you in the category of the ignorant and angry.



> Or burning all the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah. (Well. they were probably gay babies, so they had it coming!)


Man you really must have us confused with Bible thumping hellfire and brimstone imposters from the Bible Belt. 
We're not that guy...
All small children who die are immediately exhalted to heaven and their bodies will be resurrected and will receive eternal joy and live forever in happiness. 
Also there is no such thing as a gay baby. 


> Or ordaining the deaths of David and Bathshebas baby?


 Where is this found. I'd like to read the context.



> How about the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter or the Mauling of children who mocked Elija's bald head?


 show me the scripture and then I'll deal with it. Please post links to your statements as a matter of good form in debate.


> Guy, it isn't about me, it's about the absurdity that you believe in, and it looks like I hit a sore spot.


Well obviously my religion is a large part of my identity and any sane person who truly believes in what he stands for should speak out in defense of the attack. You get that right?
If you're going to make claims about us, then you need to be prepared to substantiate those claims when questioned.




> And I didn't even have to mention the MOuntain Meadow Massacre this time.  A great day in Mormon history...


Easy one.. since you clearly are ignorant of the issue being dealt with ad nauseum on this thread for 2 years. Neverless I'll rehash it every time forever as long as people are willing to learn knowledge. 
What about the MMM have we not discussed on here yet?


----------



## JoeB131

YOu poke a Latter-Day Zombie enough times, it goes right into the crazy... 



Truthspeaker said:


> -  Ok so i see you've at least changed your stance on Smith being crazy. We've now upgraded to slick, and con man. At least we've established his mental competency and beyond that we've at least confirmed in your eyes that he was officially a smart guy. For it's impossible to be a con-man without being smart. That's progress....Ok so now he's deluded again? Which is it? Smart con man or deluded wacko? You can't be both.



Quite the contrary, he can be both and he was.  I think he was a slick con-man early in his career, but probably started believing his own bullshit by the time he was mercifully put out of his misery by the Carthage mob.  Kind of Like L. Ron Hubbard. Early in his career, when he was telling his fellow Sci-Fi writers how he could make up a fake religion and get stupid people to make him rich, he knew it was a scam.  By the end of it when he was getting sex from teenage girls on his boat, hiding from numerous governments... yeah, he was actually getting high on his own supply. And so was Smith.  




> My my, "racist white crackers"? That's kinda like saying "racist black *******" isn't it? It goes both ways. How can you accuse someone of being racist and then make a racial slur all in the same sentence? Your credibility continues to decline.



No, I'm a white guy who realizes that the stain on our honor as a nation will continue until we acknowledge our own evil.  To the point, we slaughtered the native Americans (I am also part Cherokee) and people like Smith just couldn't abide by the thought that Native Americans accomplished great things.  So he made up these fairy stories about Hebrews in the Americas.  And he didn't even make them up, he plagarized them from Rev. Solomon Spalding's unpublished novel, Manuscript found.  There's even a part about golden plate in there.  

Now ignoring LDS archeology, which has all the credibility of "Creation Science", let's move on to this..  




> bottom line the church didn't pay a dime for it. Some member of the church did because they were curious and had expendable income but it was proven a fake an i still don't understand your point.



The Church never does anything directly. Like when it tells the faithful Zombies to empty out their bank accounts to fund fights against gay marriage, and they all do so.  But, yeah, the thing was, the Salamander Letter came out, and instead of declaring it a fake THAT DAY, they tried to intrepret it, because Smith was into enough weird shit they'd spent the last century trying to wallpaper over.  



> You are one bloodthirsty  person.



Yes, I am.  




> Well, first understand the real Christians from the fake ones who kill but claim to be. Those people are not to be tolerated.



I don't tolerate any of you people.  



> The Babies were the ones who had it easy in the flood situation. They got to go to Heaven straightaway. The only ones who really would have been punished eternally after the flood were the truly wicked people who fought against God, fully knowing that he did exist. I wouldn't put you in this category. I'd put you in the category of the ignorant and angry.



An omnipotent being whose "go to" answer is to drown all the babies (not to mention all the puppies and kitties, too!) isn't worthy of anything but my contempt.  Really. That was the best solution he could come up with?  Besides all the scientific absurdity of the Flood Story, I think it tells a lot about the God the Hebrews worshipped. 




> show me the scripture and then I'll deal with it. Please post links to your statements as a matter of good form in debate.



2 Samuel 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David.  (skip the dumb parable part) 

12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."  
12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. 

12:14 *Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.  *12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.  
12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? 

That's the God you worship.  He killed David's baby for what David did.  Sick! I decided to have no part of him a long time ago.  



> Well obviously my religion is a large part of my identity and any sane person who truly believes in what he stands for should speak out in defense of the attack. You get that right? If you're going to make claims about us, then you need to be prepared to substantiate those claims when questioned.



And that's your problem. Belonging to a religion is letting lesser intellects do your thinking for you.  I figured this out when I was 10. The problem with you Mormons is that when people get past all the fakey nice act you all put on and realize the crazy bullshit you all believe, you get pretty upset when we point out it's bullshit. 



> Easy one.. since you clearly are ignorant of the issue being dealt with ad nauseum on this thread for 2 years. Neverless I'll rehash it every time forever as long as people are willing to learn knowledge.
> What about the MMM have we not discussed on here yet?



Guy,  I don't have the time and patience to rehash 500 pages of Mormon apologetics to get to the point where you claim it was okay the LDS slaughtered those people and Brigham Young didn't know diddly about it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Joe the Slow clearly indicates why atheism rots the brain: inability to think clearly.


----------



## Monnagonna

JakeStarkey said:


> Joe the Slow clearly indicates why atheism rots the brain: inability to think clearly.



Joe's handing Truth his hat over and over...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truth has no problem handling the likes of a Joe the Slow or you, monnagonna.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth has no problem handling the likes of a Joe the Slow or you, monnagonna.




Why don't you and Truth get married.  You'd be a cute couple...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Joe, Joe, Joe . . . sigh


----------



## Avatar4321

Do we really need the insults? I love talking about the Restoration of the Gospel. But the petty attacks are just pointless.

I want to edify and be edified. Not insult people. If you guys want a real discussion let me know. ill be holding back till then.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Do we really need the insults? I love talking about the Restoration of the Gospel. But the petty attacks are just pointless.
> 
> I want to edify and be edified. Not insult people. If you guys want a real discussion let me know. ill be holding back till then.




Well, since I think that the human species would be vastly better off if we completely eradicated religion, you probably are talking to the wrong crowd....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sigh. Joe you are "the wrong crowd" here, because atheism has nothing to offer to mankind.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Sigh. Joe you are "the wrong crowd" here, because atheism has nothing to offer to mankind.



Why you are right, Atheism hasn't offered any of the following- 

Religious wars.
Torture of Heretics
Burning of "Witches"
Suppression of Science
Crusades
Hiding pedophile clergy
Oppression of women
Sexual repression. 

I can proudly say that Atheists haven't done any of that shit.  And we don't much like be lectured to the by the people who have.


----------



## Monnagonna

JakeStarkey said:


> Truth has no problem handling the likes of a Joe the Slow or you, monnagonna.



Coming from the Ultimate Simpleton Champion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.

Tis what tis.

You guys are very, very weak.


----------



## Monnagonna

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> You guys are very, very weak.



Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Monnagonna said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> You guys are very, very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...


You have a right to your sincere opinion, although you are sincerely wrong.  You have offered nothing to counter the point.  Blind belief in atheism or in religion brings bad, bad things.  Look at the triumphalist Protestant south after the Civil War to the 1960s.


----------



## Monnagonna

JakeStarkey said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> You guys are very, very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to your sincere opinion, although you are sincerely wrong.  You have offered nothing to counter the point. * Blind belief in atheism or in religion brings bad, bad things.*  Look at the triumphalist Protestant south after the Civil War to the 1960s.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's why I'm agnostic.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> You guys are very, very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...


It hasn't been proven to you because you dont bother seeking the answer.

No one knows whether there is a God at first. It's only through their search for answers do they find them. I didn't know at first. But I learned the truth.

Maybe you ought to put in the effort to understand instead of mock.


----------



## Monnagonna

Avatar4321 said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> You guys are very, very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It hasn't been proven to you because you dont bother seeking the answer.
> 
> No one knows whether there is a God at first. It's only through their search for answers do they find them. I didn't know at first. But I learned the truth.
> 
> Maybe you ought to put in the effort to understand instead of mock.
Click to expand...


There is no proof of a god, especially not one invented by that imbecile jo smith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> YOu poke a Latter-Day Zombie enough times, it goes right into the crazy...


How so? I also noticed your response had no response to several of my responses. Good I'll take it you concede those points. Moving on...




> Quite the contrary, he can be both and he was.  I think he was a slick con-man early in his career, but probably started believing his own bullshit by the time he was mercifully put out of his misery by the Carthage mob.  Kind of Like L. Ron Hubbard. Early in his career, when he was telling his fellow Sci-Fi writers how he could make up a fake religion and get stupid people to make him rich, he knew it was a scam.  By the end of it when he was getting sex from teenage girls on his boat, hiding from numerous governments... yeah, he was actually getting high on his own supply. And so was Smith.


I have no knowledge of L. Ron Hubbard so I can't speak for him... but if you give him the same "fair" shake you've given Smith then I'm skeptical as to all the things you've accused him of.
Your argument that you can both be a slick intelligent con-man while at the same time being deluded, simply is a fools argument. You're either one or the other. It makes no logical sense that a person can do both. A deluded person is on the street holding up signs like "The End is Near". That's delusion. A con man is Hitler, a con man is Bernie Madoff.
You see the difference between deluded and con man. It's impossible for an intelligent con-man to be deluded. He knows exactly what he's doing and calculates his plans very precisely. 



> My my, "racist white crackers"? That's kinda like saying "racist black *******" isn't it? It goes both ways. How can you accuse someone of being racist and then make a racial slur all in the same sentence? Your credibility continues to decline.





> No, I'm a white guy who realizes that the stain on our honor as a nation will continue until we acknowledge our own evil.To the point, we slaughtered the native Americans (I am also part Cherokee) and people like Smith just couldn't abide by the thought that Native Americans accomplished great things.


So you have a white man complex? It seems someone has convinced you that you were responsible for all the bad things our triple-great grandparents did. Well even if you believe you would have done those bad things, you still didn't do them. You may not have murdered millions of Native Americans but you would have joined the Missouri mobs agains the Mormons, so how much more moral are you?
And it appears you ignored my copied and pasted quote from Joseph Smith attributing the amazing achievements of ancient america to native americans. You also ignored quotes showing that Native Americans are of the House of Israel. The Book of Mormon is clear on this issue and prophesies the return of their greatness. Please read.



> So he made up these fairy stories about Hebrews in the Americas.  And he didn't even make them up, he plagarized them from Rev. Solomon Spalding's unpublished novel, Manuscript found.  There's even a part about golden plate in there.



Before we even begin to address this please show me what part from the book he's supposed to have plagiarized and then I'll show you where you're greatly grasping for straws.



> Now ignoring LDS archeology, which has all the credibility of "Creation Science", let's move on to this..


Of course it's in your best interests to ignore the archaeology I've shown you. Solid archaeology is not your friend in this discussion. Now whether the excavator is LDS or Hindu, what should it matter? Findings are findings right?




> The Church never does anything directly. Like when it tells the faithful Zombies to empty out their bank accounts to fund fights against gay marriage, and they all do so.



Never does anything directly? Well they directly asked us to fight this evil homosexual propagandist agenda. That was rather direct and we're proud of our stance. Disagree where you may, but we're not going to be pushed around by pro-homosexual bullies.
Thank God we won and will continue to win on this issue.



> But, yeah, the thing was, the Salamander Letter came out, and instead of declaring it a fake THAT DAY, they tried to intrepret it, because Smith was into enough weird shit they'd spent the last century trying to wallpaper over.


The last century we've spent a lot more time on a lot more important things than a phony salamander letter. Sometimes people try to fool our leaders and sometimes it works for a little while but it doesn't matter. The truth always comes out and the insignificance of such things always fades away.





> Yes, I am.


Your admittance of being a bloodthirsty person damages your credibility beyond repair.






> I don't tolerate any of you people.



This should be a bumper sticker on the back of your VW. 

You're a model of tolerance and behavior. Gotta love the guy who uses the phrase "you people."




> An omnipotent being whose "go to" answer is to drown all the babies (not to mention all the puppies and kitties, too!) isn't worthy of anything but my contempt.  Really. That was the best solution he could come up with?  Besides all the scientific absurdity of the Flood Story, I think it tells a lot about the God the Hebrews worshipped.



If there was no life after this then I would be completely on your side on this one. However, there is a life after this, and it's a whole lot better than this one and that baby is going to live a full life in a much better environment than the poisonous one David created. So God, in his wisdom decided to guarantee eternal life to that baby. His ways are not our ways and it is tough for people to understand if they don't know the mind of God or even trust His decisions. 



> 2 Samuel 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David.  (skip the dumb parable part)
> 
> 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
> 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things."
> 12:9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
> 
> 12:14 *Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.  *12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
> 12:18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?



God didn't punish the baby by doing this... He punished David. The Baby has eternal life.



> That's the God you worship.  He killed David's baby for what David did.  Sick! I decided to have no part of him a long time ago.


 Yes it is the God I worship. I can understand your position but you don't understand God's or the baby's position. David lost his exhaltation for his sins with the Uriah case.



> And that's your problem. Belonging to a religion is letting lesser intellects do your thinking for you.  I figured this out when I was 10.


Ok so if by your concept, my intellect is greater than that of our leaders, then how could they possess the intellect to deceive me into believing their ideas for 30 years? Eventually the superior intellect would figure out that he's been duped and rebel against the religion. Well it hasn't happened to me yet. 



> The problem with you Mormons is that when people get past all the fakey nice act you all put on and realize the crazy bullshit you all believe, you get pretty upset when we point out it's bullshit.


Actions are not fake. talk is cheap and will eventually be found out as true or fake. But actions don't lie. Did you ever consider that we are actually just nice people? One could argue that I haven't been nice to you, but at least i've given you the respect to hear your questions and statements. I also haven't wished death on you or called you the names you've called me. 
Now I missed the part where I was ever upset... Did that happen somewhere? You don't possess the capability to make me upset, unless I were to meet you in person or you harmed my family.



> Guy,  I don't have the time and patience to rehash 500 pages of Mormon apologetics to get to the point where you claim it was okay the LDS slaughtered those people and Brigham Young didn't know diddly about it.


Guy, I do have the time... But i'll never get to the point of justifying any murder. Some LDS members carried out a terrible crime for which they've already stood accountable before the law and the church. One day they will stand accountable before God.
They were frustrated and angry and sought to take revenge on the wrong people. That is not God's way. Brigham Young, who got word of the incident too late told them in a message, which arrived too late, by horse and buggy, to leave those people alone. 
If you've ever studied any of the teachings of Brigham Young you would realize that it would be completely out of character for him to order such a thing. It defies all logic. Especially for someone who understands accountability in the next life. Brigham tried to save those people but was too late. Brigham was a great man and that bothers people like you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> Why you are right, Atheism hasn't offered any of the following-
> 
> Religious wars.
> Torture of Heretics
> Burning of "Witches"
> Suppression of Science
> Crusades
> Hiding pedophile clergy
> Oppression of women
> Sexual repression.



So no religious wars? How about regular wars?
No burning of witches? How about burning of Christians?
Science is science. It cannot be suppressed. Especially true Science.
No crusades? How about other wars?
No pedophile clergy? How about pedophiles?
Oppression of women? How many human trafficking groups attend church regularly eh?
Sexual repression? I guess it depends on which religion you're talking about?

I can proudly say that Atheists haven't done any of that shit.  And we don't much like be lectured to the by the people who have.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> You guys are very, very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...


Both suck, but we're a little off topic again.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been proven to you because you dont bother seeking the answer.
> 
> No one knows whether there is a God at first. It's only through their search for answers do they find them. I didn't know at first. But I learned the truth.
> 
> Maybe you ought to put in the effort to understand instead of mock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no proof of a god, especially not one invented by that imbecile jo smith.
Click to expand...


You've convinced yourself that there is no proof so that when proof comes by, you don't recognize it. You're not looking for proof because you don't care if there is a God or not.

I also see you can't make up your mind whether Joseph Smith is an imbecile or a con-man. Which is your stance. Sorry can't be both.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been proven to you because you dont bother seeking the answer.
> 
> No one knows whether there is a God at first. It's only through their search for answers do they find them. I didn't know at first. But I learned the truth.
> 
> Maybe you ought to put in the effort to understand instead of mock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof of a god, especially not one invented by that imbecile jo smith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've convinced yourself that there is no proof so that when proof comes by, you don't recognize it. You're not looking for proof because you don't care if there is a God or not.
> 
> I also see you can't make up your mind whether Joseph Smith is an imbecile or a con-man. Which is your stance. Sorry can't be both.
Click to expand...


Ok einstein, tell me about your most 100% provable proof that a god exists.


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheism has offered its equivalent in communist USSR and China.
> 
> Tis what tis.
> 
> You guys are very, very weak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a right to your sincere opinion, although you are sincerely wrong.  You have offered nothing to counter the point.  Blind belief in atheism or in religion brings bad, bad things.  Look at the triumphalist Protestant south after the Civil War to the 1960s.
Click to expand...


Jake I don't "believe" you understand how the mind of some atheists work.  

I believe a picnic would be more pleasant without the ants.

I believe the yard would be safer without the hornets nest under the eve.

I believe the human race would have a better chance of evolving to a level that matches our challenges without being held back and wasting resources on religion.

In short "Atheism" is just the ability to call bullshit to obvious bunk. It is not a "religion".  It is critical thinking and a discipline of ones thoughts.  

It is not my responsibility to sort out the lies and nonsense from the bible from the obvious common truths.  I'm not some ignorant peasant stuck in the mid east near the time of Christs birth.  The rubbish strewn throughout the Bible makes it ridiculous as a whole.  There is no "atheist" equivalent to the bible.  We rely on a broad foundation of  education and an ability to reject bad information.  No one can get it all right because no one knows that much about everything.  BUT no one can get ANYTHING right if one does not make an effort to take in accurate and truthful information.  Every time you "fudge" and accept an obvious lie as truth you reduce your ability to know the difference.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a right to your sincere opinion, although you are sincerely wrong.  You have offered nothing to counter the point.  Blind belief in atheism or in religion brings bad, bad things.  Look at the triumphalist Protestant south after the Civil War to the 1960s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake I don't "believe" you understand how the mind of some atheists work.
> 
> I believe a picnic would be more pleasant without the ants.
> 
> I believe the yard would be safer without the hornets nest under the eve.
> 
> I believe the human race would have a better chance of evolving to a level that matches our challenges without being held back and wasting resources on religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you've described is not faith or belief at all... You're describing knowledge. There is no faith required to assume a yard is better without a Hornet's nest in it. Such a critical thinker but you don't understand what faith is.
> Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things. It is a hope that something is true before actually seeing concrete proof of it combined with actions based on the assumption of it being true.
> 
> Example: I believed Tim Lincecum would win a Cy Young award before he ever did in the Major Leagues. Two Cy Young's later, my faith evolved into a knowledge that Tim Lincecum is a Cy Young award winning pitcher.
> 
> Bad Example Circa 2005: I'll believe Lincecum will win a Cy Young when I see it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short "Atheism" is just the ability to call bullshit to obvious bunk. It is not a "religion".  It is critical thinking and a discipline of ones thoughts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact Atheism exhibits mental laziness and doesn't critically think about facts beyond their own nose. They don't consider the possibility that spirit exists, so therefore their critical thinking skills are juvenile. It is a lame excuse for arrogance. To think you know it all because you've seen it all. And if you haven't seen it, it must be false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not my responsibility to sort out the lies and nonsense from the bible from the obvious common truths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right... it's not your responsibility. but if you don't have the desire to sort out things found in scripture and reason them and pray about them then you are going to always remain in ignorance with regard to them. You will think you've figured it out, but really you've never tried to learn spiritual truths. It's not easy to come by spiritual knowledge. But you want things to be easy. It doesn't work that way. You have to care enough to search... Bottom line is you really don't care enough to do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not some ignorant peasant stuck in the mid east near the time of Christs birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another arrogant statement claiming that you are so much smarter than people who lived in the past and are therefore superior enough to call them names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rubbish strewn throughout the Bible makes it ridiculous as a whole.  There is no "atheist" equivalent to the bible.  We rely on a broad foundation of  education and an ability to reject bad information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a riot... any information that doesn't fit your agenda is considered bad information... contrast that with my stance. Let's look at all the information secular and spiritual.
> You shouldn't exclude things because they challenge your preconceived notions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one can get it all right because no one knows that much about everything.  BUT no one can get ANYTHING right if one does not make an effort to take in accurate and truthful information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "accurate and truthful."?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you "fudge" and accept an obvious lie as truth you reduce your ability to know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would agree 100% now how do you know something is an "obvious lie"? And who's fudging anything?
Click to expand...


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic: nothing has been proven either way, communism was/is still way better that theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran.
> 
> Sorry Ringo, you lose again. Better luck next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been proven to you because you dont bother seeking the answer.
> 
> No one knows whether there is a God at first. It's only through their search for answers do they find them. I didn't know at first. But I learned the truth.
> 
> Maybe you ought to put in the effort to understand instead of mock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no proof of a god, especially not one invented by that imbecile jo smith.
Click to expand...


And you know this without doing anything to learn. I wish learning was really that easy.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof of a god, especially not one invented by that imbecile jo smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've convinced yourself that there is no proof so that when proof comes by, you don't recognize it. You're not looking for proof because you don't care if there is a God or not.
> 
> I also see you can't make up your mind whether Joseph Smith is an imbecile or a con-man. Which is your stance. Sorry can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok einstein, tell me about your most 100% provable proof that a god exists.
Click to expand...


If you see God, you hear His voice, feel Him, etc. Then don't you have 100% proof that God exists? What if someone else doesn't? Do you have any less proof because someone else hasn't seen, heard, or felt Him?

Now most of us don't see Him. (Though it has happened). But would feeling or hearing be any less proof to us? We don't see the wind, but we can feel and hear it. We can see it's presence. So being unable to see something regularly cannot lower 100% proof can it?

Regardless, we can still see the effects of God in our life. We can learn of Him the same way Peter did. *Directly from Him*. If we keep the commandments we have been given a promise that we will know whether the they are from God. So logically, we should be testing the principles God teaches us. And when we do that, He will show us.

Take the Principle of Tithing for one. The Lord asks us to give Him 10% of what He has blessed us with. And if we do that He will open the windows of heaven and pour out so many blessings that we can scarce receive it. How do you find out if that promise is true? By testing it. You pay tithing in faith and see what the Lord does.

The same is true with all the doctrines. You test them by living them. And by doing that you will know.



> Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves*It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.([*URL="http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng#"]Alma 32:28[/URL])



You can find out for yourself. Ill issue you a challenge. Study for yourself. Pray to God. Even if you don't know if there is a God, pray to Him in order to learn. Even if all you could do is believe that it might be possible for God to answer you. If that's all the faith you have. Be honest and sincere. If you don't know there is a God tell Him. And tell Him you will just assume that if He is there He can and may answer in His own good time. 

And then study. Read the Book of Mormon. Read the Bible. Study the scriptures and more. Think things out. Pray every day. Don't just read but apply what you are reading. Eliminate the lies in your life. Look for ways to love your neighbor more. Serve your family. Flee from pornography, drugs, or any other addictions as much as you can. Just be sincere in your efforts.

Do this for a time period, Say 40 days and 40 nights. Be consistant with your praying. And I will promise you that you will find out for yourself that there truly is a God. You probably won't need 40 days. But 40 days and 40 nights is a significant number in the scriptures for some reason.

Do you have the courage to take the challenge?


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> [
> I have no knowledge of L. Ron Hubbard so I can't speak for him... but if you give him the same "fair" shake you've given Smith then I'm skeptical as to all the things you've accused him of.
> Your argument that you can both be a slick intelligent con-man while at the same time being deluded, simply is a fools argument. You're either one or the other. It makes no logical sense that a person can do both. A deluded person is on the street holding up signs like "The End is Near". That's delusion. A con man is Hitler, a con man is Bernie Madoff.
> You see the difference between deluded and con man. It's impossible for an intelligent con-man to be deluded. He knows exactly what he's doing and calculates his plans very precisely.



quite the contrary, a con man can easily delude himself into believing the con.  Human beings are social animals.  We all tend to run in the same way.  When a social dynamic is established, we tend to go with the flow.  So yeah, Smith or Hubbard or Hitler could have started a movement knowing full well it was a scam, but can get caught up into to the point they start buying into it.   Smith probably expected God to save him, as did Koresh, Hubbard or Hitler.  



> So you have a white man complex? It seems someone has convinced you that you were responsible for all the bad things our triple-great grandparents did. Well even if you believe you would have done those bad things, you still didn't do them. You may not have murdered millions of Native Americans but you would have joined the Missouri mobs agains the Mormons, so how much more moral are you?



No funny you should mention that. My mom was a Baptist from Missouri, and when she saw your con artist ads in the 1970's, she was pretty disgusted with what you guys were trying to pull.  They seemed nice enough to me, but that was before I realized what you folks were... 

The folks in Missouri formed mobs because Joseph Smith was sending out his Danite terror squads to attack them. 




> And it appears you ignored my copied and pasted quote from Joseph Smith attributing the amazing achievements of ancient america to native americans. You also ignored quotes showing that Native Americans are of the House of Israel. The Book of Mormon is clear on this issue and prophesies the return of their greatness. Please read.



Well that stuff because science has already thoroughly debunked it.  We know today that the Native Americans crossed over from Asia far earlier than 900 BC.  They did not ride elephants or horses, use coins or swords, build towered cities or anything else Smith attributed to them.  



> Of course it's in your best interests to ignore the archaeology I've shown you. Solid archaeology is not your friend in this discussion. Now whether the excavator is LDS or Hindu, what should it matter? Findings are findings right?



No, findings need to be PEER REVIEWED.  Mormons claim all sorts of stuff, and non-LDS scientists have debunked it.  



> Never does anything directly? Well they directly asked us to fight this evil homosexual propagandist agenda. That was rather direct and we're proud of our stance. Disagree where you may, but we're not going to be pushed around by pro-homosexual bullies. Thank God we won and will continue to win on this issue.



Prop 8 opened the door for a federal finding that gay marriage is a right, if the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS upholds that position. So it would be funny if the Zombies emptied their bank accounts and ended up making it the law of the whole country- even Utah. 

But, Frankly, why is it any of your business what non-LDS gays do?  




> The last century we've spent a lot more time on a lot more important things than a phony salamander letter. Sometimes people try to fool our leaders and sometimes it works for a little while but it doesn't matter. The truth always comes out and the insignificance of such things always fades away.



Well, that's true. Hoffman got a pass on two murders because the Mormons didn't want the world known they got scammed.  




> If there was no life after this then I would be completely on your side on this one. However, there is a life after this, and it's a whole lot better than this one and that baby is going to live a full life in a much better environment than the poisonous one David created. So God, in his wisdom decided to guarantee eternal life to that baby. His ways are not our ways and it is tough for people to understand if they don't know the mind of God or even trust His decisions.





> God didn't punish the baby by doing this... He punished David. The Baby has eternal life. Yes it is the God I worship. I can understand your position but you don't understand God's or the baby's position. David lost his exhaltation for his sins with the Uriah case.



Actually, that's pretty sick.  David couldn't have been that bothered by losing that baby, since he had dozens of wives and concubines.  Hell, they don't even tell us the baby's name, that's how unimportant it was.  If David Sinned, God should punish David, not an innocent.  



> Ok so if by your concept, my intellect is greater than that of our leaders, then how could they possess the intellect to deceive me into believing their ideas for 30 years? Eventually the superior intellect would figure out that he's been duped and rebel against the religion. Well it hasn't happened to me yet.



Effective brainwashing.  



> Actions are not fake. talk is cheap and will eventually be found out as true or fake. But actions don't lie. Did you ever consider that we are actually just nice people? One could argue that I haven't been nice to you, but at least i've given you the respect to hear your questions and statements. I also haven't wished death on you or called you the names you've called me.



I met some of you Zombies in 1983.  They were the most backstabbing, two-faced M-Fers I ever met in my life. That was before I realized all the batshit crazy stuff you believe.  So today I take great pleasure in mocking you.  I will take great pleasure when Mitt Romney goes down in flames.  




> Guy, I do have the time... *But i'll never get to the point of justifying any murder*. Some LDS members carried out a terrible crime for which they've already stood accountable before the law and the church. One day they will stand accountable before God.
> *They were frustrated and angry *and sought to take revenge on the wrong people. That is not God's way. Brigham Young, who got word of the incident too late told them in a message, which arrived too late, by horse and buggy, to leave those people alone.
> If you've ever studied any of the teachings of Brigham Young you would realize that it would be completely out of character for him to order such a thing. It defies all logic. Especially for someone who understands accountability in the next life. Brigham tried to save those people but was too late. Brigham was a great man and that bothers people like you.



Brigham was a murdering, tyrannical child molestor, and it would have been nice if President Buchanan took him out and hanged him and all the other Mormon leaders after the "Utah War".   That would have sent a nice message to Davis and Lee.  

YOu said you wouldn't try to justify murder, but then you try to excuse them by saying they were "frustrated and angry".  

Which is of course, horseshit.  The Mormons just saw these people as an easy source of stealable loot.  Kill them, steal their stuff, and blame the Indians.


----------



## Monnagonna

Avatar, I was asking for proof, which is something that has empirical evidence, i.e. provable by scientific methods. If you see something, hear something or feel something that you can't prove to someone else with TANGIBLE evidence, you may be schizophrenic, or just simply deluded.

Truth, your story about Lincecum doesn't make any sense, His Cy Youngs can be proven with tangible facts, like I can prove that he exists, baseball exists, the award exists, and that his stats prove that he's a good pitcher. So saying that he might win the Cy Young is not faith, it's an educated guess. Whereas in religion, nothing in the bible or any other books can be proven (I'm talking about the big stuff, i.e. floods, ark, walking on water, burning bush... not whether such and such city existed).


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof of a god, especially not one invented by that imbecile jo smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've convinced yourself that there is no proof so that when proof comes by, you don't recognize it. You're not looking for proof because you don't care if there is a God or not.
> 
> I also see you can't make up your mind whether Joseph Smith is an imbecile or a con-man. Which is your stance. Sorry can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok einstein, tell me about your most 100% provable proof that a god exists.
Click to expand...


Proof numero uno:
The order and balance found on Planet Earth. Such a likelihood of an earth falling together by chance in the middle of space is like the likelihood of Winning the Lottery a Hundred times in a hundred years straight. 
Clear cut proof of intelligent design.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar, I was asking for proof, which is something that has empirical evidence, i.e. provable by scientific methods. If you see something, hear something or feel something that you can't prove to someone else with TANGIBLE evidence, you may be schizophrenic, or just simply deluded.
> 
> Truth, your story about Lincecum doesn't make any sense, His Cy Youngs can be proven with tangible facts, like I can prove that he exists, baseball exists, the award exists, and that his stats prove that he's a good pitcher. So saying that he might win the Cy Young is not faith, it's an educated guess. Whereas in religion, nothing in the bible or any other books can be proven (I'm talking about the big stuff, i.e. floods, ark, walking on water, burning bush... not whether such and such city existed).



my example of faith was circa 2005 before he won his awards. I believed he would, then a couple years later, he did. There was no proof that he would win them. Only a belief.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, I was asking for proof, which is something that has empirical evidence, i.e. provable by scientific methods. If you see something, hear something or feel something that you can't prove to someone else with TANGIBLE evidence, you may be schizophrenic, or just simply deluded.
> 
> Truth, your story about Lincecum doesn't make any sense, His Cy Youngs can be proven with tangible facts, like I can prove that he exists, baseball exists, the award exists, and that his stats prove that he's a good pitcher. So saying that he might win the Cy Young is not faith, it's an educated guess. Whereas in religion, nothing in the bible or any other books can be proven (I'm talking about the big stuff, i.e. floods, ark, walking on water, burning bush... not whether such and such city existed).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my example of faith was circa 2005 before he won his awards. I believed he would, then a couple years later, he did. There was no proof that he would win them. Only a belief.
Click to expand...


Sorry but that argument suffers an epic fail because your baseball faith isn't really faith, the belief in Faith, in Christianity, has been most commonly defined by the biblical formulation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:1) as "'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen", in other words, faith by definition is the belief of something that can't be proven. So the baseball thing is an educated guess based on real stats, events... not religious faith. Faith that your wife will bring some milk home is completely different from religious faith someone might have in an invisible and unprovable superbeing.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar, I was asking for proof, which is something that has empirical evidence, i.e. provable by scientific methods. If you see something, hear something or feel something that you can't prove to someone else with TANGIBLE evidence, you may be schizophrenic, or just simply deluded.
> 
> Truth, your story about Lincecum doesn't make any sense, His Cy Youngs can be proven with tangible facts, like I can prove that he exists, baseball exists, the award exists, and that his stats prove that he's a good pitcher. So saying that he might win the Cy Young is not faith, it's an educated guess. Whereas in religion, nothing in the bible or any other books can be proven (I'm talking about the big stuff, i.e. floods, ark, walking on water, burning bush... not whether such and such city existed).



Not my fault you don't want to go through the experiment. You want science. I provided you a way where you can obtain such evidence through science. 

What you really want is someone else to do the work. Because if you sincerely wanted to know, you'd seek the answer and experiment on the Word.

It's sad really. You can know. But you deny yourself the blessings because you won't put in the effort.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We see once again the failed words of atheist philosophical assertion.  Truly sad.  So much more faith is required to be an atheist than a religionist.  Talk about wasteful and wasted speculation.


----------



## Monnagonna

Avatar4321 said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, I was asking for proof, which is something that has empirical evidence, i.e. provable by scientific methods. If you see something, hear something or feel something that you can't prove to someone else with TANGIBLE evidence, you may be schizophrenic, or just simply deluded.
> 
> Truth, your story about Lincecum doesn't make any sense, His Cy Youngs can be proven with tangible facts, like I can prove that he exists, baseball exists, the award exists, and that his stats prove that he's a good pitcher. So saying that he might win the Cy Young is not faith, it's an educated guess. Whereas in religion, nothing in the bible or any other books can be proven (I'm talking about the big stuff, i.e. floods, ark, walking on water, burning bush... not whether such and such city existed).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my fault you don't want to go through the experiment. You want science. *I provided you a way where you can obtain such evidence through science. *
> 
> What you really want is someone else to do the work. Because if you sincerely wanted to know, you'd seek the answer and experiment on the Word.
> 
> It's sad really. You can know. But you deny yourself the blessings because you won't put in the effort.
Click to expand...


C'mon man seriously? You think that the bible is science? 
It's just a bunch of made up stories that if you believe them all, then I guess you would believe in god, but those stories always seemed to me to be laughable as truths.
You might as well base your life on the world of dungeons and dragons. They have some cool books too.


----------



## Monnagonna

Ringo, you talking to yourself?


----------



## Truthspeaker

> quite the contrary, a con man can easily delude himself into believing the con.  Human beings are social animals.  We all tend to run in the same way.  When a social dynamic is established, we tend to go with the flow.  So yeah, Smith or Hubbard or Hitler could have started a movement knowing full well it was a scam, but can get caught up into to the point they start buying into it.   Smith probably expected God to save him, as did Koresh, Hubbard or Hitler.



Buying into something because it is profitable to you or believing something are two different things entirely. I'm 100% certain that con men don't believe they are doing the right thing. They just do it because it serves their wishes. A man doesn't believe his own lies. It really is impossible.




> No funny you should mention that. My mom was a Baptist from Missouri, and when she saw your con artist ads in the 1970's, she was pretty disgusted with what you guys were trying to pull.  They seemed nice enough to me, but that was before I realized what you folks were...
> 
> The folks in Missouri formed mobs because Joseph Smith was sending out his Danite terror squads to attack them.


Oh this is rich... terror squads? This must be some kind of joke... well I guess not... The only terror squads going on in those days were mobs that lynched people, destroyed their homes and tarred and feathered the Mormons as they called them. 
And just exactly what were our ads trying to pull?




> Well that stuff because science has already thoroughly debunked it.


Really? where? link?



> We know today that the Native Americans crossed over from Asia far earlier than 900 BC.  They did not ride elephants or horses, use coins or swords, build towered cities or anything else Smith attributed to them.


Goes to show you've never read the Book of Mormon, which holds that the first people to arrive here came right after the tower of Babel incident. Roughly 2500 to 3000 years ago from the Asiatic area. fail on your part.
Second the Book of Mormon never claims that Elephants or Horses were actually ridden, but I think it would be a foregone conclusion that that's what you do with those animals when domesticated. But the evidence clearly shows they were there at the time. Simply because you say they didn't happen doesn't count as an argument. I have provided hard articles which you still have not disputed. Scientists that ignore them because they are afraid of giving the Book of Mormon any credibility are the same as you. Ignorant. Science should not be ignored simply because it agrees with a religious document. It's a form of denial to claim something is false yet never reviewed with any kind of professionalism. Yet "scientists" do this all the time when new findings challenge their dogmas. 




> No, findings need to be PEER REVIEWED.  Mormons claim all sorts of stuff, and non-LDS scientists have debunked it.


Show me where the peers even did a fair review of our findings, then debunked any of them... Happy searching. All you'll find is a masquerade of claims that the findings are false with, like you, no opposing facts to prove the findings false. 

Again, link up.



> Prop 8 opened the door for a federal finding that gay marriage is a right, if the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS upholds that position. So it would be funny if the Zombies emptied their bank accounts and ended up making it the law of the whole country- even Utah.
> 
> But, Frankly, why is it any of your business what non-LDS gays do?


 
a Federal finding?   That's hilarious. So they performed an excavation of the constitution and found that gay marriage is a right? I'd like to see the constitutional language that shows that. 
First Gay Marriage is not even a thing. It doesn't exist. At least not yet. It's a new phrase that never existed until that agenda decided to coin the phrase. Marriage is defined as a man and a woman. There were no "findings". What they decided is to try and redefine marriage. That's officially what they're trying to do. Due to popular ideas pushed by left wing manipulists, some have formed the idea that gays are born that way and therefore are legitimate. It's all a smokescreen trying to legitimize sick/disgusting behavior. 
And as you can derive, I'm sure, we don't care what the government rules with regard to God's laws. The government is just a reflection on the appeals of certain groups of society and not authoritative to God's laws of the universe. 

Gay people can get married if they choose to. They just choose not to partner with members of the opposite sex. So it's really up to them.  They need treatment, not enabling.



> Well, that's true. Hoffman got a pass on two murders because the Mormons didn't want the world known they got scammed.


Of course you believe such speculation. It's a free country. Respectfully disagree.







> Actually, that's pretty sick.  David couldn't have been that bothered by losing that baby, since he had dozens of wives and concubines.  Hell, they don't even tell us the baby's name, that's how unimportant it was.  If David Sinned, God should punish David, not an innocent.


So you're claiming that because he had many wives, he couldn't have cared about his children? You clearly have no clue about human behavior, let alone ancient human behavior. Remember, it was still his child. Volume of children doesn't let you care less about each individual. You either care about your kids or you don't. The numbers mean nothing. Are we sure the original auther knew the baby's name? We don't know that. But the point of the story is not the name of a character but the lesson taught. In this case the lesson taught to David. And again I repeat, David was punished in this situation far worse than the baby.
I understand your position, because you believe the baby was robbed of life forever and if that were true I would be on your side and against all religions as well. But there is a life after this and that baby has it far better than David.





> Effective brainwashing.


Please break down the pyschology of my brainwashing for the benefit of the class. 



> I met some of you Zombies in 1983.  They were the most backstabbing, two-faced M-Fers I ever met in my life. That was before I realized all the batshit crazy stuff you believe.  So today I take great pleasure in mocking you.  I will take great pleasure when Mitt Romney goes down in flames.


I'll add Zombies to the ever growing list of insults.  Well I've never met a zombie, let alone a mormon zombie so you've met a rare breed indeed. I'd say if that was all you ever met then you're not giving the rest of us much of a fair shake. But that's not really your M.O. is it? You're kindof a shoot first and never ask questions later or ever guy. Humor me with a few specifics of your mormon zombie encounter so I'll actually be able to give a decent response or you may call it a "peer review" if you will.



> Brigham was a murdering, tyrannical child molestor, and it would have been nice if President Buchanan took him out and hanged him and all the other Mormon leaders after the "Utah War".   That would have sent a nice message to Davis and Lee.


another unsubstantiated slander on Young's character, followed by a bloodthirsty death wish. Man you'd fit right in in Missouri circa 1840 or Germany circa 1940.


> YOu said you wouldn't try to justify murder, but then you try to excuse them by saying they were "frustrated and angry".


I never tried to excuse them ever. Please don't put words in my mouth. I condemned the murderers from MMM. You really need to learn reading comprehension... But more likely you understood me perfectly the first time but are trying to twist my words. I will repeat, those murderers were not justified but must be condemned for their actions and will stand accountable before God for their actions. 
I merely was explaining their motivation. They were frustrated about their own persecutions and instead turned to Satan to gain revenge on the wrong people. There were misunderstandings which led to their overreaction and murder. But whatever their case they should have left the Arkansas wagon party alone and none of their actions were justified. Clear enough for you?



> Which is of course, horseshit.  The Mormons just saw these people as an easy source of stealable loot.  Kill them, steal their stuff, and blame the Indians.


Correction, a few mormons, not "The Mormons". 
If you did any real study, you'll see "The Mormons" excommunicated those members involved and turned them over to the law, except the fugitives who ran away. But I believe even they were eventually caught, tried and sentenced to death.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, I was asking for proof, which is something that has empirical evidence, i.e. provable by scientific methods. If you see something, hear something or feel something that you can't prove to someone else with TANGIBLE evidence, you may be schizophrenic, or just simply deluded.
> 
> Truth, your story about Lincecum doesn't make any sense, His Cy Youngs can be proven with tangible facts, like I can prove that he exists, baseball exists, the award exists, and that his stats prove that he's a good pitcher. So saying that he might win the Cy Young is not faith, it's an educated guess. Whereas in religion, nothing in the bible or any other books can be proven (I'm talking about the big stuff, i.e. floods, ark, walking on water, burning bush... not whether such and such city existed).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my example of faith was circa 2005 before he won his awards. I believed he would, then a couple years later, he did. There was no proof that he would win them. Only a belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but that argument suffers an epic fail because your baseball faith isn't really faith, the belief in Faith, in Christianity, has been most commonly defined by the biblical formulation in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:1) as "'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen", in other words, faith by definition is the belief of something that can't be proven. So the baseball thing is an educated guess based on real stats, events... not religious faith. Faith that your wife will bring some milk home is completely different from religious faith someone might have in an invisible and unprovable superbeing.
Click to expand...


Wow impressive! This is the first time you've made an acceptable statement with any real effort given to the concept of faith or anything else for that matter. Of course faith in God and faith in Tim Lincecum's pitching ability are two different things, I was just trying to dumb it down so you would begin to understand a little about faith. I know it's not a perfect analogy, but you must be corrected. Believing a pitcher would win an award is much more uncertain than your wife bringing home milk, which is 100% certain. Anyway I applaud you giving real thought to this. Now I will upgrade my discussions with you.

You're right faith is believing in things which often times are not seen with physical eyes. But that's the point. The greater faith you have, the more God will reveal knowledge to you and prove more things to you. If you want proof, then God will prove more things to you by concrete means than any school or institution. 
That being said those concrete means can come in physical tangible form or even harder evidence by spiritual means. That comes through the hard work and exertion of meditation and prayer. 
That is our position. You may choose to discount spiritual proof all you want but it is one thing that can't be denied once revealed. That's why we are so firm in our stances, because we've seen and felt things you simply haven't. It's 100% certain knowledge. That's why we can't deny it. You don't get it so you just say wer're deluded. It's the easy way out to attack those who claim to know something you don't. Rather than try to discredit, why don't you put in the work, study, and prayer to find out for sure for yourself?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar, I was asking for proof, which is something that has empirical evidence, i.e. provable by scientific methods. If you see something, hear something or feel something that you can't prove to someone else with TANGIBLE evidence, you may be schizophrenic, or just simply deluded.
> 
> Truth, your story about Lincecum doesn't make any sense, His Cy Youngs can be proven with tangible facts, like I can prove that he exists, baseball exists, the award exists, and that his stats prove that he's a good pitcher. So saying that he might win the Cy Young is not faith, it's an educated guess. Whereas in religion, nothing in the bible or any other books can be proven (I'm talking about the big stuff, i.e. floods, ark, walking on water, burning bush... not whether such and such city existed).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not my fault you don't want to go through the experiment. You want science. *I provided you a way where you can obtain such evidence through science. *
> 
> What you really want is someone else to do the work. Because if you sincerely wanted to know, you'd seek the answer and experiment on the Word.
> 
> It's sad really. You can know. But you deny yourself the blessings because you won't put in the effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon man seriously? You think that the bible is science?
> It's just a bunch of made up stories that if you believe them all, then I guess you would believe in god, but those stories always seemed to me to be laughable as truths.
> You might as well base your life on the world of dungeons and dragons. They have some cool books too.
Click to expand...


fantastic claims are not false because they're fantastic. Remember truth is often stranger than fiction and more fantastic for that matter.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my fault you don't want to go through the experiment. You want science. *I provided you a way where you can obtain such evidence through science. *
> 
> What you really want is someone else to do the work. Because if you sincerely wanted to know, you'd seek the answer and experiment on the Word.
> 
> It's sad really. You can know. But you deny yourself the blessings because you won't put in the effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon man seriously? You think that the bible is science?
> It's just a bunch of made up stories that if you believe them all, then I guess you would believe in god, but those stories always seemed to me to be laughable as truths.
> You might as well base your life on the world of dungeons and dragons. They have some cool books too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fantastic claims are not false because they're fantastic. Remember truth is often stranger than fiction and more fantastic for that matter.
Click to expand...


You're saying that the bible and the book of mormons is science, sorry bro, but that's ridiculous. We'll start with the first story of the bible: the world was made in 6 days. That's science? Hmmm...


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon man seriously? You think that the bible is science?
> It's just a bunch of made up stories that if you believe them all, then I guess you would believe in god, but those stories always seemed to me to be laughable as truths.
> You might as well base your life on the world of dungeons and dragons. They have some cool books too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fantastic claims are not false because they're fantastic. Remember truth is often stranger than fiction and more fantastic for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're saying that the bible and the book of mormons is science, sorry bro, but that's ridiculous. We'll start with the first story of the bible: the world was made in 6 days. That's science? Hmmm...
Click to expand...


He said nothing about science. I provided you with a scientific experiment. One by which you can learn for yourself whether things are of God. I've experimented on the Word and I've learned that it's good. I've learned it's truth. 

You can only learn the truth by conducting your own experiment. Study the Word. Experiment on it by applying it in your life. As you do this, the Lord will reveal Himself.

But unfortunately, you are resistant to the idea. You want us to be able to give you the answer. That's not how faith works. Evidence comes after exercising the faith necessary to experiment. Faith doesn't come from the evidence being provided before hand.

Until you are willing to study and pray for yourself, you will never know for yourself. If you are alright with that, that's fine. It's sad, but it's fine. That's your choice. Personally, I don't know how anyone doesn't want to know everything there is to know.


----------



## Monnagonna

Avatar4321 said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> fantastic claims are not false because they're fantastic. Remember truth is often stranger than fiction and more fantastic for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that the bible and the book of mormons is science, sorry bro, but that's ridiculous. We'll start with the first story of the bible: the world was made in 6 days. That's science? Hmmm...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said nothing about science. I provided you with a scientific experiment. One by which you can learn for yourself whether things are of God. I've experimented on the Word and I've learned that it's good. I've learned it's truth.
> 
> You can only learn the truth by conducting your own experiment. Study the Word. Experiment on it by applying it in your life. As you do this, the Lord will reveal Himself.
> 
> But unfortunately, you are resistant to the idea. You want us to be able to give you the answer. That's not how faith works. Evidence comes after exercising the faith necessary to experiment. Faith doesn't come from the evidence being provided before hand.
> 
> Until you are willing to study and pray for yourself, you will never know for yourself. If you are alright with that, that's fine. It's sad, but it's fine. That's your choice. Personally, I don't know how anyone doesn't want to know everything there is to know.
Click to expand...


You like to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is because they haven't read "the Book". Buddy, I went to sunday school, then regular church and did my elementary and high school in a Catholic religious type school run by priests, with religion classes and the whole 9 yards. I've yet to come across any solid proof of a god.


----------



## Christopher

Monnagonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're saying that the bible and the book of mormons is science, sorry bro, but that's ridiculous. We'll start with the first story of the bible: the world was made in 6 days. That's science? Hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing about science. I provided you with a scientific experiment. One by which you can learn for yourself whether things are of God. I've experimented on the Word and I've learned that it's good. I've learned it's truth.
> 
> You can only learn the truth by conducting your own experiment. Study the Word. Experiment on it by applying it in your life. As you do this, the Lord will reveal Himself.
> 
> But unfortunately, you are resistant to the idea. You want us to be able to give you the answer. That's not how faith works. Evidence comes after exercising the faith necessary to experiment. Faith doesn't come from the evidence being provided before hand.
> 
> Until you are willing to study and pray for yourself, you will never know for yourself. If you are alright with that, that's fine. It's sad, but it's fine. That's your choice. Personally, I don't know how anyone doesn't want to know everything there is to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is because they haven't read "the Book". Buddy, I went to sunday school, then regular church and did my elementary and high school in a Catholic religious type school run by priests, with religion classes and the whole 9 yards. I've yet to come across any solid proof of a god.
Click to expand...


Read what Avatar posted again.  There were two steps in the experiment.  Yet, you only mentioned the first, reading the Bible.  The second step was to actually live by the teachings.  Other ingredients include an open heart, humility, honesty, and sincerity.


----------



## Monnagonna

Christopher said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said nothing about science. I provided you with a scientific experiment. One by which you can learn for yourself whether things are of God. I've experimented on the Word and I've learned that it's good. I've learned it's truth.
> 
> You can only learn the truth by conducting your own experiment. Study the Word. Experiment on it by applying it in your life. As you do this, the Lord will reveal Himself.
> 
> But unfortunately, you are resistant to the idea. You want us to be able to give you the answer. That's not how faith works. Evidence comes after exercising the faith necessary to experiment. Faith doesn't come from the evidence being provided before hand.
> 
> Until you are willing to study and pray for yourself, you will never know for yourself. If you are alright with that, that's fine. It's sad, but it's fine. That's your choice. Personally, I don't know how anyone doesn't want to know everything there is to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is because they haven't read "the Book". Buddy, I went to sunday school, then regular church and did my elementary and high school in a Catholic religious type school run by priests, with religion classes and the whole 9 yards. I've yet to come across any solid proof of a god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read what Avatar posted again.  There were two steps in the experiment.  Yet, you only mentioned the first, reading the Bible.  The second step was to actually live by the teachings.  Other ingredients include an open heart, humility, honesty, and sincerity.
Click to expand...

Here again, you're assuming that I don't have an open heart, I'm not honest or sincere... (ok, I'm not all that humble, lol). 
I understand the teachings: an eye for an eye (which I don't subscribe to)... and live by some that make sense to me like helping others... but they lose me at the son of god, going to hell... mumbo jumbo every time.


----------



## Christopher

Monnagonna said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> You like to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is because they haven't read "the Book". Buddy, I went to sunday school, then regular church and did my elementary and high school in a Catholic religious type school run by priests, with religion classes and the whole 9 yards. I've yet to come across any solid proof of a god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read what Avatar posted again.  There were two steps in the experiment.  Yet, you only mentioned the first, reading the Bible.  The second step was to actually live by the teachings.  Other ingredients include an open heart, humility, honesty, and sincerity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here again, you're assuming that I don't have an open heart, I'm not honest or sincere... (ok, I'm not all that humble, lol).
> I understand the teachings: an eye for an eye (which I don't subscribe to)... and live by some that make sense to me like helping others... but they lose me at the son of god, going to hell... mumbo jumbo every time.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I've ever responded to a post by you, so I couldn't be assuming something about you "again".  Actually, I was not assuming about you.

You don't seem to understand the teachings if you think that Christians are to follow the "eye for an eye" teaching today.  By the way, humility is probably the hardest for most people to achieve including myself.


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> Here again, you're assuming that I don't have an open heart, I'm not honest or sincere... (ok, I'm not all that humble, lol).
> I understand the teachings: an eye for an eye (which I don't subscribe to)... and live by some that make sense to me like helping others... but they lose me at the son of god, going to hell... mumbo jumbo every time.



Then experiment on the word. If you have an open mind, conduct the experiment. Put your trust in God. Try living what He teaches to find out for yourself whether it's true or not. 

You want to claim to have an open mind but wont make the slightest effort to try it. Study the Book of Mormon and Bible. Pray. Practice what God teaches to find out for yourself. It's not really complicated. The biggest obstacle is how willing one truly is to find out for themselves.

Because thats the only way you will ever know. That's how Peter learned. That's how I've learned. God doesn't want us depending on others. He provides people to teach us, but they are supposed to teach us how to approach Him ourselves and learn for ourselves.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, you're assuming that I don't have an open heart, I'm not honest or sincere... (ok, I'm not all that humble, lol).
> I understand the teachings: an eye for an eye (which I don't subscribe to)... and live by some that make sense to me like helping others... but they lose me at the son of god, going to hell... mumbo jumbo every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then experiment on the word. If you have an open mind, conduct the experiment. Put your trust in God. Try living what He teaches to find out for yourself whether it's true or not.
> 
> You want to claim to have an open mind but wont make the slightest effort to try it. Study the Book of Mormon and Bible. Pray. Practice what God teaches to find out for yourself. It's not really complicated. The biggest obstacle is how willing one truly is to find out for themselves.
> 
> Because thats the only way you will ever know. That's how Peter learned. That's how I've learned. God doesn't want us depending on others. He provides people to teach us, but they are supposed to teach us how to approach Him ourselves and learn for ourselves.
Click to expand...


 The Bible was a book written by ignorant Bronze age sheepherders who didn't know where the sun went at night.  The Book of Mormon was written by a petty con man who wanted to pork 14 year old girls.  Neither has anything of worth to offer.


----------



## Monnagonna

I kinda hafta agree with Joe. But here, link me up with the Book of Mormons chapter that will get me started, I'd be interested to check it out.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> The Bible was a book written by ignorant Bronze age sheepherders who didn't know where the sun went at night.  The Book of Mormon was written by a petty con man who wanted to pork 14 year old girls.  Neither has anything of worth to offer.




Shitbag bigots like* you *have nothing of any worth to offer because you yourself are of no worth.


----------



## JoeB131

Monnagonna said:


> I kinda hafta agree with Joe. But here, link me up with the Book of Mormons chapter that will get me started, I'd be interested to check it out.




The only thing I would recommend the Book of Mormon for is a cure for insomnia.  It is horribly written and kind of boring.  You won't get past the first chapter.  

But here's a nice link with some commentary that puts it into perspective.  


Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible was a book written by ignorant Bronze age sheepherders who didn't know where the sun went at night.  The Book of Mormon was written by a petty con man who wanted to pork 14 year old girls.  Neither has anything of worth to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shitbag bigots like* you *have nothing of any worth to offer because you yourself are of no worth.
Click to expand...


Quit getting your magic underpants in a bunch, guy...


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible was a book written by ignorant Bronze age sheepherders who didn't know where the sun went at night.  The Book of Mormon was written by a petty con man who wanted to pork 14 year old girls.  Neither has anything of worth to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shitbag bigots like* you *have nothing of any worth to offer because you yourself are of no worth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit getting your magic underpants in a bunch, guy...
Click to expand...




I've already told you that you guessed wrong there, shitforbrains.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitbag bigots like* you *have nothing of any worth to offer because you yourself are of no worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quit getting your magic underpants in a bunch, guy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already told you that you guessed wrong there, shitforbrains.
Click to expand...


So you just found this thread by random chance? Yeah, right.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit getting your magic underpants in a bunch, guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already told you that you guessed wrong there, shitforbrains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just found this thread by random chance? Yeah, right.
Click to expand...



You are too stupid for words.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've already told you that you guessed wrong there, shitforbrains.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you just found this thread by random chance? Yeah, right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are too stupid for words.
Click to expand...


Only folks who run around defending Mormons are Mormons... 

Everyone else is just creeped out by you guys.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you just found this thread by random chance? Yeah, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too stupid for words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only folks who run around defending Mormons are Mormons... .
Click to expand...



Wrong again, idiot. Some people have no use for bigots in general. To summarize: Fuck You.


----------



## Monnagonna

Ok, I read a bunch of Nephi books. Where do this guy's stories come from? Takes up a lot of pages for a really douche story.


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV

What I take issue with is the secrecy.  I read the book "Secret Ceremonies" and the authoress was immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church when it was published.  I do not believe in organized religion.  I think that Joseph Smith was likely very schizhophrenic and had delusions, hallucinations, you name it.  If anybody came up with the stuff he did today, they'd be locked up in a mental hospital.

Keeping the inside of the temples secret only leads one to believe you have something to hide. I've been in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. Nothing secretive about it.

Not to say that most Mormons I've ever know have truly been very nice people and they don't preach at all, which is nice, but I just don't believe any of what they have to say.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Monnagonna said:


> Ok, I read a bunch of Nephi books. Where do this guy's stories come from? Takes up a lot of pages for a really douche story.



Well if you actually did read it(you didn't) it explains where it comes from. You didn't read the nephi books because they're pretty long and they're not in order back to back. Read again before I take your comment seriously.


----------



## Truthspeaker

2twsted4colorTV said:


> What I take issue with is the secrecy.  I read the book "Secret Ceremonies" and the authoress was immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church when it was published.  I do not believe in organized religion.  I think that Joseph Smith was likely very schizhophrenic and had delusions, hallucinations, you name it.  If anybody came up with the stuff he did today, they'd be locked up in a mental hospital.
> 
> Keeping the inside of the temples secret only leads one to believe you have something to hide. I've been in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. Nothing secretive about it.
> 
> Not to say that most Mormons I've ever know have truly been very nice people and they don't preach at all, which is nice, but I just don't believe any of what they have to say.



I can see your point.... Now try to see mine.... 

So you've read this book called "Secret Ceremonies"... What about the book causes you to take issue with the religion. Obviously this lady has issues with us. What were her issues? 
There are things which are very sacred which should not be thrown out in the open to people who do not understand them. That is why we don't openly talk about the ceremonies. 
But I've said this before and I'll say it again. If someone from the outside were to watch the ceremonies inside the temple they wouldn't be overwhelmed by any of it. They would learn more about Christ and our beliefs on the afterlife but that's all there is to it. 

There have been rumors of all kinds of weird things that happen simply because outsiders love to speculate. But there is no strange ceremonies, nothing sexual in the remotest way, no blood, no weirdness of any kind. It is simple, meditative and quiet. All the ceremonies are symbolic of our commitment to follow the commandments of God and prepare for the next life. That is all there is to say on the matter. 

Now you say that you have met nothing but nice people from our faith but don't believe anything we say. What is it that you don't believe that we have to say? We're so nice and pleasant, but certainly not to be trusted. That's an interesting combination indeed. 

Now your claims of Joseph Smith being a fantastic combination of schitzofrenic, delusional, hallucinative, and anything else you can think of is very indicative of a major flaw in your thinking.
Schitzofrenic~ manifests itself with auditory hallucinations while others are watching and telling others they are seeing or hearing things while those around them do not. Manifested by scattered conversation, disorderly speech and loud or fearful tones, paranoia(which is unbased fear).

If you knew anything about Joseph Smith, or the writings he wrote or the orations he gave in great detail and eloquence, you would know that it was impossible for someone as calm and collected and organized as he, to fit the diagnosis of Schitzofrenia.  He never had scattered or disorderly speech or paranoia. His precautions taken to protect himself and his family were based on real attempts on his life and real assaults he suffered, so paranoia is a lable impossible to put on Smith. To prounounce your own death in advance is to put paranoia to the test. He was proven a prophet, not paranoid as the prediction came true as he was murdered shortly thereafter.
You could accuse him of hallucinations and I would at least have to respect that as a person who doesn't believe Smith saw the visions he saw. That's something for you to find out on your own between you and God. No one can have the revelations for you. You'd have to have them yourself. That's fine, we'll agree to disagree on this one.

Delusional(from Wiki):
Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with circumscribed symptoms of non-bizarre delusions, but with the absence of prominent hallucinations and no thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening effect.[1] For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[2]

Very interesting, so we've already ruled out Schitzophrenia, but wait, Joseph claimed to have visions. So either he had real visions, or lied about having them, or was having hallucinations, which by definition would exclude him from being delusional by diagnosis. Pay attention to how delusion is manifested below (from Wiki):
To be diagnosed with delusional disorder, the delusion or delusions cannot be due to the effects of a drug, medication, or general medical condition, and delusional disorder cannot be diagnosed in an individual previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines six subtypes of the disorder characterized as erotomanic (believes that someone famous is in love with him/her), grandiose (believes that he/she is the greatest, strongest, fastest, most intelligent person ever), jealous (believes that the love partner is cheating on him/her), persecutory (believes that someone is following him/her to do some harm in some way), somatic (believes that he/she has a disease or medical condition), and mixed, i.e., having features of more than one subtypes.[2] Delusions also occur as symptoms of many other mental disorders, especially the other psychotic disorders.

Ok so we've found that there are six types of deluded persons. Which one would you ascribe to Smith?
1. erotomanic(ruled out as no documented or accused examples found)
2. grandiose(ruled out as the only grandiose ideas he had came from visions which deluded people don't have as he claimed to have seen God. We've established deluded people don't have visions. Schitzophrenics and hallucinators do)
3. jealous(ruled out as he had no documented jealousies)
4. persecutory(ruled out as his persecutions actually did happen)
5. somatic(ruled out as he was fit and never thought he was sick unless he actually was)
6 mixed(ruled out as he had none of the above)


So it is clear that with a little mental effort on your part you will realize your initial statement was lazy and irresponsible. Please try harder.


----------



## Monnagonna

Truthspeaker said:


> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I read a bunch of Nephi books. Where do this guy's stories come from? Takes up a lot of pages for a really douche story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you actually did read it(you didn't) it explains where it comes from. You didn't read the nephi books because they're pretty long and they're not in order back to back. Read again before I take your comment seriously.
Click to expand...


Well I read a bunch of it, they go into the wilderness then the dad sends the kids back to town for some pussy. What's the point of these chapters?


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV

Truthspeaker said:


> 2twsted4colorTV said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I take issue with is the secrecy.  I read the book "Secret Ceremonies" and the authoress was immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church when it was published.  I do not believe in organized religion.  I think that Joseph Smith was likely very schizhophrenic and had delusions, hallucinations, you name it.  If anybody came up with the stuff he did today, they'd be locked up in a mental hospital.
> 
> Keeping the inside of the temples secret only leads one to believe you have something to hide. I've been in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. Nothing secretive about it.
> 
> Not to say that most Mormons I've ever know have truly been very nice people and they don't preach at all, which is nice, but I just don't believe any of what they have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see your point.... Now try to see mine....
> 
> So you've read this book called "Secret Ceremonies"... What about the book causes you to take issue with the religion. Obviously this lady has issues with us. What were her issues?
> There are things which are very sacred which should not be thrown out in the open to people who do not understand them. That is why we don't openly talk about the ceremonies.
> But I've said this before and I'll say it again. If someone from the outside were to watch the ceremonies inside the temple they wouldn't be overwhelmed by any of it. They would learn more about Christ and our beliefs on the afterlife but that's all there is to it.
> 
> There have been rumors of all kinds of weird things that happen simply because outsiders love to speculate. But there is no strange ceremonies, nothing sexual in the remotest way, no blood, no weirdness of any kind. It is simple, meditative and quiet. All the ceremonies are symbolic of our commitment to follow the commandments of God and prepare for the next life. That is all there is to say on the matter.
> 
> Now you say that you have met nothing but nice people from our faith but don't believe anything we say. What is it that you don't believe that we have to say? We're so nice and pleasant, but certainly not to be trusted. That's an interesting combination indeed.
> 
> Now your claims of Joseph Smith being a fantastic combination of schitzofrenic, delusional, hallucinative, and anything else you can think of is very indicative of a major flaw in your thinking.
> Schitzofrenic~ manifests itself with auditory hallucinations while others are watching and telling others they are seeing or hearing things while those around them do not. Manifested by scattered conversation, disorderly speech and loud or fearful tones, paranoia(which is unbased fear).
> 
> If you knew anything about Joseph Smith, or the writings he wrote or the orations he gave in great detail and eloquence, you would know that it was impossible for someone as calm and collected and organized as he, to fit the diagnosis of Schitzofrenia.  He never had scattered or disorderly speech or paranoia. His precautions taken to protect himself and his family were based on real attempts on his life and real assaults he suffered, so paranoia is a lable impossible to put on Smith. To prounounce your own death in advance is to put paranoia to the test. He was proven a prophet, not paranoid as the prediction came true as he was murdered shortly thereafter.
> You could accuse him of hallucinations and I would at least have to respect that as a person who doesn't believe Smith saw the visions he saw. That's something for you to find out on your own between you and God. No one can have the revelations for you. You'd have to have them yourself. That's fine, we'll agree to disagree on this one.
> 
> Delusional(from Wiki):
> Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with circumscribed symptoms of non-bizarre delusions, but with the absence of prominent hallucinations and no thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening effect.[1] For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[2]
> 
> Very interesting, so we've already ruled out Schitzophrenia, but wait, Joseph claimed to have visions. So either he had real visions, or lied about having them, or was having hallucinations, which by definition would exclude him from being delusional by diagnosis. Pay attention to how delusion is manifested below (from Wiki):
> To be diagnosed with delusional disorder, the delusion or delusions cannot be due to the effects of a drug, medication, or general medical condition, and delusional disorder cannot be diagnosed in an individual previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines six subtypes of the disorder characterized as erotomanic (believes that someone famous is in love with him/her), grandiose (believes that he/she is the greatest, strongest, fastest, most intelligent person ever), jealous (believes that the love partner is cheating on him/her), persecutory (believes that someone is following him/her to do some harm in some way), somatic (believes that he/she has a disease or medical condition), and mixed, i.e., having features of more than one subtypes.[2] Delusions also occur as symptoms of many other mental disorders, especially the other psychotic disorders.
> 
> Ok so we've found that there are six types of deluded persons. Which one would you ascribe to Smith?
> 1. erotomanic(ruled out as no documented or accused examples found)
> 2. grandiose(ruled out as the only grandiose ideas he had came from visions which deluded people don't have as he claimed to have seen God. We've established deluded people don't have visions. Schitzophrenics and hallucinators do)
> 3. jealous(ruled out as he had no documented jealousies)
> 4. persecutory(ruled out as his persecutions actually did happen)
> 5. somatic(ruled out as he was fit and never thought he was sick unless he actually was)
> 6 mixed(ruled out as he had none of the above)
> 
> 
> So it is clear that with a little mental effort on your part you will realize your initial statement was lazy and irresponsible. Please try harder.
Click to expand...


You've not convinced me, but . . . I've done a lot of volunteer work and research on schizophrenia.  May of them have very high IQs and can be and are quite functional in life. It is not at all improbable that he was suffering from some sort of mental illness. I mean seeing God?  come on!  I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.  You believe what you want and live how you want, I've no problem with that.  I just don't happen to swallow it. 

Before my mother in law died, she said she "saw God" -  it was a hallucination no doubt.  Joseph Smith came about at a time when people were for the most part uneducated and were quite gullible.  People will believe what they want to believe.  The Mormon church is big business and all too secretive for me.  

For one thing in the book Secret Ceremonies she points out that you all believe you won't go to heaven if you're not married.  She describe the wierd ceremony that takes place before the marriage.  Please explain why everything is so secretive.  I have know Mormons who have broken away from the church who say their very lives could be threatened if they blabbed.  I mean the gal who wrote the book was excommunicated.  

I can think somebody is nice, but I don't have to agree with them on their religion, do I?  I just DON'T happen to believe that heaven waits for only he who congregates.  The mental hospitals are full of people who profess just what Joseph Smith did, I've heard them with my own ears!


----------



## Hawk

Mormons are good lovely people,but they're mislead by lies of a false prophet Joseph Smith Jr.Our goal is to helps them to know The Love of Jesus and truth as He warned about the false prophets who come as wolves in sheep skins in order to help Satan to mislead more souls for Hell.


----------



## Truthspeaker

2twsted4colorTV said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2twsted4colorTV said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I take issue with is the secrecy.  I read the book "Secret Ceremonies" and the authoress was immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church when it was published.  I do not believe in organized religion.  I think that Joseph Smith was likely very schizhophrenic and had delusions, hallucinations, you name it.  If anybody came up with the stuff he did today, they'd be locked up in a mental hospital.
> 
> Keeping the inside of the temples secret only leads one to believe you have something to hide. I've been in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. Nothing secretive about it.
> 
> Not to say that most Mormons I've ever know have truly been very nice people and they don't preach at all, which is nice, but I just don't believe any of what they have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see your point.... Now try to see mine....
> 
> So you've read this book called "Secret Ceremonies"... What about the book causes you to take issue with the religion. Obviously this lady has issues with us. What were her issues?
> There are things which are very sacred which should not be thrown out in the open to people who do not understand them. That is why we don't openly talk about the ceremonies.
> But I've said this before and I'll say it again. If someone from the outside were to watch the ceremonies inside the temple they wouldn't be overwhelmed by any of it. They would learn more about Christ and our beliefs on the afterlife but that's all there is to it.
> 
> There have been rumors of all kinds of weird things that happen simply because outsiders love to speculate. But there is no strange ceremonies, nothing sexual in the remotest way, no blood, no weirdness of any kind. It is simple, meditative and quiet. All the ceremonies are symbolic of our commitment to follow the commandments of God and prepare for the next life. That is all there is to say on the matter.
> 
> Now you say that you have met nothing but nice people from our faith but don't believe anything we say. What is it that you don't believe that we have to say? We're so nice and pleasant, but certainly not to be trusted. That's an interesting combination indeed.
> 
> Now your claims of Joseph Smith being a fantastic combination of schitzofrenic, delusional, hallucinative, and anything else you can think of is very indicative of a major flaw in your thinking.
> Schitzofrenic~ manifests itself with auditory hallucinations while others are watching and telling others they are seeing or hearing things while those around them do not. Manifested by scattered conversation, disorderly speech and loud or fearful tones, paranoia(which is unbased fear).
> 
> If you knew anything about Joseph Smith, or the writings he wrote or the orations he gave in great detail and eloquence, you would know that it was impossible for someone as calm and collected and organized as he, to fit the diagnosis of Schitzofrenia.  He never had scattered or disorderly speech or paranoia. His precautions taken to protect himself and his family were based on real attempts on his life and real assaults he suffered, so paranoia is a lable impossible to put on Smith. To prounounce your own death in advance is to put paranoia to the test. He was proven a prophet, not paranoid as the prediction came true as he was murdered shortly thereafter.
> You could accuse him of hallucinations and I would at least have to respect that as a person who doesn't believe Smith saw the visions he saw. That's something for you to find out on your own between you and God. No one can have the revelations for you. You'd have to have them yourself. That's fine, we'll agree to disagree on this one.
> 
> Delusional(from Wiki):
> Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with circumscribed symptoms of non-bizarre delusions, but with the absence of prominent hallucinations and no thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening effect.[1] For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[2]
> 
> Very interesting, so we've already ruled out Schitzophrenia, but wait, Joseph claimed to have visions. So either he had real visions, or lied about having them, or was having hallucinations, which by definition would exclude him from being delusional by diagnosis. Pay attention to how delusion is manifested below (from Wiki):
> To be diagnosed with delusional disorder, the delusion or delusions cannot be due to the effects of a drug, medication, or general medical condition, and delusional disorder cannot be diagnosed in an individual previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines six subtypes of the disorder characterized as erotomanic (believes that someone famous is in love with him/her), grandiose (believes that he/she is the greatest, strongest, fastest, most intelligent person ever), jealous (believes that the love partner is cheating on him/her), persecutory (believes that someone is following him/her to do some harm in some way), somatic (believes that he/she has a disease or medical condition), and mixed, i.e., having features of more than one subtypes.[2] Delusions also occur as symptoms of many other mental disorders, especially the other psychotic disorders.
> 
> Ok so we've found that there are six types of deluded persons. Which one would you ascribe to Smith?
> 1. erotomanic(ruled out as no documented or accused examples found)
> 2. grandiose(ruled out as the only grandiose ideas he had came from visions which deluded people don't have as he claimed to have seen God. We've established deluded people don't have visions. Schitzophrenics and hallucinators do)
> 3. jealous(ruled out as he had no documented jealousies)
> 4. persecutory(ruled out as his persecutions actually did happen)
> 5. somatic(ruled out as he was fit and never thought he was sick unless he actually was)
> 6 mixed(ruled out as he had none of the above)
> 
> 
> So it is clear that with a little mental effort on your part you will realize your initial statement was lazy and irresponsible. Please try harder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not convinced me,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Remember, I'm not here to convince you, nor do I have the power to do it. Only give correct information. People make decisions based on correct information. Well at least they should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but . . . I've done a lot of volunteer work and research on schizophrenia.  May of them have very high IQs and can be and are quite functional in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you realize and admit that Joseph Smith could not be schitzophrenic. So why accuse him of that? Let's at least be honest and accurate please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not at all improbable that he was suffering from some sort of mental illness. I mean seeing God?  come on!  I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.  You believe what you want and live how you want, I've no problem with that.  I just don't happen to swallow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like that since all the other labels didn't fit, you revert to "some sort of mental illness". It's a very similar idea that the mobsters had who killed him. "We can't find anything really wrong with him, but we don't like him because he claimed to have visions and so he's obviously a charlatan and an imposter and must be destroyed."
> 
> At least you don't seem as bloodthirsty as they.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before my mother in law died, she said she "saw God" -  it was a hallucination no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know she didn't? you say it's not possible "no doubt" but why is it impossible? Simply because you haven't seen one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith came about at a time when people were for the most part uneducated and were quite gullible.  People will believe what they want to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People are people and they are able to use reason to make their decisions as much then as now. Granted that there is more information available today but people are the same today as back then in their ability to measure reason. You'd be surprised how smart they were.
> Plus did you ever think that they may have been privy to information we aren't? First, they were there and you weren't and knew a lot more about their surroundings than we hundreds of years later. Second, information is consistently lost from generation to generation, and information available to one generation is not always available to future or past generations. This is fact. It all depends on which generations you're comparing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mormon church is big business and all too secretive for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another erroneous statement. The Church is not a business as it is not for profit and does not sell a product, nor does it pay any of it's thousands of clergy. Are you then accusing us of being a business by corruptively flying under the radar? With the Hubble Telescope always focusing on us, do you think we could really get away with it? Documentation proves otherwise and is hard to argue against.
> Too secretive for you? Fine, whatever. You could always join the church and pass the interview to enter the temple and find out for yourself. All are invited to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing in the book Secret Ceremonies she points out that you all believe you won't go to heaven if you're not married.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all if she says that that would explain why she left the church. I would leave it too if that were true. She doesn't understand the doctrine at all. It's not part of our doctrine. All can enter the celestial kingdom single or married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She describe the wierd ceremony that takes place before the marriage.  Please explain why everything is so secretive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had the ceremony, I got married in the temple. I don't even know what weirdness she's talking about. The ceremony is only to have us married for time and all eternity and all symbolic parts of it are simply symbolic that life extends beyond the grave. If that's weird then so be it.
> Why don't we talk about it in detail? Because of the sacred nature and eternal importance of the covenants we make at that time. Sacred things are not to be shared with those outside the temple. Otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of the ceremony. Sorry, you're just not going to get all the not-so-juicy details.
> 
> 
> 
> I have know Mormons who have broken away from the church who say their very lives could be threatened if they blabbed.  I mean the gal who wrote the book was excommunicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utterly proposterous.  No one's life has ever been threatened for leaving the church. It would destroy everything we teach in Sunday School about non-violence and following Christ. I've only heard of that in Islam. Excommunicated kinda sounds like executed, but there is no physical action. It is just being eliminated from Church records.
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can think somebody is nice, but I don't have to agree with them on their religion, do I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course and I wasn't suggesting that you do. I just take words that are absolute in nature very seriously. Words like only, always, never, every, all and nothing. You used some of those words and when you use those words they are polarizing and can only mean full support or full attack. You attacked and I must defend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just DON'T happen to believe that heaven waits for only he who congregates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We neither. Entrance to Heaven is a judgment call made by God. We don't make that judgment. That being said we believe it is important to congregate to strengthen ourselves and each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mental hospitals are full of people who profess just what Joseph Smith did, I've heard them with my own ears!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure there are those who claim to see visions and don't, but are they all, every last one of them lying? Do you believe it's possible to see a vision if God decides to appear? If the answer is yes, then he appeared to someone, the question is who is telling the truth?
Click to expand...


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monnagonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here again, you're assuming that I don't have an open heart, I'm not honest or sincere... (ok, I'm not all that humble, lol).
> I understand the teachings: an eye for an eye (which I don't subscribe to)... and live by some that make sense to me like helping others... but they lose me at the son of god, going to hell... mumbo jumbo every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then experiment on the word. If you have an open mind, conduct the experiment. Put your trust in God. Try living what He teaches to find out for yourself whether it's true or not.
> 
> You want to claim to have an open mind but wont make the slightest effort to try it. Study the Book of Mormon and Bible. Pray. Practice what God teaches to find out for yourself. It's not really complicated. The biggest obstacle is how willing one truly is to find out for themselves.
> 
> Because thats the only way you will ever know. That's how Peter learned. That's how I've learned. God doesn't want us depending on others. He provides people to teach us, but they are supposed to teach us how to approach Him ourselves and learn for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible was a book written by ignorant Bronze age sheepherders who didn't know where the sun went at night.  The Book of Mormon was written by a petty con man who wanted to pork 14 year old girls.  Neither has anything of worth to offer.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't it be wise to read them before you decide that?


----------



## Avatar4321

Monnagonna said:


> I kinda hafta agree with Joe. But here, link me up with the Book of Mormons chapter that will get me started, I'd be interested to check it out.



If you'd like a free Book of Mormon you can go here:

Request a free Book of Mormon | Mormon.org

If you'd like to read some of it online you can at:

Book of Mormon | LDS.org


----------



## Avatar4321

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible was a book written by ignorant Bronze age sheepherders who didn't know where the sun went at night.  The Book of Mormon was written by a petty con man who wanted to pork 14 year old girls.  Neither has anything of worth to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shitbag bigots like* you *have nothing of any worth to offer because you yourself are of no worth.
Click to expand...


Is the bad language really necessary?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quit getting your magic underpants in a bunch, guy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already told you that you guessed wrong there, shitforbrains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you just found this thread by random chance? Yeah, right.
Click to expand...


Random? It's frequently at the top of the religious forum because of discussion. It's not like he has to go searching archives for it.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you just found this thread by random chance? Yeah, right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too stupid for words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only folks who run around defending Mormons are Mormons...
> 
> Everyone else is just creeped out by you guys.
Click to expand...


Really? because there have been lots of board members on here defending Mormons who aren't Mormons. Take Jake for example. He criticizes what he thinks is wrong but defends against things he knows is bullcrap.

There is nothing to be creeped out about Mormonism. The Gospel of Jesus Christ encourages all people to be better, not be creepy.


----------



## Avatar4321

2twsted4colorTV said:


> What I take issue with is the secrecy.  I read the book "Secret Ceremonies" and the authoress was immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church when it was published.  I do not believe in organized religion.  I think that Joseph Smith was likely very schizhophrenic and had delusions, hallucinations, you name it.  If anybody came up with the stuff he did today, they'd be locked up in a mental hospital.
> 
> Keeping the inside of the temples secret only leads one to believe you have something to hide. I've been in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. Nothing secretive about it.
> 
> Not to say that most Mormons I've ever know have truly been very nice people and they don't preach at all, which is nice, but I just don't believe any of what they have to say.



We don't preach? We are seriously not living up to our responsibilities then.


----------



## Avatar4321

Hawk said:


> Mormons are good lovely people,but they're mislead by lies of a false prophet Joseph Smith Jr.Our goal is to helps them to know The Love of Jesus and truth as He warned about the false prophets who come as wolves in sheep skins in order to help Satan to mislead more souls for Hell.



So if Joseph Smith wasn't a true Prophet, who is?

Which part of the Book of Mormon do you disagree with? What exactly do you think is the lie?


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible was a book written by ignorant Bronze age sheepherders who didn't know where the sun went at night.  The Book of Mormon was written by a petty con man who wanted to pork 14 year old girls.  Neither has anything of worth to offer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't it be wise to read them before you decide that?
Click to expand...


I have.  Although the Book of Mor(m)on is pretty much unreadable... 

Honestly, the God of the Bible is one of the most unpleasent characters in the history of fiction.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Really? because there have been lots of board members on here defending Mormons who aren't Mormons. Take Jake for example. He criticizes what he thinks is wrong but defends against things he knows is bullcrap.



Jake the fake is about as Non-Mormon as he is Republican.  Come on, he's a Latter Day Zombie trying to fool people, but he ain't fooling anyone. 



> There is nothing to be creeped out about Mormonism. The Gospel of Jesus Christ encourages all people to be better, not be creepy.



Funny, given we've had two thousand years of Christians- including Mormons- doing the exact opposite of what Jesus supposedly said, I would say a lot of folks are missing the message.  

I met Mormons in 1983, when I had the bad fortune of being at an ROTC advanced camp with a bunch of Cadets from BYU.  And it was basically they stabbed the "gentiles" in the back every chance they got.  Never have I met a bunch of two-faced, back-stabbing mother effers' in my life, and I never hope to again.  

This was before I started actually bothering to research their batshit crazy beliefs, such as Jesus talking to the Indians who were riding elephants, (Archeology has totally debunked this, BTW) and how Joseph Smith was chased out of one state after another after pulling scams until the fine folks of Illinois shot him like a dog for screwing teenage girls. (Well done!) 

Now I admit, I have a pretty open contempt for all religions.  They are all fairy tales that defy logic and can be debunked.  

 But Mormonism crosses the line from Religion to Cult, and the line from superstition to outright fraud, and therefore is subject to an extra level of contempt and disdain.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Hawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons are good lovely people,but they're mislead by lies of a false prophet Joseph Smith Jr.Our goal is to helps them to know The Love of Jesus and truth as He warned about the false prophets who come as wolves in sheep skins in order to help Satan to mislead more souls for Hell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if Joseph Smith wasn't a true Prophet, who is?
> 
> Which part of the Book of Mormon do you disagree with? What exactly do you think is the lie?
Click to expand...


It's all a pack of lies, and archeology proves it.  

Where are the ruins of the Nephite cities?  

I mean, the Roman Empire existed at about the same time as the Nephite civilization, and Europe is dotted with Roman ruins, the languages and place names are derrived from Latin, etc.  

The Book of Mormon claims a monotheistic Hebrew civilization came to dominate a large part of the Americas (Smith originally claimed it was the area around New York, but Mormons now claim it could be anywhere). This civilization used coinage and swords (neither of which were used in the Americas) chariots pulled by horses (again, no evidence of horses before Columbus introduced them).  There is no record, tradition, artifact that proves a Nephite Civilization other than Joseph Smith's book of Mormon, which was written on gold plates that no one but he ever saw.  

But there's more.  Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Kinderhook Tablets. We now know that these were fabricated by his neighbors trying to screw with him before they just got tired of his shit and shot him.  He claimed that the "Abraham Papyrus" was an account of Abraham's time in Egypt.  We now know it was a funerary scroll from the Ptomoleic period some 2000 years later.  He claimed that there would be Quaker dressed people living on the moon. (NO really, seriously.)  

Here's a whole bunch of stuff Smith prophesized, and that didn't happen, either.  

Joseph Smith as a Prophet


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB does not know his butt from his mouth, for crap pours from both.

I am GOP.  I am not LDS.  I have very little use for the far hard right except for their votes: we assidiously recruit those (not the policies) every election.  The JoeB's have ever right to express their wrong opinions, and as I defend that right, I will always beat downt their wrong opinions.

I want Romney because he has the very best chance to beat Obama.  He can pull far more the center than Perry, period.  Perry is not considered mainstream by the large majority of America.  Romney is.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB does not know his butt from his mouth, for crap pours from both.
> 
> I am GOP.  I am not LDS.  I have very little use for the far hard right except for their votes: we assidiously recruit those (not the policies) every election.  The JoeB's have ever right to express their wrong opinions, and as I defend that right, I will always beat downt their wrong opinions.
> 
> I want Romney because he has the very best chance to beat Obama.  He can pull far more the center than Perry, period.  Perry is not considered mainstream by the large majority of America.  Romney is.



See, I knew it wouldn't be long before you started attacking Perry, too.  

Only a matter of time.  

When I see liberals starting to push Romney or Huntsman (liberal Mormons) I know that's who they most want their guy to run against.  

Conservatives have gotten tired of Romney, McCain, Bob Dole and the rest of the moderate "Me, Too!" Republicans who are indistinquishable from Democrats.


----------



## Dot Com

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB does not know his butt from his mouth, for crap pours from both.
> 
> I am GOP.  I am not LDS.  I have very little use for the far hard right except for their votes: we assidiously recruit those (not the policies) every election.  The JoeB's have ever right to express their wrong opinions, and as I defend that right, I will always beat downt their wrong opinions.
> 
> I want Romney because he has the very best chance to beat Obama.  He can pull far more the center than Perry, period.  Perry is not considered mainstream by the large majority of America.  Romney is.



Agreed. The country is considered 'center-right' not 'right-right'. Perry will lose the middle and the election. Winning the primary isn't the same as winning the general. If he gets nominated, all the extreme rhetoric he has voiced, such as last week's,  will come out


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are attacking Romney, kiddo, but my realistic assessment of Perry is not an attack, simply realistic.  Hard rights are reactionaries, not true conservatives, and those in party who oppose them are not liberals, period.

Perry has a weak lead, less than 3% average, on Romney among all GOP voters, whereas Romny is up in NH by almost 20% composite average on Perry.  As the rest of the country's voters get to know more about the candidates,  Romney will increase while Perry descreases in the voters' eyes.

Here this will help you.  RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
Perry *+2.5 overall ah*ead of Romney right now.
Gallup 8/17 - 8/21 25 14 11 11 7 9 3 4 3 1 Perry +11 
PPP (D) 8/18 - 8/21 27 17 13 6 10 -- 7 7 3 2 Perry +10 
Rasmussen Reports 8/15 - 8/15 29 18 -- 9 13 -- 5 6 1 1 Perry +11 
FOX News 8/7 - 8/9 13 21 8 6 7 7 6 5 2 2 Romney +8 
CNN/Opinion Research 8/5 - 8/7 15 17 12 12 7 12 5 4 2 4 Romney +2 
USA Today/Gallup 8/4 - 8/7 17 24 -- 14 13 -- 7 4 1 2 Romney +7 

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - President Obama vs. Republican Candidate
President Obama vs. Republican Candidate
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) Republican (R) Spread 
RCP Average 7/14 - 8/21 -- 44.3 43.0 *Obama +1.3 overall ahead *
Pew Research 8/17 - 8/21 1205 RV 43 40 Obama +3 
Rasmussen Reports 8/15 - 8/21 3500 LV 43 48 Republican +5 
USA Today/Gallup 8/4 - 8/7 1319 A 49 45 Obama +4 
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 7/14 - 7/17 1000 A 42 39 Obama +3 

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary  clearly reveals that Romney is up by almost 20% over his opponents in New Hampshire.


----------



## JoeB131

Dot Com said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB does not know his butt from his mouth, for crap pours from both.
> 
> I am GOP.  I am not LDS.  I have very little use for the far hard right except for their votes: we assidiously recruit those (not the policies) every election.  The JoeB's have ever right to express their wrong opinions, and as I defend that right, I will always beat downt their wrong opinions.
> 
> I want Romney because he has the very best chance to beat Obama.  He can pull far more the center than Perry, period.  Perry is not considered mainstream by the large majority of America.  Romney is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. The country is considered 'center-right' not 'right-right'. Perry will lose the middle and the election. Winning the primary isn't the same as winning the general. If he gets nominated, all the extreme rhetoric he has voiced, such as last week's,  will come out
Click to expand...



When I see liberals like you and Jake the Fake rooting for Romney, along with the usual liberal suspects, who only like Romney because they couldn't get John Huntsman over 2%, then I have to wonder who you folks are really afraid of.  

The country isn't "right" "Left" or "Center". It's "Who can get the job done".  Obama has proven he can't get the job done.   Romney hasn't done all that much to impress either.  (He's also Robotic, says idiotic things like "Corporations are people, too!" and has that weird religion he belongs to.)  He's pretty much unelectable.  

Given a choice between Obama and Romney, I'd vote for Obama.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are merely reactionary, JoeB, so what you think are liberals are merely people right of center and not far right in loonyville.  Yes, the country is right of center, and Romney can get the job done.  Perry is an empty suit, JoeB, who has never had an original idea.  Show us his own thinking and original ideas for Texas.  He doesn't have any.  Romney will not only skunk Perry in NH, if Perry goes free range his mouth will end his campaign.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> You are merely reactionary, JoeB, so what you think are liberals are merely people right of center and not far right in loonyville.  Yes, the country is right of center, and Romney can get the job done.  Perry is an empty suit, JoeB, who has never had an original idea.  Show us his own thinking and original ideas for Texas.  He doesn't have any.  Romney will not only skunk Perry in NH, if Perry goes free range his mouth will end his campaign.



See, I knew you'd be attacking Perry sooner or later, just like I predicted now that he's ready to wipe your boy off the map.  

Romney was a shitty candidate in 2008, and he's a shitty candidate now.  

So I'm sorry, what is the big difference between Romney and Obama I'm not seeing. 

Both of them think the government can run health care better than the private market. 

Both of them believe in big make work jobs. 

Both of them are tools of Wall Street while main street suffers.  

The only difference is, they follow different religious loons...


----------



## Flopper

Neubarth said:


> Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.
> 
> Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.
> 
> I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.
> 
> Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.  I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases.  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.
> 
> Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!
> 
> Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.


I think there are just a few major tenants of all religions.  In Christianity its belief in Christ and the resurrection.  In Buddhism its the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, but there are also the derived believes and beliefs that come from scriptural interpretations.  I really think we spend too much time and energy defending rather minor religious points.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> You are attacking Romney, kiddo, but my realistic assessment of Perry is not an attack, simply realistic.  Hard rights are reactionaries, not true conservatives, and those in party who oppose them are not liberals, period.
> 
> Perry has a weak lead, less than 3% average, on Romney among all GOP voters, whereas Romny is up in NH by almost 20% composite average on Perry.  As the rest of the country's voters get to know more about the candidates,  Romney will increase while Perry descreases in the voters' eyes.
> 
> Here this will help you.  RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
> Perry *+2.5 overall ah*ead of Romney right now.
> Gallup 8/17 - 8/21 25 14 11 11 7 9 3 4 3 1 Perry +11
> PPP (D) 8/18 - 8/21 27 17 13 6 10 -- 7 7 3 2 Perry +10
> Rasmussen Reports 8/15 - 8/15 29 18 -- 9 13 -- 5 6 1 1 Perry +11
> FOX News 8/7 - 8/9 13 21 8 6 7 7 6 5 2 2 Romney +8
> CNN/Opinion Research 8/5 - 8/7 15 17 12 12 7 12 5 4 2 4 Romney +2
> USA Today/Gallup 8/4 - 8/7 17 24 -- 14 13 -- 7 4 1 2 Romney +7



And again, every poll taken AFTER Perry announced has him up over Romney be double digits.  The ones before, meh, not so much.  Romney will never be at the front of the pack again... 




> RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary  clearly reveals that Romney is up by almost 20% over his opponents in New Hampshire.



one more time, stupid. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE DOESN'T MATTER!  It's a liberal state full of liberals, and Real Republicans don't care about it.  Because they are always allowed to go first, they play this little game of maknig themselves relevant, and everyone plays along.  

Buchanan won it in 1996.  Didn't matter. McCain won it in 2000. Didn't matter.  

Even if Romney squeaks out a win there, Perry will clobber him in South Carolina and it will be pretty much over for him after that.  that assumes the folks in NH don't decide to put him out of his misery like they did in 2008.  

When Perry wins in Iowa, he is going to come roaring out with a lot of momentum. The only way Romney staves that off is to appeal to Democrats, and that will be pretty obvious what he is doing. At that point, he becomes poison to GOP voters.


----------



## JoeB131

Flopper said:


> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.
> 
> Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.
> 
> I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.
> 
> Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.  I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases.  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.
> 
> Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!
> 
> Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are just a few major tenants of all religions.  In Christianity its belief in Christ and the resurrection.  In Buddhism its the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, but there are also the derived believes and beliefs that come from scriptural interpretations.  I really think we spend too much time and energy defending rather minor religious points.
Click to expand...


I think the major difference is, you can debate whether there was a resurrection or even if Jesus was a real person, but you can't debate the fact that Judea was a real place, that the Roman Empire really existed. 

The Mormon books insist this vast civilization existed that lasted just as long as Rome did, but yet left not a single trace of evidence. Therefore, it is logicall to conclude that Joseph Smith was making that shit up....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Joe simply can't stand the polls, the latest which closed just this week, long after Perry declared.

Romney's massive victory will weaken Perry enough that Romney will take a decent share of the vote in South Carolina.  Once it becomes a two-person race after that, Romney will pull away.

The facts and the polls don't support Joe's assertions.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Joe simply can't stand the polls, the latest which closed just this week, long after Perry declared.
> 
> Romney's massive victory will weaken Perry enough that Romney will take a decent share of the vote in South Carolina.  Once it becomes a two-person race after that, Romney will pull away.
> 
> The facts and the polls don't support Joe's assertions.



Guy, nobody likes Romney. 

Besides yourself and a few other Mormons, where are all the rabid Romney supporters.  Seriously, Ron Paul has more support on USMB than the Android from Kolob does.  

Go to TOwn Hall, Red State or any other conservative leaning site.  Romney support is usually tepid and limited to Mormons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The polls put the lie to your comment that "nobody likes Romney."  Only about 2% more of GOP right now prefer the Perry to the Romney.  That will grow more in Romney's favor as Perry becomes more known.

I am not Mormon and I am not concerned about your atheism, Joe, you can believe as you wish.  Check the polls for the numbers of Romney supporters.  If USMB were electing the President, but . . . guess what, Joe: it's not.

Go to the polls and try to figure how four or five million American Mormons can sway the polls in the manner you suggest.

You are losing this discussion.  Let's see if you can be civil while you are doing it.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> The polls put the lie to your comment that "nobody likes Romney."  Only about 2% more of GOP right now prefer the Perry to the Romney.  That will grow more in Romney's favor as Perry becomes more known.
> 
> I am not Mormon and I am not concerned about your atheism, Joe, you can believe as you wish.  Check the polls for the numbers of Romney supporters.  If USMB were electing the President, but . . . guess what, Joe: it's not.
> 
> Go to the polls and try to figure how four or five million American Mormons can sway the polls in the manner you suggest.
> 
> You are losing this discussion.  Let's see if you can be civil while you are doing it.



The polls just show Romney has name recognition and not much else.  There's no real support for him despite the millions he is spending, and Perry blew his doors off without really trying. 

He isn't even going to contest Iowa this year, because he took such a beating last time he was there.   

Romney is this years Rudy Guiliani...


----------



## JakeStarkey

That's an opinion, Joe, a very weak one.

Let folks study realclearpolitics aggregrate polling for the last week, and they will see that you cherries got popped.  

Perry is an empty suit that will be sent to the cleaners, ironed, and then sent home to Texas by February.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> That's an opinion, Joe, a very weak one.
> 
> Let folks study realclearpolitics aggregrate polling for the last week, and they will see that you cherries got popped.
> 
> Perry is an empty suit that will be sent to the cleaners, ironed, and then sent home to Texas by February.



I've studied the polling. Once Perry was in, Romney was done.  

His best hope is that the MSM will attack the guy, but the attacks all seem to be bouncing off.  

Let's give it a couple more weeks, though, and see if your boy is doing any better..

He won't be.


----------



## JoeB131

And since you want to look at just the aggreget at RPC, let's look at where the other candidates are. 

Palin is at 11% in the aggregate.  When she finally doesn't run, she'll probably endorse Perry, and Perry can add her 11% to his own.. Bachmann is at 9.5% in the aggregate. But she's probably done after she places second or third in Iowa.  Her supports will go to Perry before they go to Romney.  

So where does Romney really expand beyond his 18% aggregate?  I guess he might pick up Cain's 5% because they are both corporate types.  Maybe Gingrich's 5% after Newt qualifies for the matching funds and gets out.  Paul's 9% will probably be in until the end... and it's only a matter of time before Romney sinks below Ron Paul.


----------



## JoeB131

And since you want to look at just the aggreget at RPC, let's look at where the other candidates are. 

Palin is at 11% in the aggregate.  When she finally doesn't run, she'll probably endorse Perry, and Perry can add her 11% to his own.. Bachmann is at 9.5% in the aggregate. But she's probably done after she places second or third in Iowa.  Her supports will go to Perry before they go to Romney.  

So where does Romney really expand beyond his 18% aggregate?  I guess he might pick up Cain's 5% because they are both corporate types.  Maybe Gingrich's 5% after Newt qualifies for the matching funds and gets out.  Paul's 9% will probably be in until the end... and it's only a matter of time before Romney sinks below Ron Paul.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The aggregate right now does not support your contentions.  Palin's voters are not enough in numbers to affect the polls significantly.  Palinistas may have effect in South Carolina.  If Romney comes out of SC solidly, he can then sweep the board.

The polling does not support you.  Anyone who wants to mine down can go to realclearpolitics.com and study the polls carefully.

As an aside: I find it a hoot that an atheist's opposing a Latter Day Saint so an evangelical can be elected.  Romney would probably be the one among Perry, Palin, and Romney to offer you the right hand of fellowship while aware of your lack of faith.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> As an aside: I find it a hoot that an atheist's opposing a Latter Day Saint so an evangelical can be elected.  Romney would probably be the one among Perry, Palin, and Romney to offer you the right hand of fellowship while aware of your lack of faith.



ignoring your fantasies about polling, because they are tiresome... 

As an atheist (really, more an agnostic), I have no problem supporting an evagelicals, I've known evangelicals, most of them are pretty decent people. 

Mormons, on the other hand, are the scum of the universe. Never have I met such snaky, backstabbing people in my life. 

So, yeah, I'll vote for Perry to prevent ROmney from getting in.  And if by some light he loses, I'll support Obama.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Mormons, on the other hand, are the scum of the universe. Never have I met such snaky, backstabbing people in my life.
> 
> So, yeah, I'll vote for Perry to prevent ROmney from getting in.  And if by some light he loses, I'll support Obama.





You are a low-life bigoted scumbag.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside: I find it a hoot that an atheist's opposing a Latter Day Saint so an evangelical can be elected.  Romney would probably be the one among Perry, Palin, and Romney to offer you the right hand of fellowship while aware of your lack of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ignoring your fantasies about polling, because they are tiresome...
> 
> As an atheist (really, more an agnostic), I have no problem supporting an evagelicals, I've known evangelicals, most of them are pretty decent people.
> 
> Mormons, on the other hand, are the scum of the universe. Never have I met such snaky, backstabbing people in my life.
> 
> So, yeah, I'll vote for Perry to prevent ROmney from getting in.  And if by some light he loses, I'll support Obama.
Click to expand...


so (1) you say the polls support Perry overwhelmingly over Romney when in fact the polls state (2) Perry may be 2% overall ahead of Romney, while you ignore (3) that Romney is kicking perrytail in NH.

your atheist hatred for mormonism reveals a truly dark side in your character.

Vote for Obama?  I knew you were a secret liberal.


----------



## Unkotare

Not much of a "secret"


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neubarth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.
> 
> Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.
> 
> I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.
> 
> Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.  I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases.  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.
> 
> Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!
> 
> Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are just a few major tenants of all religions.  In Christianity its belief in Christ and the resurrection.  In Buddhism its the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-fold Path, but there are also the derived believes and beliefs that come from scriptural interpretations.  I really think we spend too much time and energy defending rather minor religious points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the major difference is, you can debate whether there was a resurrection or even if Jesus was a real person, but you can't debate the fact that Judea was a real place, that the Roman Empire really existed.
> 
> The Mormon books insist this vast civilization existed that lasted just as long as Rome did, but yet left not a single trace of evidence. Therefore, it is logicall to conclude that Joseph Smith was making that shit up....
Click to expand...


So you still continue to ignore the archaelogical evidence I showed you. The only response I got back from you was. "Those have been debunked."
Well this seems highly irresponsible to just dismiss without showing any "debunking". I've shown you evidence of civilizations, horses, elephants and Hebrew writing in Ancient America among others. You're not going to impress anyone if you don't address the facts.  The evidence is mountainous. But evidence is always open to interpretation, even obvious evidence. Learn knowledge before you try to make statements like "no evidence".


----------



## JakeStarkey

The archaeological detail has been debunked, truthspeaker.  The only path left now is go limit the geopgraphical spread of the Lehites in the Americas.  You are between a rock and a hard spot.


----------



## 2twsted4colorTV

This is VERY interesting indeed. 

INVESTIGATING MORMONISM 

excerpts:

The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.    


The people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormon there is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.  


Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the church. For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.

If you should ever decide that you made a mistake in joining the church and then leave it, you will probably find (judging from the experiences of others who have done so) that many of your Mormon friends will abandon and shun you. If you are unable to convince your family members to leave the church with you, you will find that the church has broken up your family and your relationship with them may never recover.  


Consider very carefully before you commit yourself, and remember that any doubts you may have now will likely only increase. 

Examine carefully both sides of the Mormon story. Listen to the stories of those who have been through an unhappy Mormon experience, not just those Mormons who may speak glowingly of life in the church.   

The Mormon missionaries are often charming and enthusiastic. They have an attractive story to tell. At first it sounds wonderful. But remember the old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!" Be careful not to fall into the trap of believing something simply because you want it to be true. Mormons may tell you that those who criticize the church are lying, misquoting and distorting. If you examine the sources used by the critics, however, you will discover that most of their source material is from official or semi-official Mormon writings. You, too, should examine those sources.

Is Mormonism a "cult"? Many experts on religious cults see in Mormonism the same fundamental characteristics as cults which have entrapped the unsuspecting, even though most people think of "cults" only as small, unknown groups. Use a "cult checklist" to evaluate Mormonism, or any group, before you commit yourself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> The archaeological detail has been debunked, truthspeaker.  The only path left now is go limit the geopgraphical spread of the Lehites in the Americas.  You are between a rock and a hard spot.



I guess this is evidence if not proof that Jake actually is not a "mormon". As he is arguing this point with me. please note JoeB

Now Jake, 
we've been running this circle for a while now. I've shown evidence and links showing plausibility but you have not responded in kind. Your only response has been "It's been debunked."   Really has it? how? Where?


----------



## Truthspeaker

2twsted4colorTV said:


> This is VERY interesting indeed.
> 
> INVESTIGATING MORMONISM
> 
> excerpts:
> 
> The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.
> 
> 
> The people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormon there is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.
> 
> 
> Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the church. For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.
> 
> If you should ever decide that you made a mistake in joining the church and then leave it, you will probably find (judging from the experiences of others who have done so) that many of your Mormon friends will abandon and shun you. If you are unable to convince your family members to leave the church with you, you will find that the church has broken up your family and your relationship with them may never recover. NOTES
> 
> 
> Consider very carefully before you commit yourself, and remember that any doubts you may have now will likely only increase.
> 
> Examine carefully both sides of the Mormon story. Listen to the stories of those who have been through an unhappy Mormon experience, not just those Mormons who may speak glowingly of life in the church.
> 
> The Mormon missionaries are often charming and enthusiastic. They have an attractive story to tell. At first it sounds wonderful. But remember the old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!" Be careful not to fall into the trap of believing something simply because you want it to be true. Mormons may tell you that those who criticize the church are lying, misquoting and distorting. If you examine the sources used by the critics, however, you will discover that most of their source material is from official or semi-official Mormon writings. You, too, should examine those sources.
> 
> Is Mormonism a "cult"? Many experts on religious cults see in Mormonism the same fundamental characteristics as cults which have entrapped the unsuspecting, even though most people think of "cults" only as small, unknown groups. Use a "cult checklist" to evaluate Mormonism, or any group, before you commit yourself.



First I genuinely want to thank you for bringing up these points. Although there is not a single one I have not dealt with, I am happy to sink my teeth into this next answer and it's been a while since I dealt with some of these and more recently for some others. But this makes for great discussion and I will gladly respond by the end of the night since I'm at work currently and these legitimate points deserve my undivided attention. See you all later.


----------



## JakeStarkey

TruthSpeaker, the "evidence" does not stand up to scientific inquiry.  It is only a hypothesis at this point, not scientific theory.  You have miles and miles to go before you sleep.

But, remember, that is why we Christians, you and I, have faith in the Risen Christ, so not to worry.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> TruthSpeaker, the "evidence" does not stand up to scientific inquiry.  It is only a hypothesis at this point, not scientific theory.  You have miles and miles to go before you sleep.
> 
> But, remember, that is why we Christians, you and I, have faith in the Risen Christ, so not to worry.



Though I am satisfied with much of the evidence, I have never claimed it to be anywhere close to complete proof. The bottom line is this... It is all trivia compared with the atonement of Christ and faith in his redemption. The Lord looks on the heart and all other knowledge is just a bonus to our character. All things will be revealed in the due time of the Lord and I am not worried about minutia.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSpeaker, the "evidence" does not stand up to scientific inquiry.  It is only a hypothesis at this point, not scientific theory.  You have miles and miles to go before you sleep.
> 
> But, remember, that is why we Christians, you and I, have faith in the Risen Christ, so not to worry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though I am satisfied with much of the evidence, I have never claimed it to be anywhere close to complete proof. The bottom line is this... It is all trivia compared with the atonement of Christ and faith in his redemption. The Lord looks on the heart and all other knowledge is just a bonus to our character. All things will be revealed in the due time of the Lord and I am not worried about minutia.
Click to expand...


Nor should you be.  Christ died, Christ rose, Christ shall come again.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> so (1) you say the polls support Perry overwhelmingly over Romney when in fact the polls state (2) Perry may be 2% overall ahead of Romney, while you ignore (3) that Romney is kicking perrytail in NH.
> 
> your atheist hatred for mormonism reveals a truly dark side in your character.
> 
> Vote for Obama?  I knew you were a secret liberal.



Obama's an idiot, but he isn't a member of this dangerous, insane cult with their hidden agenda.  

Oh, hey, guess what guy, new CNN Poll out today.  Perry is now leading the Android from Kolob by 13 points, his widest margin yet.. 

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Nor should you be.  Christ died, Christ rose, Christ shall come again.



Or he was a myth cobbled together from a bunch of other Man-Gods in mythology...


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the major difference is, you can debate whether there was a resurrection or even if Jesus was a real person, but you can't debate the fact that Judea was a real place, that the Roman Empire really existed.
> 
> The Mormon books insist this vast civilization existed that lasted just as long as Rome did, but yet left not a single trace of evidence. Therefore, it is logicall to conclude that Joseph Smith was making that shit up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you still continue to ignore the archaelogical evidence I showed you. The only response I got back from you was. "Those have been debunked."
> Well this seems highly irresponsible to just dismiss without showing any "debunking". I've shown you evidence of civilizations, horses, elephants and Hebrew writing in Ancient America among others. You're not going to impress anyone if you don't address the facts.  The evidence is mountainous. But evidence is always open to interpretation, even obvious evidence. Learn knowledge before you try to make statements like "no evidence".
Click to expand...


1- Nothing a Mormon produces will ever be treated as ANYTHING but a lie by me.  

2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.  

3- A mormon wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his ass.


----------



## Unkotare

Filthy bigot asswipe.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the major difference is, you can debate whether there was a resurrection or even if Jesus was a real person, but you can't debate the fact that Judea was a real place, that the Roman Empire really existed.
> 
> The Mormon books insist this vast civilization existed that lasted just as long as Rome did, but yet left not a single trace of evidence. Therefore, it is logicall to conclude that Joseph Smith was making that shit up....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you still continue to ignore the archaelogical evidence I showed you. The only response I got back from you was. "Those have been debunked."
> Well this seems highly irresponsible to just dismiss without showing any "debunking". I've shown you evidence of civilizations, horses, elephants and Hebrew writing in Ancient America among others. You're not going to impress anyone if you don't address the facts.  The evidence is mountainous. But evidence is always open to interpretation, even obvious evidence. Learn knowledge before you try to make statements like "no evidence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1- Nothing a Mormon produces will ever be treated as ANYTHING but a lie by me.
> 
> 2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.
> 
> 3- A mormon wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his ass.
Click to expand...


Truth is truth, no matter who says it... Ever consider that to accept anything that remotely validates the book of mormon in any way endangers their dogmas and whole way of life. They'd have to accept the Book of Mormon. Of course it is dismissed without examination.

Also, do you think we're being just a touch prejudiced if you say "no mormon" would know any facts at all? hmmm. says a little about you there guy.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> Truth is truth, no matter who says it... Ever consider that to accept anything that remotely validates the book of mormon in any way endangers their dogmas and whole way of life. They'd have to accept the Book of Mormon. Of course it is dismissed without examination.
> 
> Also, do you think we're being just a touch prejudiced if you say "no mormon" would know any facts at all? hmmm. says a little about you there guy.



Nope. You belong to a cult. You are incapable of thinking for yourself.  

Can you name ONE thing in Mormon doctrine you think is bullshit?  Just one. No, of course not. Because if you did, you'd be shunned the rest of the cult. 

Most Catholics think a lot of what the Church teaches about celibacy, brith control, Papal INfallibility is bullshit, if they think about it at all.   I walked away from Catholicism in 1983 and never looked back.  Guess what, my family didn't shun me.  Didn't stop talking to me.  

Thank God (who doesn't exist) that I wasn't brought up a Mormon.


----------



## Unkotare

No, you were brought up a filthy bigoted idiot whose incapacity for faith has left him so insecure that he lashes out blindly like some frightened animal.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> 1- Nothing a Mormon produces will ever be treated as ANYTHING but a lie by me.



Then you are lying to yourself



> 2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.



That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.



> 3- A mormon wouldn't know a fact if it bit him on his ass.



That's because facts are usually found by reading, by observing, by listening, etc and not usually by biting us on the ass.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Nope. You belong to a cult. You are incapable of thinking for yourself.



And who here is refusing to actually look at evidence because it doesn't fit his worldview?

I think that's you.



> Can you name ONE thing in Mormon doctrine you think is bullshit?  Just one. No, of course not. Because if you did, you'd be shunned the rest of the cult.



If there was anything we disagreed with, we wouldn't be mormon. If you don't believe something, you don't usually claim to believe it. At least if you are an honest person. 

But Believe me, we wouldn't be shunned. We don't shun people. It's not really a Christ-like practice. In fact, more often we are accused of not letting people go. Oddly enough by the same people who say we would shun people who disagree. Go figure.

If you want proof, look at this conversation? Have we at any time tried to shun you? No we are continually dialoguing with you. We are continually trying to reach out to you. We always do and we always will. Even if you do say harsh and untrue things about us. Why would that stop us from caring about you? From always helping you be the best you can be. You think God doesn't love you as much as He does us? I know He loves you. He loves all of us. How can anyone shun someone God loves?

When you finally feel the love of God, I know you will understand. When that will happen, I don't know. But you will.



> Most Catholics think a lot of what the Church teaches about celibacy, brith control, Papal INfallibility is bullshit, if they think about it at all.   I walked away from Catholicism in 1983 and never looked back.  Guess what, my family didn't shun me.  Didn't stop talking to me.



As I said, when people don't believe something, they walk away from it. The find things they do believe. You've just proven my previous point. But I know many former catholics who did have their families shun them. Does that mean I think Catholicism is a cult? Nope. It just means there are family dynamics at work that I don't know and that the Atonement will be needed to forgive and reunite that family again someday.



> Thank God (who doesn't exist) that I wasn't brought up a Mormon.



I doubt your family would love you any less if you were. You honestly think they would?


----------



## Avatar4321

Unkotare said:


> No, you were brought up a filthy bigoted idiot whose incapacity for faith has left him so insecure that he lashes out blindly like some frightened animal.



Is this really necessary? He is a child of God like everyone else. There is no need to speak that way of him or anyone else.


----------



## Unkotare

It's really necessary to tell him the truth about himself, yes.


----------



## Avatar4321

Unkotare said:


> It's really necessary to tell him the truth about himself, yes.



What's the point of having the truth if it's without charity?



> 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
> 
> 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
> 
> 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. (1 Cor 13:1-3)


----------



## Unkotare

I can tell you want to feel all peace-y (to masterbate your own ego) but an asshole is an asshole, and if no one is honest with him about it he may never wipe.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> 2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Why would one follow the other? 

I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed.  I don't worship Osiris. 

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed.  I don't worship Zeus.  

I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed.  I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.  

Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"  

In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith.  Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory.  Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Thank God (who doesn't exist) that I wasn't brought up a Mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt your family would love you any less if you were. You honestly think they would?
Click to expand...



True, because my family aren't stupid enough to be Mormons... and they always thought the RCC was a bit full of shit... although about half of them work for it.


----------



## Truthspeaker

> The detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas.


 This is a common response made by skeptics and scientists who are afraid of any information that might validated the Bookf of Mormon. It's understandable and predictable. please pay attention to my following criticisms of your use of the word "anything".




> The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations which really did exist at that time in the Americas.


Let's be careful not to make claims that the text does not. The text does not claim that they were "very common". It mentions their use but we don't know how common they actually were. Also the Book of Mormon does not specify how long it's people lived on the land. We know the children of Lehi were there from 600BC to 421AD and that is where the record ends, but their descendants are still there today. The Maya are the Nephites and Lamanites by all evidence shown. Their rise to prominence is in line with the arrival of the Lehite colony in 584 BC or thereabouts.  
Also it is amazing how little you have actually read of the text as you don't even know that coins were never claimed to have been minted anywhere in the book. It has been assumed from their description of money that it was in coin form but there is no evidence that their money was in  coin form according to the text itself.
Now as to your points of individual items mentioned. We'll start with the always fun horses:
There have been at least three sets of ancient horse remains found. One set dated between 3 and 12 thousand years ago, another very recently by Henry chapman mercer in which his expedition turned up two sets of very relevant remains. One had horse bones dated between 900 and 400 bc and the other set was horse teeth dated around 200 ad. Please learn of all the findings. Not just the popular dogmatic ones. Some scientists love to ignore findings that don't fit their dogmas. and if you must know or care, yes dr. Mercer is not a mormon.
2. Elephants~  please read this in it's entirety
Elephants are mentioned only once (Ether 9:19) as having been "had" by the ancient Jaredites. This occurrence is at an early point in the history of the Jaredites, probably well before 2500 B.C. based on the chronology proposed by Sorenson in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Is this an obvious blunder? Mastodons and mammoths, a form of elephants, lived across North America and part of South America. It is widely believed that they went extinct before Jaredite times. However, there are other indications:

Experts agree that the mammoth, and mastodon could have survived in favored spots much later than the time normally assigned for their extinction. The mastodon has already been dated as late as 5000 B.C. at Devil's Den, Florida, and around the Great Lakes to 4000 B.C. Then there is the remarkable discovery of the remains of a butchered mastodon in Ecuador; pottery associated with the find is said to date to after the time of Christ [J. Augusta, The Age of Monsters, Prehistoric and Legendary (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1966), pp. 11-12.]. In its light, the radiocarbon date around 100 B.C. of horse, mammoth and mastodon remains at St. Petersburg, Florida, does not seem impossible [Jim J. Hester, "Agency of Man in Animal Extinction," in Martin and Wright, "Pleistocene Extinctions," p. 185]. The Jaredite mention of the elephant a single time - very early in their lineage history - hints that the creature became extinct in their area soon thereafter. Perhaps the Jaredites themselves killed off the last of the beasts within their zone. But the Jaredites might not have been the only people to record the presence of the big animal. Some North American Indians have recounted legends of "great stiff-legged beasts who could not lie down" and of an animal with a fifth appendage, which came out of its head [H. P. Beck, "The Giant Beaver: A Prehistoric Memory," Ethnohistory 19 (1972):117; William Duncan Strong, "North American Indian Traditions Suggesting Knowledge of the Mammoth," American Anthropologist 36 (1934):81-88]. Possibly, tribes transmitted through oral tradition some vague remembrance of encounters with these "elephants." The later the beasts survived, the easier it is to accept the reliability of the tradition. In any case, it is possible that the mammoth or mastodon hung on in Mexico at least as late as 2500 B.C. 

3. Cattle~ Again try not to think as a westerner in 2011 when reading this. Even Joseph Smith did not have a word for Buffalo and Bison. He never even knew they existed in 1929 as he had never seen them before.
The Hebrew word b'hemah, sometimes translated as "cattle" in the Old Testament, can refer to "any large quadruped or animal" [Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, 19]. The Hebrew word s'eh, also translated as "cattle," usually refers to smaller domesticates such as sheep or goats. The Book of Mormon term could easily refer to any small or large quadruped. There are, of course, many New World species that could fall within this description.

(Roper, op. cit. p. 207)

After reading about the discovery of fossilized bison along with the mammoths recently found in Mexico (Associated Press, Oct. 30, 1996), perhaps one could speculate that bison were treated and named as cattle. If buffalo or bison had been in Joseph Smith's vocabulary in 1829, perhaps a more specific term might have been used in the translation, but "cattle" (perhaps as a generic term) may have been the most accurate translation for whatever word was used in the Nephite language. Further, the tapir in Mesoamerica is sometimes called a "cow." In fact, the national animal of Belize, Baird's tapir, is known in Belize as the "mountain cow" It is not a cow, of course, and is actually more closely related to the horse. Interestingly, Wikipedia reports that in Lacandon Maya, Baird's tapir is called cash-i-tzimin, meaning "jungle horse." Interesting, eh? Just shows how species and animal names can be perplexing as we move across cultural and linguistic barriers. Just because someone writes about a horse or cow doesn't mean it's the species we're familiar with. 

4. Sheep~ Sheep have been found. Ignoring it or claiming it wasn't found does not eliminate the fact that sheep were there. Big Horn sheep though currently wild are still there to this day.

5. Wheat and Barley~ This has been proven beyond a doubt in 1983:
Barley and wheat are mentioned in the Book of Mormon (Mosiah 7:22, 9:9; and Alma 11:7,15). These are not said to be derived from Old World "seeds" that Nephi's group brought with them in 600 B.C. Indeed, plant transfers from one land to another often don't succeed in the long run, and we may assume that many or most references to grains and plants in the Book of Mormon were to New World plants. The complex issue of translating plant and animal names again needs to be considered.

The reference to barley, long derided by critics, received increased plausibility in 1983, when professional archeologists announced the discovery of pre-Columbian domesticated barley found in Arizona (see the Dec. 1983 issue of Science 83). This was a New World species of cultivated (unhulled) barley. Further, it has been known for years that there are several kinds of wild barley native to the Americas (Reexploring the Book of Mormon, p. 130). You can partially verify this yourself on the new USDA Plants Web site, where a search on barley (enter the search string "*barley*") reveals that "foxtail barley" and "dwarf barley" are native plants in the United States - along with "Arizona barley," "California barley," "Stebbins' barley," and others.

Critics now say that the New World barley has nothing to do with the barley mentioned in the Book of Mormon, which they incorrectly assume must have been Old World barley. The occurrence of "barley" in the Book of Mormon is hundreds of years after Nephi came to the New World. There is no reason to believe this barley was descended from Old World barley that theoretically could have been brought by Nephi's group. The Nephites could easily have been using a similar New World grain that they called barley and that Joseph Smith translated as barley. I am amazed at the critics who, after years of attacking the Book of Mormon for its "anomalous" mention of barley, simply dismiss the recent scientific evidence of ancient, domesticated New World barley as being "inapplicable." Is that intellectually honest? 

There are a wide variety of cultivated grains from ancient Mesoamerica that could have been called "wheat" or "barley." Sorenson gives a partial list (Rev. of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1994, pp. 338-339) including amaranth, huauzontle, chia (used heavily by the Aztecs), fox-tail millet, two species of 'perennial corn,' and Chalco teosinte. References are provided to scholarly, non-LDS publications for each of these grains. By entering "*wheat*" as a search string on the new USDA Plants database, I found that there are numerous native North American species with names comprising the word "wheat." Specifically, there are multiple varieties each of "wheatgrass," "buckwheat," and "cowwheat," and one species called "desert Indianwheat." I have no evidence that any of these were cultivated or would even be worth cultivating. The point, though, is that English speakers have used common names for grains (like "wheat" or "barley") to describe some native plant species - something that could easily have happened with other peoples as well.

One interesting plant mentioned in the Book of Mormon is "sheum" (Mosiah 9:9). "This name rather obviously derived from Akkadian (Babylonian) 'she-um,' barley (Old Assyrian, wheat), 'the most popular ancient Mesopotamian cereal name.' A Jaredite source [for that name[ is logical, for that group departed from Mesopotamia, although the Book of Mormon reference is to a plant cultivated by the Zeniffites (a Nephite-'Mulekite' group) in the second century B.C. (Sorenson, op. cit., 1994, p. 338). Sorenson cites this as an example of a name change, for the Nephites at this time had a separate word for barley, and must have been calling some other species by the name "sheum." Perhaps it was one of the several Mesoamerican grains listed above. 

6. Steel~ Be very careful about reading this as it destroys your steel argument and puts a firm stamp of authenticity on the book.
How could Laban have a steel sword in 600 B.C.? There was no steel then. (And what about Nephi's steel bow?)
The Book of Mormon mentions a steel sword owned by a military leader named Laban in Jerusalem near 600 B.C., a time when many people believe steel had not yet been discovered. Laban's sword had a hilt of pure gold, a blade "of the most precious steel," and exhibited "exceedingly fine" workmanship (1 Nephi 4:9). An excellent discussion of Laban's sword of steel is offered by Matthew Roper in his article "On Cynics and Swords" in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1997, pp. 146-158. On pages 148-149, he notes that many critics point to Nephi's description of Laban's sword as evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon:

"Steel," it is argued, "was not known to man in those days" [Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (London: Odhams, 1920) p. 44]. Today, however, it is increasingly apparent that the practice of "steeling" iron through deliberate carburization was well-known in the Near Eastern world from which the Lehi colony emerged. "It seems evident that by the beginning of the tenth century B.C. blacksmiths were intentionally steeling iron" [Robert Maddin, James D. Muhly, and Tamara S. Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," Scientific American 237/4 (October 1977): 127]. A carburized iron knife dating to the twelfth century B.C. is known from Cyprus [Ibid. The knife shows evidence of quenching. See Tamara S. Wheeler and Robert Maddin, "Metallurgy and Ancient Man," in The Coming Age of Iron (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 121]. In addition to this,

A site on Mt. Adir in northern Israel has yielded an iron pick in association with 12th-century pottery. One would hesitate to remove a sample from the pick for analysis, but it has been possible to test the tip of it for hardness. The readings averaged 38 on the Rockwell "C" scale of hardness. This is a reading characteristic of modern hardened steel [Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, "How the Iron Age Began," p. 127]. 
The importance of this find is echoed by Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000 - 586 B.C.E., New York: Doubleday, 1990, p. 361:

A pick found in the eleventh century B.C.E. fortress at Har Adir in the Upper Galilee is the earliest known iron implement made of real steel produced by carbonizing, quenching, and tempering. This technological revolution opened the way for the widespread use of iron. 
Quenching, another method of steeling iron, was also known to Mediterranean blacksmiths during this period. "By the beginning of the seventh century B.C. at the latest the blacksmiths of the eastern Mediterranean had mastered the processes that make iron a useful material for tools and weapons: carburizing and quenching" [Maddin, Muhly, and Wheeler, 131]. Archaeologists recently discovered a carburized iron sword near Jericho. The sword, which had a bronze haft, was one meter long and dates to the time of King Josiah, who would likely have been a contemporary of Lehi [Hershel Shanks, "Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies," Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 (July-August 1986): 33,35]. Hershel Shanks recently described the find as "spectacular" since it is the only complete sword of its size and type from this period yet discovered in Israel [Ibid., 33]. Such discoveries lend a greater sense of historicity to Nephi's passing comments in the Book of Mormon.

At Google Books, you can preview Iron and Steel in Ancient Times by Vagn Fabritius Buchwald (Volume 29 of Historisk-filosofiske Skrifter, Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005) to find interesting information on ancient steel. For example, on page 72, we read:

In the Homerian epic the Odyssey we have an exceptional hint at the blacksmith's cunning treatment of steel, when Odysseus with his men blinded the one-eyed Cyclops Polythemus. "And as when a smith dips a great adze in cold water amid loud hissing to temper it--for therefrom comes the strength of iron--even so did his eye his around the stake of olive-wood" (Odyssey, 9. song: 391. translated by A.T. Murray, Loeb Classical Library).

The archaic period described in the Odyssean narrative is difficult to fit in time, since the Odyssey is a conglomerate of tales, first edited and issues as a total of 24 songs in the 4th century B.C. However, the general scarcity of iron and the common references to weapons of bronze point to the 8th or 7th centuries. No doubt, quench-hardening of steel as described in the epic had been well known for centuries before the poem was conceived. Hardening was, however, restricted to tools, particularly to knives, files, and chisels, only occasionally including a dagger, a sword or an axe. 

Thus, the ancient book, The Odyssey, apparently refers to steel manufacturing that was known in the Mediterranean region well before the time of Lehi. Hardened steel was not common, though, and was used for only a few objects, including an occasional sword. A steel sword in Nephi's day may indeed have been rare, but known, and thus it is entirely plausible for the Book of Mormon to mention a sword of a significant and wealthy military leaders that was made of "the most precious steel" (1 Nephi 4:9). Not the whole sword, but the blade, where hard steel would be especially desirable. 

The ancients in Nephi's day had the ability to carburize iron, but that does not mean that iron or steel was commonly available. The steel of Laban's sword was "most precious," clearly not a commodity item. In fact, subsequent appearances of iron in the Book of Mormon rate it with precious metals and riches rather than treating it as an ordinary material, as if metallurgical skills were largely lost in Nephite culture sometime after Nephi's era.

Incidentally, a photo of a gold-hilted sword with a blade made of meteoric iron is available in Volume 3 of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism under the article, "Sword of Laban." The sword comes from the tomb of Tutankhamun, who died in 1325 B.C., over 700 years before Nephi saw the sword of Laban. For more information on the ancient use of iron and steel prior to Nephi's time, see Oleg D. Sherby and Jeffrey Wadsworth, "Damascus Steels," Scientific American 252 (February 1985): 112-20; J. P. Lepre, The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1990), 245; Immanuel Velikovsky, Ramses II and His Time (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 222-37.

Another useful paper on ancient steel is "Steel in Ancient Greece and Rome" by E.A.Ginzel, 1995, available at the Materials Research Institute Website. Ginzel argues that early forms of steel were known and made by the ancients, though not well understood.

While most ancient works of iron or steel are not likely to survive because of corrosion, one recent well-preserved find of an ancient iron sword from the Middle East is reported by Avraham Eitan, "BAR Interviews Avraham Eitan: Antiquities Director Confronts Problems and Controversies," interview by Hershel Shanks, Biblical Archaeology Review 12/4 (1986): 30-38, as discussed in the new book, Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon, edited by John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne, Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999. A large iron sword, three feet long and about three inches wide was excavated at Vered Jericho (a place near Jericho in Israel). It has a bronze haft with a wooden grip. The strata from which the sword was excavated dates to the late seventh century BC. This sword is unlike the shorter daggers that are normally depicted in art from this part of the world. It provides evidence that iron (steel?) swords of large size were known in Nephi's day. (See also William J. Adams Jr., Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1993, pp. 194-195.)

On the related issue of Nephi's steel bow, a quote from Hugh Nibley is relevant here (Lehi in the Desert, p. 57):

The Arab forager is everlastingly prowling, scouting, tracking, and spying; in fact, some believe that the original root of the names Arab and Hebrew is a combination of sounds meaning "to lie in ambush." "Every Bedawin is a sportsman both from taste and necessity," writes one observer, who explains how in large families some of the young men are detailed to spend all their time hunting. Nephi and his brethren took over the business of full-time hunters and in that office betray the desert tradition of the family, for Nephi had brought a fine steel bow from home with him. Though we shall consider steel again in dealing with the sword of Laban, it should be noted here that a steel bow was not necessarily a solid piece of metal, any more than the Canaanites' "chariots of iron" (Joshua 17:16-18; Judges 1:19; 4:3) were solid iron, or than various implements mentioned in the Old Testament as being "of iron," e.g., carpenter's tools, pens, threshing instruments, were iron and only iron. It was in all probability a steel-ribbed bow, since it broke at about the same time that the wooden bows of his brothers "lost their springs" (1 Nephi 16:21). Only composite bows were used in Palestine, that is, bows of more than one piece, and a steel-backed bow would be called a steel bow just as an iron-trimmed chariot was called a "chariot of iron." Incidentally the founder of the Turkish Seljuk Dynasty of Iran was called Yaqaq, which means in Turkish, says our Arab informant, "a bow made out of iron."
Update: Bronze Arrowheads Inscribed with Steel


I recently encountered the article, "Bronze Arrowheads and the Name Aha" in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1999, p. 83. It reviews a find reported in the May/June 1999 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review by P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. of Johns Hopkins University. This find provides evidence for the use of steel around 1000 B.C. in Israel. McCarter reports on the discovery of three bronze arrowheads from the eleventh century B.C. bearing Hebrew inscriptions, one of which was inscribed with a steel instrument, according to Dr. R. Thomas Chase of the Freer Gallery of Art, a division of the Smithsonian Institution and an authority on ancient bronze artifacts. He discovered that "the inscription had been incised with a steel [emphasized in the original] engraving tool" (P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Over the Transom: Three more Arrowheads," Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1999, pp. 42-43). This is further evidence for the use of steel in Israel prior to Lehi's time. Also of interest is the name "Aha" that occurs in one of the inscriptions, which McCarter translates as "The arrowhead of 'Aha' son of 'Ashtart.'" This appears to be the same as the name mentioned in the Book of Mormon in Alma 16:5, where we read of two sons of Zoram, chief captain of the Nephite army, whose names were Lehi and Aha. Thus we have evidence authenticating another ancient Hebrew name found in the Book of Mormon but not the Bible, simultaneously providing further support for the use of steel prior to Nephi's day. The case for the plausibility of the Book of Mormon just keeps stronger and stronger - which is no surprise to those of us who know by the power of God that it's true.

7. Wheeled Vehicles~ The book of mormon only mentions "chariots". Not "wheeled vehicles". Critics argue that the wheel wasn't used in those times. This is an insult to the intelligence of those mighty people and my intelligence and the intelligence of those critics who make this argument. See Below
Pre-columbian Wheeled Artifacts from Meso and South America

this link proves the wheel was in use and remains of chariots don't need to be found as ancient old world chariots in the fertile crescent area have not been found either. Erosion wouldn't allow such objects to last that long.

8. Shipbuilding~ Nephi was shown how to build a ship by God himself. This was a miraculous claim and we know it but we still believe it. God can instruct if he feels like it. That being said, if it is true then no doubt they would keep the plans and would have learned how to build ships.

9. Actually it does mention a great deal of details about the people which has been found to be accurate such as: using horses, elephants, building roads, painting faces, shaving heads, wearing animal skins, human sacrifice, constant warfare, temple building. use of swords, bows, arrows etc. to name a few.



> The LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story.


The reason it is not convincing to you is because you are asking for us to convince you of a spiritual concept with earthly means. This cannot be done. Evidence is only evidence, not proof of either argument. This is what you call looking beyond the mark. If you don't want the Book of Mormon to be true, you can always argue your way around it. It goes both ways.



> In addition, whereas the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas,


 My how little you know of what the text actually says.
First the Jaredites were here. Different language, different culture. The Jaredite remnants met up with the Mulekites, different language, different culture, who in turn blended with the Nephites and Lamanites, another different language and culture. Their difficulty and mingling with the Mulekites was noted because of their language barrier.



> the pre-columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian.


  As I just mentioned, there was variety. Also if you check the record again, you seem to have ignored the Hebrew ancient writing found in ancient America, with the ten commandments written as well to boot. The Ohio Decalog, a Hebrew artifact from ancient America
If these links aren't earth shaking proof of the existence of Hebrews in America pre-Columbus, I don't know what is.
Oldest known 10 Commandments is in America, in Ancient Hebrew Script-From time of king Solomon « Godssecret's Weblog



> The people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but in the Book of Mormon there is almost no trace of their observance of Mosaic law or even an accurate knowledge of it.


Nephi remarked on this as they already had the brass plates with the Law of Moses had already and so there was no need to copy it to the small plates. It was also shown to him in a vision that we in modern times already had the record of the Mosaic Law.



> Although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording


This is another strong stamp of authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
For example, a pure translation from any language is never going to make perfect grammatical sense in modern english, or even the english used in 1829. The grammatical changes really were added for the reading convenience of the 21st century reader. I wish they never would have made the changes and here's why. Look at the example:
Original~ "The more part of them did take the oath, and the remainder part of the Lamanites fled into the wilderness."
Edited~"The larger part of them took the oath, and the remainder fled into the wilderness.
When reading the original it feels more like the author's language which has different grammatical rules in the original language compared to the modern english edition. I wish none of those had been added.



> in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the church. For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.


I don't know where you got this because nowhere in the text is there doctrine supporting of the trinity nor did Smith author the idea of multiple gods in the heavens. That idea came from the first chapter of Genesis where God uses those annoying words "us" and "our" when making the statement. "Let us make man in our image." The fact that there are many gods in the universe does not change that there is one god we pray to and one God who can save us. 

Also there has never been a change in wording with regard to the curse placed upon the Lamanites around 560 BC. This is another example of your failure to even read the book. A crippling argument against your case as you won't even read the text. Here's how it has always read in 2nd Nephi chapter 5 verse 21:
 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

That's how it reads and it has never changed. However since you have proven that you do not read the text it is easy to misunderstand this curse of God and somehow place it on people of African descent, instead of where it belonged at the time on the Lamanites. The text also shows that before the events in the Book of Mormon ended, the curse was removed from the lamanites and the people had conglomerated into one. This has nothing to do with people of African descent. 





> If you should ever decide that you made a mistake in joining the church and then leave it, you will probably find (judging from the experiences of others who have done so) that many of your Mormon friends will abandon and shun you. If you are unable to convince your family members to leave the church with you, you will find that the church has broken up your family and your relationship with them may never recover.


I'm not worried since I know my family better than you do and I have many family members who have left the church and we are still close and no one has been ostracized. Most notably my artsy brother(why is it always the artsy ones?)


> Consider very carefully before you commit yourself, and remember that any doubts you may have now will likely only increase.


Fear shoud never govern any spiritual decision. 


> Examine carefully both sides of the Mormon story. Listen to the stories of those who have been through an unhappy Mormon experience, not just those Mormons who may speak glowingly of life in the church.


Better yet, you should read the Book of Mormon for yourself and pray to God privately to know for sure which way to go. No one can be trusted like God.



> The Mormon missionaries are often charming and enthusiastic. They have an attractive story to tell. At first it sounds wonderful. But remember the old saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!"


What a negative outlook on life! wonderful things can be true. And don't listen to whether is sounds good or not, just listen to your heart and see if it has that truthful ring to it or not.



> Be careful not to fall into the trap of believing something simply because you want it to be true. Mormons may tell you that those who criticize the church are lying, misquoting and distorting. If you examine the sources used by the critics, however, you will discover that most of their source material is from official or semi-official Mormon writings. You, too, should examine those sources.


Of course don't believe something just because you want it to be true. But also apply the flip side. Don't rule something out because you don't want it to be true.
I also thought it was amusing how you said "semi-official"  Jeez, it's either official or it isn't. Please humor me with specifics.



> Is Mormonism a "cult"? Many experts on religious cults see in Mormonism the same fundamental characteristics as cults which have entrapped the unsuspecting, even though most people think of "cults" only as small, unknown groups. Use a "cult checklist" to evaluate Mormonism, or any group, before you commit yourself.



You don't need a checklist, you just need a dictionary definition of cult:
cult~ an exclusive set of religious beliefs or practices. 

By definition, we're a cult. I've been saying it for almost three years on here. The real question is, who isn't a cult? or rather which cult should I be a part of?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would one follow the other?
> 
> I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed.  I don't worship Osiris.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed.  I don't worship Zeus.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed.  I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.
> 
> Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"
> 
> In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith.  Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory.  Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.
Click to expand...


Because of the way the Book of Mormon came first and it's claims being so polarizing and then the evidence comes later that's what makes the ancient american situation different from Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt has already been uncovered, while the claims of the book of mormon will be entirely substantiated in due time. It requires faith and if the book of mormon is substantiated then it means it's true and the teachings and doctrine of Christ inside it are also true. Surely you're smart enough to see the chain reaction.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB, you are mistaken in charity and love, and you will never know peace until you know yourself.  Every word you write reveals your self hatred.  I am very sorry you feel that way.  I don't believe Mormonism is a "true" church but I don't believe any denomination has all of the definitive truth.  I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ, with which I am undoubtedly better in my behaviors and actions.    I still have a long way to go.  I understand Ukotare's anger at you.  I also know something Ukotare does not know about you.  You feel about yourself as Ukotare described you.  That can change if you wish.


----------



## Unkotare

That's Unkotare if you please. It doesn't make sense if you spell it wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

Unkotare said:


> I can tell you want to feel all peace-y (to masterbate your own ego) but an asshole is an asshole, and if no one is honest with him about it he may never wipe.



What does ego have to do with anything? The love the Spirit gives is truly empowering. and in order to retain that Spirit we have to be humble and full of love for our fellow man. Even those who may be our enemies. 

I don't know a single person who has changed who they are because they were insulted by someone. But Ive met many who have had their lives changed because someone shared the love of God with them. The Lord can use those who are willing to share that love with others. I've made a commitment to try to share the love of God with others even if they don't reciprocate. Whether I change a life or don't, whether i know about it or not, I simply want people to have that opportunity.

hatred and bigotry cause nothing but bitterness in ones soul. I'd rather be happy than be mean.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2- No non-LDS scientist accepts interpretations that there was a Nephite civilization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because if he was convinced that there was a Nephite civilization he would be baptized, thereby becoming mormon and you'd no longer find him credible. You've created a standard that would be impossible to meet simply because if the standard is ever met, you will immediately disbelieve it.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would one follow the other?
> 
> I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed.  I don't worship Osiris.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed.  I don't worship Zeus.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed.  I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.
> 
> Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"
> 
> In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith.  Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory.  Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.
Click to expand...


The Book of Mormon is a unique book. If there is a Nephite civilization then you have to explain how a farm boy in rural New York was able to produce documentation from it. Considering critics can't explain away the Book of Mormon while they declare there is no Nephite civilization, I doubt they would have any more success when the Nephites are found to have historically existed.

If there are Nephites, is there an explanation of how the Book of Mormon came about other than the one Joseph gave? If there is, I'd like to hear it.


----------



## Unkotare

Avatar4321 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you want to feel all peace-y (to masterbate your own ego) but an asshole is an asshole, and if no one is honest with him about it he may never wipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does ego have to do with anything? .
Click to expand...




That's where you need to start being honest with yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, you are mistaken in charity and love, and you will never know peace until you know yourself.  Every word you write reveals your self hatred.  I am very sorry you feel that way.  I don't believe Mormonism is a "true" church but I don't believe any denomination has all of the definitive truth.  I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ, with which I am undoubtedly better in my behaviors and actions.    I still have a long way to go.  I understand Ukotare's anger at you.  I also know something Ukotare does not know about you.  You feel about yourself as Ukotare described you.  That can change if you wish.



Ukypukey's anger seems to be at everyone. he can't get on a thread without unleashing a load of F-bombs... 

Sorry, man, my hostility towards Mormonism is grounded in the fact that it's a lie.  Just look at Truthseekers mental gymanstics to deny that the BOM has been repeatedly debunked. These jokers have an excuse for everything. (Come to think of it, kind of like Obama Supporters.)  

The truth is simple. Joseph Smith made up a bullshit fake religion to garner money, power and sex with underage girls.  The people who run the church continue that, using all the typical things cults do to keep their people under control.  

And I dont want members of this cult running my country.  

It's just that simple.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> The Book of Mormon is a unique book. If there is a Nephite civilization then you have to explain how a farm boy in rural New York was able to produce documentation from it. Considering critics can't explain away the Book of Mormon while they declare there is no Nephite civilization, I doubt they would have any more success when the Nephites are found to have historically existed.
> 
> If there are Nephites, is there an explanation of how the Book of Mormon came about other than the one Joseph gave? If there is, I'd like to hear it.



How was he able to do it?  He made shit up.  Smit wasn't illiterate. And maybe he even had a talent for writing.  Of course, there is clear parts he just plagarized from the King James Bible, and other parts he plagarized from other works. 

What is clear is the BoM is all written by the same author, unlike the Bible, which varies in writing style from book to book. 

The point is, a civilization as large as the Nephite civilization that lasted as long would have left other evidence.  Even if the Bible didn't exist (which would have probably made the world a better place) we would have other evidence that Judea and Rome existed. 

The ONLY evidence for the Nephites is the BoM, and that evidence is questionable.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> And I dont want members of this cult running my country.
> 
> It's just that simple.




Thank goodness we will never have idiotic, insignificant bigots like you running anything.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB, you are mistaken in charity and love, and you will never know peace until you know yourself.  Every word you write reveals your self hatred.  I am very sorry you feel that way.  I don't believe Mormonism is a "true" church but I don't believe any denomination has all of the definitive truth.  I do have a relationship with Jesus Christ, with which I am undoubtedly better in my behaviors and actions.    I still have a long way to go.  I understand Ukotare's anger at you.  I also know something Ukotare does not know about you.  You feel about yourself as Ukotare described you.  That can change if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ukypukey's anger seems to be at everyone. he can't get on a thread without unleashing a load of F-bombs...
> 
> Sorry, man, my hostility towards Mormonism is grounded in the fact that it's a lie.  Just look at Truthseekers mental gymanstics to deny that the BOM has been repeatedly debunked. These jokers have an excuse for everything. (Come to think of it, kind of like Obama Supporters.)
> 
> The truth is simple. Joseph Smith made up a bullshit fake religion to garner money, power and sex with underage girls.  The people who run the church continue that, using all the typical things cults do to keep their people under control.
> 
> And I dont want members of this cult running my country.
> 
> It's just that simple.
Click to expand...


Mental gymnastics eh? So then are you impressed? I noticed not a peep from you with regard to my information posted . Anyway if you're going to give such shallow statements as this then I think I've got you entirely pegged. You're a garden variety message board troll with no links or facts to support your supposedly factual statements.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Many fine LDS exist as do Baptists or Muslims or whomevers, along with many bad varities of the same.

You and Ukotare will have to work on your inner challenges.  Projecting here onto others is not going to help you in the slightest.


----------



## Unkotare

What did I tell you about spelling?


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> Mental gymnastics eh? So then are you impressed? I noticed not a peep from you with regard to my information posted . Anyway if you're going to give such shallow statements as this then I think I've got you entirely pegged. You're a garden variety message board troll with no links or facts to support your supposedly factual statements.



Honestly, I'm not the least bit impressed.  

I've seen similar mental gymnatistics displayed by- 

Birthers
9/11 Truthers
UFO enthusiasts
JFK Conspiracy Nuts. 
Flat Earthers

they all have websites and proofs that their worldview is correct, and screw what science and even a bit of common sense tells them.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would one follow the other?
> 
> I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed.  I don't worship Osiris.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed.  I don't worship Zeus.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed.  I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.
> 
> Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"
> 
> In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith.  Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory.  Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the way the Book of Mormon came first and it's claims being so polarizing and then the evidence comes later that's what makes the ancient american situation different from Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt has already been uncovered, while the claims of the book of mormon will be entirely substantiated in due time. It requires faith and if the book of mormon is substantiated then it means it's true and the teachings and doctrine of Christ inside it are also true. Surely you're smart enough to see the chain reaction.
Click to expand...


Guy, you've had 150 years to "substantiate" the claims of the Book of Mormon. 

And they've found- nothing. 

In fact, if anything, time has not been kind to Joseph Smith's predictions. 

Science has determined that the fossils of elephants and horses he based his accounts on were far older than the time period.  

Science had determined the "Book of Abraham" was in fact a Ptomoleic funerary scroll... NOT an account of Abraham's time in Egypt. 

Science has determined the Kinderhook tablets were frauds made up by Smith's neighbors trying to punk him.  

Oh, hey, the Apollo missions found out there were no people in Quaker Dress on the moon. 

Oooopsy.  

If God was talking to Smith, he was totally screwing with his head.  That Merry Prankster, God.  

Or Smith was a two-bit con-man who started getting high on his own supply of bullshit.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would one follow the other?
> 
> I believe that there is overealming proof the Egyptian civilization existed.  I don't worship Osiris.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Greek civilization existed.  I don't worship Zeus.
> 
> I believe there is overwealming evidence that the Judean civilization existed.  I dont' worship Yahweh or Jesus.
> 
> Why would a scientist who found that maybe there was something to the Nephite civilization automatically conclude, "Yup, these folks must have had a special connection to God!"
> 
> In fact, science is the exact opposite of faith.  Science looks at the evidence and creates the theory.  Faith starts with the theory and fits all the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the way the Book of Mormon came first and it's claims being so polarizing and then the evidence comes later that's what makes the ancient american situation different from Ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt has already been uncovered, while the claims of the book of mormon will be entirely substantiated in due time. It requires faith and if the book of mormon is substantiated then it means it's true and the teachings and doctrine of Christ inside it are also true. Surely you're smart enough to see the chain reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you've had 150 years to "substantiate" the claims of the Book of Mormon.
> 
> And they've found- nothing.
> 
> In fact, if anything, time has not been kind to Joseph Smith's predictions.
> 
> Science has determined that the fossils of elephants and horses he based his accounts on were far older than the time period.
> 
> Science had determined the "Book of Abraham" was in fact a Ptomoleic funerary scroll... NOT an account of Abraham's time in Egypt.
> 
> Science has determined the Kinderhook tablets were frauds made up by Smith's neighbors trying to punk him.
> 
> Oh, hey, the Apollo missions found out there were no people in Quaker Dress on the moon.
> 
> Oooopsy.
> 
> If God was talking to Smith, he was totally screwing with his head.  That Merry Prankster, God.
> 
> Or Smith was a two-bit con-man who started getting high on his own supply of bullshit.
Click to expand...


Are you some kind of broken record? I just posted in detail mountains of evidence and you say it's "nothing". You are a real piece of work. Of course you can't admit even when evidence is piled up right in front of you that there is a "shred of evidence" because you would have to admit being wrong, so I get that you are stubborn. But truth is truth. 

Also you just seem to always ignore every response given to your lame  arguments about the kinderhooks and the quakers on the moon, which Joseph never claimed, the book of Abraham, which was not shown to be a Ptolemaic funeral scroll but was merely a speculation by unqualified people who were not even egyptologists and unwilling to validate anything Smith put before them. 

Also your amazing claim that Smith based the Book of Mormon on fossils of horses and elephants? Wow you are out of it dude. There were no fossil discoveries of the sort back in 1830. That was one of the big knocks against him back then. Trolls like yourself would criticize that there were no horses or elephants on this continent. It took a hundred years but now the fossils have been found, not only from before book of mormon times but during book of mormon times... It is clear you did not read my report on horse and elephant findings just a few posts ago scroll back a few pages and read it....   guy.....


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> Are you some kind of broken record? I just posted in detail mountains of evidence and you say it's "nothing". You are a real piece of work. Of course you can't admit even when evidence is piled up right in front of you that there is a "shred of evidence" because you would have to admit being wrong, so I get that you are stubborn. But truth is truth.



Again, you Mormon Zombies wouldn't know truth if it bit you in your magic-underpants. 




> Also you just seem to always ignore every response given to your lame  arguments about the kinderhooks and the quakers on the moon, which Joseph never claimed, the book of Abraham, which was not shown to be a Ptolemaic funeral scroll but was merely a speculation by unqualified people who were not even egyptologists and unwilling to validate anything Smith put before them.



I ignore them because they are the typical "He never said that" claims when it is obvious he did.  

Okay, Book of Abraham. 

Book of Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The translation by both Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists bears no resemblance to the text of the Book of Abraham as purportedly translated by Joseph Smith. Several excerpts of these modern translations are shown below.



In short- Joseph Smith was a fraud.  He claimed translations of the BOM and Kinderhook Tablets, which did not match what was eventually translated (or determined) when these artifacts were given real scientific scrutiny.  

But despite these two obvious fuckups, we are to believe he got the translation of the Golden Plates (which no one but he had ever seen) absolutely right.  



> Also your amazing claim that Smith based the Book of Mormon on fossils of horses and elephants? Wow you are out of it dude. There were no fossil discoveries of the sort back in 1830. That was one of the big knocks against him back then. Trolls like yourself would criticize that there were no horses or elephants on this continent. It took a hundred years but now the fossils have been found, not only from before book of mormon times but during book of mormon times... It is clear you did not read my report on horse and elephant findings just a few posts ago scroll back a few pages and read it....   guy.....




Mastondon fossils were known back to the early 18th century... Thomas Jefferson made a collection of them. 

San Diego Natural History Museum Fossil Mysteries Field Guide: American Mastodon



> Then in 1808, President Thomas Jefferson paid to have mastodon fossils from the Big Bone Lick site near the Ohio River shipped to the White House. Jefferson was fascinated with the fossils and spread them out for study in what would later be designated as the East Room. Part of these mastodon fossils eventually ended up in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.



So yeah, it wasn't a big stretch for Smith to fantasize about Jesus riding an Elephant in America...

Equine fossils were equally well known in Smith's time.  

Ancient Horse Fossils | Thomas Jefferson Fossil Collection | Academy of Natural Sciences

So essentially, the claim that he had no idea about these finds and couldn't have incorporated them into his work of badly written bible fan-fiction is a bit of a stretch.  

(Although I think in the case of the horses, he might not have known there were no horses in America until the Spanairds introduced them.)


----------



## NGSamson

Truthspeaker said:


> For the shirtless man,(you gotta love a guy who has the guts to post himself shirtless). Bravo!
> I am glad that you brought up all those points. Most mormons have not done their homework the way I have. Most don't really have to because, like you said, faith in Christ and good principles are the only thing you really need. However, I find it fun to dig for the truth and mysteries of God. I am grateful to be able to answer your questions because I believe I can do so in a satisfactory manner.
> Point number 1: Yes we do believe that many tribes have some bloodline of descendency from people of Israel. But it is not that simple. Herein lies the misconception that even a lot of Mormons hold because they are not as studious of the Book of Mormon as they should be. There were three main migrations spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The nation of Lehites which divided into 2 peoples of the same blood called Nephites and Lamanites. The second people spoken of but often forgotten were the Jaredites. The third, often glossed over completely are the Mulekites. I can delve into each of their histories in detail later if you like, but to sum up. The first people here, the Jaredites actually came from Asiatic area of Babylon. Quite a different DNA scheme. They were the first ever to set foot on this continent. This people as a nation dissolved and spread into unknown parts of the continent, certainly later mixing in with the future nations that would come, first mixing with the Mulekite people, who also came from the land of Jerusalem about 12 years after the more famous Nephites and Lamanites.
> I can't remember exactly the study, but I can produce it later if need be that showed that the people of the Americas were found to be primarily descended from Asiatic origins, which would fit perfectly in with the chronology of the Book of Mormon.......whew!
> 
> Oh yes, point two, the "Nuclear submarines" in question. The vessels themselves had to be made differently than your normal ship of the day with it's sails and common boat shape. To be clear, the people who first used these vessels were the Jaredites when they were told by God to take up this voyage. To a westerner, I agree, this story does not make much sense. But when put into historical context, it is an impressive stamp on the authenticity of the book.
> First it has been well documented that most of what we have learned of Ancient weather and dates of storms and destruction has been discovered in the last 100 years with the carbon dating process and knowledge of Geology and so on. We have learned in this time that there was a great and terrible weather pattern which leveled entire civilizations and left thriving cities, such as Bablyon completely destitute circa 2200 bc, right around the time the jaredites left bablyon. Strikingly, The most learned scientists of 1830 had no such knowledge of this timeline of destruction. Certainly not a poor farmboy named Joseph Smith in upstate rural New York.
> Hence had these Jaredites been in regular ships with sails, it would have been a quick destruction for all on board. The construction of the ships was very peculiar, not like a submarine like you have described, but certainly "tight, like unto a dish" as Ether points out. "Ye shall put a hole in the top thereof, that will close tight like unto a dish so that when the mountain waves shall dash upon you, you shall not be broken into pieces. You shall be as a whale in the sea, and I shall cause my winds to blow and a tempest to be thy wind continually blowing toward the promised land." I know I slightly misquoted the scripture in Ether because I don't have my book with me, but those are basically the words spoken to "the brother of Jared" in the book. "And when ye shall suffer for air ye shall unstop the hole when you come to the surface".
> They were not submarines. They were boats that would normally float on the water, but because of their shape, could stand for short whiles to be underneath water for a time. Just like a whale that needs to come up for air......whew...
> Next point... where was I?
> Oh yes, the great cities and their locations. We all know that there have been cities that have been buried by volcanic eruptions, or erased by large earthquakes and floods and such throughout the ages. Then why not in America. But some may say, well certainly not all the cities would be lost right? It would take one heck of a natural disaster wouldn't it? Yes it would.
> The book of mormon talks about just such a disaster, where after the death of Christ, Mountains were removed out of their place and fell on cities, giant waves, tornadoes and and vicious earthquakes that lasted for the space of three hours. Do any of us have any idea what would happen if a magnitude 9 earthquake shook for three hours? We do if we look in the book of mormon. Think something like that couldn't happen? Just watch that show on TLC Mega Disasters.




faith in Christ and good principles are the only thing you really need.


----------



## NGSamson

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



I have a question. LDS is supposed to Run Utah like the Mafia used to run New York. I was told I would not be able to get work as a contractor or rent a home unless I joined the church. Why is it that I found to a but load of Baptist Churches in SLC, and why am I already getting calls for work while I still live in Texas, and finally, why haven the LDS folks actively tried recruit me yet ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

SLC is as much a non-LDS city as a LDS city, NG, so that could be part of it.  The religious divide there as has always been evident in culture and economy.  Much of that economic divide evaporated during the business run up to the Olympics.  Ever since, the rest of the world has gone, "Wow, Utah is beautifuly" and scores of thousands of non-LDS have move there in the last decade.

The bad old ways followed by both sides is slowly evaporating culturally and much more rapidly economically and commercially.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> SLC is as much a non-LDS city as a LDS city, NG, so that could be part of it.  The religious divide there as has always been evident in culture and economy.  Much of that economic divide evaporated during the business run up to the Olympics.  Ever since, the rest of the world has gone, "Wow, Utah is beautifuly" and scores of thousands of non-LDS have move there in the last decade.
> 
> The bad old ways followed by both sides is slowly evaporating culturally and much more rapidly economically and commercially.



In short, a memo went out to the rest of the cult. "Just act normal. Everyone smile".


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SLC is as much a non-LDS city as a LDS city, NG, so that could be part of it.  The religious divide there as has always been evident in culture and economy.  Much of that economic divide evaporated during the business run up to the Olympics.  Ever since, the rest of the world has gone, "Wow, Utah is beautifuly" and scores of thousands of non-LDS have move there in the last decade.
> 
> The bad old ways followed by both sides is slowly evaporating culturally and much more rapidly economically and commercially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, a memo went out to the rest of the cult. "Just act normal. Everyone smile".
Click to expand...


Who in your value group who was a Mormon treated you horribly, Joe.  Most of us think that is what is causing your outbursts.  Who was it?


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SLC is as much a non-LDS city as a LDS city, NG, so that could be part of it.  The religious divide there as has always been evident in culture and economy.  Much of that economic divide evaporated during the business run up to the Olympics.  Ever since, the rest of the world has gone, "Wow, Utah is beautifuly" and scores of thousands of non-LDS have move there in the last decade.
> 
> The bad old ways followed by both sides is slowly evaporating culturally and much more rapidly economically and commercially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, a memo went out to the rest of the cult. "Just act normal. Everyone smile".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who in your value group who was a Mormon treated you horribly, Joe.  Most of us think that is what is causing your outbursts.  Who was it?
Click to expand...


Oh, lots of people have treated me horribly.  Hell, I put up with Catholic Nonsense for 12 years, but I don't really dislike Catholics as people.  Most of my relatives are Catholic.  

My only encounter with Live Mormons was in 1983, when I got to spend six weeks with some from BYU. Never have I met such sneaky, backstabbing cocks**kers in my entire life. 

Now that was before I started actually researching the batshit crazy stuff they believe. Then I realized, "Holy crap, no wonder these guys were so messed up as individuals!"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wow, I am sorry you had such a bad time with them.  I have known bad and good ones, just like in most of groups.  Personally I don't think they are any more (or less) screwed up than any other group.

But, whatever, man . . .


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Wow, I am sorry you had such a bad time with them.  I have known bad and good ones, just like in most of groups.  Personally I don't think they are any more (or less) screwed up than any other group.
> 
> But, whatever, man . . .



Actually, wasn't even the fourth worst thing that happened to me in 1983.  Just to put it in perspective.  

But I think I got their number, that was the important thing.  

Frankly, though, I've talked to enough Mormons on line to just reaffirm my view of them. And Romney is a complete scuzzball of a person. Just look at his business practices...


----------



## NGSamson

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I am sorry you had such a bad time with them.  I have known bad and good ones, just like in most of groups.  Personally I don't think they are any more (or less) screwed up than any other group.
> 
> But, whatever, man . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, wasn't even the fourth worst thing that happened to me in 1983.  Just to put it in perspective.
> 
> But I think I got their number, that was the important thing.
> 
> Frankly, though, I've talked to enough Mormons on line to just reaffirm my view of them. And Romney is a complete scuzzball of a person. Just look at his business practices...
Click to expand...


At least he has his own experience to run on. You stole yours. You are also to much of a coward to admit your bigotry. What a puss.


----------



## Avatar4321

NGSamson said:


> I have a question. LDS is supposed to Run Utah like the Mafia used to run New York. I was told I would not be able to get work as a contractor or rent a home unless I joined the church. Why is it that I found to a but load of Baptist Churches in SLC, and why am I already getting calls for work while I still live in Texas, and finally, why haven the LDS folks actively tried recruit me yet ?



The answer to your question is simple. 

First, the Church doesn't run the state. In fact, it doesn't involve itself in politics except on occassional moral issues. We basically expect people to be active in promoting good and honorable things in their community without any sort of micromanaging.

Second, no one would expect you to join the Church in order to get work. In fact, people would likely help you find work and go to you regardless of your religious or irreligious belief.

Third, we share the Gospel with everyone at some point. I'm sure youll be contacted. Everyone has a right to hear the Gospel.


----------



## NGSamson

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a unique book. If there is a Nephite civilization then you have to explain how a farm boy in rural New York was able to produce documentation from it. Considering critics can't explain away the Book of Mormon while they declare there is no Nephite civilization, I doubt they would have any more success when the Nephites are found to have historically existed.
> 
> If there are Nephites, is there an explanation of how the Book of Mormon came about other than the one Joseph gave? If there is, I'd like to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was he able to do it?  He made shit up.  Smit wasn't illiterate. And maybe he even had a talent for writing.  Of course, there is clear parts he just plagarized from the King James Bible, and other parts he plagarized from other works.
> 
> What is clear is the BoM is all written by the same author, unlike the Bible, which varies in writing style from book to book.
> 
> The point is, a civilization as large as the Nephite civilization that lasted as long would have left other evidence.  Even if the Bible didn't exist (which would have probably made the world a better place) we would have other evidence that Judea and Rome existed.
> 
> The ONLY evidence for the Nephites is the BoM, and that evidence is questionable.
Click to expand...


You know all about plagiarism dont you ? Seen any good movies lately ?


----------



## Avatar4321

Op-Ed from Thomas S Monson

Seemed like a good thing to share. Not everyday the Prophet writes and Op-Ed


----------



## Avatar4321

NGSamson said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a unique book. If there is a Nephite civilization then you have to explain how a farm boy in rural New York was able to produce documentation from it. Considering critics can't explain away the Book of Mormon while they declare there is no Nephite civilization, I doubt they would have any more success when the Nephites are found to have historically existed.
> 
> If there are Nephites, is there an explanation of how the Book of Mormon came about other than the one Joseph gave? If there is, I'd like to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was he able to do it?  He made shit up.  Smit wasn't illiterate. And maybe he even had a talent for writing.  Of course, there is clear parts he just plagarized from the King James Bible, and other parts he plagarized from other works.
> 
> What is clear is the BoM is all written by the same author, unlike the Bible, which varies in writing style from book to book.
> 
> The point is, a civilization as large as the Nephite civilization that lasted as long would have left other evidence.  Even if the Bible didn't exist (which would have probably made the world a better place) we would have other evidence that Judea and Rome existed.
> 
> The ONLY evidence for the Nephites is the BoM, and that evidence is questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know all about plagiarism dont you ? Seen any good movies lately ?
Click to expand...


You really don't need to challenge him personally. The fact is he is wrong. Analysis says the Book of Mormon was written mainly by 4 writers, none of which were Joseph Smith. Very consistant with the fact that there were 4 main writers to the Book of Mormorn: Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, and Jacob.

The language was also tested against some of the contemperaries of Joseph who the many critics claim actually wrote the Book of Mormon instead of him. They don't match up too. 

And when the Book of Mormon was written the man couldn't dictate a cohesive letter. 

Of course there is that accusation of Plagarism, which doesn't hold up either. Plagarism is claiming someone elses work as your own. Joseph Smith never claimed the Book of Mormon was his own work. In fact, he testified that it was the work of others. When any book of the Bible is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, such as Isaiah, the words are attributed to that writer. It's impossible to plagarize while simultaneously providing reference to author.

And those passages quoted weren't the same as the KJV passages. In fact, they better reflect the originals than the KJV in numerous areas. For example, the use of Chiasmus in the the Book of Mormon. Chiasmus is a rhetorical devise that wasn't recognized during Joseph's lifetime. It's common throughout Hebrew and Greek writings, particularly scripture. It's found in the King James Version, in several places. It's also lost in several places because of the way it was translated into English. So how did Joseph manage to translate passages in the Book of the Mormon which he supposedly plagarized from the KJV while restoring the Chiasmus the KJV lost through translation? Amazing coincidence no?

Indeed why would a complex Hebreic rhetorical devise be found among the writings of an 19th century American at all?

Or how about the names he just happened to use? Pacumeni, Pahoran, Nephi, Alma as a male name, etc. These names were laughed at and claimed by critics to have clearly been made up. Joseph made a mistake. At least that was the criticism until the names were discovered to be ancient in Egyptian and Hebrew sources.

Or how did Joseph describe a path through Arabia in 1 Nephi that actually exists when it was completely unknown then? The man even nailed spefic names and characteristics along to the path. So Joseph just happened to guess that if you take one of the trade paths southeast of Jerusalem through Arabia you will come upon a place named NHM? The exact same name given by Nephi in his account. And he just happened to guess that directly east of that location was an oasis that perfectly matches the description of that mention in 1 Nephi's Bountiful? A place that one could find materials and ore to build a ship.

Joseph Smith has to have either be what he claims to be, the most intelligent man who was somehow able to thoroughly research things that were completely unknown in his days or the luckiest man to have ever walked the planet. And that's on a couple of bulls eyes Joseph had.

How is it he was able to just guess accurately which Christian doctrines were later develops and go back to early Christian doctrine that was later changed or lost until recently?

He just happened to guess accurately on:

1) The Pre-Earth life
2) The Deification of man
3) Baptism for the Dead
4) Temple Worship

Individually it doesnt prove anything. but all the little things Joseph Smith nailed start to add up. It's not something you can dismiss so easily when you've looked into it.

Ultimately, the only way to truly know is the way God has provided. To study the Book of Mormon and learn from the Holy Spirit. But to pretend there is no evidence when it's quite extensive is absurd. And to ignore the "coincidences" Joseph just happened to have is likewise absurd.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar, really, you need to stop drinking the koolaid from LDS websites.  

Linguistic Problems in Mormonism

Mr. Packham is a linguist and an ex-LDS.


----------



## HUGGY

Ha..hA...hA...

The Mormans up to their old tricks...eh?

Speaking of man made miracles...Truth?Speaker and Avatar..

Yesterday your Views on this thread were 189,000...today "magically" they are at 205,000 plus..... an unprecedented jump of almost 16,000 views..

Care to explain that?

I doubt that there were 16,000 legitimate views on this entire message board over the last  24 hours..  

And you guys wonder why I hate Mormans...  Let me explain it to ya..  you are lying, stealing, cheating scum... You assholes will subvert anything and everything to try to make it appear that you are legitimate..  You are not..now...never where...never will be.

Too bad they have dropped the top five categories from the board...  Your efforts are wasted..  

And your presidential hopeful doesn't stand a chance of being elected... You cannot hide the fact that you people are bat shit crazy willfully ignorant liars and most of the country knows it.


----------



## Bullhornman

They are a crazy cult, just like any other religion.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar, really, you need to stop drinking the koolaid from LDS websites.
> 
> Linguistic Problems in Mormonism
> 
> Mr. Packham is a linguist and an ex-LDS.



And you should actually read the Book of Mormon for once in your life.

Never heard of Mr. Packham. Ill check it out, but doesn't change the fact that there is linguistic evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon. It just provides someone with a different point of view.

Nor does it change the fact that the Spirit will teach us the truth of all things and will and does testify that the Book of Mormon is true.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Ha..hA...hA...
> 
> The Mormans up to their old tricks...eh?
> 
> Speaking of man made miracles...Truth?Speaker and Avatar..
> 
> Yesterday your Views on this thread were 189,000...today "magically" they are at 205,000 plus..... an unprecedented jump of almost 16,000 views..
> 
> Care to explain that?
> 
> I doubt that there were 16,000 legitimate views on this entire message board over the last  24 hours..
> 
> And you guys wonder why I hate Mormans...  Let me explain it to ya..  you are lying, stealing, cheating scum... You assholes will subvert anything and everything to try to make it appear that you are legitimate..  You are not..now...never where...never will be.
> 
> Too bad they have dropped the top five categories from the board...  Your efforts are wasted..
> 
> And your presidential hopeful doesn't stand a chance of being elected... You cannot hide the fact that you people are bat shit crazy willfully ignorant liars and most of the country knows it.



Yes, Huggy. Somehow TS and I, for some unknown reason, managed to hack into the website for the sole purpose of changing the number of views. Because clearly increasing the number of views on this particular thread somehow proves that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is from God. And we, of course, have nothing better to do.

BTW Was TS even on the board yesterday? I dont remember seeing him for nearly a week.

If that's why you hate mormons, than I feel very sorry that you have such anger and bitterness in your heart. To hate people for no reasons, heck to hate people at all, is just sad. None of us should have to carry that bitterness inside. But you can let if go if you choose to. God will take it from you if you ask Him. He will grant you peace. 

As for an explanation, I can't truly explain what you saw. I have no clue. I was a bit busy yesterday spending time with my wife and planning to get her flowers that I didn't notice the amount of people viewing the thread. In fact, I rarely ever notice it because it's not that important to me.

What have we lied about? What have we stolen? What have we subverted? I have no reason to lie. I may be wrong about certain things, after all who can't be wrong. But there is absolutely no point to lie. 

As for Presidential politics, I don't have a candidate, let alone a Presidential hopeful. I'm rather indifferent to the two mormon candidates at the moment. In fact,  im pretty much indifferent to all of the candidates. I will continue to study the issues, find out who I think is trust worthy and praying for direction on who to support. But the fact is I don't really expect a change in Presidency to fix the problems. Not that I don't believe that any of the candidates would be a superior choice to our current President, but because I dont think our nations problems can be solved by government. I think they have to be saved by we, the people, making different choices in our lives.

I think you'd already know this if you paid attention to what I said on the board. I can understand why you don't. I've got no false notions that I'm anyone important. Just another voice on the internet. But I think if you let go of your hated toward me, and actually tried to understand my point of view, you'd probably see that we can work together on alot of things despite any differences we have had in the past.


----------



## Avatar4321

Bullhornman said:


> They are a crazy cult, just like any other religion.



I take it you've read the Book of Mormon?


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> Bullhornman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are a crazy cult, just like any other religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you've read the Book of Mormon?
Click to expand...


I have.  I agree with the previous reply.


----------



## JakeStarkey

huggy and joe need some chill pills.

I don't think Mormonism is God's reveal truth in these the Latter Days.  Truly don't.

But I doubt our LDS friends here are any more devilish or angelic than any of the rest of us for their beliefs.

My goodness.  What I see is the typical mental illness of atheists gone bonkers.  Not all atheists by stretch are as bonkers as these two on this issue.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullhornman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are a crazy cult, just like any other religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you've read the Book of Mormon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.  I agree with the previous reply.
Click to expand...


So you studied and prayed about it?


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha..hA...hA...
> 
> The Mormans up to their old tricks...eh?
> 
> Speaking of man made miracles...Truth?Speaker and Avatar..
> 
> Yesterday your Views on this thread were 189,000...today "magically" they are at 205,000 plus..... an unprecedented jump of almost 16,000 views..
> 
> Care to explain that?
> 
> I doubt that there were 16,000 legitimate views on this entire message board over the last  24 hours..
> 
> And you guys wonder why I hate Mormans...  Let me explain it to ya..  you are lying, stealing, cheating scum... You assholes will subvert anything and everything to try to make it appear that you are legitimate..  You are not..now...never where...never will be.
> 
> Too bad they have dropped the top five categories from the board...  Your efforts are wasted..
> 
> And your presidential hopeful doesn't stand a chance of being elected... You cannot hide the fact that you people are bat shit crazy willfully ignorant liars and most of the country knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Huggy. Somehow TS and I, for some unknown reason, managed to hack into the website for the sole purpose of changing the number of views. Because clearly increasing the number of views on this particular thread somehow proves that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is from God. And we, of course, have nothing better to do.
> 
> BTW Was TS even on the board yesterday? I dont remember seeing him for nearly a week.
> 
> If that's why you hate mormons, than I feel very sorry that you have such anger and bitterness in your heart. To hate people for no reasons, heck to hate people at all, is just sad. None of us should have to carry that bitterness inside. But you can let if go if you choose to. God will take it from you if you ask Him. He will grant you peace.
> 
> As for an explanation, I can't truly explain what you saw. I have no clue. I was a bit busy yesterday spending time with my wife and planning to get her flowers that I didn't notice the amount of people viewing the thread. In fact, I rarely ever notice it because it's not that important to me.
> 
> What have we lied about? What have we stolen? What have we subverted? I have no reason to lie. I may be wrong about certain things, after all who can't be wrong. But there is absolutely no point to lie.
> 
> As for Presidential politics, I don't have a candidate, let alone a Presidential hopeful. I'm rather indifferent to the two mormon candidates at the moment. In fact,  im pretty much indifferent to all of the candidates. I will continue to study the issues, find out who I think is trust worthy and praying for direction on who to support. But the fact is I don't really expect a change in Presidency to fix the problems. Not that I don't believe that any of the candidates would be a superior choice to our current President, but because I dont think our nations problems can be solved by government. I think they have to be saved by we, the people, making different choices in our lives.
> 
> I think you'd already know this if you paid attention to what I said on the board. I can understand why you don't. I've got no false notions that I'm anyone important. Just another voice on the internet. But I think if you let go of your hated toward me, and actually tried to understand my point of view, you'd probably see that we can work together on alot of things despite any differences we have had in the past.
Click to expand...


I have nothing against you personally except for your defense of Mormonism and the fantasy that is Christianity.  You are a very courteous and respectful member of USMB.

I dislike abuse of any kind which include efforts to iligitimally promote one point of view over another.   The Mormans are famous for rigging the truth and theft.  Their efforts in California elections were unconscionable.  The Church of Morman was despicable in their dealings with the Native Americans....their funding of mob takeover in Nevada and the theft of Howard Hughes fortune.  

I don't care what you personally believe.  I have no tolerance for acting on your fantasies to the detriment of others and THEIR beliefs.

And YES...adding 16,000 views may seem a small theft but a deceit it is..and Mormans are responsible for it.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> I have nothing against you personally except for your defense of Mormonism and the fantasy that is Christianity.  You are a very courteous and respectful member of USMB.
> 
> I dislike abuse of any kind which include efforts to iligitimally promote of point of view over another.   The Mormans are famous for rigging the truth and theft.  Their efforts in California elections were unconscionable.  The Church of Morman was despicable in their dealings with the Native Americans....their funding of mob takeover in Nevada and the theft of Howard Hughes fortune.
> 
> I don't care what you personally believe.  I have no tolerance for acting on your fantasies to the detriment of others and THEIR beliefs.
> 
> And YES...adding 16,000 views may seem a small theft but a deceit it is..and Mormans are responsible for it.



Famous for rigging the truth and theft? Since when?

How is it dispicable to take a position on a moral issue and encourage people to vote their conscience?

Dealings with Native Americans? This is a new one. We've got an outstanding record with dealing with Native Americans. From the very beginning of the Church we've reached out to them with love and compassion.

And we have funded the mob and stolen Howard Hughes forture now? I thought I'd heard every critism against the Church. Some legitimate and some absolutely absurd (The lizard people between Salt Lake for example, absurd but mildly amusing). Funding the mob is definitely a new one for me.

So you think the Mormon Church was somehow responsible for the change in the view numbers? You could always ask the Administrators.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have nothing against you personally except for your defense of Mormonism and the fantasy that is Christianity.  You are a very courteous and respectful member of USMB.
> 
> I dislike abuse of any kind which include efforts to iligitimally promote of point of view over another.   The Mormans are famous for rigging the truth and theft.  Their efforts in California elections were unconscionable.  The Church of Morman was despicable in their dealings with the Native Americans....their funding of mob takeover in Nevada and the theft of Howard Hughes fortune.
> 
> I don't care what you personally believe.  I have no tolerance for acting on your fantasies to the detriment of others and THEIR beliefs.
> 
> And YES...adding 16,000 views may seem a small theft but a deceit it is..and Mormans are responsible for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Famous for rigging the truth and theft? Since when?
> 
> How is it dispicable to take a position on a moral issue and encourage people to vote their conscience?
> 
> Dealings with Native Americans? This is a new one. We've got an outstanding record with dealing with Native Americans. From the very beginning of the Church we've reached out to them with love and compassion.
> 
> And we have funded the mob and stolen Howard Hughes forture now? I thought I'd heard every critism against the Church. Some legitimate and some absolutely absurd (The lizard people between Salt Lake for example, absurd but mildly amusing). Funding the mob is definitely a new one for me.
> 
> So you think the Mormon Church was somehow responsible for the change in the view numbers? *You could always ask the Administrators*.
Click to expand...


*I have.*   It is obvious abuse.

No..I did not pray over your comic book history of Mormonism.   There is no god..praying is a ridiculous waste of time.  I would offer that reading your book was a waste of time except that it never hurts to be better informed...  Your naietivity(sp?) is astounding.  There are numerous internet venues you can explore regarding the allegations I have presented.  You not being aware or willfully ignorant of these charges will not make them go away.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar, most of Huggy's stuff is not so, but he is right on the latest history coming out on the Native Americans and LDS Utah from 1848 to 1900.  The primary source work reveals that the LDS would have the favored land, regardless, and drove the Indians away from it.  When they retaliated, the LDS militia and vigilantes struck by hard, very hard.  That is one of the reasons the Utahs protected the Federal Indian Agent from the LDS leaders and militia so that he could escape to Fort Bridger and Johnston's Army.  He came with news of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Bullhornman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are a crazy cult, just like any other religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you've read the Book of Mormon?
Click to expand...


Parts of it.  Enough to know that it's really badly written Bible Fan Fic.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> huggy and joe need some chill pills.
> 
> I don't think Mormonism is God's reveal truth in these the Latter Days.  Truly don't.
> 
> But I doubt our LDS friends here are any more devilish or angelic than any of the rest of us for their beliefs.
> 
> My goodness.  What I see is the typical mental illness of atheists gone bonkers.  Not all atheists by stretch are as bonkers as these two on this issue.



Here's my problem with it.  I hope for a day when we all learn how to cope with death and don't need magic sky pixies to allay our fears.  At the bottom of it, that's what ALL religions are.  Unlike other animals, we know we are mortal, and it terrifies us, the notion that we will cease to be at some point. And when those we love leave before us, it terrifies us a little more.  

So that's why we aren't going to be able to get rid of this scourge, and why the Pope or the Mormon Prophet or some other sack of crap can get away with the garbage they get away with. 

But Mormonism offends me a little more because the fraud is so obvious.  We will never know if there really was a Jesus, or if he's someone who St. Paul Made up, and gospel writers later attributed miracles to him to make him more interesting. 

We do know that Joseph Smith was a Con Man, a Polygamist, a cheat and a liar, that he got chased out of four states due to his bad behavior before they shot him.  We know everything he claimed has been debunked.  

Yet despite all of that. All of that.  He's considered a "Prophet", and people like Avatar (who, by the way, I think is an okay guy when he's talking about other stuff) and Truthspeaker do all sorts of mental gymnastics to keep believing.


----------



## HUGGY

Wow!  Another 4,000 views in less than two hours!  That with less than 100 members and less than 800 visitors on board.  20,000 views in less than 24 hours...My! Aren't the Mormans popular today!

Sure Avatar...NOTHING wrong with this picture...  The Mormans are just a bunch of fine upstanding people.

It must be gods will...  

You assholes are SOOOOOOO...transparent!


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> huggy and joe need some chill pills.
> 
> I don't think Mormonism is God's reveal truth in these the Latter Days.  Truly don't.
> 
> But I doubt our LDS friends here are any more devilish or angelic than any of the rest of us for their beliefs.
> 
> My goodness.  What I see is the typical mental illness of atheists gone bonkers.  Not all atheists by stretch are as bonkers as these two on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my problem with it.  I hope for a day when we all learn how to cope with death and don't need magic sky pixies to allay our fears.  At the bottom of it, that's what ALL religions are.  Unlike other animals, we know we are mortal, and it terrifies us, the notion that we will cease to be at some point. And when those we love leave before us, it terrifies us a little more.
> 
> So that's why we aren't going to be able to get rid of this scourge, and why the Pope or the Mormon Prophet or some other sack of crap can get away with the garbage they get away with.
> 
> But Mormonism offends me a little more because the fraud is so obvious.  We will never know if there really was a Jesus, or if he's someone who St. Paul Made up, and gospel writers later attributed miracles to him to make him more interesting.
> 
> We do know that Joseph Smith was a Con Man, a Polygamist, a cheat and a liar, that he got chased out of four states due to his bad behavior before they shot him.  We know everything he claimed has been debunked.
> 
> Yet despite all of that. All of that.  He's considered a "Prophet", and people like Avatar (who, by the way, I think is an okay guy when he's talking about other stuff) and Truthspeaker do all sorts of mental gymnastics to keep believing.
Click to expand...


I wish you the best, JoeB, in your search.  Best fortune.


----------



## HUGGY

Wow!  over 30,000 new views in just over 24 hours... 

You Mormans iz da shiznit!!!!!!

   

Why do you suppose that this thread went for over a year with less than 30,000 total views?

Mormanizm must be catchin on!!!...like a Texass wildfire!!!


----------



## HUGGY

Unbelievable!!!  3,300 views in the last 15 minutes!!!!  Now we are up over 222,400 views from 189,000 in just over 24 hours..


----------



## Dr.House

Little Diaper Dude is obviously upset...

Mormons beat YouTubez....  Film at 11....



I'm gonna have to read this thread more often....


----------



## HUGGY

view check bump


----------



## OODA_Loop

The ultimate manifestation of liberal tolerance is to turn an indifferent yet respectful eye to that which not only offends but views you as abhorrent.


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> huggy and joe need some chill pills.
> 
> I don't think Mormonism is God's reveal truth in these the Latter Days.  Truly don't.
> 
> But I doubt our LDS friends here are any more devilish or angelic than any of the rest of us for their beliefs.
> 
> My goodness.  What I see is the typical mental illness of atheists gone bonkers.  Not all atheists by stretch are as bonkers as these two on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my problem with it.  I hope for a day when we all learn how to cope with death and don't need magic sky pixies to allay our fears.  At the bottom of it, that's what ALL religions are.  Unlike other animals, we know we are mortal, and it terrifies us, the notion that we will cease to be at some point. And when those we love leave before us, it terrifies us a little more.
Click to expand...


How do you know that we will "cease to be' at some point?

Is that what your religion teaches?


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> huggy and joe need some chill pills.
> 
> I don't think Mormonism is God's reveal truth in these the Latter Days.  Truly don't.
> 
> But I doubt our LDS friends here are any more devilish or angelic than any of the rest of us for their beliefs.
> 
> My goodness.  What I see is the typical mental illness of atheists gone bonkers.  Not all atheists by stretch are as bonkers as these two on this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my problem with it.  I hope for a day when we all learn how to cope with death and don't need magic sky pixies to allay our fears.  At the bottom of it, that's what ALL religions are.  Unlike other animals, we know we are mortal, and it terrifies us, the notion that we will cease to be at some point. And when those we love leave before us, it terrifies us a little more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that we will "cease to be' at some point?
> 
> Is that what your religion teaches?
Click to expand...


We all die.  When we die, we cease to be. The chemical reactions in our brains stop and we are no longer what we believe ourselves to be. 

There is no scientific evidence of life after death, but religions- ALL of them - teach that there is. Further, they teach that if you don't follow their silly rules, you'll get some horrific and pointless punishment.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I hope you find peace, JoeB.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> I hope you find peace, JoeB.



And I hope you stop wasting my time, but it's an imperfect universe.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB, buddy, you waste our time about you whining about deity and religion and whatever nonsense that is percolating in your swiss-cheesed brain pan.  But we put up with it, and you get to do the same with me.  Hang in there, buddy.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, buddy, you waste our time about you whining about deity and religion and whatever nonsense that is percolating in your swiss-cheesed brain pan.  But we put up with it, and you get to do the same with me.  Hang in there, buddy.



Oooooh, looks like I hit a tender spot.... 

Actually, you're the only one whining about the discussions I put forward.  Even liberals admit I put forth a sensible argument on my positions... 

Now quit wasting my time unless you actually have something of substance to say..


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my problem with it.  I hope for a day when we all learn how to cope with death and don't need magic sky pixies to allay our fears.  At the bottom of it, that's what ALL religions are.  Unlike other animals, we know we are mortal, and it terrifies us, the notion that we will cease to be at some point. And when those we love leave before us, it terrifies us a little more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know that we will "cease to be' at some point?
> 
> Is that what your religion teaches?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all die.  When we die, we cease to be. The chemical reactions in our brains stop and we are no longer what we believe ourselves to be.
> 
> There is no scientific evidence of life after death, but religions- ALL of them - teach that there is. Further, they teach that if you don't follow their silly rules, you'll get some horrific and pointless punishment.
Click to expand...


There is no scientific proof of life after death.  There is some interesting evidence that there is, however.  

The belief that we cease to be when our physical bodies die is a religious belief.  There is no scientific proof of that either.  

It's possible that you're right.  I don't think you are, so I'll add you to my list of people to send "I told you so" tweets to if there is a life after death.  If you're right, you will have no such satisfaction.  

Oh, and not all religions teach that you'll get some horrific punishment for not obeying the rulles.


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> There is no scientific proof of life after death.  There is some interesting evidence that there is, however.
> 
> The belief that we cease to be when our physical bodies die is a religious belief.  There is no scientific proof of that either.
> 
> It's possible that you're right.  I don't think you are, so I'll add you to my list of people to send "I told you so" tweets to if there is a life after death.  If you're right, you will have no such satisfaction.
> 
> Oh, and not all religions teach that you'll get some horrific punishment for not obeying the rulles.



There is no evidence at all that doesn't have prosiac answers.  

Atheism is a religious belief if not collecting stamps is a hobby.  There are a bunch of Gods you don't believe in. I just believe in one less than you do.  

No, I'll get my satisfaction in the here and now by enjoying my life not hamstrung by a lot of silly rules...


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no scientific proof of life after death.  There is some interesting evidence that there is, however.
> 
> The belief that we cease to be when our physical bodies die is a religious belief.  There is no scientific proof of that either.
> 
> It's possible that you're right.  I don't think you are, so I'll add you to my list of people to send "I told you so" tweets to if there is a life after death.  If you're right, you will have no such satisfaction.
> 
> Oh, and not all religions teach that you'll get some horrific punishment for not obeying the rulles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence at all that doesn't have prosiac answers.
> 
> Atheism is a religious belief if not collecting stamps is a hobby.  There are a bunch of Gods you don't believe in. I just believe in one less than you do.
> 
> No, I'll get my satisfaction in the here and now by enjoying my life not hamstrung by a lot of silly rules...
Click to expand...


Yes, atheism has to be a religious belief, as there is no proof one way or the other.  

Do you want your fellows to be hamstrung by a lot of silly rules about treating others the way we'd like to be treated, not stealing stuff, not murdering others and so on?


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> Yes, atheism has to be a religious belief, as there is no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Do you want your fellows to be hamstrung by a lot of silly rules about treating others the way we'd like to be treated, not stealing stuff, not murdering others and so on?



No, those are pretty sensible rules, but you don't need a sky pixie to have them. 

Silly rules... not eating shrimp, what kind of sex you can have, having to go to church and grovelling... that's what religion gets you...


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, atheism has to be a religious belief, as there is no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Do you want your fellows to be hamstrung by a lot of silly rules about treating others the way we'd like to be treated, not stealing stuff, not murdering others and so on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those are pretty sensible rules, but you don't need a sky pixie to have them.
> 
> Silly rules... not eating shrimp, what kind of sex you can have, having to go to church and grovelling... that's what religion gets you...
Click to expand...


Well, yes, I'd have to agree that those are silly rules. 

I suppose it depends on which religion you choose to follow, or if you follow any.  Does belief in god necessarily lead to adherence to a particular religion?


----------



## Dr.House

HUGGY said:


> view check bump



Obsession - by Little Diaper Dude


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, atheism has to be a religious belief, as there is no proof one way or the other.
> 
> Do you want your fellows to be hamstrung by a lot of silly rules about treating others the way we'd like to be treated, not stealing stuff, not murdering others and so on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those are pretty sensible rules, but you don't need a sky pixie to have them.
> 
> Silly rules... not eating shrimp, what kind of sex you can have, having to go to church and grovelling... that's what religion gets you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I'd have to agree that those are silly rules.
> 
> I suppose it depends on which religion you choose to follow, or if you follow any.  Does belief in god necessarily lead to adherence to a particular religion?
Click to expand...


But they are silly rules that happen to be in the Holiest book of Christianity.  

Christians like to pretend they aren't there. Or they give some excuse like "That's the Old Testament"  

And people are still adhering to the silly rules or trying to get us all to obey them. There isn't an argument against gay marriage that doesn't eventually end with, "God thinks it's wrong".


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, those are pretty sensible rules, but you don't need a sky pixie to have them.
> 
> Silly rules... not eating shrimp, what kind of sex you can have, having to go to church and grovelling... that's what religion gets you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I'd have to agree that those are silly rules.
> 
> I suppose it depends on which religion you choose to follow, or if you follow any.  Does belief in god necessarily lead to adherence to a particular religion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they are silly rules that happen to be in the Holiest book of Christianity.
> 
> Christians like to pretend they aren't there. Or they give some excuse like "That's the Old Testament"
> 
> And people are still adhering to the silly rules or trying to get us all to obey them. There isn't an argument against gay marriage that doesn't eventually end with, "God thinks it's wrong".
Click to expand...


Most of that is in the Old testament.  The New Testament is supposed to supplant the old, unless you're Jewish.  If you are, then you're stuck with not eating shellfish, or pork.  

Now, I could happily do without eating shellfish, but I do like a good pork chop... but I digress.

There are Christian religions that have no problem with gay marriage.  It all depends on your interpretation of the scriptures.


----------



## HUGGY

Ya...76,000 views in 48 hrs..  THAT'S normal...


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I'd have to agree that those are silly rules.
> 
> I suppose it depends on which religion you choose to follow, or if you follow any.  Does belief in god necessarily lead to adherence to a particular religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they are silly rules that happen to be in the Holiest book of Christianity.
> 
> Christians like to pretend they aren't there. Or they give some excuse like "That's the Old Testament"
> 
> And people are still adhering to the silly rules or trying to get us all to obey them. There isn't an argument against gay marriage that doesn't eventually end with, "God thinks it's wrong".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of that is in the Old testament.  The New Testament is supposed to supplant the old, unless you're Jewish.  If you are, then you're stuck with not eating shellfish, or pork.
> 
> Now, I could happily do without eating shellfish, but I do like a good pork chop... but I digress.
> 
> There are Christian religions that have no problem with gay marriage.  It all depends on your interpretation of the scriptures.
Click to expand...


Well, I guess I have a problem with a supposedly perfect God who can't write a rulebook without getting 1000 interpretations and a hundred translation.  

It makes me feel like that guy in the back row at the Sermon on the mount in "The Life of Brian" who hears "Blessed are the Cheesemakers!"


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But they are silly rules that happen to be in the Holiest book of Christianity.
> 
> Christians like to pretend they aren't there. Or they give some excuse like "That's the Old Testament"
> 
> And people are still adhering to the silly rules or trying to get us all to obey them. There isn't an argument against gay marriage that doesn't eventually end with, "God thinks it's wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that is in the Old testament.  The New Testament is supposed to supplant the old, unless you're Jewish.  If you are, then you're stuck with not eating shellfish, or pork.
> 
> Now, I could happily do without eating shellfish, but I do like a good pork chop... but I digress.
> 
> There are Christian religions that have no problem with gay marriage.  It all depends on your interpretation of the scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I have a problem with a supposedly perfect God who can't write a rulebook without getting 1000 interpretations and a hundred translation.
> 
> It makes me feel like that guy in the back row at the Sermon on the mount in "The Life of Brian" who hears "Blessed are the Cheesemakers!"
Click to expand...


If god didn't write the Bible, does that mean there is no god?

To me, the strongest evidence of god is his creation, not ancient writings. The more you study the wonders of nature, the more it looks like the creation of intelligence as opposed to just random chance.


----------



## Dr.House

Good thread, btw....


----------



## Avatar4321

Dr.House said:


> Little Diaper Dude is obviously upset...
> 
> Mormons beat YouTubez....  Film at 11....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna have to read this thread more often....



You are more than welcome to.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of that is in the Old testament.  The New Testament is supposed to supplant the old, unless you're Jewish.  If you are, then you're stuck with not eating shellfish, or pork.
> 
> Now, I could happily do without eating shellfish, but I do like a good pork chop... but I digress.
> 
> There are Christian religions that have no problem with gay marriage.  It all depends on your interpretation of the scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I have a problem with a supposedly perfect God who can't write a rulebook without getting 1000 interpretations and a hundred translation.
> 
> It makes me feel like that guy in the back row at the Sermon on the mount in "The Life of Brian" who hears "Blessed are the Cheesemakers!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If god didn't write the Bible, does that mean there is no god?
> 
> To me, the strongest evidence of god is his creation, not ancient writings. The more you study the wonders of nature, the more it looks like the creation of intelligence as opposed to just random chance.
Click to expand...


His Creation is one of His greatest witnesses to mankind. The more I learn about life and the world around it and it's amazing complexities that work perfectly, the easier it becomes to believe that there is a God.

The only thing I can really think that is a stronger witness is the Holy Ghost. After all, how can you deny there is a God when He personally reveals Himself to you? It's a shame all don't seek to know God because I know He wants to reveal Himself to all. But too many dont prepare themselves or even try.


----------



## HUGGY

view check bump

125,000 views in last three days...50,000 in last 24 hrs with no replies...ya..that's normal.


----------



## Dr.House

HUGGY said:


> view check bump



This thread is way more interesting than YouTubez.....

Bugger off...


----------



## HUGGY

Dr.House said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> view check bump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is way more interesting than YouTubez.....
> 
> Bugger off...
Click to expand...


My guess is that what you would find "interesting" is probably a felony &#8776;deleted


----------



## Rat in the Hat

I've learned a lot on this thread. Much more than I would learn by watching the same you tube videos over and over again.


----------



## Rat in the Hat

HUGGY said:


> view check bump
> 
> 125,000 views in last three days...50,000 in last 24 hrs with no replies...ya..that's normal.



Wow, that's more than half of the views for your thread.

See what you can do if you post interesting facts instead of the same music videos over and over??


----------



## catzmeow

I'm headed to SLC today.  The plan is to watch Utah spank BYU at football this weekend.  I'll think of you, Avatar.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB, buddy, you waste our time about you whining about deity and religion and whatever nonsense that is percolating in your swiss-cheesed brain pan.  But we put up with it, and you get to do the same with me.  Hang in there, buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooh, looks like I hit a tender spot....
> 
> Actually, you're the only one whining about the discussions I put forward.  Even liberals admit I put forth a sensible argument on my positions...
> 
> Now quit wasting my time unless you actually have something of substance to say..
Click to expand...


JoeB tries the old and tired and ineffective "Oh, it's you in the mirror not me" as he holds it up pointing at himself.  Until you can post something worthy, hey, hang in there anyway.  It's your right to look silly.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> view check bump
> 
> 125,000 views in last three days...50,000 in last 24 hrs with no replies...ya..that's normal.



Clearly Huggy, you've got a big fan club and everyone is following you around alone. It has to be your popularity causing it.


----------



## Avatar4321

catzmeow said:


> I'm headed to SLC today.  The plan is to watch Utah spank BYU at football this weekend.  I'll think of you, Avatar.



I dont think spanking is involved in football

But im hoping that BYU wins. Who knows whether they will.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB, buddy, you waste our time about you whining about deity and religion and whatever nonsense that is percolating in your swiss-cheesed brain pan.  But we put up with it, and you get to do the same with me.  Hang in there, buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooh, looks like I hit a tender spot....
> 
> Actually, you're the only one whining about the discussions I put forward.  Even liberals admit I put forth a sensible argument on my positions...
> 
> Now quit wasting my time unless you actually have something of substance to say..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JoeB tries the old and tired and ineffective "Oh, it's you in the mirror not me" as he holds it up pointing at himself.  Until you can post something worthy, hey, hang in there anyway.  It's your right to look silly.
Click to expand...


I'm actually going to start ignoring you like everyone else does... because you're kind of just wasting my time now.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oooooh, looks like I hit a tender spot....
> 
> Actually, you're the only one whining about the discussions I put forward.  Even liberals admit I put forth a sensible argument on my positions...
> 
> Now quit wasting my time unless you actually have something of substance to say..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB tries the old and tired and ineffective "Oh, it's you in the mirror not me" as he holds it up pointing at himself.  Until you can post something worthy, hey, hang in there anyway.  It's your right to look silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually going to start ignoring you like everyone else does... because you're kind of just wasting my time now.
Click to expand...


I don't ignore him. He can get annoying though. No offense Jake lol


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> view check bump
> 
> 125,000 views in last three days...50,000 in last 24 hrs with no replies...ya..that's normal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly Huggy, you've got a big fan club and everyone is following you around alone. It has to be your popularity causing it.
Click to expand...


I'm concerned with the safety and integrity of the board.  The number of views recently brought to this thread clearly have nothing to do with interest in Mormons.  I believe it has more to do with the Google Key Word method of making bizarre and rude messages stick to the bottom of your page.

As much as I disagree with the fundamentals of Christianity and the LDS I don't think it is appropriate for yours and TruthSpeaker's thread to be attacked in this way.


----------



## Avatar4321

I just read this. I wanted to share it with everyone. I find it a remarkable account.

Oh, and Huggy, I seriously doubt the safety and integrity of the message board is in danger. Especially not by the Latter-day Saints. We don't make a habit out of taking out boards, and if we did, Im sure we could find a more deserving board to take out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB tries the old and tired and ineffective "Oh, it's you in the mirror not me" as he holds it up pointing at himself.  Until you can post something worthy, hey, hang in there anyway.  It's your right to look silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually going to start ignoring you like everyone else does... because you're kind of just wasting my time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't ignore him. He can get annoying though. No offense Jake lol
Click to expand...


JoeB won't ignore me, you know that   and no offense taken


----------



## bill5

Why aren't some of you ripping on the "left" or the "right" and blaming them for everything?  Don't you know where you are?  This is mandatory on all threads.  $#^ I'm gonna report you


----------



## Avatar4321

bill5 said:


> Why aren't some of you ripping on the "left" or the "right" and blaming them for everything?  Don't you know where you are?  This is mandatory on all threads.  $#^ I'm gonna report you



I havent noticed many people ripping left or right. Maybe im just not paying attention. I dont think reporting anyone is going to do anything. There really isnt a rule against it.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> bill5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why aren't some of you ripping on the "left" or the "right" and blaming them for everything?  Don't you know where you are?  This is mandatory on all threads.  $#^ I'm gonna report you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I havent noticed many people ripping left or right. Maybe im just not paying attention. I dont think reporting anyone is going to do anything. There really isnt a rule against it.
Click to expand...


I think that was a little joke.  Usually, message boards like this one are full of comments about the "right" or about the "left", usually meaning anyone who doesn't share the POV of the person doing the posting.


----------



## Zona

Just a reminder, Glen Beck is a mormon.  That says everything about that "religion".


----------



## Skeptik

Zona said:


> Just a reminder, Glen Beck is a mormon.  That says everything about that "religion".



and Pat Robertson is a christian, so everyone who is Christian has to agree with what he says.


Right?


----------



## earlycuyler

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



I chose friendly. Never met any crazy ones.


----------



## Zona

Skeptik said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder, Glen Beck is a mormon.  That says everything about that "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Pat Robertson is a christian, so everyone who is Christian has to agree with what he says.
> 
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


Yup.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Just a reminder, Glen Beck is a mormon.  That says everything about that "religion".



Sure does. It can change an alcoholic jerk without a penny to his name into a recovered, well respected, millionaire.

Not too bad if i do say so myself.


----------



## Zona

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder, Glen Beck is a mormon.  That says everything about that "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure does. It can change an alcoholic jerk without a penny to his name into a recovered, well respected, millionaire.
> 
> Not too bad if i do say so myself.
Click to expand...


So now he is a dry drunk, still a jerk and has influence (even though he is an admitted clown) on people because he used to have a tv show.  Its not all about money fool.  Its about responsibility.  Rush and hannity ring a bell?  HOw do they sleep at night.  They could make the same amount of money without all the lies.  Its sickening.

When Fox says you are to crazy and fires you, it says so much.  FOX!  Damn.  Fuck beck and fuck his cult.


----------



## Dr.House

Just a reminder...  Autozona is an idiot...  Says a lot about liberalism....


----------



## Rat in the Hat

Zona said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder, Glen Beck is a mormon.  That says everything about that "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure does. It can change an alcoholic jerk without a penny to his name into a recovered, well respected, millionaire.
> 
> Not too bad if i do say so myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now he is a dry drunk, still a jerk and has influence (even though he is an admitted clown) on people because he used to have a tv show.  Its not all about money fool.  Its about responsibility.  Rush and hannity ring a bell?  HOw do they sleep at night.  They could make the same amount of money without all the lies.  Its sickening.
> 
> When Fox says you are to crazy and fires you, it says so much.  FOX!  Damn.  Fuck beck and fuck his cult.
Click to expand...


----------



## Zona

Dr.House said:


> Just a reminder...  Autozona is an idiot...  Says a lot about liberalism....



And you are just pissed because the show Dr. House has been cancelled and you are stuck with a dumb screen name.

Dont be mad.


----------



## elvis

Zona said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder...  Autozona is an idiot...  Says a lot about liberalism....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are just pissed because the show Dr. House has been cancelled and you are stuck with a dumb screen name.
> 
> Dont be mad.
Click to expand...


Shut up and eat your pancakes, cum dumpster.


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a reminder, Glen Beck is a mormon.  That says everything about that "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure does. It can change an alcoholic jerk without a penny to his name into a recovered, well respected, millionaire.
> 
> Not too bad if i do say so myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now he is a dry drunk, still a jerk and has influence (even though he is an admitted clown) on people because he used to have a tv show.  Its not all about money fool.  Its about responsibility.  Rush and hannity ring a bell?  HOw do they sleep at night.  They could make the same amount of money without all the lies.  Its sickening.
> 
> When Fox says you are to crazy and fires you, it says so much.  FOX!  Damn.  Fuck beck and fuck his cult.
Click to expand...


He still has a tv show. It's a two hour show. On his own station. 

Glenn Beck Interview on GBTV and Whether He

He isn't lying. 

So yeah. I think his transformation is pretty incredible, even if people like you want to lie about him.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Glenn Beck is a John Birch - Cleon Skousen clone from the Hard Right with a wack view of America, its history, its constitution, and its people.  I like him personally, but never ever would let him run an Animal Control pound much less a small city.  His pronouncements are astounding.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Glenn Beck is a John Birch - Cleon Skousen clone from the Hard Right with a wack view of America, its history, its constitution, and its people.  I like him personally, but never ever would let him run an Animal Control pound much less a small city.  His pronouncements are astounding.



I've made the comparison of GLenn Beck to Father Coughlin, who initally supported FDR, but then learned to love fascism.


----------



## Avatar4321

I was reading from Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith and this particular passage in the chapter on The Power of Forgiveness has impressed me today. I figured I'd share it. 



> In late 1838, William W. Phelps, who had been a trusted Church member, was among those who bore false testimony against the Prophet and other Church leaders, leading to their imprisonment in Missouri. In June 1840, Brother Phelps wrote to Joseph Smith, pleading for forgiveness. The Prophet Joseph replied: &#8220;I must say that it is with no ordinary feelings I endeavor to write a few lines to you in answer to yours of the 29th [of last month]; at the same time I am rejoiced at the privilege granted me.
> 
> &#8220;You may in some measure realize what my feelings, as well as Elder Rigdon&#8217;s and Brother Hyrum&#8217;s were, when we read your letter&#8212;truly our hearts were melted into tenderness and compassion when we ascertained your resolves, etc. I can assure you I feel a disposition to act on your case in a manner that will meet the approbation of Jehovah, (whose servant I am), and agreeable to the principles of truth and righteousness which have been revealed; and inasmuch as long-suffering, patience, and mercy have ever characterized the dealings of our heavenly Father towards the humble and penitent, I feel disposed to copy the example, cherish the same principles, and by so doing be a savior of my fellow men.
> 
> &#8220;It is true, that we have suffered much in consequence of your behavior&#8212;the cup of gall, already full enough for mortals to drink, was indeed filled to overflowing when you turned against us, one with whom we had oft taken sweet counsel together, and enjoyed many refreshing seasons from the Lord&#8212;&#8216;had it been an enemy, we could have borne it.&#8217; [See Psalm 55:12&#8211;14.] &#8216;In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day when strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon [Far West], even thou wast as one of them; but thou shouldest not have looked on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger, neither shouldest thou have spoken proudly in the day of distress.&#8217; [See Obadiah 1:11&#8211;12.]
> 
> &#8220;However, the cup has been drunk, the will of our Father has been done, and we are yet alive, for which we thank the Lord. And having been delivered from the hands of wicked men by the mercy of our God, we say it is your privilege to be delivered from the powers of the adversary, be brought into the liberty of God&#8217;s dear children, and again take your stand among the Saints of the Most High, and by diligence, humility, and love unfeigned, commend yourself to our God, and your God, and to the Church of Jesus Christ.
> 
> &#8220;Believing your confession to be real, and your repentance genuine, I shall be happy once again to give you the right hand of fellowship, and rejoice over the returning prodigal.
> 
> &#8220;Your letter was read to the Saints last Sunday, and an expression of their feeling was taken, when it was unanimously resolved, that W. W. Phelps should be received into fellowship.
> 
> &#8220;&#8216;Come on, dear brother, since the war is past, For friends at first, are friends again at last.&#8217;&#8221;


----------



## JoeB131

This impresses you?  

It just tells me that early Mormonism was a cult if they had this level of control over people...


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> This impresses you?
> 
> It just tells me that early Mormonism was a cult if they had this level of control over people...



Yes, being able to forgive friends who betray you to a degree that you get thrown in prison and the government decides to call for the extermination of your family is an impressive trait. It's not something most people could do, even if they follow Christ. It's an example of incredibly charity.

But youd understand if you felt God's love how it can be done and why it must be done. I would invite you to seek out God's love. Feel it for yourself. When you feel it your whole outlook will change for the better. Exercise faith in God and learn from Him. Give Him the opportunity to share His love with you.

You don't have to believe the Restored Gospel. God has given you free will to choose. But regardless of what you choose, seek the love of God. Life is too short not to feel God's love in our lives. And He isn't withholding it from anyone who seeks it. And you dont have to be Mormon to seek it. You can think of us as total nutjobs. But seek out God and His Christ. Find their love for you. Because it will truly change your life in ways you can't imagine.

I know God loves you. He loves me. He loves you. He loves everyone. He knows us all individually. We are His children. Doesnt matter if you believe it or not, but He does. And He is waiting for you to come to Him.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This impresses you?
> 
> It just tells me that early Mormonism was a cult if they had this level of control over people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, being able to forgive friends who betray you to a degree that you get thrown in prison and the government decides to call for the extermination of your family is an impressive trait. It's not something most people could do, even if they follow Christ. It's an example of incredibly charity.
> 
> But youd understand if you felt God's love how it can be done and why it must be done. I would invite you to seek out God's love. Feel it for yourself. When you feel it your whole outlook will change for the better. Exercise faith in God and learn from Him. Give Him the opportunity to share His love with you.
> 
> You don't have to believe the Restored Gospel. God has given you free will to choose. But regardless of what you choose, seek the love of God. Life is too short not to feel God's love in our lives. And He isn't withholding it from anyone who seeks it. And you dont have to be Mormon to seek it. You can think of us as total nutjobs. But seek out God and His Christ. Find their love for you. Because it will truly change your life in ways you can't imagine.
> 
> I know God loves you. He loves me. He loves you. He loves everyone. He knows us all individually. We are His children. Doesnt matter if you believe it or not, but He does. And He is waiting for you to come to Him.
Click to expand...



I not only disbelieve in God, I find the notion offensive.  that there is so much misery in the world, and a being can change these things, and doesn't?  He lets the good suffer and the evil prosper, and that's all soooo cool with him.  Your God is an offensive myth, and I happily reject it.  

Now, for this Phelps character... Sorry, I kind of put this kind of up there with Gotti forgiving Sammy the Bull...    A couple of crooks playing each other.  

From Wiki-  

"Phelps was excommunicated from the church on March 10, 1838 when he was accused of profiting from Far West land deals and reneging on a USD$2,000 subscription to "the house of the Lord" that was not paid. In June 1838, Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson were warned out of Far West "or a more fatal calamity shall befall you."[3]

In Nauvoo, Phelps spoke out in favor of the destruction of an opposition newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor. He believed that the city charter gave the church leaders power to declare the newspaper a nuisance. Shortly afterwards, the press and type were carried into the street and destroyed. Phelps was summoned to be tried for treason with Joseph Smith at Carthage, Illinois."

Yeah, swell guy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Joseph Smith would not approve of Avatar4321's economic theories and would threaten him with being cut off from the church h espoused them publically.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Joseph Smith would not approve of Avatar4321's economic theories and would threaten him with being cut off from the church h espoused them publically.



Well, MOrmons by and large hide Joseph Smith in the closet like a crazy uncle when most people ask about him...


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> I not only disbelieve in God, I find the notion offensive.  that there is so much misery in the world, and a being can change these things, and doesn't?  He lets the good suffer and the evil prosper, and that's all soooo cool with him.  Your God is an offensive myth, and I happily reject it.



Did you ever stop to think what kind of world we'd really have if God had made everything perfect?  Mankind would still be happily living in huts and living by hunting/gathering.  Adversity has been the mother of all of the inventions we've come up with over the centuries.  A wise parent doesn't take all adversity from his/her children, and god won't make a perfect world for us.  

If things go bad, it's our fault.  God put us in charge.  



JoeB131 said:


> Now, for this Phelps character... Sorry, I kind of put this kind of up there with Gotti forgiving Sammy the Bull...    A couple of crooks playing each other.
> 
> From Wiki-
> 
> "Phelps was excommunicated from the church on March 10, 1838 when he was accused of profiting from Far West land deals and reneging on a USD$2,000 subscription to "the house of the Lord" that was not paid. In June 1838, Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson were warned out of Far West "or a more fatal calamity shall befall you."[3]
> 
> In Nauvoo, Phelps spoke out in favor of the destruction of an opposition newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor. He believed that the city charter gave the church leaders power to declare the newspaper a nuisance. Shortly afterwards, the press and type were carried into the street and destroyed. Phelps was summoned to be tried for treason with Joseph Smith at Carthage, Illinois."
> 
> Yeah, swell guy.



Nice twist, trying to make Phelps into an early days Mormon.  It took a lot of spin to do that, of course, kind of like trying to make black appear white.  

We'll hear quite a lot of nonsense about Mormonism and Mormon beliefs until after the primary.  If Romney wins, we'll hear even more as the election approaches.  I can recall having heard that Mormons were sun worshippers during the last election, for example.  That sort of nonsense stopped when the Republicans foolishly nominated the geezer and the airhead as their candidates, thus losing the election to a freshman senator from Illinois.


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I not only disbelieve in God, I find the notion offensive.  that there is so much misery in the world, and a being can change these things, and doesn't?  He lets the good suffer and the evil prosper, and that's all soooo cool with him.  Your God is an offensive myth, and I happily reject it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think what kind of world we'd really have if God had made everything perfect?  Mankind would still be happily living in huts and living by hunting/gathering.  Adversity has been the mother of all of the inventions we've come up with over the centuries.  A wise parent doesn't take all adversity from his/her children, and god won't make a perfect world for us.
> 
> If things go bad, it's our fault.  God put us in charge.
Click to expand...


Yes, a very good rationalization that most religionists use to validate God's apparent impotence after plane crashes and hurricanes. 

Considering we are in danger of destroying the world with our technologies, I don't think God was doing us any favors, exactly.  

If real parents acted like God did, someone would call DCFS.  



> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, for this Phelps character... Sorry, I kind of put this kind of up there with Gotti forgiving Sammy the Bull...    A couple of crooks playing each other.
> 
> From Wiki-
> 
> "Phelps was excommunicated from the church on March 10, 1838 when he was accused of profiting from Far West land deals and reneging on a USD$2,000 subscription to "the house of the Lord" that was not paid. In June 1838, Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson were warned out of Far West "or a more fatal calamity shall befall you."[3]
> 
> In Nauvoo, Phelps spoke out in favor of the destruction of an opposition newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor. He believed that the city charter gave the church leaders power to declare the newspaper a nuisance. Shortly afterwards, the press and type were carried into the street and destroyed. Phelps was summoned to be tried for treason with Joseph Smith at Carthage, Illinois."
> 
> Yeah, swell guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice twist, trying to make Phelps into an early days Mormon.  It took a lot of spin to do that, of course, kind of like trying to make black appear white.
Click to expand...


Phelps was an Early Days Latter Day Saint.  Please read the article I linked.  He was in the Church, got thrown out for committing fraud (which was usually a qualifier in early Mormonism.  Guess Joey didn't get his cut)  testified against Smith and then was welcomed back into the church after doing a Winston Smith and confessing all his sins. 

He eventually went to Utah with the rest of them and they buried him there. 



> We'll hear quite a lot of nonsense about Mormonism and Mormon beliefs until after the primary.  If Romney wins, we'll hear even more as the election approaches.  I can recall having heard that Mormons were sun worshippers during the last election, for example.  That sort of nonsense stopped when the Republicans foolishly nominated the geezer and the airhead as their candidates, thus losing the election to a freshman senator from Illinois.



I think it's unfair to blame McCain and Palin for the 2008 loss.  What really killed them, besides a sucky economy and an unpopular war (neither of which was their fault) was that the GOP has spent most of the last half century alienating non-whites.  McCain WON the white vote, 55-45%, and if the electorate had voted at the same racial percentages as 1976, he'd have won the election.   Where McCain lost it was with blacks (95-5) Hispanics (61-39) and Asians (56-44).  

The GOP needs to make inroads with minorties.  They aren't going to make them with (and here are some more of those beliefs you claim are nonsense but never actually refute) with a church that has in it's bible that dark skin is a curse from God, and didn't allow minorities membership until 1978.


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I not only disbelieve in God, I find the notion offensive.  that there is so much misery in the world, and a being can change these things, and doesn't?  He lets the good suffer and the evil prosper, and that's all soooo cool with him.  Your God is an offensive myth, and I happily reject it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you ever stop to think what kind of world we'd really have if God had made everything perfect?  Mankind would still be happily living in huts and living by hunting/gathering.  Adversity has been the mother of all of the inventions we've come up with over the centuries.  A wise parent doesn't take all adversity from his/her children, and god won't make a perfect world for us.
> 
> If things go bad, it's our fault.  God put us in charge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a very good rationalization that most religionists use to validate God's apparent impotence after plane crashes and hurricanes.
> 
> Considering we are in danger of destroying the world with our technologies, I don't think God was doing us any favors, exactly.
> 
> If real parents acted like God did, someone would call DCFS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice twist, trying to make Phelps into an early days Mormon.  It took a lot of spin to do that, of course, kind of like trying to make black appear white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Phelps was an Early Days Latter Day Saint.  Please read the article I linked.  He was in the Church, got thrown out for committing fraud (which was usually a qualifier in early Mormonism.  Guess Joey didn't get his cut)  testified against Smith and then was welcomed back into the church after doing a Winston Smith and confessing all his sins.
> 
> He eventually went to Utah with the rest of them and they buried him there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll hear quite a lot of nonsense about Mormonism and Mormon beliefs until after the primary.  If Romney wins, we'll hear even more as the election approaches.  I can recall having heard that Mormons were sun worshippers during the last election, for example.  That sort of nonsense stopped when the Republicans foolishly nominated the geezer and the airhead as their candidates, thus losing the election to a freshman senator from Illinois.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's unfair to blame McCain and Palin for the 2008 loss.  What really killed them, besides a sucky economy and an unpopular war (neither of which was their fault) was that the GOP has spent most of the last half century alienating non-whites.  McCain WON the white vote, 55-45%, and if the electorate had voted at the same racial percentages as 1976, he'd have won the election.   Where McCain lost it was with blacks (95-5) Hispanics (61-39) and Asians (56-44).
> 
> The GOP needs to make inroads with minorties.  They aren't going to make them with (and here are some more of those beliefs you claim are nonsense but never actually refute) with a church that has in it's bible that dark skin is a curse from God, and didn't allow minorities membership until 1978.
Click to expand...


God is not in charge.  I realize that there are "religionists" (what does that term really mean, anyway?) who think that he is.  No, god is not in charge of this world. For better or worse, human beings are in charge.  That doesn't mean that there is no god, just that he/she doesn't micromanage creation.  Even the Christian Bible says that man was given "dominion".  

If things go bad, it's our fault.  

If Phelps was really an early days Latter Day Saint, then he has to be at least 200 years old.  Maybe he really is an immortal, and we should listen to him. Is that really your point?

The point I made was that the fact that a Mormon is running for president is going to once again bring up nonsense about Mormonism.  That is exactly what happened last time around.  It is happening again with the "Mormons aren't christian" nonsense.  Bringing up the race issue is just a red herring that has nothing to do with what I said to begin with.  

Oh, and saying that Phelps was a church founder is one of the most absurd pieces of misinformation I've read anywhere, right up there with the Mormons are sun worshippers that I heard the last time around.  I think I'll use it as a second example.


----------



## JoeB131

Not even sure where you are going with the Phelps nonsense.  I suggest you read up on him and then get back to me.  



> God is not in charge. I realize that there are "religionists" (what does that term really mean, anyway?) who think that he is. No, god is not in charge of this world. For better or worse, human beings are in charge. That doesn't mean that there is no god, just that he/she doesn't micromanage creation. Even the Christian Bible says that man was given "dominion".
> 
> If things go bad, it's our fault.



if that's the case, why bother worshipping the Sky Pixie at all?  I mean, he's all about that.  First four commandments are about worshipping God.  Maybe he just needs a hug, he sounds awfully insecure.  (DRIPPING MOCKERY)  

Sorry, don't buy that nonsense. Haven't for years.  God was created by Bronze age savages to explain the nature they didn't understand.  He's been perpetuated by modern people, because, hey, we are scared of death.  So we go along with a Joseph Smith or any other con artist who promises us Puppies and sunshine in the afterlife.   Religion is just a testament to human fear and weakness, and there is nothing admirable about any of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB, the only one to feel sorry for here is you.

Wish you best.


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Not even sure where you are going with the Phelps nonsense.  I suggest you read up on him and then get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is not in charge. I realize that there are "religionists" (what does that term really mean, anyway?) who think that he is. No, god is not in charge of this world. For better or worse, human beings are in charge. That doesn't mean that there is no god, just that he/she doesn't micromanage creation. Even the Christian Bible says that man was given "dominion".
> 
> If things go bad, it's our fault.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if that's the case, why bother worshipping the Sky Pixie at all?  I mean, he's all about that.  First four commandments are about worshipping God.  Maybe he just needs a hug, he sounds awfully insecure.  (DRIPPING MOCKERY)
> 
> Sorry, don't buy that nonsense. Haven't for years.  God was created by Bronze age savages to explain the nature they didn't understand.  He's been perpetuated by modern people, because, hey, we are scared of death.  So we go along with a Joseph Smith or any other con artist who promises us Puppies and sunshine in the afterlife.   Religion is just a testament to human fear and weakness, and there is nothing admirable about any of it.
Click to expand...


God created humans.  Humans have created many gods over the centuries, mostly for the reasons you suggest, but also so the kings could control the masses.  

If we don't understand god, if the gods we have created fall short, that doesn't mean that there is no god.


----------



## BIGJIM321

Is it true that they believe satan is the brother of jesus


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> God created humans.  Humans have created many gods over the centuries, mostly for the reasons you suggest, but also so the kings could control the masses.
> 
> If we don't understand god, if the gods we have created fall short, that doesn't mean that there is no god.



No, God didn't 'create' humans.  We evolved from apes.  Learn to deal with it. 

The difference between us is that you reject all those "other" Gods men have created, but insist your God is true.  I reject all Gods, and Jehovah is as unreal to me as Zeus.


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans.  Humans have created many gods over the centuries, mostly for the reasons you suggest, but also so the kings could control the masses.
> 
> If we don't understand god, if the gods we have created fall short, that doesn't mean that there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, God didn't 'create' humans.  We evolved from apes.  Learn to deal with it.
> 
> The difference between us is that you reject all those "other" Gods men have created, but insist your God is true.  I reject all Gods, and Jehovah is as unreal to me as Zeus.
Click to expand...



If you want to believe that humans evolved into intelligent beings with no one starting the process of evolution and/or guiding it along the way, OK.  

While there is plenty of proof of evolution, there is none that it all happened by itself.


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> God created humans.  Humans have created many gods over the centuries, mostly for the reasons you suggest, but also so the kings could control the masses.
> 
> If we don't understand god, if the gods we have created fall short, that doesn't mean that there is no god.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, God didn't 'create' humans.  We evolved from apes.  Learn to deal with it.
> 
> The difference between us is that you reject all those "other" Gods men have created, but insist your God is true.  I reject all Gods, and Jehovah is as unreal to me as Zeus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe that humans evolved into intelligent beings with no one starting the process of evolution and/or guiding it along the way, OK.
> 
> While there is plenty of proof of evolution, there is none that it all happened by itself.
Click to expand...



There's plenty of proof now that it happens by itself. It happens every year around us, when they have to devise new anti-biotics because the germs evolve immunities against the old ones.


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, God didn't 'create' humans.  We evolved from apes.  Learn to deal with it.
> 
> The difference between us is that you reject all those "other" Gods men have created, but insist your God is true.  I reject all Gods, and Jehovah is as unreal to me as Zeus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to believe that humans evolved into intelligent beings with no one starting the process of evolution and/or guiding it along the way, OK.
> 
> While there is plenty of proof of evolution, there is none that it all happened by itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There's plenty of proof now that it happens by itself. It happens every year around us, when they have to devise new anti-biotics because the germs evolve immunities against the old ones.
Click to expand...


Satan's work.

(no, that wasn't meant to be taken seriously, in case anyone is wondering)

When those viruses evolve intelligence, then I'll change my mind.


----------



## Poli_Sigh

Romney's Mormonism in focus at political meeting - Yahoo! News

This is why I do not believe Romney will ever get the nomination.  I was born and raised in South Central Texas; never met a Mormon until I moved to LA. Conservative Christians in Texas do not believe Mormons are even Christians.  

It is indeed unfortunate that our country has acquiesced on the subject of mixing church with state.  Freedom of individual religious choice is one of our fundamental rights under the Constitution.  Just because these Bible-Thumping-Jesus-Freaks cannot separate their religion from their politics isn't an indicator that everyone else cannot.


----------



## JoeB131

Poli_Sigh said:


> Romney's Mormonism in focus at political meeting - Yahoo! News
> 
> This is why I do not believe Romney will ever get the nomination.  I was born and raised in South Central Texas; never met a Mormon until I moved to LA. Conservative Christians in Texas do not believe Mormons are even Christians.
> 
> It is indeed unfortunate that our country has acquiesced on the subject of mixing church with state.  Freedom of individual religious choice is one of our fundamental rights under the Constitution.  Just because these Bible-Thumping-Jesus-Freaks cannot separate their religion from their politics isn't an indicator that everyone else cannot.



I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't vote for a Mormon.  I find the whole thing just a little too freaky. 

I think you can make the argument that Mormons aren't Christians. They had to make up a whole new bible (the Book of Mormon) to repaint Jesus as a completely different character than he is in the bible.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Joseph Smith would not approve of Avatar4321's economic theories and would threaten him with being cut off from the church h espoused them publically.



So what exactly do you think He would have against working hard, and blessing your neighbor through choice rather than compulsion?

Who exactly do you think taught me the principle of charity a willing heart? Who do you think taught me the danger of Robbers infultrating the government? Who do you think taught me that if we keep the commandments we shall prosper in the land?

The Holy Spirit, through the revelations that were given to Joseph Smith.





> 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
> 
> 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile
> 
> 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
> 
> 44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
> 
> 45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
> 
> 46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (D&C 121:41-46)



So again, which principles that I espouse do you think he would oppose?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith would not approve of Avatar4321's economic theories and would threaten him with being cut off from the church h espoused them publically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, MOrmons by and large hide Joseph Smith in the closet like a crazy uncle when most people ask about him...
Click to expand...


Which, of course, is why the first thing we teach potential investigators, after the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ live is the concept of Joseph Smith as a modern prophet.

You know, I know you think you're very knowledgible about Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but you keep saying ridiculous things like this.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> I not only disbelieve in God, I find the notion offensive.  that there is so much misery in the world, and a being can change these things, and doesn't?  He lets the good suffer and the evil prosper, and that's all soooo cool with him.  Your God is an offensive myth, and I happily reject it.
> 
> Now, for this Phelps character... Sorry, I kind of put this kind of up there with Gotti forgiving Sammy the Bull...    A couple of crooks playing each other.
> 
> From Wiki-
> 
> "Phelps was excommunicated from the church on March 10, 1838 when he was accused of profiting from Far West land deals and reneging on a USD$2,000 subscription to "the house of the Lord" that was not paid. In June 1838, Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Lyman E. Johnson were warned out of Far West "or a more fatal calamity shall befall you."[3]
> 
> In Nauvoo, Phelps spoke out in favor of the destruction of an opposition newspaper, the Nauvoo Expositor. He believed that the city charter gave the church leaders power to declare the newspaper a nuisance. Shortly afterwards, the press and type were carried into the street and destroyed. Phelps was summoned to be tried for treason with Joseph Smith at Carthage, Illinois."
> 
> Yeah, swell guy.



Well, he doesn't reject you. He still loves you and is continually reaching out to you. And when you reach your moment of despair, which you will, if you all for Him in the name of Jesus Christ, He will heal you.

And btw the city charger did give the city council power to shut down the press as a nuise. 

And the Treason charges were bogus, as those familiar with history and the law realize.

Accusing someone of a crime doesn't make them guilty. This nation may be losing it's standing but thankfully that's always been true.


----------



## Avatar4321

BIGJIM321 said:


> Is it true that they believe satan is the brother of jesus



Jim, we all existed as Spirits together before the world was created and before we were born. We are the sons and daughters of God. And before Satan fell, he was among us. In fact, Job 2:1 specifically mentions him being among the sons of God when they ame to present themselves before Father.

Yet, sadly he rebelled against Father. And he was cast out of heaven and became Satan the father of lies.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's Mormonism in focus at political meeting - Yahoo! News
> 
> This is why I do not believe Romney will ever get the nomination.  I was born and raised in South Central Texas; never met a Mormon until I moved to LA. Conservative Christians in Texas do not believe Mormons are even Christians.
> 
> It is indeed unfortunate that our country has acquiesced on the subject of mixing church with state.  Freedom of individual religious choice is one of our fundamental rights under the Constitution.  Just because these Bible-Thumping-Jesus-Freaks cannot separate their religion from their politics isn't an indicator that everyone else cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't vote for a Mormon.  I find the whole thing just a little too freaky.
> 
> I think you can make the argument that Mormons aren't Christians. They had to make up a whole new bible (the Book of Mormon) to repaint Jesus as a completely different character than he is in the bible.
Click to expand...


The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That He was born of the virgin Mary. That was born in Palestine and called 12 disciples to follow Him. That He was baptized by John the Baptist. That He preached to the people in Judea and the surounding lands. That He bled from every poor. That He was killed for the sins of the world. That He rose from the dead on the third day and ascended to Heaven. And that He visited the lost sheep of the House of Israel. And they know this because they saw Him. They felt the nail prints in His hands, His wrists, and His feet. They felt the spear wound in His side. They bear record of the reality of the Resurrection and that we will all rise from the dead.

The Bible teaches the same. 

And I can tell you by the power of the Holy Ghost that I have learned for myself that Jesus is the Son of God. That His Atonement is real and truly has power to change human nature and save lives. I know that the resurrection is real and that we will all rise from the dead. I know this because of the mercies of God. 

The Book of Mormon is not another Bible. It's an independent witness that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World. It is the testimony of a second nation that the Testimony of the Apostles in the Bible is true. And by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

You can hate, defame, revile, and ignore all you want. But the Book of Mormon is true. And Jesus is the promised Messiah. And it will always remain true. And all are invited to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and come before God in Humble prayer to inquire whether it's true. Because God will reveal the Truth of it to the honest in heart who seek to know whether it is of God. 

Repent of your sins. Come to Christ and be healed. He will not only heal you, but teach you things you never would have suspected. He will open your eyes to things that most never imagine. It's an amazing and humbling journey. And you will always be welcome to come.


----------



## Avatar4321

Poli_Sigh said:


> Romney's Mormonism in focus at political meeting - Yahoo! News
> 
> This is why I do not believe Romney will ever get the nomination.  I was born and raised in South Central Texas; never met a Mormon until I moved to LA. Conservative Christians in Texas do not believe Mormons are even Christians.
> 
> It is indeed unfortunate that our country has acquiesced on the subject of mixing church with state.  Freedom of individual religious choice is one of our fundamental rights under the Constitution.  Just because these Bible-Thumping-Jesus-Freaks cannot separate their religion from their politics isn't an indicator that everyone else cannot.



I dont know that we should separate our religion from politics. we are who we are and hold the values we hold because of our religious faith. Should we then somehow less geniune if we wish to run for political office?

The problem is when we think should force our religion onto others. But I don't begrudge anyone voting according to their conscience simply because their values are determined by religion.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poli_Sigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Romney's Mormonism in focus at political meeting - Yahoo! News
> 
> This is why I do not believe Romney will ever get the nomination.  I was born and raised in South Central Texas; never met a Mormon until I moved to LA. Conservative Christians in Texas do not believe Mormons are even Christians.
> 
> It is indeed unfortunate that our country has acquiesced on the subject of mixing church with state.  Freedom of individual religious choice is one of our fundamental rights under the Constitution.  Just because these Bible-Thumping-Jesus-Freaks cannot separate their religion from their politics isn't an indicator that everyone else cannot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't vote for a Mormon.  I find the whole thing just a little too freaky.
> 
> I think you can make the argument that Mormons aren't Christians. They had to make up a whole new bible (the Book of Mormon) to repaint Jesus as a completely different character than he is in the bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That He was born of the virgin Mary. That was born in Palestine and called 12 disciples to follow Him. That He was baptized by John the Baptist. That He preached to the people in Judea and the surounding lands. That He bled from every poor. That He was killed for the sins of the world. That He rose from the dead on the third day and ascended to Heaven. And that He visited the lost sheep of the House of Israel. And they know this because they saw Him. They felt the nail prints in His hands, His wrists, and His feet. They felt the spear wound in His side. They bear record of the reality of the Resurrection and that we will all rise from the dead.
> 
> The Bible teaches the same.
> 
> And I can tell you by the power of the Holy Ghost that I have learned for myself that Jesus is the Son of God. That His Atonement is real and truly has power to change human nature and save lives. I know that the resurrection is real and that we will all rise from the dead. I know this because of the mercies of God.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is not another Bible. It's an independent witness that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World. It is the testimony of a second nation that the Testimony of the Apostles in the Bible is true. And by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
> 
> You can hate, defame, revile, and ignore all you want. But the Book of Mormon is true. And Jesus is the promised Messiah. And it will always remain true. And all are invited to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and come before God in Humble prayer to inquire whether it's true. Because God will reveal the Truth of it to the honest in heart who seek to know whether it is of God.
> 
> Repent of your sins. Come to Christ and be healed. He will not only heal you, but teach you things you never would have suspected. He will open your eyes to things that most never imagine. It's an amazing and humbling journey. And you will always be welcome to come.
Click to expand...


I did that.

I read the Book of Mormon, then asked in prayer if it was true.  

I didn't get an answer.  

I was told I did it wrong:  I should have asked God to make me believe that it was true.  

I think you could make yourself believe practically anything by first wanting to believe it, then praying earnestly to god to tell you that it is true.  

But, none of that makes a thing true. Wanting to believe a thing, earnestly praying for it to be true, that doesn't make a thing true.  If you pray with an open mind and ask whether a thing is true, you're likely to get a different answer.  

Or, no answer at all.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> I did that.
> 
> I read the Book of Mormon, then asked in prayer if it was true.
> 
> I didn't get an answer.
> 
> I was told I did it wrong:  I should have asked God to make me believe that it was true.
> 
> I think you could make yourself believe practically anything by first wanting to believe it, then praying earnestly to god to tell you that it is true.
> 
> But, none of that makes a thing true. Wanting to believe a thing, earnestly praying for it to be true, that doesn't make a thing true.  If you pray with an open mind and ask whether a thing is true, you're likely to get a different answer.
> 
> Or, no answer at all.



I don't agree taht you should have asked God to make you believe it was true. That's not the promise He made. The problem with your analogy is that there are those who are hostile and don't want the Book of Mormon to be true who test the Word and end up believing. I know a man, served in a local Bishopric, he read the Book of Mormon to prove it wrong. He was a hard core evangelical. He read it, took the challenge for himself and was soon baptized.

The promise is given as follows:



> 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
> 
> 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)



So there are several steps to asking. I can't tell you whether you did them correctly or not because I don't know your experience. But questions to ask:

1) Did you remember the mercies of God from the days of Adam until the days you recieved the Book of Mormon?
2) Did you ponder them in your heart?
3) Did you ask God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ?
4) Did you ask with a sincere heart?
5) Did you ask with real intent? (Meaning did you ask with the intention of acting in a way to change your life when you recieved the answer?)
6) Did you have faith in Christ?

Faith is a key ingredient in recieving answers. you have to exercise faith. I can tell you about my personal experience. I didn't know whether there was a God. I didn't know whether Jesus was the Son of God. I didn't know whether the Bible or Book of Mormon were true. I didn't even know whether God would reveal the truth to me.

I thought about it alot and i reasoned that if there was a God, and that if He loved us as the scriptures said, I could attempt to ask in faith. I told Him that I didn't know if He was there or that If He could answer. But that I would try an exercise faith that He could reveal Himself to me if He so chose in His own time and manor. I also promised that if He would, I'd be willing to follow Him no matter where He took me. I tried praying many times and many days. I didn't have a clue how He would answer me or even if I would know if He did. Or even if there was anyone to answer me. But I experimented on the Word the best I could.

I figured if Faith was the price to pay before I could get knowledge, I would try exercising faith. The worst that could happen is nothing in which case I would be no better or worse off than I was before.

I looked at arguments online between those who argued for God and those who argued against. I read all I could on the topic. Eventually I realized that only God could truly answer my questions and started reading the scriptures in depth. I just wanted to know God if there was a way to know Him so badly. 

It was while reading the scriptures that the Spirit started enveloping me. I didn't recognize what He was at first. I just felt good. I felt love. I felt my mind and my heart expanding. So I kept reading because I liked what I was feeling. I ended up devouring all the knowledge I could even though I didn't really understand it. 

Ultimately it was when I was reading D&C 135, which is John Taylor's account of the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith that I was really hit over the head. I finally recognized the Spirit for what He is and I was told that it was indeed true. I was told that I already knew it and then I was asked if now that I know whether I was going to keep my promise and live what I was being taught. 

I can honestly tell you that there is nothing as humbling or eye opening as when you the Spirit of God touches you and speaks. It was just the overpowering love, and glory, and power that made it so amazing. It literally had me dropping to my knees. I had never experienced anything like that before. But Ive seen incredible things since then reinforcing that experience every day of my life.

That experience happened almost 13 years ago to the day. I will never forget it because it changed the course of my life. It changed who I became and who I wanted to become.

I can tell you that if you've asked God, you will get an answer. When is up to Him. But He answers every prayer. I have no clue why He answered me quickly, well if you count several months as quickly. But He did. I know I don't deserve it any more than anyone else. Maybe I was prepared with the work I did before hand. Maybe it was just dumb luck. Regardless, by the grace of God, I know He lives. And I cant help but invite others to likewise find out for themselves in Christ's name. 

I hope I haven't bored anyone too much.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did that.
> 
> I read the Book of Mormon, then asked in prayer if it was true.
> 
> I didn't get an answer.
> 
> I was told I did it wrong:  I should have asked God to make me believe that it was true.
> 
> I think you could make yourself believe practically anything by first wanting to believe it, then praying earnestly to god to tell you that it is true.
> 
> But, none of that makes a thing true. Wanting to believe a thing, earnestly praying for it to be true, that doesn't make a thing true.  If you pray with an open mind and ask whether a thing is true, you're likely to get a different answer.
> 
> Or, no answer at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree taht you should have asked God to make you believe it was true. That's not the promise He made. The problem with your analogy is that there are those who are hostile and don't want the Book of Mormon to be true who test the Word and end up believing. I know a man, served in a local Bishopric, he read the Book of Mormon to prove it wrong. He was a hard core evangelical. He read it, took the challenge for himself and was soon baptized.
> 
> The promise is given as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
> 
> 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there are several steps to asking. I can't tell you whether you did them correctly or not because I don't know your experience. But questions to ask:
> 
> 1) Did you remember the mercies of God from the days of Adam until the days you recieved the Book of Mormon?
> 2) Did you ponder them in your heart?
> 3) Did you ask God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ?
> 4) Did you ask with a sincere heart?
> 5) Did you ask with real intent? (Meaning did you ask with the intention of acting in a way to change your life when you recieved the answer?)
> 6) Did you have faith in Christ?
> 
> Faith is a key ingredient in recieving answers. you have to exercise faith. I can tell you about my personal experience. I didn't know whether there was a God. I didn't know whether Jesus was the Son of God. I didn't know whether the Bible or Book of Mormon were true. I didn't even know whether God would reveal the truth to me.
> 
> I thought about it alot and i reasoned that if there was a God, and that if He loved us as the scriptures said, I could attempt to ask in faith. I told Him that I didn't know if He was there or that If He could answer. But that I would try an exercise faith that He could reveal Himself to me if He so chose in His own time and manor. I also promised that if He would, I'd be willing to follow Him no matter where He took me. I tried praying many times and many days. I didn't have a clue how He would answer me or even if I would know if He did. Or even if there was anyone to answer me. But I experimented on the Word the best I could.
> 
> I figured if Faith was the price to pay before I could get knowledge, I would try exercising faith. The worst that could happen is nothing in which case I would be no better or worse off than I was before.
> 
> I looked at arguments online between those who argued for God and those who argued against. I read all I could on the topic. Eventually I realized that only God could truly answer my questions and started reading the scriptures in depth. I just wanted to know God if there was a way to know Him so badly.
> 
> It was while reading the scriptures that the Spirit started enveloping me. I didn't recognize what He was at first. I just felt good. I felt love. I felt my mind and my heart expanding. So I kept reading because I liked what I was feeling. I ended up devouring all the knowledge I could even though I didn't really understand it.
> 
> Ultimately it was when I was reading D&C 135, which is John Taylor's account of the Martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith that I was really hit over the head. I finally recognized the Spirit for what He is and I was told that it was indeed true. I was told that I already knew it and then I was asked if now that I know whether I was going to keep my promise and live what I was being taught.
> 
> I can honestly tell you that there is nothing as humbling or eye opening as when you the Spirit of God touches you and speaks. It was just the overpowering love, and glory, and power that made it so amazing. It literally had me dropping to my knees. I had never experienced anything like that before. But Ive seen incredible things since then reinforcing that experience every day of my life.
> 
> That experience happened almost 13 years ago to the day. I will never forget it because it changed the course of my life. It changed who I became and who I wanted to become.
> 
> I can tell you that if you've asked God, you will get an answer. When is up to Him. But He answers every prayer. I have no clue why He answered me quickly, well if you count several months as quickly. But He did. I know I don't deserve it any more than anyone else. Maybe I was prepared with the work I did before hand. Maybe it was just dumb luck. Regardless, by the grace of God, I know He lives. And I cant help but invite others to likewise find out for themselves in Christ's name.
> 
> I hope I haven't bored anyone too much.
Click to expand...


No, not at all. I'm convinced (faith?) that what you're describing is a personal experience, quite a profound one at that.

Perhaps it's the faith in Jesus Christ part that is my problem.  

I've thought for some time that if Christianity (capital C, meaning that Christ was the son of God who died for our sins) was correct, then Mormonism is most likely correct as well.  

Mormonism teaches that there was an apostasy and a restoration.  Looking at the history of Christianity, it is undeniable that there was an apostasy.  The question is whether there was really anything to restore. 

The Old Testament is full of stories that have to be allegorical tales, along with nonsense and laws that end in putting people to death for minor transgressions.  The New Testament is full of stories that were written down decades after the crucifixion of Christ.  How many of those stories are actual accounts?  

If we read stories today about an itinerant preacher claiming divinity and having done miracles, but those stories were third and fourth hand and not even written down for years after the fact, who would believe them?  

Why is it so easy to believe tales of similar things that happened long ago, but no one would believe such stories today?  

I don't know what the truth is.  I'm not convinced that anyone else does either, even though quite a few people have told me that they *know* that Jesus lives.  I'm convinced that they think that they know, but have they done a good job of convincing themselves over the years?  

I guess I have more of an empirical proof sort of mind, as opposed to a basing belief in feelings.


----------



## Avatar4321

I don't see why you can't look at all evidence, empirical and revelatory. I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I can understand your doubt and confusion. Id be there if I hadnt had the experiences I've had.


----------



## Avatar4321

I was reading this a few minutes ago. I just wanted anyone who comes across it no matter whether you are a latter day saint or not to remember: You matter to Him. 

You matter to me too. But sadly, I am not as reliable.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't see why you can't look at all evidence, empirical and revelatory. I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I can understand your doubt and confusion. Id be there if I hadnt had the experiences I've had.



All evidence empiracal and revelatory condemns Joseph Smith, at the very best, as a fallen prophet, Avatar43211.  At the worst, JS was a conman who ended up believing and dying for his own con.  Shame.


----------



## Skeptik

Here's an interesting editorial by a non Mormon regarding the Perry supporter who called Mormonism a "cult" and said they aren't really Christian.



> The irony is that as embodiments of America's civic religious ideal, Mormons put adherents of every other group to shame. They're patriotic, highly educated, entrepreneurial, conservative to a fault and obedient to authority.
> 
> Because of their reputation for "clean living," Mormons are disproportionately represented in our foreign and intelligence services, although not in the military. They're self-disciplined, multilingual and optimistic. Until the 1970s, they even had a problem with black people, which is also very American.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why you can't look at all evidence, empirical and revelatory. I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I can understand your doubt and confusion. Id be there if I hadnt had the experiences I've had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence empiracal and revelatory condemns Joseph Smith, at the very best, as a fallen prophet, Avatar43211.  At the worst, JS was a conman who ended up believing and dying for his own con.  Shame.
Click to expand...


God says otherwise. Who should I believe. You with your general accusations, or God?


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Here's an interesting editorial by a non Mormon regarding the Perry supporter who called Mormonism a "cult" and said they aren't really Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is that as embodiments of America's civic religious ideal, Mormons put adherents of every other group to shame. They're patriotic, highly educated, entrepreneurial, conservative to a fault and obedient to authority.
> 
> Because of their reputation for "clean living," Mormons are disproportionately represented in our foreign and intelligence services, although not in the military. They're self-disciplined, multilingual and optimistic. Until the 1970s, they even had a problem with black people, which is also very American.
Click to expand...


I'd take issues with the "had a problem with black people" comment. because it's not true.


----------



## Skeptik

Avatar4321 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting editorial by a non Mormon regarding the Perry supporter who called Mormonism a "cult" and said they aren't really Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is that as embodiments of America's civic religious ideal, Mormons put adherents of every other group to shame. They're patriotic, highly educated, entrepreneurial, conservative to a fault and obedient to authority.
> 
> Because of their reputation for "clean living," Mormons are disproportionately represented in our foreign and intelligence services, although not in the military. They're self-disciplined, multilingual and optimistic. Until the 1970s, they even had a problem with black people, which is also very American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd take issues with the "had a problem with black people" comment. because it's not true.
Click to expand...


You don't think that the doctrine that black men couldn't hold  the priesthood because they had been less valiant in the war in Heaven, and so had to settle for coming to Earth in a black body could qualify, in the mind of a non member black man mind you, as "having a problem with blacks"


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting editorial by a non Mormon regarding the Perry supporter who called Mormonism a "cult" and said they aren't really Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take issues with the "had a problem with black people" comment. because it's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that the doctrine that black men couldn't hold  the priesthood because they had been less valiant in the war in Heaven, and so had to settle for coming to Earth in a black body could qualify, in the mind of a non member black man mind you, as "having a problem with blacks"
Click to expand...


OR holding that black skin was the "Curse of Ham", that God had cursed them with that dark skin because of Ham's sin against Noah.  

(And what was this sin? Ham saw his dad naked after the guy got stone drunk after the flood.)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why you can't look at all evidence, empirical and revelatory. I don't see why the two have to be mutually exclusive. I can understand your doubt and confusion. Id be there if I hadnt had the experiences I've had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence empiracal and revelatory condemns Joseph Smith, at the very best, as a fallen prophet, Avatar43211.  At the worst, JS was a conman who ended up believing and dying for his own con.  Shame.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God says otherwise. Who should I believe. You with your general accusations, or God?
Click to expand...


You only believe God says otherwise.  All evidence empirical and revelatory negate your belief.  It is what it is.


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take issues with the "had a problem with black people" comment. because it's not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think that the doctrine that black men couldn't hold  the priesthood because they had been less valiant in the war in Heaven, and so had to settle for coming to Earth in a black body could qualify, in the mind of a non member black man mind you, as "having a problem with blacks"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR holding that black skin was the "Curse of Ham", that God had cursed them with that dark skin because of Ham's sin against Noah.
> 
> (And what was this sin? Ham saw his dad naked after the guy got stone drunk after the flood.)
Click to expand...


I don't believe that was ever Mormon doctrine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If not doctrine, the policy was to keep the African (American) from the priesthood because of the color of his skin.

The church authorities deal with this as the do with the history of polygamy.  They will ignore if it possible.  However, if they are asked, they will confirm both were taught at one time.


----------



## Skeptik

JakeStarkey said:


> If not doctrine, the policy was to keep the African (American) from the priesthood because of the color of his skin.
> 
> The church authorities deal with this as the do with the history of polygamy.  They will ignore if it possible.  However, if they are asked, they will confirm both were taught at one time.



If a belief is not doctrine, then it wasn't taught at one time.  Polygamy was doctrine at one time. The idea that black people had been less valiant in the pre existence was doctrine at one time.  The idea that a black skin was due to the "Curse of Ham" was never doctrine.  Some individual members may have believed it, but it was never official doctrine.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are mistaken but that is OK.  You can read BY, JT, GAS, Rudger Clawson, Stapley, Romney, Lee and others, and make your mind about the doctrine part.  A belief can be doctrine at one time and not doctrine at another.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting editorial by a non Mormon regarding the Perry supporter who called Mormonism a "cult" and said they aren't really Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd take issues with the "had a problem with black people" comment. because it's not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't think that the doctrine that black men couldn't hold  the priesthood because they had been less valiant in the war in Heaven, and so had to settle for coming to Earth in a black body could qualify, in the mind of a non member black man mind you, as "having a problem with blacks"
Click to expand...


Considering we've always welcomed everyone of all races. That has been the doctrine despite any theories otherwisel then no. I dont think we've "had a problem" with blacks.

They might have had a problem with us. Most probably have never bothered to care.

Christ restricted the Twelve to preaching to the Jews and the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel until the command came in Acts to go to the Gentiles. Are we to interpret that God has a problem with Gentiles? or are we to conclude that God has a plan that will take the Gospel to different people at different times?

Blacks have always been welcome to come to Christ and be baptized. There was a proscription on being ordained to the priesthood, which was based on lineage and not on race or skin color. And from the beginning of that prosciption, it was promised and prophesied that at some day in the future the Priesthood would be eligible to all those who are worthy of it.

Unlike it other Churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the work to Redeem the dead. That's why we build Temples. To allow our kindred dead to recieve the blessings of baptism, Priesthood, and sealings that they didn't have the opportunity to recieve while they were alive.

That means when the priesthood restrictions were removed, as was prophecied, that it was removed for both the living for the dead. As was promised from the beginning, all mankind is entitled to the blessings of the Gospel.

At the time of Moses, the Priesthood was limited to one tribe of the House of Israel. At the time of Christ when the Melchesidek Priesthood was distributed to the Saints then, the blessings of the Priesthood were given to both Jew and Gentile. 

It's always been an issue of timing. And I can see some of the wisdom of the Lord in it:

1) It prevented the Church from segregating in a time when much of the nation had racist sentiment.
2) It focused the missionary effort of the Church away from Africa during the colonial and revolutionary period. Thereby the people don't have colonialism or imperialism connection with the Church and without those stigmas people it makes it easier to preach the Gospel there now. Which is probably why the Church has had much success there lately.
3) The Church recieved severe persecution as it was while in Missouri because we were there. Much of it was because we were anti-slavery and had a favorable disposition to blacks. The rest was due to our sins. If we had been actively preaching to and ordaining people who were slaves at the time, the Church may not have survived.

Why it was in place specifically, whether it was one of the above reasons or something else. I have no clue. It's never really been a big issue for me because I've studied how the Lord has worked in the past and most of those who do have issue with it cant seem to get past the present and see the Eternal perspective behind it. Which is understandable if you dont believe in God or the Eternal perspective. If you don't believe in Redeeming the dead, it does seem unfair. 

Once you realize that everyone will be able to recieve every blessing they choose to recieve and that the real question isn't if they have the opportunity, but when, it really isn't as big a concern. It's certainly not the way I would have done things. But I don't know everything God knows. I believe He has a reason for everything and that someday He will explain it all. Until then, I can be patient.

I would also note that we don't actively proselyte among muslims. Even in nations we can do so. This isn't because of any proscription against arabs or anyone else. Nor is it for lack of concern for their salvation. But we realize they will all have their opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel when the Lord wants it. And when He is ready for us to preach among them actively, we will. 

I fear that many times people fail to see the long term plan because of a soundbyte, a slogan, or just an immediately look.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence empiracal and revelatory condemns Joseph Smith, at the very best, as a fallen prophet, Avatar43211.  At the worst, JS was a conman who ended up believing and dying for his own con.  Shame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God says otherwise. Who should I believe. You with your general accusations, or God?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You only believe God says otherwise.  All evidence empirical and revelatory negate your belief.  It is what it is.
Click to expand...


I dispute that claim. And Ive provided more evidence than you have.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> If not doctrine, the policy was to keep the African (American) from the priesthood because of the color of his skin.
> 
> The church authorities deal with this as the do with the history of polygamy.  They will ignore if it possible.  However, if they are asked, they will confirm both were taught at one time.



Which is blatantly untrue because it was a matter of lineage. How else do you explain the times when people with dark skin recieved the priesthood while those with light skin were banned? It was always a matter of lineage, not color.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not doctrine, the policy was to keep the African (American) from the priesthood because of the color of his skin.
> 
> The church authorities deal with this as the do with the history of polygamy.  They will ignore if it possible.  However, if they are asked, they will confirm both were taught at one time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is blatantly untrue because it was a matter of lineage. How else do you explain the times when people with dark skin recieved the priesthood while those with light skin were banned? It was always a matter of lineage, not color.
Click to expand...


Which is: ignore or admit today, or the church's history of its leaders and their words?

That you don't like it means nothing, Avatar4321?  Call your priesthood file leader and take it up the chain of command until you get a definitive answer, which, if you want to know, is going to agree with what I have written.

Doctrine changes in all organizations from time to time.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not doctrine, the policy was to keep the African (American) from the priesthood because of the color of his skin.
> 
> The church authorities deal with this as the do with the history of polygamy.  They will ignore if it possible.  However, if they are asked, they will confirm both were taught at one time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a belief is not doctrine, then it wasn't taught at one time.  Polygamy was doctrine at one time. The idea that black people had been less valiant in the pre existence was doctrine at one time.  The idea that a black skin was due to the "Curse of Ham" was never doctrine.  Some individual members may have believed it, but it was never official doctrine.
Click to expand...


Actually, I would say that the ban was doctrine. The reasons why were speculative. One of the things I like about the Church is that we are allowed to speculate. The problem is sometimes these speculations are wrong even if they become popular. Im not going to judge them harshly for speculating on issues the Lord didn't fully reveal until later.

The doctrine on polygamy is the same as it was when it was established in the Book of Mormon: When God commands it, do it. Otherwise, the default is don't do it.

There was a period in Early LDS history where the Lord commanded it. So the Saints practiced it. We also have the doctrine to obey the laws of the lands. So when the Government outlawed it and made it clear that they were going to enforce it. And when the Saints had exhausted legal avenues to fight the laws. We had a conflict. What command do we follow? What does the Lord wants us to do?

So the President of the High Priesthood inquired of the Lord. He revealed what the Lord said and the people decided to follow it.

The Lord commands what He wants, when He wants it. And He revokes the commands He wants when He wants it. God can do as He pleases when it comes to Commanding us. As the Ultimate Soveriegn of the Universe, that's his right and responsibility. 

Read what President Woodruff wrote concerning the revelation he recieved to stop plural marriage. Does this sound like someone who is insincere?



> It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all.
> 
> I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto.
> 
> The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.
> 
> The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursueto continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
> 
> The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for  any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.
> 
> I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write.
> 
> I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)



Is there any reason to doubt that the reason he gave for the revelation is not true?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not doctrine, the policy was to keep the African (American) from the priesthood because of the color of his skin.
> 
> The church authorities deal with this as the do with the history of polygamy.  They will ignore if it possible.  However, if they are asked, they will confirm both were taught at one time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is blatantly untrue because it was a matter of lineage. How else do you explain the times when people with dark skin recieved the priesthood while those with light skin were banned? It was always a matter of lineage, not color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is: ignore or admit today, or the church's history of its leaders and their words?
> 
> That you don't like it means nothing, Avatar4321?  Call your priesthood file leader and take it up the chain of command until you get a definitive answer, which, if you want to know, is going to agree with what I have written.
> 
> Doctrine changes in all organizations from time to time.
Click to expand...


There is nothing for me to dislike. The priesthood ban was in regards to lineage and not skin color. Those with dark skin outside the lineage that was banned, were ordained to the priesthood. Those with light skin inside the lineage that was banned were prohibited from recieving the priesthood. 

In fact, one of the many reasons that caused President Kimball and the Twelve to Petition the Lord on the matter was that they were Building a Temple in Brazil and as the members were doing genealogy, they were finding out that they had different lineages than they realized. It was creating confusion. 

Another is that there were large congregations in Africa who were petitioning the Church to send representatives to baptize them and they couldn't until they had priesthood there in significant numbers to oversee the converts.

The third of course was the Prophesy that all would one day recieve the blessings.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then you agree the doctrine changed.


----------



## Listening

Skeptik said:


> No, not at all. I'm convinced (faith?) that what you're describing is a personal experience, quite a profound one at that.
> 
> Perhaps it's the faith in Jesus Christ part that is my problem.
> 
> I've thought for some time that if Christianity (capital C, meaning that Christ was the son of God who died for our sins) was correct, then Mormonism is most likely correct as well.
> 
> Mormonism teaches that there was an apostasy and a restoration.  Looking at the history of Christianity, it is undeniable that there was an apostasy.  The question is whether there was really anything to restore.
> 
> The Old Testament is full of stories that have to be allegorical tales, along with nonsense and laws that end in putting people to death for minor transgressions.  The New Testament is full of stories that were written down decades after the crucifixion of Christ.  How many of those stories are actual accounts?
> 
> If we read stories today about an itinerant preacher claiming divinity and having done miracles, but those stories were third and fourth hand and not even written down for years after the fact, who would believe them?
> 
> Why is it so easy to believe tales of similar things that happened long ago, but no one would believe such stories today?
> 
> I don't know what the truth is.  I'm not convinced that anyone else does either, even though quite a few people have told me that they *know* that Jesus lives.  I'm convinced that they think that they know, but have they done a good job of convincing themselves over the years?
> 
> I guess I have more of an empirical proof sort of mind, as opposed to a basing belief in feelings.



I would suggest, if you still have your copy of the Book Of Morom going to Alma Chapter 32 where there is a very specific discussion of faith.  

The chapter, consistent with our doctrine teaches that all principles start out as small pieces of who or what we are and grow as we invest in trying them and learning more about how they work.

I would also recommend searching "The Challenge To Become", a talk given in 2000 by Elder Dallin H. Oaks where he discusses the fact that we are here to become something, not just know something.  He discusses the extension of testimony into actual conversion.  It pulls several examples from the New Testament.

The development of faith is very systematic and I can tell you it has worked for me.  I am a scientist, an engineer, and a skeptic.

But I have a strong conviction as to the principles I have been taught.  When I put into practice the things I am taught, the associated promiese always come true.  I don't always do what I should...but when I do....it is incredible.

I recently told a good friend of mine (ex LDS) that if you handed me a videotape from the early 1800's where Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were laughing and telling us what a fraud they had perpetrated on us.....I'd still be in church the following Sunday.

My friend almost shrieked at me "How can you say that ????"

My response was that I don't rely on Jospeh or Brigham for my knowledge.  If they meant to pull a fast one somehow, by some miracle against the odds, they got it right....because it works for me.  And I have "proved" to myself (and I keep doing so even on the same points) over and over again....as outlined in Alma 32.  From their (J.S./B.Y.) teachings through our current (or near current....search "Beware Of Pride" by Ezra Taft Benson and see if that does not have universal application) leaders, they don't ask us to do crazy stuff.  They lay out the framework that says humanity (especially in the form of family) is the most important thing we have on this earth and that developing that humanity amidst all humanity is the most important thing we can do (and that is sometimes tough for engineers....numbers don't have emotions).

In the church, we all progress at our own unique rate.  Our job is to support each other as we struggle through.

I truly appreciate our general authorities.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Listening, I congratulate you on the good you find in your faith.  I have many LDS and non-LDS Mormon friends.  A friend of mine says she finds her faith in the BoM not in JS.  She said it was in JS, you would have left the church long time gone.


----------



## Listening

Skeptik said:


> You don't think that the doctrine that black men couldn't hold  the priesthood because they had been less valiant in the war in Heaven, and so had to settle for coming to Earth in a black body could qualify, in the mind of a non member black man mind you, as "having a problem with blacks"



I can never recall a lesson or a discussion where black people were talked about as being anything different from us.  The issues with the Priesthood were something I didn't need to worry about.  This includes some time in the church before 1978.  There was some backlash (the University of Wyoming football program incident comes to mind).  But, it never was a big deal.  In contrast, when I moved high schools from Scottsdale, Arizona to Cottonwood, Arizona.....going from a city to more of a rural type of environment, I was appalled at the frequent use of the "N" word and the open disdain for blacks by the population in general....most of them being catholics and baptists (I should also point out that over 30% of the young women in that class left school pregnant out of wedlock by the time we had graduated....none of them LDS....those crazy mormons).

I can recall, however, what a huge stink was made about the church's stand on the ERA.  There were protests within the church and some excommunications due from being openly critical of church leadership.  That one seem to have a whole lot more fire to it than anything related to restricted priesthood.


----------



## Listening

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If not doctrine, the policy was to keep the African (American) from the priesthood because of the color of his skin.
> 
> The church authorities deal with this as the do with the history of polygamy.  They will ignore if it possible.  However, if they are asked, they will confirm both were taught at one time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is blatantly untrue because it was a matter of lineage. How else do you explain the times when people with dark skin recieved the priesthood while those with light skin were banned? It was always a matter of lineage, not color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is: ignore or admit today, or the church's history of its leaders and their words?
> 
> That you don't like it means nothing, Avatar4321?  Call your priesthood file leader and take it up the chain of command until you get a definitive answer, which, if you want to know, is going to agree with what I have written.
> 
> Doctrine changes in all organizations from time to time.
Click to expand...


There is policy and there is doctrine.

The doctrine associated with the limitations on priesthood has not changed.  The church never went back and said....we change our teachings on priesthood.  They simply indicated that the doctrinal foundation for the policy no longer applied and were moving on.  The policy then changed.  I am not aware of any apologies or rewrites of the doctrines that supported the policy prior to 1978.

With regard to polygamy.  I am not so sure that if there were not a law against it, that we would not be practicing it today.  The 133rd section of the D&C talks, in part, about polygamy.  The same doctrine that governed the Lords relationship with Abraham still exists today.  But our policy is to forbid it's practice at this time.

Will it return ?  There is no doubt in my mind.

Do I worry about it ?  Not in the least.  That was then.  People have spent many years disecting the lives of polygamists discussing it's impact on the people involved.  And they have drawn numerous conclusions.  All of which don't matter in the long run (unless you want to learn how to be a better polygamist.....I guess).

The doctrine still exists and it's place in the eternities is still there.  If the Lord choses to reinstitute it, somehow it will get reinstituted.

I don't know of anyone who is looking forward to that day or praying for it (after all, it is often simply seen as a way to have more sex.....but from what I can tell, that so-called benefit is heavily outweighed by all the responsibility that it brought with it).


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't vote for a Mormon.  I find the whole thing just a little too freaky.



Yeah...what wierdos.

Joseph Smith brought forth the revelation now called the "Word of Wisdon".

It says you should not gorge on red meat.
It says you should not smoke.
It says you should not drink alcohol.

In those days, it was seen as strange.

Even within the doctrine taught in the D&C, one of our leaders stated in was "incomplete" meaning people need to find the rest of it's application in their own lives.  And we get some interesting discussion about obesity, or lack of sleep, or pills, or fads (such as weight loss programs....I).

But in the end, it is about health.

Imagine that, a freaky church that teaches its membes to take care of their bodies in ways that were seen as freaky then....but today seem to be very much in line with what medical science says is pretty good practice.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't vote for a Mormon.  I find the whole thing just a little too freaky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...what wierdos.
> 
> Joseph Smith brought forth the revelation now called the "Word of Wisdon".
> 
> It says you should not gorge on red meat.
> It says you should not smoke.
> It says you should not drink alcohol.
> 
> In those days, it was seen as strange.
> 
> Even within the doctrine taught in the D&C, one of our leaders stated in was "incomplete" meaning people need to find the rest of it's application in their own lives.  And we get some interesting discussion about obesity, or lack of sleep, or pills, or fads (such as weight loss programs....I).
> 
> But in the end, it is about health.
> 
> Imagine that, a freaky church that teaches its membes to take care of their bodies in ways that were seen as freaky then....but today seem to be very much in line with what medical science says is pretty good practice.
Click to expand...


Umm, guy, I happen to like my red meat and a glass of wine.   And I don't want anyone telling me I can't have that if I want it.  At least not someone who says that he got a message from a sky pixie that I can't have it.  

Joseph Smith wasn't interested in their health, he was interested in what all cult leaders are interested in- controlling the lives of less smart people and imposing their will on them.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an atheist, and I wouldn't vote for a Mormon.  I find the whole thing just a little too freaky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...what wierdos.
> 
> Joseph Smith brought forth the revelation now called the "Word of Wisdon".
> 
> It says you should not gorge on red meat.
> It says you should not smoke.
> It says you should not drink alcohol.
> 
> In those days, it was seen as strange.
> 
> Even within the doctrine taught in the D&C, one of our leaders stated in was "incomplete" meaning people need to find the rest of it's application in their own lives.  And we get some interesting discussion about obesity, or lack of sleep, or pills, or fads (such as weight loss programs....I).
> 
> But in the end, it is about health.
> 
> Imagine that, a freaky church that teaches its membes to take care of their bodies in ways that were seen as freaky then....but today seem to be very much in line with what medical science says is pretty good practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, guy, I happen to like my red meat and a glass of wine.   And I don't want anyone telling me I can't have that if I want it.  At least not someone who says that he got a message from a sky pixie that I can't have it.
> 
> Joseph Smith wasn't interested in their health, he was interested in what all cult leaders are interested in- controlling the lives of less smart people and imposing their will on them.
Click to expand...


I'll bet you are physics major too.  How would you even pretend to know what Joseph Smith was interested in.  By your own admission, your venture into church doctrine was motivated by your anger towards specific members of the church. 

30 years later and you still come across as ignorant and bitter.

You are the less-smart person here.  Please don't mix us up in your little band of idiots.

As to not wanting to be told what to do....don't stick your tounge in an electrical outlet (good advice for most...I am sure you will get a charge out of it because you don't want anyone telling you what to do).

This is the religion board....not the politics board and I am more than willing to call you out for the moron that you are.


----------



## Listening

JakeStarkey said:


> Listening, I congratulate you on the good you find in your faith.  I have many LDS and non-LDS Mormon friends.  A friend of mine says she finds her faith in the BoM not in JS.  She said it was in JS, you would have left the church long time gone.



In truth, your faith becomes complete in the entire package....however, it starts with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  That is what our articles of faith specifically state.

Jesus was the son of God.

Joseph Smith was a prophet.  He was a man just like the rest of us, who had a special calling.

But salvation or progress towards what we refer to as exhaultation will take (concievably millions) lots of years.

People have made fun of our doctrine which states that we can become like Our Father In Heaven.  Somehow that is supposed to be a reward ?  To me, it sounds like an awful lot of work.  I don't think anyone would want it who had not grown to love as God loves (us).

What patience.
What consistency.


----------



## Skeptik

If we are really children of god, why wouldn't we grow up to be like our parents?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Listening, I congratulate you on the good you find in your faith.  I have many LDS and non-LDS Mormon friends.  A friend of mine says she finds her faith in the BoM not in JS.  She said it was in JS, you would have left the church long time gone.



Your friend is wise to put her faith in the Doctrines of Christ and not in man. The Book of Mormon teaches the Doctrines of Christ. However, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. I know this from the Spirit. Moreover, I've studied his teachings and his life. And despite his shortcomings he was an amazing man. His capacity for charity and forgiveness was absolutely amazing.


----------



## Listening

Skeptik said:


> If we are really children of god, why wouldn't we grow up to be like our parents?



Certainly, a valid point.

But, you don't get to be like dad or mom overnight.

You have to "Grow Up" as you say.  And in this case that might take an eternity.

Our Father In Heaven is the perfect example of love and service.


----------



## Avatar4321

Skeptik said:


> If we are really children of god, why wouldn't we grow up to be like our parents?



We do grow up to be our parents. The Atonement of Jesus Christ was designed to help us overcome the obstacles that keep us from becoming like God: Physical and Spiritual death. Or Death and Sin.

"As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man can become" - Lorenzo Snow

It's very succinct. And some thing that it's a purely LDS idea. But Christians have been teaching the Doctrine of Deification since the days of the Apostles.

Statements by Saint Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-202) on Deification:



> "We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods" (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 94)
> 
> "Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is. (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956), 106.; Citing Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.38 cp. 4.11. )
> 
> "But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."(Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," in Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)1:419, chapter 6.)



Or how about Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215):



> "yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1)
> 
> "if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God...His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, "Men are gods, and gods are men." (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 see also Clement, Stromateis, 23)
> 
> "Those who have been perfected are given their reward and their honors. They have done with their purification, they have done with the rest of their service, though it be a holy service, with the holy; now they become pure in heart, and because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of "gods" since they are destined to be enthroned with the other "gods" who are ranked next below the savior. (Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius (London: Oxford University Press, 1956),243244.)



Or Saint Augustine (AD 354-430):



> "but He himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying He makes sons of God. For He has given them power to become the sons of God, (John 1:12). If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods" (Augustine, On the Psalms, 50:2.)



It seems though those who were taught by the Apostles and who lead the Church in the centuries following Christ understood that when Paul spoke of us being Joint-heirs with Christ. When Peter mentioned us as partakers of the Divine nature, they were being serious.

I think of them all John says it the best "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)

Oh, and thanks to Fairwiki for help with the citations. Didn't originally need it, but i lost my list of citations with the last computer. It's a shame because i had others as well. The CS Lewis quotes on deification were pretty spot on too. 

If we are children of God. And we are one with God. How are we not destined to become gods?


----------



## IndependntLogic

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Okay so SouthPark has an episode about Mormons. They were actually very easy on you guys - at lest compared to other faiths, beliefs etc...

So their version goes that Joe Smith was told by Gabriel to go find so magic decoder plates or whatever. Then by looking through them, he came up with all this stuff and told his rich buddy "Hey, help a brutha out!" The buddy's wife laugh and said it was all BS and burned it. She said he should be able to replicate it.
So then he goes back to Joe Smith and Smith says "Uh, I can't replicate it because you pissed off God. So now uh,,, I'll write a NEW one and you better be cool this time or God is gonna smite your buttocks! Thus Mormonism was born.

So is that how it went or what?

Oh yeah. So I'm out on the porch having a smoke one day and these two gals come up and ask if they can talk to me. So I make a totally serious face and say "Look, I get it. I'm a VERY sexy man. But that doesn't mean you can just come up and try to pick me up on my porch like this. I'm married!" Awkward silence for a moment until they noticed I was grinning. Then we all burst out laughing. Then we talked about everything from the book of Mormon to the Gnostic gospels. So then they ask if they can give me a book or come visit my lovely bride. So I tell them I have a Mormon buddy and I don't want him to miss out on his commission or Ipod or whatever you guys get for converting me. They laughed about that. So did my Mormon buddy when I told him about it.
Now of course, I have a nice blue BOM with Gold Embossed letters... 

Cheers, FS


----------



## Avatar4321

Maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of getting info from South Park. You might actually learn something then.


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> If we are really children of god, why wouldn't we grow up to be like our parents?



Well, I read the bible, and the God of the bible is a sociopath who drowns babies. I don't think I'd want to be like him, particularly.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> I'll bet you are physics major too.  How would you even pretend to know what Joseph Smith was interested in.  By your own admission, your venture into church doctrine was motivated by your anger towards specific members of the church.
> 
> 30 years later and you still come across as ignorant and bitter.
> 
> You are the less-smart person here.  Please don't mix us up in your little band of idiots.



Gee, how can I tell what Joseph Smith was interested in?  

Hmmm.  Marrying 34 women, some as young as 14.  Oh, he was doing it so they could get into Heaven, really.  

Starting his own private army. (Seriously, the guy road around in a military uniform and styled himself a general.) 

Scamming his followers by setting up a fake bank that went bust.  Convinced investors they had a lot of money by filling strong-boxes with Sand and putting gold coins on the top.

Demanding absolute fealty from his followers.  That's what cults do.  



> As to not wanting to be told what to do....don't stick your tounge in an electrical outlet (good advice for most...I am sure you will get a charge out of it because you don't want anyone telling you what to do).
> 
> This is the religion board....not the politics board and I am more than willing to call you out for the moron that you are.



I think there is a difference between qualified advice and ridiculous advice. 

I'll point out the difference.  

"Hi, I'm a medical Doctor. I went to school for 8 years to learn how to be a doctor. I think you should moderate on eating your red meat because it will clog your ateries."  

"Hi, I'm Joseph Smith. An Angel named Moroni gave me a bunch of gold plates that I won't let anyone see, but he told me that I'm God's messenger. My invisible friend in the sky says you shouldn't eat red meat and let me bang your teenage daughter so she can get into heaven".  

Now, which one of those opinions should a rational person take seriously.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of getting info from South Park. You might actually learn something then.



I thought that was a pretty funny episode. 

But they wiffled at the bat. After spending half an hour taking apart how utterly ridiculous Mormonism is, they admitted it was okay because most Mormons are nice people.  

(As opposed to the back-stabbing, sneaky, willfully ignorant examples I've met.)


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you are physics major too.  How would you even pretend to know what Joseph Smith was interested in.  By your own admission, your venture into church doctrine was motivated by your anger towards specific members of the church.
> 
> 30 years later and you still come across as ignorant and bitter.
> 
> You are the less-smart person here.  Please don't mix us up in your little band of idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, how can I tell what Joseph Smith was interested in?
> 
> Hmmm.  Marrying 34 women, some as young as 14.  Oh, he was doing it so they could get into Heaven, really.
> 
> Starting his own private army. (Seriously, the guy road around in a military uniform and styled himself a general.)
> 
> Scamming his followers by setting up a fake bank that went bust.  Convinced investors they had a lot of money by filling strong-boxes with Sand and putting gold coins on the top.
> 
> Demanding absolute fealty from his followers.  That's what cults do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to not wanting to be told what to do....don't stick your tounge in an electrical outlet (good advice for most...I am sure you will get a charge out of it because you don't want anyone telling you what to do).
> 
> This is the religion board....not the politics board and I am more than willing to call you out for the moron that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there is a difference between qualified advice and ridiculous advice.
> 
> I'll point out the difference.
> 
> "Hi, I'm a medical Doctor. I went to school for 8 years to learn how to be a doctor. I think you should moderate on eating your red meat because it will clog your ateries."
> 
> "Hi, I'm Joseph Smith. An Angel named Moroni gave me a bunch of gold plates that I won't let anyone see, but he told me that I'm God's messenger. My invisible friend in the sky says you shouldn't eat red meat and let me bang your teenage daughter so she can get into heaven".
> 
> Now, which one of those opinions should a rational person take seriously.
Click to expand...


Hhhhhhmmmm.....

We were talking health codes here.

You forget your pill again ?

How would you know what Joseph Joseph Smith was interested in when he gave the 89th section of the D&C (the health code) ?  That was the subject on the table and you made the claim he was not interested in anyone's health.

Now back it up.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Avatar4321 said:


> Maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of getting info from South Park. You might actually learn something then.



No Thanks. It's boring. So the question remains about the origins. Magic decoder plates? Original copy burned? New copy made cuz God got all pissed off? 

BTW, we have a several Mormon friends and as a religious group goes, I've never met a nicer bunch of people. I genuinely admire them. Just never really got into the whole "origins" talk with them.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you are physics major too.  How would you even pretend to know what Joseph Smith was interested in.  By your own admission, your venture into church doctrine was motivated by your anger towards specific members of the church.
> 
> 30 years later and you still come across as ignorant and bitter.
> 
> You are the less-smart person here.  Please don't mix us up in your little band of idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, how can I tell what Joseph Smith was interested in?
> 
> Hmmm.  Marrying 34 women, some as young as 14.  Oh, he was doing it so they could get into Heaven, really.
> 
> Starting his own private army. (Seriously, the guy road around in a military uniform and styled himself a general.)
> 
> Scamming his followers by setting up a fake bank that went bust.  Convinced investors they had a lot of money by filling strong-boxes with Sand and putting gold coins on the top.
> 
> Demanding absolute fealty from his followers.  That's what cults do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to not wanting to be told what to do....don't stick your tounge in an electrical outlet (good advice for most...I am sure you will get a charge out of it because you don't want anyone telling you what to do).
> 
> This is the religion board....not the politics board and I am more than willing to call you out for the moron that you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think there is a difference between qualified advice and ridiculous advice.
> 
> I'll point out the difference.
> 
> "Hi, I'm a medical Doctor. I went to school for 8 years to learn how to be a doctor. I think you should moderate on eating your red meat because it will clog your ateries."
> 
> "Hi, I'm Joseph Smith. An Angel named Moroni gave me a bunch of gold plates that I won't let anyone see, but he told me that I'm God's messenger. My invisible friend in the sky says you shouldn't eat red meat and let me bang your teenage daughter so she can get into heaven".
> 
> Now, which one of those opinions should a rational person take seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hhhhhhmmmm.....
> 
> We were talking health codes here.
> 
> You forget your pill again ?
> 
> How would you know what Joseph Joseph Smith was interested in when he gave the 89th section of the D&C (the health code) ?  That was the subject on the table and you made the claim he was not interested in anyone's health.
> 
> Now back it up.
Click to expand...


I can't help it if you were too dumb to follow the argument.  

Of course, if you had a brain, you wouldn't be a Mormon.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of getting info from South Park. You might actually learn something then.


having grown up mormon...that episode of south park is 100%accurate in telling the story of how Joseph smith created the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints .


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of getting info from South Park. You might actually learn something then.
> 
> 
> 
> having grown up mormon...that episode of south park is 100%accurate in telling the story of how Joseph smith created the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints .
Click to expand...


No. It's a caricature. Which means you are lying. Why youd want to, I don't know.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of getting info from South Park. You might actually learn something then.
> 
> 
> 
> having grown up mormon...that episode of south park is 100%accurate in telling the story of how Joseph smith created the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It's a caricature. Which means you are lying. Why youd want to, I don't know.
Click to expand...

no it means your assuming and your ASSumption is false, the action in the episode are an almost word for word discription of Joesph smith's actions in 1830


Beginning in the early 1820s, Smith said he saw visions, in some of which he said an angel directed him to a buried book of golden plates, inscribed with a Christian history of ancient American civilizations. In 1830, he published as the Book of Mormon what he said was an English translation of these plates and then organized branches of the Church of Christ, saying he had been chosen by God to restore the early Christian church. Church members were later called Latter Day Saints, Saints, or Mormons.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gm6JYFdnD8]South park Mormon - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should try reading the Book of Mormon instead of getting info from South Park. You might actually learn something then.
> 
> 
> 
> having grown up mormon...that episode of south park is 100%accurate in telling the story of how Joseph smith created the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It's a caricature. Which means you are lying. Why youd want to, I don't know.
Click to expand...


Well, what specifically did that episode get wrong? 

Not, "Well, they said it in a way that made it seem silly" (really? There's a way you can describe that whole thing where it doesn't sound silly?) but what did they specifically say that was wrong.


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> having grown up mormon...that episode of south park is 100%accurate in telling the story of how Joseph smith created the church of jesus Christ of latter day saints .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's a caricature. Which means you are lying. Why youd want to, I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, what specifically did that episode get wrong?
> 
> Not, "Well, they said it in a way that made it seem silly" (really? There's a way you can describe that whole thing where it doesn't sound silly?) but what did they specifically say that was wrong.
Click to expand...

this should be good....spin in 5...4..3...2..1...


----------



## Avatar4321

Ill respond to the south park think later when im in the mood for detailing what's wrong with it.

Meanwhile, 10th anniversary of the perpetual education fund. Makes me happy.

The Perpetual Education Fund: A Decade of Changing Lives - LDS Newsroom


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, how can I tell what Joseph Smith was interested in?
> 
> Hmmm.  Marrying 34 women, some as young as 14.  Oh, he was doing it so they could get into Heaven, really.
> 
> Starting his own private army. (Seriously, the guy road around in a military uniform and styled himself a general.)
> 
> Scamming his followers by setting up a fake bank that went bust.  Convinced investors they had a lot of money by filling strong-boxes with Sand and putting gold coins on the top.
> 
> Demanding absolute fealty from his followers.  That's what cults do.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a difference between qualified advice and ridiculous advice.
> 
> I'll point out the difference.
> 
> "Hi, I'm a medical Doctor. I went to school for 8 years to learn how to be a doctor. I think you should moderate on eating your red meat because it will clog your ateries."
> 
> "Hi, I'm Joseph Smith. An Angel named Moroni gave me a bunch of gold plates that I won't let anyone see, but he told me that I'm God's messenger. My invisible friend in the sky says you shouldn't eat red meat and let me bang your teenage daughter so she can get into heaven".
> 
> Now, which one of those opinions should a rational person take seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hhhhhhmmmm.....
> 
> We were talking health codes here.
> 
> You forget your pill again ?
> 
> How would you know what Joseph Joseph Smith was interested in when he gave the 89th section of the D&C (the health code) ?  That was the subject on the table and you made the claim he was not interested in anyone's health.
> 
> Now back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you were too dumb to follow the argument.
> 
> Of course, if you had a brain, you wouldn't be a Mormon.
Click to expand...


Tranlation: You can't.

Thanks for playing.


----------



## Avatar4321

Let's start with a few inaccuracies with the South Park episode:

1) It claims Joseph was the only one who ever saw the plates. Which is false. 

Introduction 

2) It says that Mormons believe that Israelites are the only ancestors to Native Americans. Also false.

see also the above link

3) It depicts Martin Harris as a simpleton. This isn't the case. It also neglets to mention the time Martin Harris took the translations to New York to have scholars verify the text:

Joseph Smith



> Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:
> 
> 64 &#8220;I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.
> 
> 65 &#8220;He then said to me, &#8216;Let me see that certificate.&#8217; I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, &#8216;I cannot read a sealed book.&#8217; I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.&#8221;



And interesting experience, not solely because of the prophecy is Isaiah 29. Here we have an experience between Professor Anthon and Martin Harris. Mr. Anthon, of course, offers a different story claiming he told Martin Harris it was a complete fraud to begin with. Ignoring Dr. Mitchell's verification, Martin and the professor are the only two who know what really happened. 

I'm more inclined to believe Martin's version. Not because my belief in the Restoration, but simply because of how Martin reacted after the experience. If the encounter happened the way Professor Anthon stated, then Martin's behavior of becoming a solid believer of the Restoration and mortgaging his property to finance the Book of Mormon when Anthon told him it was a fraud makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He already had his wife against him being involved, which is why he was timid about getting involved to begin with. But after this incident he was eagerly supporting the endevour. 

Professor Anthon, on the other hand, has motivation to lie. He is worried about his reputation and doesn't want to be associated with Mormonism... which is ironic because im sure that's the only reason anyone has any idea who he is.

4) Concerning the 114 lost pages, they tried to use that as an argument used by the Mormons to prove it was true. No Latter-day Saint would make such a ridiculous argument in an attempt to convert an investigator. Latter-day Saints are taught throughout their lives to share the Gospel. And we are taught to:

a) Testify to the truth that has been revealed to us by the power of the Spirit
b) Encourage investigators to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and test it as Moroni and Alma taught. (See Alma 32 & Moroni 10:3-5)
c) Go to God to find out for yourself.

We do this because we realize that the only way anyone can know for sure whether the Book of Mormon is true is by the Spirit of God. Yes, we can make rational arguments for and against. But rational arguments are meaningless one God reveals Himself through the power of the Holy Ghost.

Im restudying the Brigham Young Manual. So let me quote a couple Statements from Brigham Young making my point:



> This people believe in revelation. This people did believe and do believe that the Lord has spoken from the heavens. They did believe and do believe that God has sent angels to proclaim the everlasting Gospel, according to the testimony of John [see Revelation 14:6&#8211;7] (DBY, 38).
> 
> We often hear it said that the living oracles must be in the Church, in order that the Kingdom of God may be established and prosper on the earth. I will give another version of this sentiment. I say that the living oracles of God, or the Spirit of revelation must be in each and every individual, to know the plan of salvation and keep in the path that leads them to the presence of God (DBY, 38).
> It was asked me by a gentleman how I guided the people by revelation. I teach them to live so that the Spirit of revelation may make plain to them their duty day by day that they are able to guide themselves. To get this revelation it is necessary that the people live so that their spirits are as pure and clean as a piece of blank paper that lies on the desk before the [writer], ready to receive any mark the writer may make upon it (DBY, 41).
> 
> *No earthly argument, no earthly reasoning can open the minds of intelligent beings and show them heavenly things; that can only be done by the Spirit of revelation *[see 1 Corinthians 2:9&#8211;14] (DBY, 37).
> 
> The revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of truth will detect everything, and enable all who possess it to understand truth from error, light from darkness, the things of God from the things not of God. It is the only thing that will enable us to understand the Gospel of the Son of God, the will of God, and how we can be saved. Follow it, and it will lead to God, the Fountain of light, where the gate will be open, and the mind will be enlightened so that we shall see, know and understand things as they are (DBY, 34).
> 
> *No man can know Jesus the Christ except it be revealed from heaven to him [see 1 Corinthians 12:3]* (DBY, 37).
> 
> Without revelation direct from heaven, it is impossible for any person to understand fully the plan of salvation (DBY, 38).
> 
> *Without the revelations of God we know not who we are, whence we came, nor who formed the earth on which we live, move and have our being (DBY, 37).*
> 
> When the Spirit of revelation from God inspires a man, his mind is opened to behold the beauty, order, and glory of the creation of this earth and its inhabitants, the object of its creation, and the purpose of its Creator in peopling it with his children. He can then clearly understand that our existence here is for the sole purpose of exaltation and restoration to the presence of our Father and God (DBY, 37).
> 
> In every part and portion of the revelations of God as given to the children of men, or to any individual in heaven or on earth, to understand them properly, a man needs the Spirit by which they were given&#8212;the Spirit that reveals such matters to the understanding, and makes them familiar to the mind (DBY, 39).
> 
> But we should all live so that the Spirit of revelation could dictate and write on the heart and tell us what we should do instead of the traditions of our parents and teachers. But to do this we must become like little children; and Jesus says if we do not we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. How simple it is! Live free from envy, malice, wrath, strife, bitter feelings, and evil speaking in our families and about our neighbors and friends and all the inhabitants of the earth, wherever we meet them. Live so that our consciences are free, clean and clear (DBY, 36).
> 
> Should you receive a vision or revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot safely reveal himself to such persons (DBY, 40&#8211;41).
> 
> How do we know that prophets wrote the word of the Lord? By revelation. How do we know that Joseph Smith was called of God to establish his Kingdom upon the earth? By revelation. How do we know that the leaders of this people teach the truth? By revelation (DBY, 38).
> 
> How can you know the Latter-day work to be true? You can know it only by the spirit of revelation direct from heaven. What proved this work true to you &#8230;? Was it not the spirit of revelation that rested upon you? &#8230; You should add to it day by day; you should add as the Lord gives&#8212;a little here and a little there, and treasure up truth in your faith and understanding, until you become perfect before the Lord and are prepared to receive the further things of the Kingdom of God (DBY, 36).
> 
> (Communication between God and Man)



Or from his statements in Our search for truth and personal testimony:



> A man or woman desirous of knowing the truth, upon hearing the Gospel of the Son of God proclaimed in truth and simplicity, should ask the Father, in the name of Jesus, if this is true. If they do not take this course, they try and argue themselves into the belief that they are as honest as any man or woman can be on the face of the earth; but they are not, they are careless as to their own best interests (DBY, 430).
> 
> Wait until you have searched and researched and have obtained wisdom to understand what we preach. &#8230; If it is the work of God, it will stand [see Acts 5:38&#8211;39] (DBY, 435).
> 
> It is both the duty and privilege of the Latter-day Saints to know that their religion is true (DBY, 429).
> 
> Let every one get a knowledge for himself that this work is true. We do not want you to say that it is true until you know that it is; and if you know it, that knowledge is as good to you as though the Lord came down and told you (DBY, 429).
> 
> It is a special privilege and blessing of the holy Gospel to every true believer, to know the truth for himself (DBY, 429).
> 
> *I do not want men to come to me or my brethren for testimony as to the truth of this work; but let them take the Scriptures of divine truth, and there the path is pointed out to them as plainly as ever a guideboard indicated the right path to the weary traveler. There they are directed to go, not to &#8230; any Apostle or Elder in Israel, but to the Father in the name of Jesus, and ask for the information they need. Can they who take this course in honesty and sincerity receive information? Will the Lord turn away from the honest heart seeking the truth? No, he will not; he will prove it to them, by the revelations of his Spirit, the facts in the case. And when the mind is open to the revelations of the Lord it comprehends them quicker and keener than anything that is seen by the natural eye. It is not what we see with our eyes&#8212;they may be deceived&#8212;but what is revealed by the Lord from heaven that is sure and steadfast, and abides forever* (DBY, 429&#8211;30).
> 
> We must have the testimony of the Lord Jesus to enable us to discern between truth and error, light and darkness, him who is of God, and him who is not of God, and to know how to place everything where it belongs. &#8230; There is no other method or process which will actually school a person so that he can become a Saint of God, and prepare him for a celestial glory; he must have within him the testimony of the spirit of the Gospel (DBY, 429).



And:



> Men rise up here and say they do know that this is the work of God, that Joseph was a Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that the revelations through Joseph Smith are true, and this is the last dispensation and the fulness of times, wherein God has set his hand to gather Israel for the last time, and redeem and build up Zion. &#8230; How do they know this? Persons know and will continue to know and understand many things by the manifestations of the Spirit, that through the organization of the tabernacle it is impossible otherwise to convey. Much of the most important information is alone derived through the power and testimony of the Holy Ghost. &#8230; This is the only way you can convey a knowledge of the invisible things of God [see 1 Corinthians 2:9&#8211;14; 1 Corinthians 12:3] (DBY, 430).
> 
> Nothing short of the Holy Spirit &#8230; can prove to you that this is the work of God. Men uninspired of God cannot by their worldly wisdom disprove it, or prevail against it; neither can they by wisdom alone prove it to be true, either to themselves or to others. Their not being able to prevail against it does not prove it to be the Kingdom of God, for there are many theories and systems on the earth, incontrovertible by the wisdom of the world, which are nevertheless false. Nothing less than the power of the Almighty, enlightening the understanding of men, can demonstrate this glorious truth to the human mind (DBY, 430&#8211;31).
> 
> *How are we to know the voice of the Good Shepherd from the voice of a stranger? Can any person answer this question? I can. It is very easy. To every philosopher upon the earth, I say, your eye can be deceived, so can mine; your ear can be deceived, so can mine; the touch of your hand can be deceived, so can mine; but the Spirit of God filling the creature with revelation and the light of eternity, cannot be mistaken&#8212;the revelation which comes from God is never mistaken. When an individual, filled with the Spirit of God, declares the truth of heaven, the sheep hear that [see D&C 29:7], the Spirit of the Lord pierces their inmost souls and sinks deep into their hearts; by the testimony of the Holy Ghost light springs up within them, and they see and understand for themselves *(DBY, 431).
> 
> There is but one witness&#8212;one testimony, pertaining to the evidence of the Gospel of the Son of God, and that is the Spirit that he diffused among his disciples. Do his will, and we shall know whether he speaks by the authority of the Father or of himself. Do as he commands us to do, and we shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God or not [see John 7:16&#8211;17]. It is only by the revelations of the Spirit that we can know the things of God (DBY, 431&#8211;32).
> 
> Be diligent and prayerful. It is your privilege to know for yourself God lives and that He is doing a work in these last days and we are His honored ministers. Live for this knowledge and you will receive it. Remember your prayers and be fervent in spirit (LBY, 245).
> 
> My testimony is based upon experience, upon my own experience, in connection with that obtained by observing others. &#8230; The heavenly truth commends itself to every person&#8217;s judgment and to their faith; and more especially to the sense of those who wish to be honest with themselves, with their God, and with their neighbor. &#8230; If persons can receive a little, it proves they may receive more. If they can receive the first and second principles with an upright feeling, they may receive still more (DBY, 433).
> 
> My testimony is positive. &#8230; I know that the sun shines, I know that I exist and have a being, and I testify that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ lives, and that he is the Savior of the world. Have you been to heaven and learned to the contrary? I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and that he had many revelations. Who can disprove this testimony? Any one may dispute it, but there is no one in the world who can disprove it. I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself, and know these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived, but the Spirit of God cannot be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit, the whole man is filled with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and know that which is beyond the power of man to controvert. What I know concerning God, concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and the praise (DBY, 433).



These principles have hardly been taught solely by Brigham Young. All the Prophets and Apostles have taught these things. My own personal experiences have shown me that this is true as well. It was the Spirit who told me that Joseph Smith was a prophet. When I relied on my own understanding there was reason to doubt. Both sides could make arguments. But I notice there is only ever one side that tells people to not trust them but go to God and find out. I did that. I invite you and any one else who is reading this to do this. Because when the Spirit of the Lord testifies to a man, He cannot honestly deny it. The Spirit overwhelms us with love, glory, power. Even those words, while accurately depicting the experience barely begin to describe it.

I've pointed out a few problems with the episode. I would hardly say that's all of them, but I've made my point. It's a caricature. A pretty good one, even funny to a degree. But it's a caricature. It takes the Restoration out of context. It misrepresents those who are depicted. It was designed to do that. It's not supposed to be 100% accurate. That's precisely why you can't rely on it for knowledge of the truth. It has great entertainment value, but when we are talking about the truth, you'd be a fool to rely on it.

There is only one source of truth in the Universe. And that is God. He reveals the truths about His Gospel and Kingdom. He inspires all the truths of men, religious, philosophical, or scientific. No one has learned anything that God has not revealed to man.

If you want to know the Truth of the Restoration you need to study the Book of Mormon. You need to study the Bible. And the other revelations. You need to read the words of the Prophets and Apostles. And most importantly you need to pray to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ and if you do that in humility and sincerity, you will find out for yourself whether it's true or not.

This work is either of God or it's not. And the only one who can give you an answer to that is God.


----------



## Avatar4321

Last one was longer than i expected. I guess I should have more reasonable expectations. Hope you are able to read through it.


----------



## IndependntLogic

Avatar4321 said:


> Last one was longer than i expected. I guess I should have more reasonable expectations. Hope you are able to read through it.



No I didn't read all that but thanks for sharing so much about your faith with a bunch of strangers. So basically, the SOuth Park thing was pretty darn close. Well okay. I'm good with that. And it doesn't change my opinion about Mormons at all. They are still the nicest group of people I could hope to meet.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hhhhhhmmmm.....
> 
> We were talking health codes here.
> 
> You forget your pill again ?
> 
> How would you know what Joseph Joseph Smith was interested in when he gave the 89th section of the D&C (the health code) ?  That was the subject on the table and you made the claim he was not interested in anyone's health.
> 
> Now back it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you were too dumb to follow the argument.
> 
> Of course, if you had a brain, you wouldn't be a Mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tranlation: You can't.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...


Uh, no, guy, I know exactly what he was interested in by the way he ran his entire cult. Even the most fucked up cult in the world has an occassional good thing or two in it.  

But Smith was not a medical doctor, and he wasn't talking to God.  Sorry, he wasn't.  He just wanted one more thing he could tell people to do, because that's what cults and religions are about- telling people how to run their lives.


----------



## JoeB131

> Let's start with a few inaccuracies with the South Park episode:
> 
> 1) It claims Joseph was the only one who ever saw the plates. Which is false.
> 
> Introduction*
> 
> 2) It says that Mormons believe that Israelites are the only ancestors to Native Americans. Also false.
> 
> see also the above link
> 
> 3) It depicts Martin Harris as a simpleton. This isn't the case. It also neglets to mention the time Martin Harris took the translations to New York to have scholars verify the text:



Okay... Here's the thing. 

On the plates.  The "witnesses" themselves frequently changed their story about whether they saw plates or not.  But let's say they did.  Pretty easy to fake plates.  the Kinderhook guys did that, and Joseph Smith said those plates were real, too.  

On Native Americans- The original BOM said the Lamanites were the ancestors of the Native Americans. They were cursed with dark skin for killing the Nephites.  Later versions changed that to "among the ancestors".  Nice dodge.  But it's all still pretty silly.  Where is the archeological evidence. 

Final point.  Yeah, Martin Smith was a strange bird all around. He left Mormonism, joined about five splinter groups before going to Utah to rejoin the cult.  The man was kind of pathetic, but it's usually the pathetic that join cults.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you were too dumb to follow the argument.
> 
> Of course, if you had a brain, you wouldn't be a Mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tranlation: You can't.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy, I know exactly what he was interested in by the way he ran his entire cult. Even the most fucked up cult in the world has an occassional good thing or two in it.
> 
> But Smith was not a medical doctor, and he wasn't talking to God.  Sorry, he wasn't.  He just wanted one more thing he could tell people to do, because that's what cults and religions are about- telling people how to run their lives.
Click to expand...


This has to be one of the most pathetic responses I have ever seen from someone.

What makes it even more sad is that you actually think this somehow passes for a rational argument.

You don't know that he wasn't talking to God.  That is just a conclusion you have reached.  If you were to at least qualify your responses, you might not be considered the board moron.

Nobody in this cult tells me how to run my life.  They present the plan and I can either follow the plan or not.  When I don't, nobody is at my door to do anything about it.

Your bitterness is stark even compared to others I have seen.

And you debate skills are almost non-existant.

When you can tell me how you know what Joseph Smiths intentions were in a way that demonstrates you have evidence to present instead of bile to spew, we'll talk.


----------



## Avatar4321

Actually, no the witnesses went out of the ways to affirm their testimonies till the day they died. Oliver Cowdery shared his testimony of the Book of Mormon even though it cost him an election to be the governor of Wisconsin. He later returned to his saints and according to David Whitmer died with his testimony on his lips. David Whitmer was no longer involved with the Church but continued affirming his testimony until he died as well. He even went out of his way to call reporters to him to testify to it. Martin Harris likewise affirmed his testimony till the day he died, even though he was separated from the Saints for a while. 

I've read some of the correspondence between Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer after they had left the Church. A time where they were not on good terms with Joseph. Yet, these two man reaffirmed that they had seen the plates and talked about things that really make no sense if they were denying their testimony. They had no reason to expect these letters to be read by anyone but each other. 

All very interesting men. And that's not including the 8 other witnesses off the top of that. 

So what your saying is you think it can be faked. You think that a poor farm boy who was barely able to get by managed to buy enough gold plating for the project, forge metal plates with intricate carvings on it, and then convince an Angel of God to come down and show said plates to the others in an elaborate scheme to decieve the witnesses in such a way that even when they are not talking to you and have every reason to expose the plot or deny what they saw, they will continue to reaffirm their testimony of what they saw. And you think he would do this so he could be mobbed, chased, driven from his home and family multiple times. and ultimately to be murdered after watching his brother brutally murdered.

one of the problems I've always found with the critics version is that it takes much more effort to believe their version than it does to believe Joseph's version. The people involved just dont act in a way that makes the critics version likely.

Oh, and about the Kinderhook plates. There is little evidence Joseph cared one wit about them. His behavior with them was completely different than with the BoA text. But I would hardly expect you to agree. That would require taking an unbiased look at it. Something you aren't willing to do for whatever reason. It really is a shame you should lose out on blessings you would otherwise be eligible to recieve because of your hard heart.


----------



## daws101

avatar4321 said:


> let's start with a few inaccuracies with the south park episode:
> 
> 1) it claims joseph was the only one who ever saw the plates. Which is false.
> 
> introduction*
> 
> 2) it says that mormons believe that israelites are the only ancestors to native americans. Also false.
> 
> See also the above link
> 
> 3) it depicts martin harris as a simpleton. This isn't the case. It also neglets to mention the time martin harris took the translations to new york to have scholars verify the text:
> 
> joseph smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sometime in this month of february, the aforementioned mr. Martin harris came to our place, got the characters which i had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of new york. For what took place relative to him and the characters, i refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:
> 
> 64 i went to the city of new york, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to professor charles anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were egyptian, chaldaic, assyriac, and arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of god had revealed it unto him.
> 
> 65 he then said to me, let me see that certificate. i accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if i would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that i was forbidden to bring them. He replied, i cannot read a sealed book. i left him and went to dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what professor anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and interesting experience, not solely because of the prophecy is isaiah 29. Here we have an experience between professor anthon and martin harris. Mr. Anthon, of course, offers a different story claiming he told martin harris it was a complete fraud to begin with. Ignoring dr. Mitchell's verification, martin and the professor are the only two who know what really happened.
> 
> I'm more inclined to believe martin's version. Not because my belief in the restoration, but simply because of how martin reacted after the experience. If the encounter happened the way professor anthon stated, then martin's behavior of becoming a solid believer of the restoration and mortgaging his property to finance the book of mormon when anthon told him it was a fraud makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He already had his wife against him being involved, which is why he was timid about getting involved to begin with. But after this incident he was eagerly supporting the endevour.
> 
> Professor anthon, on the other hand, has motivation to lie. He is worried about his reputation and doesn't want to be associated with mormonism... Which is ironic because im sure that's the only reason anyone has any idea who he is.
> 
> 4) concerning the 114 lost pages, they tried to use that as an argument used by the mormons to prove it was true. No latter-day saint would make such a ridiculous argument in an attempt to convert an investigator. Latter-day saints are taught throughout their lives to share the gospel. And we are taught to:
> 
> A) testify to the truth that has been revealed to us by the power of the spirit
> b) encourage investigators to read the book of mormon for themselves and test it as moroni and alma taught. (see alma 32 & moroni 10:3-5)
> c) go to god to find out for yourself.
> 
> We do this because we realize that the only way anyone can know for sure whether the book of mormon is true is by the spirit of god. Yes, we can make rational arguments for and against. But rational arguments are meaningless one god reveals himself through the power of the holy ghost.
> 
> Im restudying the brigham young manual. So let me quote a couple statements from brigham young making my point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this people believe in revelation. This people did believe and do believe that the lord has spoken from the heavens. They did believe and do believe that god has sent angels to proclaim the everlasting gospel, according to the testimony of john [see revelation 14:67] (dby, 38).
> 
> We often hear it said that the living oracles must be in the church, in order that the kingdom of god may be established and prosper on the earth. I will give another version of this sentiment. I say that the living oracles of god, or the spirit of revelation must be in each and every individual, to know the plan of salvation and keep in the path that leads them to the presence of god (dby, 38).
> It was asked me by a gentleman how i guided the people by revelation. I teach them to live so that the spirit of revelation may make plain to them their duty day by day that they are able to guide themselves. To get this revelation it is necessary that the people live so that their spirits are as pure and clean as a piece of blank paper that lies on the desk before the [writer], ready to receive any mark the writer may make upon it (dby, 41).
> 
> *no earthly argument, no earthly reasoning can open the minds of intelligent beings and show them heavenly things; that can only be done by the spirit of revelation *[see 1 corinthians 2:914] (dby, 37).
> 
> The revelations of the lord jesus christ, the spirit of truth will detect everything, and enable all who possess it to understand truth from error, light from darkness, the things of god from the things not of god. It is the only thing that will enable us to understand the gospel of the son of god, the will of god, and how we can be saved. Follow it, and it will lead to god, the fountain of light, where the gate will be open, and the mind will be enlightened so that we shall see, know and understand things as they are (dby, 34).
> 
> *no man can know jesus the christ except it be revealed from heaven to him [see 1 corinthians 12:3]* (dby, 37).
> 
> Without revelation direct from heaven, it is impossible for any person to understand fully the plan of salvation (dby, 38).
> 
> *without the revelations of god we know not who we are, whence we came, nor who formed the earth on which we live, move and have our being (dby, 37).*
> 
> when the spirit of revelation from god inspires a man, his mind is opened to behold the beauty, order, and glory of the creation of this earth and its inhabitants, the object of its creation, and the purpose of its creator in peopling it with his children. He can then clearly understand that our existence here is for the sole purpose of exaltation and restoration to the presence of our father and god (dby, 37).
> 
> In every part and portion of the revelations of god as given to the children of men, or to any individual in heaven or on earth, to understand them properly, a man needs the spirit by which they were giventhe spirit that reveals such matters to the understanding, and makes them familiar to the mind (dby, 39).
> 
> But we should all live so that the spirit of revelation could dictate and write on the heart and tell us what we should do instead of the traditions of our parents and teachers. But to do this we must become like little children; and jesus says if we do not we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. How simple it is! Live free from envy, malice, wrath, strife, bitter feelings, and evil speaking in our families and about our neighbors and friends and all the inhabitants of the earth, wherever we meet them. Live so that our consciences are free, clean and clear (dby, 36).
> 
> Should you receive a vision or revelation from the almighty, one that the lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot safely reveal himself to such persons (dby, 4041).
> 
> How do we know that prophets wrote the word of the lord? By revelation. How do we know that joseph smith was called of god to establish his kingdom upon the earth? By revelation. How do we know that the leaders of this people teach the truth? By revelation (dby, 38).
> 
> How can you know the latter-day work to be true? You can know it only by the spirit of revelation direct from heaven. What proved this work true to you ? Was it not the spirit of revelation that rested upon you?  you should add to it day by day; you should add as the lord givesa little here and a little there, and treasure up truth in your faith and understanding, until you become perfect before the lord and are prepared to receive the further things of the kingdom of god (dby, 36).
> 
> (communication between god and man)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> or from his statements in our search for truth and personal testimony:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a man or woman desirous of knowing the truth, upon hearing the gospel of the son of god proclaimed in truth and simplicity, should ask the father, in the name of jesus, if this is true. If they do not take this course, they try and argue themselves into the belief that they are as honest as any man or woman can be on the face of the earth; but they are not, they are careless as to their own best interests (dby, 430).
> 
> Wait until you have searched and researched and have obtained wisdom to understand what we preach.  if it is the work of god, it will stand [see acts 5:3839] (dby, 435).
> 
> It is both the duty and privilege of the latter-day saints to know that their religion is true (dby, 429).
> 
> Let every one get a knowledge for himself that this work is true. We do not want you to say that it is true until you know that it is; and if you know it, that knowledge is as good to you as though the lord came down and told you (dby, 429).
> 
> It is a special privilege and blessing of the holy gospel to every true believer, to know the truth for himself (dby, 429).
> 
> *i do not want men to come to me or my brethren for testimony as to the truth of this work; but let them take the scriptures of divine truth, and there the path is pointed out to them as plainly as ever a guideboard indicated the right path to the weary traveler. There they are directed to go, not to  any apostle or elder in israel, but to the father in the name of jesus, and ask for the information they need. Can they who take this course in honesty and sincerity receive information? Will the lord turn away from the honest heart seeking the truth? No, he will not; he will prove it to them, by the revelations of his spirit, the facts in the case. And when the mind is open to the revelations of the lord it comprehends them quicker and keener than anything that is seen by the natural eye. It is not what we see with our eyesthey may be deceivedbut what is revealed by the lord from heaven that is sure and steadfast, and abides forever* (dby, 42930).
> 
> We must have the testimony of the lord jesus to enable us to discern between truth and error, light and darkness, him who is of god, and him who is not of god, and to know how to place everything where it belongs.  there is no other method or process which will actually school a person so that he can become a saint of god, and prepare him for a celestial glory; he must have within him the testimony of the spirit of the gospel (dby, 429).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> men rise up here and say they do know that this is the work of god, that joseph was a prophet, that the book of mormon is true, that the revelations through joseph smith are true, and this is the last dispensation and the fulness of times, wherein god has set his hand to gather israel for the last time, and redeem and build up zion.  how do they know this? Persons know and will continue to know and understand many things by the manifestations of the spirit, that through the organization of the tabernacle it is impossible otherwise to convey. Much of the most important information is alone derived through the power and testimony of the holy ghost.  this is the only way you can convey a knowledge of the invisible things of god [see 1 corinthians 2:914; 1 corinthians 12:3] (dby, 430).
> 
> Nothing short of the holy spirit  can prove to you that this is the work of god. Men uninspired of god cannot by their worldly wisdom disprove it, or prevail against it; neither can they by wisdom alone prove it to be true, either to themselves or to others. Their not being able to prevail against it does not prove it to be the kingdom of god, for there are many theories and systems on the earth, incontrovertible by the wisdom of the world, which are nevertheless false. Nothing less than the power of the almighty, enlightening the understanding of men, can demonstrate this glorious truth to the human mind (dby, 43031).
> 
> *how are we to know the voice of the good shepherd from the voice of a stranger? Can any person answer this question? I can. It is very easy. To every philosopher upon the earth, i say, your eye can be deceived, so can mine; your ear can be deceived, so can mine; the touch of your hand can be deceived, so can mine; but the spirit of god filling the creature with revelation and the light of eternity, cannot be mistakenthe revelation which comes from god is never mistaken. When an individual, filled with the spirit of god, declares the truth of heaven, the sheep hear that [see d&c 29:7], the spirit of the lord pierces their inmost souls and sinks deep into their hearts; by the testimony of the holy ghost light springs up within them, and they see and understand for themselves *(dby, 431).
> 
> There is but one witnessone testimony, pertaining to the evidence of the gospel of the son of god, and that is the spirit that he diffused among his disciples. Do his will, and we shall know whether he speaks by the authority of the father or of himself. Do as he commands us to do, and we shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of god or not [see john 7:1617]. It is only by the revelations of the spirit that we can know the things of god (dby, 43132).
> 
> Be diligent and prayerful. It is your privilege to know for yourself god lives and that he is doing a work in these last days and we are his honored ministers. Live for this knowledge and you will receive it. Remember your prayers and be fervent in spirit (lby, 245).
> 
> My testimony is based upon experience, upon my own experience, in connection with that obtained by observing others.  the heavenly truth commends itself to every persons judgment and to their faith; and more especially to the sense of those who wish to be honest with themselves, with their god, and with their neighbor.  if persons can receive a little, it proves they may receive more. If they can receive the first and second principles with an upright feeling, they may receive still more (dby, 433).
> 
> My testimony is positive.  i know that the sun shines, i know that i exist and have a being, and i testify that there is a god, and that jesus christ lives, and that he is the savior of the world. Have you been to heaven and learned to the contrary? I know that joseph smith was a prophet of god, and that he had many revelations. Who can disprove this testimony? Any one may dispute it, but there is no one in the world who can disprove it. I have had many revelations; i have seen and heard for myself, and know these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived, but the spirit of god cannot be deceived; and when inspired with that spirit, the whole man is filled with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and know that which is beyond the power of man to controvert. What i know concerning god, concerning the earth, concerning government, i have received from the heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and i give god the glory and the praise (dby, 433).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these principles have hardly been taught solely by brigham young. All the prophets and apostles have taught these things. My own personal experiences have shown me that this is true as well. It was the spirit who told me that joseph smith was a prophet. When i relied on my own understanding there was reason to doubt. Both sides could make arguments. But i notice there is only ever one side that tells people to not trust them but go to god and find out. I did that. I invite you and any one else who is reading this to do this. Because when the spirit of the lord testifies to a man, he cannot honestly deny it. The spirit overwhelms us with love, glory, power. Even those words, while accurately depicting the experience barely begin to describe it.
> 
> I've pointed out a few problems with the episode. I would hardly say that's all of them, but i've made my point. It's a caricature. A pretty good one, even funny to a degree. But it's a caricature. It takes the restoration out of context. It misrepresents those who are depicted. It was designed to do that. It's not supposed to be 100% accurate. That's precisely why you can't rely on it for knowledge of the truth. It has great entertainment value, but when we are talking about the truth, you'd be a fool to rely on it.
> 
> There is only one source of truth in the universe. And that is god. He reveals the truths about his gospel and kingdom. He inspires all the truths of men, religious, philosophical, or scientific. No one has learned anything that god has not revealed to man.
> 
> If you want to know the truth of the restoration you need to study the book of mormon. You need to study the bible. And the other revelations. You need to read the words of the prophets and apostles. And most importantly you need to pray to god the father in the name of jesus christ and if you do that in humility and sincerity, you will find out for yourself whether it's true or not.
> 
> This work is either of god or it's not. And the only one who can give you an answer to that is god.
Click to expand...

a mormon link! Just a touch bias dont you think!


----------



## JoeB131

Just going to fool with this bit of stupidity... 



> Oh, and about the Kinderhook plates. There is little evidence Joseph cared one wit about them. His behavior with them was completely different than with the BoA text. But I would hardly expect you to agree. That would require taking an unbiased look at it. Something you aren't willing to do for whatever reason. It really is a shame you should lose out on blessings you would otherwise be eligible to recieve because of your hard heart.



That would be the same BoA that was later proven to be a Ptomelic Funerary Scroll, NOT an account of Abraham's time in Egypt. 

But here's the thing. A confident of Smith said, ' _I have seen 6 brass plates...covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. [Joseph Smith] has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth."_

And official history quoted Smith as saying- 

_I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook, in Pike county, Illinois, on April 23, by Mr. Robert Wiley and others, while excavating a large mound. They found a skeleton about six feet from the surface of the earth, which must have stood nine feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the skeleton and were covered on both sides with ancient characters.

I have translated a portion of them and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth._

So in short, you have TWO examples of things people have seen that have been verified to have been translated in error by Joseph Smith, who let's not forget, was on God's Fav Five at the time. So you'll have to kind of understand why I doubt that these Golden Plates that no one can produce reallly said what Smith said they said.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> You don't know that he wasn't talking to God.  That is just a conclusion you have reached.  If you were to at least qualify your responses, you might not be considered the board moron.
> 
> Nobody in this cult tells me how to run my life.  They present the plan and I can either follow the plan or not.  When I don't, nobody is at my door to do anything about it.
> 
> .



The fact that you are going batshit crazy because a total stranger is mocking the stupidity tells me you are probably just a step from swigging the kool-aid.  

I know he wasn't talking to God because 

1) THere is no God. Never was. 
2) If he were talking to the omnipotent creator of the universe, he simply wouldn't have gotten so many things wrong.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Let's start with a few inaccuracies with the South Park episode:
> 
> 1Introduction*
> 
> 2) It says that Mormons believe that Israelites are the only ancestors to Native Americans. Also false.
> 
> see also the above link
> 
> 3) It depicts Martin Harris as a simpleton. This isn't the case. It also neglets to mention the time Martin Harris took the translations to New York to have scholars verify the text:
> 
> Joseph Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:
> 
> 64 I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.
> 
> 65 He then said to me, Let me see that certificate. I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, I cannot read a sealed book. I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And interesting experience, not solely because of the prophecy is Isaiah 29. Here we have an experience between Professor Anthon and Martin Harris. Mr. Anthon, of course, offers a different story claiming he told Martin Harris it was a complete fraud to begin with. Ignoring Dr. Mitchell's verification, Martin and the professor are the only two who know what really happened.
> 
> I'm more inclined to believe Martin's version. Not because my belief in the Restoration, but simply because of how Martin reacted after the experience. If the encounter happened the way Professor Anthon stated, then Martin's behavior of becoming a solid believer of the Restoration and mortgaging his property to finance the Book of Mormon when Anthon told him it was a fraud makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He already had his wife against him being involved, which is why he was timid about getting involved to begin with. But after this incident he was eagerly supporting the endevour.
> 
> Professor Anthon, on the other hand, has motivation to lie. He is worried about his reputation and doesn't want to be associated with Mormonism... which is ironic because im sure that's the only reason anyone has any idea who he is.
> 
> 4) Concerning the 114 lost pages, they tried to use that as an argument used by the Mormons to prove it was true. No Latter-day Saint would make such a ridiculous argument in an attempt to convert an investigator. Latter-day Saints are taught throughout their lives to share the Gospel. And we are taught to:
> 
> a) Testify to the truth that has been revealed to us by the power of the Spirit
> b) Encourage investigators to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and test it as Moroni and Alma taught. (See Alma 32 & Moroni 10:3-5)
> c) Go to God to find out for yourself.
> 
> We do this because we realize that the only way anyone can know for sure whether the Book of Mormon is true is by the Spirit of God. Yes, we can make rational arguments for and against. But rational arguments are meaningless one God reveals Himself through the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Im restudying the Brigham Young Manual. So let me quote a couple Statements from Brigham Young making my point:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This people believe in revelation. This people did believe and do believe that the Lord has spoken from the heavens. They did believe and do believe that God has sent angels to proclaim the everlasting Gospel, according to the testimony of John [see Revelation 14:67] (DBY, 38).
> 
> We often hear it said that the living oracles must be in the Church, in order that the Kingdom of God may be established and prosper on the earth. I will give another version of this sentiment. I say that the living oracles of God, or the Spirit of revelation must be in each and every individual, to know the plan of salvation and keep in the path that leads them to the presence of God (DBY, 38).
> It was asked me by a gentleman how I guided the people by revelation. I teach them to live so that the Spirit of revelation may make plain to them their duty day by day that they are able to guide themselves. To get this revelation it is necessary that the people live so that their spirits are as pure and clean as a piece of blank paper that lies on the desk before the [writer], ready to receive any mark the writer may make upon it (DBY, 41).
> 
> *No earthly argument, no earthly reasoning can open the minds of intelligent beings and show them heavenly things; that can only be done by the Spirit of revelation *[see 1 Corinthians 2:914] (DBY, 37).
> 
> The revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of truth will detect everything, and enable all who possess it to understand truth from error, light from darkness, the things of God from the things not of God. It is the only thing that will enable us to understand the Gospel of the Son of God, the will of God, and how we can be saved. Follow it, and it will lead to God, the Fountain of light, where the gate will be open, and the mind will be enlightened so that we shall see, know and understand things as they are (DBY, 34).
> 
> *No man can know Jesus the Christ except it be revealed from heaven to him [see 1 Corinthians 12:3]* (DBY, 37).
> 
> Without revelation direct from heaven, it is impossible for any person to understand fully the plan of salvation (DBY, 38).
> 
> *Without the revelations of God we know not who we are, whence we came, nor who formed the earth on which we live, move and have our being (DBY, 37).*
> 
> When the Spirit of revelation from God inspires a man, his mind is opened to behold the beauty, order, and glory of the creation of this earth and its inhabitants, the object of its creation, and the purpose of its Creator in peopling it with his children. He can then clearly understand that our existence here is for the sole purpose of exaltation and restoration to the presence of our Father and God (DBY, 37).
> 
> In every part and portion of the revelations of God as given to the children of men, or to any individual in heaven or on earth, to understand them properly, a man needs the Spirit by which they were giventhe Spirit that reveals such matters to the understanding, and makes them familiar to the mind (DBY, 39).
> 
> But we should all live so that the Spirit of revelation could dictate and write on the heart and tell us what we should do instead of the traditions of our parents and teachers. But to do this we must become like little children; and Jesus says if we do not we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. How simple it is! Live free from envy, malice, wrath, strife, bitter feelings, and evil speaking in our families and about our neighbors and friends and all the inhabitants of the earth, wherever we meet them. Live so that our consciences are free, clean and clear (DBY, 36).
> 
> Should you receive a vision or revelation from the Almighty, one that the Lord gave you concerning yourselves, or this people, but which you are not to reveal on account of your not being the proper person, or because it ought not to be known by the people at present, you should shut it up and seal it as close, and lock it as tight as heaven is to you, and make it as secret as the grave. The Lord has no confidence in those who reveal secrets, for he cannot safely reveal himself to such persons (DBY, 4041).
> 
> How do we know that prophets wrote the word of the Lord? By revelation. How do we know that Joseph Smith was called of God to establish his Kingdom upon the earth? By revelation. How do we know that the leaders of this people teach the truth? By revelation (DBY, 38).
> 
> How can you know the Latter-day work to be true? You can know it only by the spirit of revelation direct from heaven. What proved this work true to you ? Was it not the spirit of revelation that rested upon you?  You should add to it day by day; you should add as the Lord givesa little here and a little there, and treasure up truth in your faith and understanding, until you become perfect before the Lord and are prepared to receive the further things of the Kingdom of God (DBY, 36).
> 
> (Communication between God and Man)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or from his statements in Our search for truth and personal testimony:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A man or woman desirous of knowing the truth, upon hearing the Gospel of the Son of God proclaimed in truth and simplicity, should ask the Father, in the name of Jesus, if this is true. If they do not take this course, they try and argue themselves into the belief that they are as honest as any man or woman can be on the face of the earth; but they are not, they are careless as to their own best interests (DBY, 430).
> 
> Wait until you have searched and researched and have obtained wisdom to understand what we preach.  If it is the work of God, it will stand [see Acts 5:3839] (DBY, 435).
> 
> It is both the duty and privilege of the Latter-day Saints to know that their religion is true (DBY, 429).
> 
> Let every one get a knowledge for himself that this work is true. We do not want you to say that it is true until you know that it is; and if you know it, that knowledge is as good to you as though the Lord came down and told you (DBY, 429).
> 
> It is a special privilege and blessing of the holy Gospel to every true believer, to know the truth for himself (DBY, 429).
> 
> *I do not want men to come to me or my brethren for testimony as to the truth of this work; but let them take the Scriptures of divine truth, and there the path is pointed out to them as plainly as ever a guideboard indicated the right path to the weary traveler. There they are directed to go, not to  any Apostle or Elder in Israel, but to the Father in the name of Jesus, and ask for the information they need. Can they who take this course in honesty and sincerity receive information? Will the Lord turn away from the honest heart seeking the truth? No, he will not; he will prove it to them, by the revelations of his Spirit, the facts in the case. And when the mind is open to the revelations of the Lord it comprehends them quicker and keener than anything that is seen by the natural eye. It is not what we see with our eyesthey may be deceivedbut what is revealed by the Lord from heaven that is sure and steadfast, and abides forever* (DBY, 42930).
> 
> We must have the testimony of the Lord Jesus to enable us to discern between truth and error, light and darkness, him who is of God, and him who is not of God, and to know how to place everything where it belongs.  There is no other method or process which will actually school a person so that he can become a Saint of God, and prepare him for a celestial glory; he must have within him the testimony of the spirit of the Gospel (DBY, 429).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men rise up here and say they do know that this is the work of God, that Joseph was a Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that the revelations through Joseph Smith are true, and this is the last dispensation and the fulness of times, wherein God has set his hand to gather Israel for the last time, and redeem and build up Zion.  How do they know this? Persons know and will continue to know and understand many things by the manifestations of the Spirit, that through the organization of the tabernacle it is impossible otherwise to convey. Much of the most important information is alone derived through the power and testimony of the Holy Ghost.  This is the only way you can convey a knowledge of the invisible things of God [see 1 Corinthians 2:914; 1 Corinthians 12:3] (DBY, 430).
> 
> Nothing short of the Holy Spirit  can prove to you that this is the work of God. Men uninspired of God cannot by their worldly wisdom disprove it, or prevail against it; neither can they by wisdom alone prove it to be true, either to themselves or to others. Their not being able to prevail against it does not prove it to be the Kingdom of God, for there are many theories and systems on the earth, incontrovertible by the wisdom of the world, which are nevertheless false. Nothing less than the power of the Almighty, enlightening the understanding of men, can demonstrate this glorious truth to the human mind (DBY, 43031).
> 
> *How are we to know the voice of the Good Shepherd from the voice of a stranger? Can any person answer this question? I can. It is very easy. To every philosopher upon the earth, I say, your eye can be deceived, so can mine; your ear can be deceived, so can mine; the touch of your hand can be deceived, so can mine; but the Spirit of God filling the creature with revelation and the light of eternity, cannot be mistakenthe revelation which comes from God is never mistaken. When an individual, filled with the Spirit of God, declares the truth of heaven, the sheep hear that [see D&C 29:7], the Spirit of the Lord pierces their inmost souls and sinks deep into their hearts; by the testimony of the Holy Ghost light springs up within them, and they see and understand for themselves *(DBY, 431).
> 
> There is but one witnessone testimony, pertaining to the evidence of the Gospel of the Son of God, and that is the Spirit that he diffused among his disciples. Do his will, and we shall know whether he speaks by the authority of the Father or of himself. Do as he commands us to do, and we shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God or not [see John 7:1617]. It is only by the revelations of the Spirit that we can know the things of God (DBY, 43132).
> 
> Be diligent and prayerful. It is your privilege to know for yourself God lives and that He is doing a work in these last days and we are His honored ministers. Live for this knowledge and you will receive it. Remember your prayers and be fervent in spirit (LBY, 245).
> 
> My testimony is based upon experience, upon my own experience, in connection with that obtained by observing others.  The heavenly truth commends itself to every persons judgment and to their faith; and more especially to the sense of those who wish to be honest with themselves, with their God, and with their neighbor.  If persons can receive a little, it proves they may receive more. If they can receive the first and second principles with an upright feeling, they may receive still more (DBY, 433).
> 
> My testimony is positive.  I know that the sun shines, I know that I exist and have a being, and I testify that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ lives, and that he is the Savior of the world. Have you been to heaven and learned to the contrary? I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and that he had many revelations. Who can disprove this testimony? Any one may dispute it, but there is no one in the world who can disprove it. I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself, and know these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived, but the Spirit of God cannot be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit, the whole man is filled with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and know that which is beyond the power of man to controvert. What I know concerning God, concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and the praise (DBY, 433).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These principles have hardly been taught solely by Brigham Young. All the Prophets and Apostles have taught these things. My own personal experiences have shown me that this is true as well. It was the Spirit who told me that Joseph Smith was a prophet. When I relied on my own understanding there was reason to doubt. Both sides could make arguments. But I notice there is only ever one side that tells people to not trust them but go to God and find out. I did that. I invite you and any one else who is reading this to do this. Because when the Spirit of the Lord testifies to a man, He cannot honestly deny it. The Spirit overwhelms us with love, glory, power. Even those words, while accurately depicting the experience barely begin to describe it.
> 
> I've pointed out a few problems with the episode. I would hardly say that's all of them, but I've made my point. It's a caricature. A pretty good one, even funny to a degree. But it's a caricature. It takes the Restoration out of context. It misrepresents those who are depicted. It was designed to do that. It's not supposed to be 100% accurate. That's precisely why you can't rely on it for knowledge of the truth. It has great entertainment value, but when we are talking about the truth, you'd be a fool to rely on it.
> 
> There is only one source of truth in the Universe. And that is God. He reveals the truths about His Gospel and Kingdom. He inspires all the truths of men, religious, philosophical, or scientific. No one has learned anything that God has not revealed to man.
> 
> If you want to know the Truth of the Restoration you need to study the Book of Mormon. You need to study the Bible. And the other revelations. You need to read the words of the Prophets and Apostles. And most importantly you need to pray to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ and if you do that in humility and sincerity, you will find out for yourself whether it's true or not.
> 
> This work is either of God or it's not. And the only one who can give you an answer to that is God.
Click to expand...

) "It claims Joseph was the only one who ever saw the plates. Which is false."-AVATAR
 NO IT'S TRUE: ...when questioned closely the witnesses said they never really saw the gold plates except when they were wrapped up or covered. They used terms like vision or I saw them with the eye of faith. ...Of these eleven total witnesses, over half apostatized from the Mormon church.... Joseph Smith and other Mormon officials are on record as calling his three main witnesses thieves and liars. In History of the Church Joseph Smith said, Such characters as ... David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention, and we would like to have forgotten them.
" It says that Mormons believe that Israelites are the only ancestors to Native Americans. Also false.

 WRONG AGAIN: 

According to the Book of Mormon, a Lamanite is a member of a dark-skinned nation of      indigenous Americans that battled with the light-skinned Nephite nation. Although mainstream archaeologists, geneticists, and historians do not recognize the existence of Lamanites, adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement typically believe that the Lamanites comprise some part, if not the entirety, of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the Polynesian people.

The Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites as descendants of Laman and Lemuel, two rebellious brothers of a family of Israelites who crossed the ocean in a boat around 600 BC. Their brother Nephi founded the Nephite nation. The Lamanites reputedly gained their dark skin as a sign of the curse for their rebelliousness (the curse itself being the withdrawal of the Spirit of God), and warred with the Nephites over a period of centuries. The book says that Jesus appeared and converted all the Lamanites to Christianity; however, after about two centuries, the Lamanites fell away and eventually exterminated all the Nephites. By the end of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were defined less by their skin color than by their lack of Christianity. Many Mormons believe that the Polynesian people originated from the descendents of Hagoth who led his people off on a ship and was never heard from again. Although Hagoth was a Nephite, these Mormons regard Polynesians as Lamanites.

The existence of a Lamanite nation has received no support within mainstream science or archaeology. Genetic studies indicate that the indigenous Americans are primarily from northeast Asia, and the Polynesians are from southeast Asia. This has led many Mormon apologetic scholars to hypothesize that the Lamanites were a small nation that merged with the indigenous population of northeast Asian origin and left no clear traces surviving into the modern world. Within the culture of Mormonism, indigenous Americans and Polynesians are still often called "Lamanites", but the practice is waning.



I grew up mormon ..even at the tender age of seven: this reeeked of bullshit.
thanks wiki.. According to Latter Day Saint belief, the golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th century literature, the golden Bible)[1] are the source from which Joseph Smith, Jr. translated the Book of Mormon, a sacred text of the faith. Some witnesses described the plates as weighing from 30 to 60 pounds,[2] being golden or brassy in color, and being composed of thin metallic pages engraved on both sides and bound with one or more rings.

Smith said he found the plates on September 22, 1823 at a hill near his home in Manchester, New York after an angel directed him to a buried stone box. The angel at first prevented Smith from taking the plates because he had not followed the angel's instructions. In 1827, on his fourth annual attempt to retrieve the plates, Smith returned home with a heavy object wrapped in a frock, which he then put in a box. Though he allowed others to heft the box, he said that the angel had forbidden him to show the plates to anyone until they had been translated from their original "reformed Egyptian" language. Smith dictated a translation using a seer stone in the bottom of a hat, which he placed over his face to view the words written within the stone.[3] Smith published the translation in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.

Smith eventually obtained testimonies from eleven men, known as the Book of Mormon witnesses, who said they had seen the plates.[4] After the translation was complete, Smith said he returned the plates to their angelic guardian. Therefore, if the plates existed, they cannot now be examined. Latter Day Saints believe the account of the golden plates as a matter of faith, while critics often assert that either Smith manufactured the plates himself[5] or that the Book of Mormon witnesses based their testimony on visions rather than physical experience


----------



## daws101

Joseph Smith had the location of the gold plates revealed to him by god. He was also told that no-one else could view them.

He translated the plates using 'seer stones', from inside his hat, to be written down by Martin Harris.

Harris' wife hides the first set of pages, saying that if he really is translating from plates, he can do it again, word for word, but if not, he won't be able to.
Harris then returns to Smith and says that he has lost the pages. Smith then cannot repeat his translation, and claims that god tells him not to translate from that plate again, but instead to translate from another plate.

Is this last part accepted as part of the story by mormons, or are the south park guys making it up, or 'talking through their hats'? If it is a story told by mormons, I expect there must be some other details that make it seem more miraculous, or at least more convincing.

After looking for a while I found a reference that said anyone other than Smith that saw the plates would die. I also found another reference saying that some trusted group was shown the plates. Were they/Joseph first told that they wouldn't die, presumably by god?

I also saw some arguments that Joseph couldn't have written the book himself(or made it up as he went along, with his head in his hat) because he only had a basic education, whilst the book is beautifully written and a challenge is put forth for any human to write any book like it.
This struck me as remarkably similar to the arguments put forth by Islam, Mohammad being claimed to have been a humble goatherder, whilst the Qur'an is supposed to be some of the most beautiful language ever written.

This argument didn't sway me with Islam, since the only reason I have to think that Mohammad was a goatherder is that it says so in the Qur'an. I also can't read Arabic and the English translations sound like something anyone who has read th bible could make up on the spot.
Often whilst in religious debates people of various religions have claimed to me that their own couldn't possibly have been 'made up by some guy/group of people who wanted to start a religion', whilst it is implied that all other religions must have started or deviated like that. I'm shocked to find that there is a religion that appears so obviously to have been made up on the spot. I'm intrigued to find what form of justification a mormon might have for this.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> a mormon link! Just a touch bias dont you think!



Yeah. I mean why would Mormons know what they believe?


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with a few inaccuracies with the South Park episode:
> 
> 1Introduction*
> 
> 2) It says that Mormons believe that Israelites are the only ancestors to Native Americans. Also false.
> 
> see also the above link
> 
> 3) It depicts Martin Harris as a simpleton. This isn't the case. It also neglets to mention the time Martin Harris took the translations to New York to have scholars verify the text:
> 
> Joseph Smith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:
> 
> 64 I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.
> 
> 65 He then said to me, Let me see that certificate. I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, I cannot read a sealed book. I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And interesting experience, not solely because of the prophecy is Isaiah 29. Here we have an experience between Professor Anthon and Martin Harris. Mr. Anthon, of course, offers a different story claiming he told Martin Harris it was a complete fraud to begin with. Ignoring Dr. Mitchell's verification, Martin and the professor are the only two who know what really happened.
> 
> I'm more inclined to believe Martin's version. Not because my belief in the Restoration, but simply because of how Martin reacted after the experience. If the encounter happened the way Professor Anthon stated, then Martin's behavior of becoming a solid believer of the Restoration and mortgaging his property to finance the Book of Mormon when Anthon told him it was a fraud makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. He already had his wife against him being involved, which is why he was timid about getting involved to begin with. But after this incident he was eagerly supporting the endevour.
> 
> Professor Anthon, on the other hand, has motivation to lie. He is worried about his reputation and doesn't want to be associated with Mormonism... which is ironic because im sure that's the only reason anyone has any idea who he is.
> 
> 4) Concerning the 114 lost pages, they tried to use that as an argument used by the Mormons to prove it was true. No Latter-day Saint would make such a ridiculous argument in an attempt to convert an investigator. Latter-day Saints are taught throughout their lives to share the Gospel. And we are taught to:
> 
> a) Testify to the truth that has been revealed to us by the power of the Spirit
> b) Encourage investigators to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and test it as Moroni and Alma taught. (See Alma 32 & Moroni 10:3-5)
> c) Go to God to find out for yourself.
> 
> We do this because we realize that the only way anyone can know for sure whether the Book of Mormon is true is by the Spirit of God. Yes, we can make rational arguments for and against. But rational arguments are meaningless one God reveals Himself through the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Im restudying the Brigham Young Manual. So let me quote a couple Statements from Brigham Young making my point:
> 
> 
> 
> Or from his statements in Our search for truth and personal testimony:
> 
> 
> 
> And:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men rise up here and say they do know that this is the work of God, that Joseph was a Prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that the revelations through Joseph Smith are true, and this is the last dispensation and the fulness of times, wherein God has set his hand to gather Israel for the last time, and redeem and build up Zion.  How do they know this? Persons know and will continue to know and understand many things by the manifestations of the Spirit, that through the organization of the tabernacle it is impossible otherwise to convey. Much of the most important information is alone derived through the power and testimony of the Holy Ghost.  This is the only way you can convey a knowledge of the invisible things of God [see 1 Corinthians 2:914; 1 Corinthians 12:3] (DBY, 430).
> 
> Nothing short of the Holy Spirit  can prove to you that this is the work of God. Men uninspired of God cannot by their worldly wisdom disprove it, or prevail against it; neither can they by wisdom alone prove it to be true, either to themselves or to others. Their not being able to prevail against it does not prove it to be the Kingdom of God, for there are many theories and systems on the earth, incontrovertible by the wisdom of the world, which are nevertheless false. Nothing less than the power of the Almighty, enlightening the understanding of men, can demonstrate this glorious truth to the human mind (DBY, 43031).
> 
> *How are we to know the voice of the Good Shepherd from the voice of a stranger? Can any person answer this question? I can. It is very easy. To every philosopher upon the earth, I say, your eye can be deceived, so can mine; your ear can be deceived, so can mine; the touch of your hand can be deceived, so can mine; but the Spirit of God filling the creature with revelation and the light of eternity, cannot be mistakenthe revelation which comes from God is never mistaken. When an individual, filled with the Spirit of God, declares the truth of heaven, the sheep hear that [see D&C 29:7], the Spirit of the Lord pierces their inmost souls and sinks deep into their hearts; by the testimony of the Holy Ghost light springs up within them, and they see and understand for themselves *(DBY, 431).
> 
> There is but one witnessone testimony, pertaining to the evidence of the Gospel of the Son of God, and that is the Spirit that he diffused among his disciples. Do his will, and we shall know whether he speaks by the authority of the Father or of himself. Do as he commands us to do, and we shall know of the doctrine, whether it is of God or not [see John 7:1617]. It is only by the revelations of the Spirit that we can know the things of God (DBY, 43132).
> 
> Be diligent and prayerful. It is your privilege to know for yourself God lives and that He is doing a work in these last days and we are His honored ministers. Live for this knowledge and you will receive it. Remember your prayers and be fervent in spirit (LBY, 245).
> 
> My testimony is based upon experience, upon my own experience, in connection with that obtained by observing others.  The heavenly truth commends itself to every persons judgment and to their faith; and more especially to the sense of those who wish to be honest with themselves, with their God, and with their neighbor.  If persons can receive a little, it proves they may receive more. If they can receive the first and second principles with an upright feeling, they may receive still more (DBY, 433).
> 
> My testimony is positive.  I know that the sun shines, I know that I exist and have a being, and I testify that there is a God, and that Jesus Christ lives, and that he is the Savior of the world. Have you been to heaven and learned to the contrary? I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and that he had many revelations. Who can disprove this testimony? Any one may dispute it, but there is no one in the world who can disprove it. I have had many revelations; I have seen and heard for myself, and know these things are true, and nobody on earth can disprove them. The eye, the ear, the hand, all the senses may be deceived, but the Spirit of God cannot be deceived; and when inspired with that Spirit, the whole man is filled with knowledge, he can see with a spiritual eye, and know that which is beyond the power of man to controvert. What I know concerning God, concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and the praise (DBY, 433).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These principles have hardly been taught solely by Brigham Young. All the Prophets and Apostles have taught these things. My own personal experiences have shown me that this is true as well. It was the Spirit who told me that Joseph Smith was a prophet. When I relied on my own understanding there was reason to doubt. Both sides could make arguments. But I notice there is only ever one side that tells people to not trust them but go to God and find out. I did that. I invite you and any one else who is reading this to do this. Because when the Spirit of the Lord testifies to a man, He cannot honestly deny it. The Spirit overwhelms us with love, glory, power. Even those words, while accurately depicting the experience barely begin to describe it.
> 
> I've pointed out a few problems with the episode. I would hardly say that's all of them, but I've made my point. It's a caricature. A pretty good one, even funny to a degree. But it's a caricature. It takes the Restoration out of context. It misrepresents those who are depicted. It was designed to do that. It's not supposed to be 100% accurate. That's precisely why you can't rely on it for knowledge of the truth. It has great entertainment value, but when we are talking about the truth, you'd be a fool to rely on it.
> 
> There is only one source of truth in the Universe. And that is God. He reveals the truths about His Gospel and Kingdom. He inspires all the truths of men, religious, philosophical, or scientific. No one has learned anything that God has not revealed to man.
> 
> If you want to know the Truth of the Restoration you need to study the Book of Mormon. You need to study the Bible. And the other revelations. You need to read the words of the Prophets and Apostles. And most importantly you need to pray to God the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ and if you do that in humility and sincerity, you will find out for yourself whether it's true or not.
> 
> This work is either of God or it's not. And the only one who can give you an answer to that is God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ) "It claims Joseph was the only one who ever saw the plates. Which is false."-AVATAR
> NO IT'S TRUE: ...when questioned closely the witnesses said they never really saw the gold plates except when they were wrapped up or covered. They used terms like vision or I saw them with the eye of faith. ...Of these eleven total witnesses, over half apostatized from the Mormon church.... Joseph Smith and other Mormon officials are on record as calling his three main witnesses thieves and liars. In History of the Church Joseph Smith said, Such characters as ... David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention, and we would like to have forgotten them.
> " It says that Mormons believe that Israelites are the only ancestors to Native Americans. Also false.
> 
> WRONG AGAIN:
> 
> According to the Book of Mormon, a Lamanite is a member of a dark-skinned nation of      indigenous Americans that battled with the light-skinned Nephite nation. Although mainstream archaeologists, geneticists, and historians do not recognize the existence of Lamanites, adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement typically believe that the Lamanites comprise some part, if not the entirety, of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the Polynesian people.
> 
> The Book of Mormon describes the Lamanites as descendants of Laman and Lemuel, two rebellious brothers of a family of Israelites who crossed the ocean in a boat around 600 BC. Their brother Nephi founded the Nephite nation. The Lamanites reputedly gained their dark skin as a sign of the curse for their rebelliousness (the curse itself being the withdrawal of the Spirit of God), and warred with the Nephites over a period of centuries. The book says that Jesus appeared and converted all the Lamanites to Christianity; however, after about two centuries, the Lamanites fell away and eventually exterminated all the Nephites. By the end of the Book of Mormon, the Lamanites were defined less by their skin color than by their lack of Christianity. Many Mormons believe that the Polynesian people originated from the descendents of Hagoth who led his people off on a ship and was never heard from again. Although Hagoth was a Nephite, these Mormons regard Polynesians as Lamanites.
> 
> The existence of a Lamanite nation has received no support within mainstream science or archaeology. Genetic studies indicate that the indigenous Americans are primarily from northeast Asia, and the Polynesians are from southeast Asia. This has led many Mormon apologetic scholars to hypothesize that the Lamanites were a small nation that merged with the indigenous population of northeast Asian origin and left no clear traces surviving into the modern world. Within the culture of Mormonism, indigenous Americans and Polynesians are still often called "Lamanites", but the practice is waning.
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up mormon ..even at the tender age of seven: this reeeked of bullshit.
> thanks wiki.. According to Latter Day Saint belief, the golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th century literature, the golden Bible)[1] are the source from which Joseph Smith, Jr. translated the Book of Mormon, a sacred text of the faith. Some witnesses described the plates as weighing from 30 to 60 pounds,[2] being golden or brassy in color, and being composed of thin metallic pages engraved on both sides and bound with one or more rings.
> 
> Smith said he found the plates on September 22, 1823 at a hill near his home in Manchester, New York after an angel directed him to a buried stone box. The angel at first prevented Smith from taking the plates because he had not followed the angel's instructions. In 1827, on his fourth annual attempt to retrieve the plates, Smith returned home with a heavy object wrapped in a frock, which he then put in a box. Though he allowed others to heft the box, he said that the angel had forbidden him to show the plates to anyone until they had been translated from their original "reformed Egyptian" language. Smith dictated a translation using a seer stone in the bottom of a hat, which he placed over his face to view the words written within the stone.[3] Smith published the translation in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Smith eventually obtained testimonies from eleven men, known as the Book of Mormon witnesses, who said they had seen the plates.[4] After the translation was complete, Smith said he returned the plates to their angelic guardian. Therefore, if the plates existed, they cannot now be examined. Latter Day Saints believe the account of the golden plates as a matter of faith, while critics often assert that either Smith manufactured the plates himself[5] or that the Book of Mormon witnesses based their testimony on visions rather than physical experience
Click to expand...


You can ignore the witness if you want. But they are there.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that he wasn't talking to God.  That is just a conclusion you have reached.  If you were to at least qualify your responses, you might not be considered the board moron.
> 
> Nobody in this cult tells me how to run my life.  They present the plan and I can either follow the plan or not.  When I don't, nobody is at my door to do anything about it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are going batshit crazy because a total stranger is mocking the stupidity tells me you are probably just a step from swigging the kool-aid.
> 
> I know he wasn't talking to God because
> 
> 1) THere is no God. Never was.
> 2) If he were talking to the omnipotent creator of the universe, he simply wouldn't have gotten so many things wrong.
Click to expand...


Wow !!!

What a knockout argument !!!

I mean...I have never seen something so compelling.

With logic like this....who could argue ?

Your bitterness shows through with every post.

Whose mocking who ?


----------



## Listening

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a mormon link! Just a touch bias dont you think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I mean why would Mormons know what they believe?
Click to expand...


More to the point.  What reason do we have to lie ?

Do we know everything ?  Hardly.  Even our own leaders have taught us that.

And they also teach us that on an individual basis, it is our responsibility to find out things that are unique to us and to pursue them.

The concept of a Patriarchal Blessing is something that most people don't know about.  I've talked to dozens of people who have found the council in those to be of incredible usefulness.  Unless someone goes through that process, how would they know.

Instead they read F. Brodie (a book writeen a century after the fact) and eat that up because like so many, they have the conclusion they want....they just need some "facts".

Of course, when Nibley writes "No ma'am, that's not history", well he can't possibly be anything but biased.....even though they can't fight his logic.

What do we know ?


----------



## HUGGY

Mormon Truth!!

Just sayin....


----------



## Skeptik

HUGGY said:


> Mormon Truth!!
> 
> Just sayin....



Ever notice that, when someone ends a post by "just sayin'", what they're usually sayin' is a load of hooey?


----------



## HUGGY

Skeptik said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormon Truth!!
> 
> Just sayin....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ever notice that*, when someone ends a post by "just sayin'", what they're usually sayin' is a load of hooey?
Click to expand...



Who are YOU?  Andy Fuckin Rooney?


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know that he wasn't talking to God.  That is just a conclusion you have reached.  If you were to at least qualify your responses, you might not be considered the board moron.
> 
> Nobody in this cult tells me how to run my life.  They present the plan and I can either follow the plan or not.  When I don't, nobody is at my door to do anything about it.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are going batshit crazy because a total stranger is mocking the stupidity tells me you are probably just a step from swigging the kool-aid.
> 
> I know he wasn't talking to God because
> 
> 1) THere is no God. Never was.
> 2) If he were talking to the omnipotent creator of the universe, he simply wouldn't have gotten so many things wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow !!!
> 
> What a knockout argument !!!
> 
> I mean...I have never seen something so compelling.
> 
> With logic like this....who could argue ?
> 
> Your bitterness shows through with every post.
> 
> Whose mocking who ?
Click to expand...


Duly noted you didn't have an argument.  

Now, you think if Joey was talking to the Sky Pixie, the Sky Pixie would have told him he was being punked when they gave him the Kinderhook Plates.  Or the Sky Pixie wouldn't have told him that there were Giant Quakers on the Moon when the thing doesn't have an atmosphere.  Or that maybe he'd have told him the Book of Abraham was a 1st century funerary papyrus dedicated to Osiris...  

So there are only two logical conclusions one could draw. 

1) There is no God, or at least he wasn't talking to Jos. Smith. 

or 

2) God was totally messing with Smith's head so he'd look stupid.   

Just saying.  Because as a Prophet, Smith wouldn't have even made a good weatherman.


----------



## JoeB131

HUGGY said:


> Mormon Truth!!
> 
> Just sayin....



Oh, man, the sight of Mitt and Ann in their magic underwear...


You are a cruel, cruel man, Huggy!


----------



## Skeptik

HUGGY said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormon Truth!!
> 
> Just sayin....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ever notice that*, when someone ends a post by "just sayin'", what they're usually sayin' is a load of hooey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Who are YOU?  Andy Fuckin Rooney?
Click to expand...


Why, yes, yes I am.  Why do you ask?


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are going batshit crazy because a total stranger is mocking the stupidity tells me you are probably just a step from swigging the kool-aid.
> 
> I know he wasn't talking to God because
> 
> 1) THere is no God. Never was.
> 2) If he were talking to the omnipotent creator of the universe, he simply wouldn't have gotten so many things wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow !!!
> 
> What a knockout argument !!!
> 
> I mean...I have never seen something so compelling.
> 
> With logic like this....who could argue ?
> 
> Your bitterness shows through with every post.
> 
> Whose mocking who ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duly noted you didn't have an argument.
> 
> Now, you think if Joey was talking to the Sky Pixie, the Sky Pixie would have told him he was being punked when they gave him the Kinderhook Plates.  Or the Sky Pixie wouldn't have told him that there were Giant Quakers on the Moon when the thing doesn't have an atmosphere.  Or that maybe he'd have told him the Book of Abraham was a 1st century funerary papyrus dedicated to Osiris...
> 
> So there are only two logical conclusions one could draw.
> 
> 1) There is no God, or at least he wasn't talking to Jos. Smith.
> 
> or
> 
> 2) God was totally messing with Smith's head so he'd look stupid.
> 
> Just saying.  Because as a Prophet, Smith wouldn't have even made a good weatherman.
Click to expand...


Wow !!!!

Once again, you really did knock me out with this one.  I mean who could not look at that short paragraph and not draw the same conclusions you do....after all, you have no ax to grind or display no bitterness at all.

With a pedigree like yours and logic like that demonstrated above, I am not sure how I can resist the ideas you put forth ?

Well, I know one way.

Easily.

The thread is *Truth*, not OPINION about mormonism.

And when it comes to setting standards against which things will be judged....based on your blitherings I would not trust you to know the difference between red, white and blue on the American flag.

Get a life.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Umm, guy, I happen to like my red meat and a glass of wine.   And I don't want anyone telling me I can't have that if I want it.  At least not someone who says that he got a message from a sky pixie that I can't have it.
> 
> Joseph Smith wasn't interested in their health, he was interested in what all cult leaders are interested in- controlling the lives of less smart people and imposing their will on them.



That you drink a lot of red whine is evident in your rather weak and disjointed posts.

You still have not backed any of your claims up with anything that would remotely look like a good argument and I will continue to point out what a bitter fraud you are as long as you continue.


----------



## Listening

Neubarth said:


> Truth, I believe in keeping faith simple.  The simpler the better.  The more you bring religion into it, the more problems you have with misunderstanding and ridicule.
> 
> Take for instance the Mormon position that the American Indians were descended from Jewish tribes that immigrated to this continent in two migrations. One across the Atlantic and one across the Pacific under water.
> 
> I have fun with that with my Mormon friends and ask them about where the Nuclear Power submarines came from that allowed the Jews/Indians to breath underwater with Oxygen generators...  They always have trouble with that one.
> 
> Then I ask about all the great cities that the Indians had in the New World, but none of them correspond with the actual locations of archeological digs.  I had one good Mormon friend who could only theorize that there were tremendous earthquakes just before Columbus came to the  Americas and that those earthquakes moved all of the Indian cities around, as much as five hundred miles in some cases.  Do you realize what tremendous tidal waves that would have created?  That would have wiped all of the sea ports off of the surface of the earth, yet no tidal waves were reported.
> 
> Then add to that the fact that the Indians do not have any Jewish DNA Not a drop in the pure natives of this land.  There was a Jewish mountain man by the name of Goldberger who impregnated over 100 Indian women in the late 1700's and early 1800's, but all of his DNA was documented in the Cherokee and various Plaines Indian tribes. What a man!
> 
> Nope, dude, it is better that you guys stress that God does forgive sin and that all we have to do to be forgiven is repent and ask for forgiveness and then ask for guidance. IF you teach that, most people can not disagree with you and you will have many followers. That can be a very good thing in this day and age.



While I agree with your main point, I don't agree with your argument against the factualness of the Book Of Mormon.  That science can't "prove" it has little bearing on it's purpose or authenticity.  Anything is possible....but this is what is more important.

At the end of the Book it says:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and bponder it in your chearts.

 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not btrue; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal intent, having efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may aknow the btruth of all things.

it does not say......

And when ye shall recieve these things I would exhort you to dig up half of South or Central America.....

It is a book about people and their dealings with each other as structured under the laws of eternity....not an archealogical guide to ruins of Mexico (or whereever).  And if people say, well....you can't trust something that is not true....I say, when you can put a final defintion of what is true (meaning what science can no longer show is possible or not such that only one conclusion can be reached.......), then I'll be more close minded.

Until then, I read the Book of Mormon to learn how to be a better member of the human family by following the teaching of Jesus Christ.  I don't read it to worry about what may have shown up that isn't explained in the book (there are allusions to all kinds of records we don't have.....what might they shed light on if we had them....and then, what would you do if we had more light....ask more questions or base your faith on archeology that might show the Book of Mormon is true....some that would be a huge mistake).


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, guy, I happen to like my red meat and a glass of wine.   And I don't want anyone telling me I can't have that if I want it.  At least not someone who says that he got a message from a sky pixie that I can't have it.
> 
> Joseph Smith wasn't interested in their health, he was interested in what all cult leaders are interested in- controlling the lives of less smart people and imposing their will on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you drink a lot of red whine is evident in your rather weak and disjointed posts.
> 
> You still have not backed any of your claims up with anything that would remotely look like a good argument and I will continue to point out what a bitter fraud you are as long as you continue.
Click to expand...


I drink white wine, actually, and it's spelled "wine", not "whine".  Whine is what Mormons do when people point out they are batshit crazy.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> I drink white wine, actually, and it's spelled "wine", not "whine".  Whine is what Mormons do when people point out they are batshit crazy.



Wow !!!

Smashed again.

I can't take your brilliance.

You are a fraud.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drink white wine, actually, and it's spelled "wine", not "whine".  Whine is what Mormons do when people point out they are batshit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow !!!
> 
> Smashed again.
> 
> I can't take your brilliance.
> 
> You are a fraud.
Click to expand...


Well, obviously you can't.  I seem to really be getting your magic underpanties in a wad, don't I?


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I drink white wine, actually, and it's spelled "wine", not "whine".  Whine is what Mormons do when people point out they are batshit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow !!!
> 
> Smashed again.
> 
> I can't take your brilliance.
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you can't.  I seem to really be getting your magic underpanties in a wad, don't I?
Click to expand...


Don't kid yourself.

I've dealth with much much much better than you.

You are a fraud.


----------



## Listening

Truthspeaker said:


> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you can talk to different Mormons from different Wards and they will give you there version of the interpretation of the book of mormon and it will be different then what the last brother or sister said.  Additionally a lot of Mormons who come to Utah become disenchanted by the snootiness and cliques the Church has out here. It really depends on who you know who you talk to and how they interpret what the church says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well actually it doesn't depend on what interpretations people have. There are going to be a lot of mormons who will be in a lot more trouble at the judgment day than non-mormons because they fail to listen to the prophet and the official translations of all doctrines. there is no room for interpretation of official doctrines. Every thing I will say will be based on official church doctrine, otherwise I will say it is just my opinion.
Click to expand...


While the statement about "official" doctrine is true....there is a problem I'd like to address here.

Contrary to what many say, the "truth" is that the mormon church does not tell you how to put on your pants and tie your shoes.  The admonition to "work out your own salvation" is very much a part of our doctrine as we all have unique circumstances and situations that we address each and every day.

The church teaches processes such as meditation (practiced far to little), study and prayer to find out what it is that we each need to be doing and to gain the strengths we need to accomplish our tasks.

Additionally, there is an external emphasis on material needs.  We do emphasise self sufficiency (to a fault....and not at the highest levels....our culture seems to gravitate to it), but the main focus is on eternal relationships with spouse, children, extended family and friends.  The sealing power is so misunderstood.

This, with so much else, is there to give us the tools we need to connect with God and find our path back to him.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you can't.  I seem to really be getting your magic underpanties in a wad, don't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't kid yourself.
> 
> I've dealth with much much much better than you.
> 
> You are a fraud.
Click to expand...


Then why am I the one sitting here having laughs at your expense?   You are the one getting massively upset because someone is mocking your batshit crazy beliefs, guy.  

The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?  

Original and Extra Crispy!


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you can't.  I seem to really be getting your magic underpanties in a wad, don't I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't kid yourself.
> 
> I've dealth with much much much better than you.
> 
> You are a fraud.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why am I the one sitting here having laughs at your expense?   You are the one getting massively upset because someone is mocking your batshit crazy beliefs, guy.
> 
> The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra Crispy!
Click to expand...


Oh ouch !!!

Yes, that really upsets me.  I am so hurt.  

Massively upset ?  ROTF

Get a life.

You are a fraud (and the board moron too).

Well...it's off to sacrafice some virgins.....toodles.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> Well...it's off to sacrafice some virgins.....toodles.



You mean you found some Mormon girl who could outrun her brothers?


----------



## Christopher

JoeB131 said:


> Then why am I the one sitting here having laughs at your expense?   You are the one getting massively upset because someone is mocking your batshit crazy beliefs, guy.



You have consistently shown that you are just a troll and this post is the perfect example of that.

Here's a level 10 troll card.  You've earned it.


----------



## Listening

Truthspeaker said:


> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
Click to expand...


The key point here is that the doctrine is used to formulate policy and local leaders have a lot of discression in establishing that policy.  They don't get a lot of flack from Salt Lake unless it is a very serious issue.

This is very contrary to the key-in-the-back claim that so many make about the church.

Our lesson manuals are very broad and a teacher has all kinds of flexibility in what parts he choses to focus on (as guided by the Spirit...as needed by that particular group).

And on and on.......

Once again...we focus on process as much as we do on content.  It is your life, it is your responsiblity to live it.


----------



## Listening

Truthspeaker said:


> Yes you are right, and those people with wild interpretations tend to be the ones who don't go to church too often or don't read the book or other scriptures that often. Fortunately there is only one valid interpretation of scriptures. The Prophet's. He tells us the correct one so there doesn't have to be confusion.



I would recommend reading Dallin H. Oaks talk on Scripture Reading and Revelation.  In this talk he provides very good insight on the scriptures as an Open Cannon.  The guidance we need is found in the scriptures through the direction of the Holy Ghost.  If you read Nelson's description of his groundbreaking operaiton, you see just what Oaks is talking about.  The is no description of surgery in the scriptures.  But there is a description of people following a process of prayer and fasting and getting answers.  And that is just what Elder Nelson did.

And he got a very important and relevant answer.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right, and those people with wild interpretations tend to be the ones who don't go to church too often or don't read the book or other scriptures that often. Fortunately there is only one valid interpretation of scriptures. The Prophet's. He tells us the correct one so there doesn't have to be confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend reading Dallin H. Oaks talk on Scripture Reading and Revelation.  In this talk he provides very good insight on the scriptures as an Open Cannon.  The guidance we need is found in the scriptures through the direction of the Holy Ghost.  If you read Nelson's description of his groundbreaking operaiton, you see just what Oaks is talking about.  The is no description of surgery in the scriptures.  But there is a description of people following a process of prayer and fasting and getting answers.  And that is just what Elder Nelson did.
> 
> And he got a very important and relevant answer.
Click to expand...

 there is nothing fact based in Mormon mythology, the only relevant facts are Joe smith suckered some otherwise intelligent people in to a fantasy.


Mormons are fond of spreading "faith-promoting rumors." Members so badly want for the church to be true, in the absence of any evidence they are prone to grab on to anything that might help promote that belief. Then that rumor gets repeated and embellished to the point where most actually believe it to be true. Here are my top ten, yours may differ.

1- The Smithsonian Institute uses the Book of Mormon in its research.
This one started over a hundred years ago and just won't die. Periodically the Smithsonian Institute (and the National Geographical Society) sends notices to the church saying "please, please tell your people to stop calling us. We have never found any connection with your book and any archeology discovered in the Americas."

2- Polygamy was needed in the early church because there was an overabundance of single women who needed husbands.
Not so! A check of every census record of Illinois and Utah, from 1840 through 1900 reveals that (like all western frontier locations) men outnumbered the women by a good margin.

3- The LDS church has no paid ministry.
This in true only at the local level through the stake presidency. The top 85 or 90 leaders (General Authorities) do quite well. They receive a salary, allowances, and also are paid as board members for the vast number of church-owned corporations. In the early history of the church, Joseph had a revelation that God desired "he should not labor" and in an act of nepotism, he named his dad the "patriarch," authorizing him to charge a dollar a blessing. (today's patriarchs receive no compensation)

4- The LDS church is the fastest growing church in the world.
It's certainly fast growing, but if you are talking raw numbers, the Catholic church is probably growing fifty times as fast, simply from the birth rate alone. If you are talking percentages, the Assembly of God in Brazil went from almost zero to ten million in only four years! It took the LDS over 160 years to reach that level. 

5- The reason the original LDS temple ceremony and the Masonic ritual were virtually identical was that they were both the original ceremonies of Solomon's Temple.
Completely untrue! Secret ceremonies weren't practiced in Solomon's Temple, it was open. Masonic leaders will explain that when Masonry originated in the 16th century, few people could read or write, so it designed a ritual of skits and symbolism to convey its message, as was done in Solomon's time. Within a few days after he became a Master Mason, Joseph simply copied the same ceremony for the Mormon Church.

6- The church name, "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," is divinely inspired.
If it is, God sure fumbled around a good while before doling out a little inspiration. The original church name in 1830 was "Church of Christ." In 1834 it was changed to "Church of the Latter Day Saints." Then four years later, in 1838 it was again changed to its present name.

7- Joseph Smith made a great prophecy in 1842, the Rocky Mountain prophecy, by predicting the Mormons would come to the Rocky Mountains and become a mighty people.
Church historian Dean Jessee produced the original manuscript from History of the Church showing the authorship was in 1845, after Smith's death. Then years later, after the Saints were in Utah, someone penciled "Rocky Mountains" into the document. Jessee was chastised for revealing this historical tidbit.

8- After Joseph Smith was killed, the apostles knew Brigham Young was the successor by his "transformation" into the image of Joseph.
All the apostles were requested to keep diaries, which are now historical documents. On this Aug. 8, 1844 meeting not a single one recorded it. It didn't pop up as a folk legend until about twenty years later.

9- In the first year of the Mormon settlement in Utah, a plague of locusts (Mormon crickets) threatened to wipe out their crops. God responded with a "miracle", sending an army of seagulls to devour the insects.
This one is true -- however the miracle part is somewhat embellished. The locusts have a seven-year hibernation cycle, and unfortunately the early settlers hit it on the end of the seventh year. For mutual protection, they had made the mistake of planting all their fields together. Therefore, the locust attack was concentrated in one spot in the valley. And the seagulls, which by their fossil remains have been at the Great Salt Lake for over 2,000 years, simply enjoyed their every-seven-year feast. They still do -- only now it's spread over thousands of square miles. (2001 was a bad year, 2008 is next).

10- And for the last one, I want to collectively group thousands of "magic underwear" tales. You've got to hear some of these! When any TBM survives any accident, calamity, or near miss, the reason is always attributed to his/her wearing the holy drawers.
The reality is that safety records, medical records, and the observations of safety experts, paramedics and hospital emergency room personnel all show that Mormons have the same percentages of accidents per capita, and the same injury/death ratios as anybody else in the general population. But the imagined protection continues to make good fodder for monthly Testimony Meetings.  




Mormon Urban Legends


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right, and those people with wild interpretations tend to be the ones who don't go to church too often or don't read the book or other scriptures that often. Fortunately there is only one valid interpretation of scriptures. The Prophet's. He tells us the correct one so there doesn't have to be confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend reading Dallin H. Oaks talk on Scripture Reading and Revelation.  In this talk he provides very good insight on the scriptures as an Open Cannon.  The guidance we need is found in the scriptures through the direction of the Holy Ghost.  If you read Nelson's description of his groundbreaking operaiton, you see just what Oaks is talking about.  The is no description of surgery in the scriptures.  But there is a description of people following a process of prayer and fasting and getting answers.  And that is just what Elder Nelson did.
> 
> And he got a very important and relevant answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is nothing fact based in Mormon mythology, the only relevant facts are Joe smith suckered some otherwise intelligent people in to a fantasy.
Click to expand...


You have to love the ExMo board !

Please tell me what "fact based" means and when a "faith" goes from being true to false ?  Please, I am all ears.

The 10 little tidbits you mentioned are supposed to prove what ?  Take one of them, and we can examine it further....once you've provided a standard against which we can judge.

As an example....the fastest growing church......this isn't doctrine.  It is a self serving attitude among some membes of the church who somehow think it relates to.....well, something.

Here.....

Mormon Apostle Boyd Packer made mention of this when he addressed a group of Stake Presidents at the North American West Area Training Conference in Walnut Creek, CA in October of 2000. Packer noted, "Currently, convert baptisms worldwide are at a free fall. The number of young men going on missions is going down. One of the worst statistics is the number of less active young women."

Most members I know are well aware of the changes in our trajectory.  The church has also been reallocating missionaries to more productive areas.  

The "fact" remains that the church in the United States is the second fastest (or that was the last "fact" I heard") growing...in terms of percentages.

So, what mythology you point to, I don't know.  The church publishes it's understanding (2nd fastest in U.S.....not fastest....and based on percentages) and this seemed to be consistent with what others are publishing.

Next ?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would recommend reading Dallin H. Oaks talk on Scripture Reading and Revelation.  In this talk he provides very good insight on the scriptures as an Open Cannon.  The guidance we need is found in the scriptures through the direction of the Holy Ghost.  If you read Nelson's description of his groundbreaking operaiton, you see just what Oaks is talking about.  The is no description of surgery in the scriptures.  But there is a description of people following a process of prayer and fasting and getting answers.  And that is just what Elder Nelson did.
> 
> And he got a very important and relevant answer.
> 
> 
> 
> there is nothing fact based in Mormon mythology, the only relevant facts are Joe smith suckered some otherwise intelligent people in to a fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to love the ExMo board !
> 
> Please tell me what "fact based" means and when a "faith" goes from being true to false ?  Please, I am all ears.
> 
> The 10 little tidbits you mentioned are supposed to prove what ?  Take one of them, and we can examine it further....once you've provided a standard against which we can judge.
> 
> As an example....the fastest growing church......this isn't doctrine.  It is a self serving attitude among some membes of the church who somehow think it relates to.....well, something.
> 
> Here.....
> 
> Mormon Apostle Boyd Packer made mention of this when he addressed a group of Stake Presidents at the North American West Area Training Conference in Walnut Creek, CA in October of 2000. Packer noted, "Currently, convert baptisms worldwide are at a free fall. The number of young men going on missions is going down. One of the worst statistics is the number of less active young women."
> 
> Most members I know are well aware of the changes in our trajectory.  The church has also been reallocating missionaries to more productive areas.
> 
> The "fact" remains that the church in the United States is the second fastest (or that was the last "fact" I heard") growing...in terms of percentages.
> 
> So, what mythology you point to, I don't know.  The church publishes it's understanding (2nd fastest in U.S.....not fastest....and based on percentages) and this seemed to be consistent with what others are publishing.
> 
> Next ?
Click to expand...

the Mormon church is based on a false premise, as all faith is.
anything coming from that premise is by definition false.
I grew up in the mormon church, so all your sales pitches are wasted.


----------



## daws101

Do Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?
This question gained a great deal of attention when Mitt Romney was running for president of the United States in 2008. At the same time, Christians of many faiths began to realize they couldnt figure out where Satan came from.

The apostle John said, All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 3, KJV Bible) This verse, of course, refers to God. This means Satan was created by God, as was every other being ever created. There is, according to John, no other way anyone or anything can exist.

God created both Satan and Jesus, and in that respect, they are brothers. But in that respect, every person who ever lived is a brother or sister to every other person, because we are all children of God. If we are all Gods children, then we are siblings to every child of God. It no more demeans Jesus to be Satans spirit brother than it does for any of us to be related to evil people who have lived on the earth.

To fully understand this, there are several points that must be considered. First, who is Satan? How did he become who he is today?The Bible tells us only a little about his history.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

(Isaiah 14:12, KJV Bible)

From Isaiah, in the Bible, we learn Satan once lived in Heaven, but fell. Mormon beliefs include further information on this subject.

Before we were born, we all lived in Heaven with God, who was the creator of our spirits. Although we didnt yet have bodies, we did have our own personalities. We learned, developed talents and interests, and started becoming the person we are. We had agency-the right to choose. Some of us chose well, and others didnt, just as we do today.

When we reached the limits of our ability to progress there, God planned for the earth to be created, and for us to live away from him for a time. Now wed gain a body, families, and the chance to find out if we

could live Gods teachings when He wasnt right there with us. The plan, which He presented to us, explained wed make mistakes, so He would send us a Redeemer, who would voluntarily give up His own sinless life to atone for our sins. Jesus Christ offered to be that Redeemer. He was Gods oldest Son, the first spirit created, and so, our oldest brother. Wed be free to make choices, but were expected to find and live the truth. Jesus would make up the difference, meaning He would do what we couldnt do for ourselves, after wed done all we could. He would atone for our sins, something impossible for those who sin to do alone.

Satan disliked this plan. He tried to convince us to change it. He suggested wed come to earth, give up our right to agency, and let him control our every action and thought, so we couldnt possibly sin. In return, however, he wanted to be exalted above God, as Isaiah said. Jesus, on the other hand, wanted God to have all the glory. This would make life on earth meaningless as a place of learning.

Each of us was allowed to choose whether or not to accept Gods plan. Satan was cast out of Heaven, which is what Isaiah meant when he said Lucifer fell from heaven, and why Satan is known as a fallen angel. Those who rejected Gods plan were also cast out and had to follow Satan for eternity.

Some have felt God couldnt have created Satan, because Satan is evil. However, God didnt create an evil being. Satan, like all other wicked people, made his own choices. God created each of us with a spark of divinity within, which we could accept and grow, or reject. We cant blame God if we choose to ignore the great gifts Hes offered us and choose instead to live a selfish, greedy life. In the end, this is what was behind Satans fall. He could have been a good and even great spiritual leader had he made wise choices in his pre-mortal life, using his talents and ability to influence others for good. He didnt choose to develop into that kind of being. He wanted all the glory and honor for himself, to be exalted above God. Having been refused this opportunity, he is now trying to increase his following, not because he loves us, as do God and Satan, but because he is greedy and wants power and glory. Unfortunately, today, even some of those who rejected him are choosing to follow him now. They too were given a spark of divinity at creation, but are choosing to become wicked.

You can see from the few scriptural references we have God must have created Satan, or John was wrong-and John taught truth, so he was not wrong. We can see from Isaiah Satan once lived in Heaven. These two facts make it clear Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, in that God created both their spirits, and we too are spirit brothers and sisters with them for the same reason. Its important, as we progress in our mortal lives, to choose to follow our oldest brother, Jesus, and not Satan. Like Jesus and Satan, we can each become who God chose for us to become, or we can honor Satan and destroy our great God-given gifts.

 Bookmark on Delicious Digg this post Recommend on Facebook share via Reddit Share with Stumblers Tweet about itThis entry was posted on Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am and is filed under Array. You can follow any responses to this entry through the Comments on: Do Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers? feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 

Do Mormons Believe Jesus and Satan are Brothers? | Mormon Church


----------



## daws101

KolobFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Detail of Joseph Smith Hypocephalus, which according to Joseph Smith, Jr. contains a representation of Kolob (reference numeral 1). According to Egyptologists, this depicts an Egyptian creation god.Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work published by Latter Day Saint (LDS) prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. as translation from Egyptian papyri. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne or residence of God. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a "star",[1] it also refers to planets as stars,[2] and therefore, some LDS commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.[3] Other Latter Day Saints (commonly referred to as Mormons) consider Kolob to be a Christian metaphor.

Kolob has never been identified with any modern astronomical object and is not recognized as an ancient concept by modern Egyptology. Kolob is rarely discussed in modern LDS religious contexts, but it is periodically a topic of discussion in criticism of Mormonism. The idea also appears within LDS culture, and there is a LDS hymn about it. Kolob is also the inspiration for the planet Kobol within the Battlestar Galactica universe, created by Glen A. Larson, a Mormon.[4][5]


----------



## Listening

the Mormon church is based on a false premise, as all faith is.
anything coming from that premise is by definition false.
I grew up in the mormon church, so all your sales pitches are wasted.[/QUOTE]

"False premise" ?  Still to be established against any standard.

All I hear is that since Joseph Smith was bad, the church is wrong.  Or.....the church did this wrong so it must be false.

Sales pitch ???

What sales pitch ?


----------



## JohnA

Listening said:


> the Mormon church is based on a false premise, as all faith is.
> anything coming from that premise is by definition false.
> I grew up in the mormon church, so all your sales pitches are wasted.



"False premise" ?  Still to be established against any standard.

All I hear is that since Joseph Smith was bad, the church is wrong.  Or.....the church did this wrong so it must be false.

Sales pitch ???

What sales pitch ?[/QUOTE]
 all religions have  a sales pitch 
 and  they  are all good ones   to get control  of the  masses 
examples  
   there is life after death 
  there is a god watching over you 

 etc etc 

 think about it  they  are selling you something  that there has never been any evidence of  proof 
 there  is  no way you can  return  goods or ask for a  refund if the pitch proves to be  false 
 YOU ARE DEAD SO YOU CANT CLAIM  

 religion  cannot be sued like any other company for false or unjustified claims 
 its the best business to be in to make money without  given anything  tangable in return 

 RELIGIOUS  SALES PITCH ITS THE BEST ONE EVER DREAMED UP  
  the mormons have there magic underwear 
 the jews have there *caps * 
 the catholics have there pointy hats and purple gowns 
  the moslims have there* virgins * after death .
  etc etc 
 they all have some mystic  tradition and munbo jumbo  to sell  the product as if it is the  truth .
 talk bout sales pitch


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Mormon church is based on a false premise, as all faith is.
> anything coming from that premise is by definition false.
> I grew up in the mormon church, so all your sales pitches are wasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "False premise" ?  Still to be established against any standard.
> 
> All I hear is that since Joseph Smith was bad, the church is wrong.  Or.....the church did this wrong so it must be false.
> 
> Sales pitch ???
> 
> What sales pitch ?
Click to expand...


No, Smith was wrong because he's already been caught faking it. 

He claimed the Book of Abraham was based on Egyptian Papyrus he owned.  Those Papyri were later found and identified as a pagan funerary scroll which didn't say what he claimed they did.  He made it up.  

He claimed that the Kinderhook Tablets were the account of Nephite writing in "reformed Egyptian".  They turned out to be fakes by his neighbors pranking him, before his other neighbors thought shooting him would be much funnier.  (And it was pretty funking hilarious!) 

So we know he was wrong or lying in two cases.  So we have his religion, based on supposed Golden Tablets that only he saw, that he never submitted to any other expert or authority, which he cannot produce for examination.  

Oh, yeah, and God told he needed to have 35 wives, some as young as 14, because God said so.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> No, Smith was wrong because he's already been caught faking it.



My guess is that you are just jealous because you didn't get the small amount of education he did.  That or you just never grew up.

It's going to take much more than what you have provided to "prove" he was faking it.  Much much more.

Look what he did in 38 years.  You are well past that and just a bitter crust of humanity.

Watch out for those neighbors (your new ones that have moved in since the market has given them a chance to live in your "classy" digs).  They might find shooting you to be pretty funny too.

One word: Kevlar


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Smith was wrong because he's already been caught faking it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you are just jealous because you didn't get the small amount of education he did.  That or you just never grew up.
> 
> It's going to take much more than what you have provided to "prove" he was faking it.  Much much more.
> 
> Look what he did in 38 years.  You are well past that and just a bitter crust of humanity.
> 
> Watch out for those neighbors (your new ones that have moved in since the market has given them a chance to live in your "classy" digs).  They might find shooting you to be pretty funny too.
> 
> One word: Kevlar
Click to expand...


Well, since I'm not seducing their teenage daughters, like that scumwad smith did to his neighbors, I suspect that they wouldn't form an angry mob like his did. 

But come on, that was fuckin' hilarious, Smith was reportedly screaming like a little bitch when they shot him...   

Hysterically funny.  

The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?  

Original and Extra-Crispy.

Oh, by the way, Duly noted that you DODGED the point about the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook Tablets.  

And I didn't even talk about how Smith said there were Quakers on the Moon...   Ooops.  I guess the all suffocated by the time Neil and Buzz got there.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Well, since I'm not seducing their teenage daughters, like that scumwad smith did to his neighbors, I suspect that they wouldn't form an angry mob like his did.



My guess is that even 14 year olds have discriminating tastes and the only reason you are not seducing them or anyone else is because you can't.


----------



## JohnA

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Smith was wrong because he's already been caught faking it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you are just jealous because you didn't get the small amount of education he did.  That or you just never grew up.
> 
> It's going to take much more than what you have provided to "prove" he was faking it.  Much much more.
> 
> Look what he did in 38 years.  You are well past that and just a bitter crust of humanity.
> 
> Watch out for those neighbors (your new ones that have moved in since the market has given them a chance to live in your "classy" digs).  They might find shooting you to be pretty funny too.
> 
> One word: Kevlar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since I'm not seducing their teenage daughters, like that scumwad smith did to his neighbors, I suspect that they wouldn't form an angry mob like his did.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hysterically funny.
> 
> The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
> 
> Oh, by the way, Duly noted that you DODGED the point about the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook Tablets.
> 
> And I didn't even talk about how Smith said there were Quakers on the Moon...   Ooops.  I guess the all suffocated by the time Neil and Buzz got there.
Click to expand...



But come on, that was fuckin' hilarious, Smith was reportedly screaming like a little bitch when they shot him


 they should have  fucked him up the ass before killing him  like he fucked everybody else 
 OH perhaps thats why he was  screaming


----------



## Listening

JohnA said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that you are just jealous because you didn't get the small amount of education he did.  That or you just never grew up.
> 
> It's going to take much more than what you have provided to "prove" he was faking it.  Much much more.
> 
> Look what he did in 38 years.  You are well past that and just a bitter crust of humanity.
> 
> Watch out for those neighbors (your new ones that have moved in since the market has given them a chance to live in your "classy" digs).  They might find shooting you to be pretty funny too.
> 
> One word: Kevlar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since I'm not seducing their teenage daughters, like that scumwad smith did to his neighbors, I suspect that they wouldn't form an angry mob like his did.
> 
> ...
> 
> Hysterically funny.
> 
> The difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
> 
> Oh, by the way, Duly noted that you DODGED the point about the Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook Tablets.
> 
> And I didn't even talk about how Smith said there were Quakers on the Moon...   Ooops.  I guess the all suffocated by the time Neil and Buzz got there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But come on, that was fuckin' hilarious, Smith was reportedly screaming like a little bitch when they shot him
> 
> 
> they should have  fucked him up the ass before killing him  like he fucked everybody else
> OH perhaps thats why he was  screaming
Click to expand...


Wow !

This board seems to have quite a number of people who swim in sexual fantasies.

I hope you guys keep your keyboards covered.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since I'm not seducing their teenage daughters, like that scumwad smith did to his neighbors, I suspect that they wouldn't form an angry mob like his did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that even 14 year olds have discriminating tastes and the only reason you are not seducing them or anyone else is because you can't.
Click to expand...


Dude, that you even think that seducing a 14 year old is something anyone would want to do is kind of scary...

Hey, I hear Warren Jeff's job is open. Those nutters need a new prophet.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Dude, that you even think that seducing a 14 year old is something anyone would want to do is kind of scary....



I never bring the subject up you idiot.

You are the one who keeps putting it in your posts.  I can only assume you are some frustrated male who somehow has to vent at someone because of what it is that won't happen for you.

Please don't speak for me.  You don't speak very well for yourself and I sure don't need your "help".


----------



## daws101

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X0SMA1tYYc]Banned Cartoon - 1 Book of Mormon Stories - Joseph Smith - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E]The Secret World of Mormonism - Mormon Cartoon - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Listening

Can't run from that !!!

I think I will use it in Sunday School.


----------



## luciferthebased

i believe all mormons are closet devil worshipers. i know quite a few mormon teenager and they all have told me crazy stories about what really goes on in their religion.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that you even think that seducing a 14 year old is something anyone would want to do is kind of scary....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never bring the subject up you idiot.
> 
> You are the one who keeps putting it in your posts.  I can only assume you are some frustrated male who somehow has to vent at someone because of what it is that won't happen for you.
> 
> Please don't speak for me.  You don't speak very well for yourself and I sure don't need your "help".
Click to expand...


No, you don't bring it up, you just think guys who did it are "prophets" and speak for "God". 

Something Smith neighbors shot him like a dog for, and rightfully so.  I guess God was totally cool with that. Or more likely, he just doesn't exist!


----------



## JoeB131

daws101 said:


> Banned Cartoon - 1 Book of Mormon Stories - Joseph Smith - YouTube
> 
> 
> The Secret World of Mormonism - Mormon Cartoon - YouTube



I think the first one was actually produced by the Mormon Church.  The funny thing is, they probably don't know how absolutely silly it sounds...


----------



## Listening

luciferthebased said:


> i believe all mormons are closet devil worshipers. i know quite a few mormon teenager and they all have told me crazy stories about what really goes on in their religion.



I am all ears.

I raised four teenagers in the church.  I'd like to know what I supposedly subjected them to.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that you even think that seducing a 14 year old is something anyone would want to do is kind of scary....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never bring the subject up you idiot.
> 
> You are the one who keeps putting it in your posts.  I can only assume you are some frustrated male who somehow has to vent at someone because of what it is that won't happen for you.
> 
> Please don't speak for me.  You don't speak very well for yourself and I sure don't need your "help".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't bring it up, you just think guys who did it are "prophets" and speak for "God".
> 
> Something Smith neighbors shot him like a dog for, and rightfully so.  I guess God was totally cool with that. Or more likely, he just doesn't exist!
Click to expand...


So I talk about prophets and revelation while you talk about 14 year-old girls.  Thanks for being honest.

Joseph Smith was not shot by his neighbors.  He was shot by a load of cowards who fled because they knew that Nauvoo could put togther a force that would have cleaned Carthage off the map.

Joseph Smith died like a great many who profess to lead on behalf of God (in aincient times).  Nothing new there.


----------



## Skeptik

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, that you even think that seducing a 14 year old is something anyone would want to do is kind of scary....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never bring the subject up you idiot.
> 
> You are the one who keeps putting it in your posts.  I can only assume you are some frustrated male who somehow has to vent at someone because of what it is that won't happen for you.
> 
> Please don't speak for me.  You don't speak very well for yourself and I sure don't need your "help".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you don't bring it up, you just think guys who did it are "prophets" and speak for "God".
> 
> Something Smith neighbors shot him like a dog for, and rightfully so.  I guess God was totally cool with that. Or more likely, he just doesn't exist!
Click to expand...


He wasn't the first prophet who was killed for his troubles, and probably won't be the last.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> So I talk about prophets and revelation while you talk about 14 year-old girls.  Thanks for being honest.
> 
> Joseph Smith was not shot by his neighbors.  He was shot by a load of cowards who fled because they knew that Nauvoo could put togther a force that would have cleaned Carthage off the map.
> 
> Joseph Smith died like a great many who profess to lead on behalf of God (in aincient times).  Nothing new there.



yeah, about that... hmmm.  So essentially he was banging 14 year old girls and putting together a private Army, and thought God was talking to him.  

Man, that kind of sounds like David Koresh, really.  

Frankly, most people would have every right to fear that sort of thing, which is why the mob took that guy out.   Consider it a public service.  They acquitted the five guys charged with the Public Service... because, honestly, those folks were sick of the nonsense, too.


----------



## JoeB131

Skeptik said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never bring the subject up you idiot.
> 
> You are the one who keeps putting it in your posts.  I can only assume you are some frustrated male who somehow has to vent at someone because of what it is that won't happen for you.
> 
> Please don't speak for me.  You don't speak very well for yourself and I sure don't need your "help".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't bring it up, you just think guys who did it are "prophets" and speak for "God".
> 
> Something Smith neighbors shot him like a dog for, and rightfully so.  I guess God was totally cool with that. Or more likely, he just doesn't exist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wasn't the first prophet who was killed for his troubles, and probably won't be the last.
Click to expand...


Well, one can still hope for the day when we outgrow the need for sky pixies and people who go around claiming to speak for them are placed in mental institutions where they clearly belong.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't bring it up, you just think guys who did it are "prophets" and speak for "God".
> 
> Something Smith neighbors shot him like a dog for, and rightfully so.  I guess God was totally cool with that. Or more likely, he just doesn't exist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't the first prophet who was killed for his troubles, and probably won't be the last.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, one can still hope for the day when we outgrow the need for sky pixies and people who go around claiming to speak for them are placed in mental institutions where they clearly belong.
Click to expand...


It would be great if you could justify your claim.

The mormon church has been warning about dissolution of the nuclear family (something most sociologists seem to think is important) for decades.

They teach a code of health.

They teach community.

They emphasize the need to be involved in government (although not strongly enough in my opinion).

I just think all that is awful.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't the first prophet who was killed for his troubles, and probably won't be the last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one can still hope for the day when we outgrow the need for sky pixies and people who go around claiming to speak for them are placed in mental institutions where they clearly belong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could justify your claim.
> 
> The mormon church has been warning about dissolution of the nuclear family (something most sociologists seem to think is important) for decades.
> 
> They teach a code of health.
> 
> They teach community.
> 
> They emphasize the need to be involved in government (although not strongly enough in my opinion).
> 
> I just think all that is awful.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it is awful. It's awful when a bunch of busybodies go around telling other people how to live their lives when they should MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.  

Simple enough for you?  

I don't want you guys in politics or involved in government. 

And frankly, I don't put much into a "community" that teaches you to turn your back on your family when they start doubting the batshit craziness.  

About 30 years ago, I realized Catholicism and by extention all religion is bullshit.  And the reaction of my still Catholic family was, "Oh. Okay."  

Thank the SKy Pixie that doesn't Exist I wasn't a Mormon.  

Screw all you self-righteous phonies.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one can still hope for the day when we outgrow the need for sky pixies and people who go around claiming to speak for them are placed in mental institutions where they clearly belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could justify your claim.
> 
> The mormon church has been warning about dissolution of the nuclear family (something most sociologists seem to think is important) for decades.
> 
> They teach a code of health.
> 
> They teach community.
> 
> They emphasize the need to be involved in government (although not strongly enough in my opinion).
> 
> I just think all that is awful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is awful. It's awful when a bunch of busybodies go around telling other people how to live their lives when they should MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
> 
> Simple enough for you?
> 
> I don't want you guys in politics or involved in government.
> 
> And frankly, I don't put much into a "community" that teaches you to turn your back on your family when they start doubting the batshit craziness.
> 
> About 30 years ago, I realized Catholicism and by extention all religion is bullshit.  And the reaction of my still Catholic family was, "Oh. Okay."
> 
> Thank the SKy Pixie that doesn't Exist I wasn't a Mormon.
> 
> Screw all you self-righteous phonies.
Click to expand...


It is so funny that you have this perspective.  But, then you are you.

I really don't care if you want "us" involved in politics or not.  Mormons, like Baptists, have as much right to be involved as anyone.

As to the rest of your garbage, you didn't prove anything from your first assertion and as I said.....you have yet to make a good argument on this board yet.  You still haven't and people see you as the board moron.

"Screw"....seems you have a fixation on that.....along with 14 year old girls.

You might want to see a doctor.

This thread was titled "The Truth About Moroms".  Not "Joe Is Some Bitter Old Man".

When you get some "truth", please post it.  Otherwise, quit giving people a reason to vote you into the idiots hall of fame.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> This thread was titled "The Truth About Moroms".  Not "Joe Is Some Bitter Old Man".
> 
> When you get some "truth", please post it.  Otherwise, quit giving people a reason to vote you into the idiots hall of fame.



Here's the truth about Mormons - from an Ex-Mormon. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b0UQaBJQRg]Mormonism in a Nutshell - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

Talking to a Mormon is like talking to a mentally challenged 25 year old who still believes in Santa. No matter how much evidence you present to them, they still won't believe it. 

"Look, Corky, here's film of your mom and dad buying the presents that Santa got you! And here's satallite imagery of the North Pole. NO workshop where they are building Wii's out of wood."

"Here, Mitt, is proof Joseph Smith was a con artist. And there were no Hebrews living in Early America".

It just doesn't sink through.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was titled "The Truth About Moroms".  Not "Joe Is Some Bitter Old Man".
> 
> When you get some "truth", please post it.  Otherwise, quit giving people a reason to vote you into the idiots hall of fame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the truth about Mormons - from an Ex-Mormon.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b0UQaBJQRg]Mormonism in a Nutshell - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I can't find much to argue with this guy about.

His interpretation of Brigham Young isn't absolutely correct (as I have never seen where this has been confirmed) and his description of the afterlife is literal whereas I have always been taught it was more symbolic.

But, his historical account seems to be basically correct.

And the question was ?


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Talking to a Mormon is like talking to a mentally challenged 25 year old who still believes in Santa. No matter how much evidence you present to them, they still won't believe it.
> 
> "Look, Corky, here's film of your mom and dad buying the presents that Santa got you! And here's satallite imagery of the North Pole. NO workshop where they are building Wii's out of wood."
> 
> "Here, Mitt, is proof Joseph Smith was a con artist. And there were no Hebrews living in Early America".
> 
> It just doesn't sink through.



I'd say, having read many of your posts, that you do speak at about the level of a mentally challenged 25 year old.

When you present real evidence and establish criteria whereby someone is deemed a con artist...I'll listen.  There are finding new groups all the time that lived in the Early America.  The science is never complete.

But, since you are really speaking from bitterness instead of true intellect....I understand.

Have a gread day.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> When you present real evidence and establish criteria whereby someone is deemed a con artist...I'll listen.  There are finding new groups all the time that lived in the Early America.  The science is never complete.
> 
> :



No, guy, the science is pretty definitive.  Hebrews and Native Americans are completely unrelated.  And in fact, the very theory that they were was racist.  

As far as Joseph Smith being a con artist. 

Well, you have his conviction in New York for fraud.  

The Arrest Records of Joseph Smith from 1826 to 1830 are Rediscovered and Given to the Mormon Church

Then there was his participation in the Kirtland Banking Scandal. You know, where he printed up fake bank notes based on chests full of sand with gold coins spread across the top...

Joseph Smith's Kirtland Bank Failure


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, one can still hope for the day when we outgrow the need for sky pixies and people who go around claiming to speak for them are placed in mental institutions where they clearly belong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you could justify your claim.
> 
> The mormon church has been warning about dissolution of the nuclear family (something most sociologists seem to think is important) for decades.
> 
> They teach a code of health.
> 
> They teach community.
> 
> They emphasize the need to be involved in government (although not strongly enough in my opinion).
> 
> I just think all that is awful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is awful. It's awful when a bunch of busybodies go around telling other people how to live their lives when they should MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
> 
> Simple enough for you?
> 
> I don't want you guys in politics or involved in government.
> 
> And frankly, I don't put much into a "community" that teaches you to turn your back on your family when they start doubting the batshit craziness.
> 
> About 30 years ago, I realized Catholicism and by extention all religion is bullshit.  And the reaction of my still Catholic family was, "Oh. Okay."
> 
> Thank the SKy Pixie that doesn't Exist I wasn't a Mormon.
> 
> Screw all you self-righteous phonies.
Click to expand...



NO, SCREW hateful bigots and self-obsessed yet existentially insecure atheist shitstains like YOU. The only thing you "realized" 30 years ago is that you are too weak and frightened to ever be a complete human being. You responded like any dull child could be expected to, and now you try to hide your shame by pretending it's something to be 'proud' of. You're not fooling anyone, least of all yourself. So keep chasing your own tail but know that you're not going to get anywhere and that being a hateful, insecure little asshole won't make your fears go away.


----------



## Unkotare

Listening said:


> I'd say, having read many of your posts, that you do speak at about the level of a mentally challenged 25 year old.





You're being too generous by at least ten years.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Talking to a Mormon is like talking to a mentally challenged 25 year old who still believes in Santa. .





It's too bad the irony of such a statement is lost on you, but then the fact that you are too stupid to understand it is a big part of your problem.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> NO, SCREW hateful bigots and self-obsessed yet existentially insecure atheist shitstains like YOU. The only thing you "realized" 30 years ago is that you are too weak and frightened to ever be a complete human being. You responded like any dull child could be expected to, and now you try to hide your shame by pretending it's something to be 'proud' of. You're not fooling anyone, least of all yourself. So keep chasing your own tail but know that you're not going to get anywhere and that being a hateful, insecure little asshole won't make your fears go away.



Pukey, what I realized 30 years ago was that there are no sky pixies. Never were. In fact, I would say I realized that 40 years ago, when the nasty old nun told us how it was great that God drowned all the babies because they were "wicked".  The problem with the Bible God and the Book of Mormon God is that he doesn't stand up to simple logic and reason. A cosmic being who is so needy he has to have the mere mortals on their knees kissing his butt. 

You can live on your knees. You can be a serf to an imaginary sky friend.  I refuse to do it.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to a Mormon is like talking to a mentally challenged 25 year old who still believes in Santa. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad the irony of such a statement is lost on you, but then the fact that you are too stupid to understand it is a big part of your problem.
Click to expand...


I understand it perfectly.  

The Book of Mormon is a lie. Since you claim to not be a Mormon, you know it is as untrue as I do.  

I mean, I have to assume you haven't run off to the Temple and signed up, right?  

Because you know it's bullshit.  

But you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking to a Mormon is like talking to a mentally challenged 25 year old who still believes in Santa. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad the irony of such a statement is lost on you, but then the fact that you are too stupid to understand it is a big part of your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand it perfectly.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a lie. Since you claim to not be a Mormon, you know it is as untrue as I do.
> 
> I mean, I have to assume you haven't run off to the Temple and signed up, right?
> 
> Because you know it's bullshit.
> 
> But you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
Click to expand...



Your post - of course - demonstrates that you have no fucking idea what I was talking about. Not surprising, since you are a dim-witted, hateful fool.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, SCREW hateful bigots and self-obsessed yet existentially insecure atheist shitstains like YOU. The only thing you "realized" 30 years ago is that you are too weak and frightened to ever be a complete human being. You responded like any dull child could be expected to, and now you try to hide your shame by pretending it's something to be 'proud' of. You're not fooling anyone, least of all yourself. So keep chasing your own tail but know that you're not going to get anywhere and that being a hateful, insecure little asshole won't make your fears go away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pukey, what I realized 30 years ago was that there are no sky pixies. .
Click to expand...



Thanks for demonstrating my point once again, idiot. You are just plain animal stupid and will never get closer to being a human than any other cow grazing in the field.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's too bad the irony of such a statement is lost on you, but then the fact that you are too stupid to understand it is a big part of your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it perfectly.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a lie. Since you claim to not be a Mormon, you know it is as untrue as I do.
> 
> I mean, I have to assume you haven't run off to the Temple and signed up, right?
> 
> Because you know it's bullshit.
> 
> But you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your post - of course - demonstrates that you have no fucking idea what I was talking about. Not surprising, since you are a dim-witted, hateful fool.
Click to expand...


There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.  

1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up. 

and 

2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man.  What a crock of shit.  

There isn't a gray area on this one.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you present real evidence and establish criteria whereby someone is deemed a con artist...I'll listen.  There are finding new groups all the time that lived in the Early America.  The science is never complete.
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, the science is pretty definitive.
Click to expand...


Only because you bitterness requires that it be.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.
> 
> 1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man.  What a crock of shit.
> 
> There isn't a gray area on this one.



That pretty much covers it.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether or not God exists....after all...hard to be a prophet speaking on behalf of something or someone that does not really take up space in the universe.

And you can apply the same kind of logic.

But, even if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet....you have decide just how interested you are in what it is that he has to say.

Many members of the church (in fact almost all) still claim membership (there is way to get your name removed), but many have decided that full devotion isn't for them.

Free Agency and all that.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand it perfectly.
> 
> The Book of Mormon is a lie. Since you claim to not be a Mormon, you know it is as untrue as I do.
> 
> I mean, I have to assume you haven't run off to the Temple and signed up, right?
> 
> Because you know it's bullshit.
> 
> But you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your post - of course - demonstrates that you have no fucking idea what I was talking about. Not surprising, since you are a dim-witted, hateful fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.
> 
> 1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man.  What a crock of shit.
> 
> There isn't a gray area on this one.
Click to expand...



As I said, you have no fucking idea what I was talking about, you fucking dim-wit.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.
> 
> 1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man.  What a crock of shit.
> 
> There isn't a gray area on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That pretty much covers it.
> 
> Then, of course, there is the question of whether or not God exists....after all...hard to be a prophet speaking on behalf of something or someone that does not really take up space in the universe.
> 
> And you can apply the same kind of logic.
> 
> But, even if you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet....you have decide just how interested you are in what it is that he has to say.
> 
> Many members of the church (in fact almost all) still claim membership (there is way to get your name removed), but many have decided that full devotion isn't for them.
> 
> Free Agency and all that.
Click to expand...


Well, Smith could be a con man whether there was a God or not.  

I don't think there is a God, at least not in the Judeo-Christian sense.  

I don't think Smith was a prophet because he was proven wrong too many times.  Kinderhook, Book of Abraham Papyrus, Quakers on the Moon.  Lots of this guy said was just proven wrong.  So whether or not there is a God is irrevenent to the issue.  He clearly wasn't talking to one.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> I don't think Smith was a prophet because he was proven wrong too many times.  Kinderhook, Book of Abraham Papyrus, Quakers on the Moon.  Lots of this guy said was just proven wrong.  So whether or not there is a God is irrevenent to the issue.  He clearly wasn't talking to one.



You are welcome to your opinion, but "proving" he was wrong is different story.

His whole effort and it's legacy has been the subject of many studies that call it unique.

The federal government has studied the church welfare program in detail.....something else that came from a later "prophet"...one of several who have been talking about the decline of the family for several decades.

All the powder you put up gets argued by apologists inside the church who have rational arguments that I don't care to follow to deeply.  It does not matter.

Jospeh Smith was someone who preached a spiritual experience as did Brigham Young.

If you want to base your choices on taste, touch, smell, sound, and sight....that is your choice.  If you believe those are the only senses......that is your choice too.

What we accept in today's world would blow the mind of someone from the 1800's and I suspect that will be the case a couple hundred years from now.

You don't know what you don't know.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> What we accept in today's world would blow the mind of someone from the 1800's and I suspect that will be the case a couple hundred years from now.
> 
> You don't know what you don't know.



This is a bit closer to a reasoned argument than you normally get.   So let's explore. 

The fact that he was able to create this cult is not really an accomplishment.  You have Scientology, the Unification Church, etc.  All you need are 1) a clever guy with no ethics and the ability to talk BS and 2) a lot of less smart people who are willing to go along with it because there are huge voids in their lives.  So, no, I'm not impressed.  Maybe depressed we haven't been able to outgrow it. 

Yes, we have expanded our knowledge since 1800. That's the point.  We know Smith was a fraud because the science has advanced.  

He tried to pass off the book of Abraham as a Biblical Text because in 1830, no one could read Heiroglyphics.... until someone decoded the Rosetta stone and real scientists got a hole of the original papyri...In short, Science filled in the missing information with facts, not faith or hope or magic... 

He could spin these fanciful tales of Hebrews in the Americas because that was a popular theory in 1830 when the Missipiani civilizations was being excavated and no one could explain it.  Then the real scientists got to work on the problem.  

YOu can believe it was God or Space aliens, but science is filling in all the blanks nicely without either.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we accept in today's world would blow the mind of someone from the 1800's and I suspect that will be the case a couple hundred years from now.
> 
> You don't know what you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit closer to a reasoned argument than you normally get.   So let's explore.
> 
> The fact that he was able to create this cult is not really an accomplishment.  You have Scientology, the Unification Church, etc.  All you need are 1) a clever guy with no ethics and the ability to talk BS and 2) a lot of less smart people who are willing to go along with it because there are huge voids in their lives.  So, no, I'm not impressed.  Maybe depressed we haven't been able to outgrow it.
> 
> Yes, we have expanded our knowledge since 1800. That's the point.  We know Smith was a fraud because the science has advanced.
> 
> He tried to pass off the book of Abraham as a Biblical Text because in 1830, no one could read Heiroglyphics.... until someone decoded the Rosetta stone and real scientists got a hole of the original papyri...In short, Science filled in the missing information with facts, not faith or hope or magic...
> 
> He could spin these fanciful tales of Hebrews in the Americas because that was a popular theory in 1830 when the Missipiani civilizations was being excavated and no one could explain it.  Then the real scientists got to work on the problem.
> 
> YOu can believe it was God or Space aliens, but science is filling in all the blanks nicely without either.
Click to expand...


I really don't care....

As I have said before....this is about a spiritual existence.  There are some many combinations of things we can't possibly understand or know that I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

It works for me on several levels.....

There are guys like this:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? Where is the Lamanite DNA?? Does DNA Offer Proof?

Who have apparently spent a lot of time as apologists who make arguments against your arguments.  But don't ask me to referee.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we accept in today's world would blow the mind of someone from the 1800's and I suspect that will be the case a couple hundred years from now.
> 
> You don't know what you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a bit closer to a reasoned argument than you normally get.   So let's explore.
> 
> The fact that he was able to create this cult is not really an accomplishment.  You have Scientology, the Unification Church, etc.  All you need are 1) a clever guy with no ethics and the ability to talk BS and 2) a lot of less smart people who are willing to go along with it because there are huge voids in their lives.  So, no, I'm not impressed.  Maybe depressed we haven't been able to outgrow it.
> 
> Yes, we have expanded our knowledge since 1800. That's the point.  We know Smith was a fraud because the science has advanced.
> 
> He tried to pass off the book of Abraham as a Biblical Text because in 1830, no one could read Heiroglyphics.... until someone decoded the Rosetta stone and real scientists got a hole of the original papyri...In short, Science filled in the missing information with facts, not faith or hope or magic...
> 
> He could spin these fanciful tales of Hebrews in the Americas because that was a popular theory in 1830 when the Missipiani civilizations was being excavated and no one could explain it.  Then the real scientists got to work on the problem.
> 
> YOu can believe it was God or Space aliens, but science is filling in all the blanks nicely without either.
Click to expand...


I really don't care....

As I have said before....this is about a spiritual existence.  There are some many combinations of things we can't possibly understand or know that I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.

It works for me on several levels.....

There are guys like this:

Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon? Where is the Lamanite DNA?? Does DNA Offer Proof?

Who have apparently spent a lot of time as apologists who make arguments against your arguments.  But don't ask me to referee.

And you have this from those who dispute the whole Book of Abraham tact......

The Book of Abraham: Divinely Inspired Scripture - Michael D. Rhodes - FARMS Review - Volume 4 - Issue 1

Do I really care what they say ?  Not really.

But you can argue with them.

Barf all you want....it just sounds like more bitterness to me.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> I really don't care....
> 
> As I have said before....this is about a spiritual existence.  There are some many combinations of things we can't possibly understand or know that I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.
> 
> It works for me on several levels.....
> 
> There are guys like this:
> 
> Who have apparently spent a lot of time as apologists who make arguments against your arguments.  But don't ask me to referee.
> 
> Do I really care what they say ?  Not really.
> 
> But you can argue with them.
> 
> Barf all you want....it just sounds like more bitterness to me.



You don't care, but you've been at this for a week now.  

I don't think there is a spiritual existence becasue there is no evidence for it. So they various religions arguing over who has the best path to something they can't prove exists is to me a bit silly.  

 My problem with holy texts is that they are basically illogical.  They talk about a God who has all this power, but that God could make himself clearly known now. He doesn't. 

Now, for my bitterness. I have to admit, my opinions about Mormons were formed in 1983, when I was at an ROTC camp for six weeks with some creepy as shit, backstabbing LDS types from BYU.  And then for a decade or so, I really didn't think about it again.  Honestly, didn't even bother to read about the details of their faith.  Then I started encountering you guys on the internet on various topics and forums.  I think it started on a Sci-Fi forum when I off-handedly referred to LDS as a "Cult" when discussing Glen Larson and the original Battlestar Galactica. 

 I started researching it more when defending that position, and then arguing against nominating Romney four years ago.  And frankly, yeah, what I see bothers me.  

Mormonism bothers me for the same reason Scientology bothers me. That we are such weak creatures that such outright fraud can gain a foothold.  L. Ron Hubbard publically announced he was pulling a con.  "Why write Science Fiction for a penny a word when you can start a religion and make millions?" He said to his fellow Sci-Fi writers. 

 Joseph Smith was an con artist who decided that treasure hunting schemes actually required you to find treasure once in a while, but Religion, you can make up any bullshit, and people will not only give you their money, but let you sleep with their daughters.  

What a sad commentary on humanity.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't care....
> 
> As I have said before....this is about a spiritual existence.  There are some many combinations of things we can't possibly understand or know that I really don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.
> 
> It works for me on several levels.....
> 
> There are guys like this:
> 
> Who have apparently spent a lot of time as apologists who make arguments against your arguments.  But don't ask me to referee.
> 
> Do I really care what they say ?  Not really.
> 
> But you can argue with them.
> 
> Barf all you want....it just sounds like more bitterness to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care, but you've been at this for a week now.
> 
> I don't think there is a spiritual existence becasue there is no evidence for it. So they various religions arguing over who has the best path to something they can't prove exists is to me a bit silly.
> 
> My problem with holy texts is that they are basically illogical.  They talk about a God who has all this power, but that God could make himself clearly known now. He doesn't.
> 
> Now, for my bitterness. I have to admit, my opinions about Mormons were formed in 1983, when I was at an ROTC camp for six weeks with some creepy as shit, backstabbing LDS types from BYU.  And then for a decade or so, I really didn't think about it again.  Honestly, didn't even bother to read about the details of their faith.  Then I started encountering you guys on the internet on various topics and forums.  I think it started on a Sci-Fi forum when I off-handedly referred to LDS as a "Cult" when discussing Glen Larson and the original Battlestar Galactica.
> 
> I started researching it more when defending that position, and then arguing against nominating Romney four years ago.  And frankly, yeah, what I see bothers me.
> 
> Mormonism bothers me for the same reason Scientology bothers me. That we are such weak creatures that such outright fraud can gain a foothold.  L. Ron Hubbard publically announced he was pulling a con.  "Why write Science Fiction for a penny a word when you can start a religion and make millions?" He said to his fellow Sci-Fi writers.
> 
> Joseph Smith was an con artist who decided that treasure hunting schemes actually required you to find treasure once in a while, but Religion, you can make up any bullshit, and people will not only give you their money, but let you sleep with their daughters.
> 
> What a sad commentary on humanity.
Click to expand...


I am on a thread called the truth about mormons where you continually put out this concept of Joseph Smith as a con artist.  You indicate he is "wrong" or "false" by virtue of your reasoning.  And yet, the discipline of logic all works its way back to original premises that are either true or they are not.

We can deal with those based on what we want to believe for the rest of our lives.  There is no final arbiter.

I provided some web sites that counter your arguments.  I hvae never seen the sites I provided as being very strong in their arguments and, frankly, I don't get mormon apologetics.

You will never prove mormonism just like you will never prove christianity in general.  It is all based on faith.

I sometimes sit in Sunday School or Priesthood meeting and get a little annoyed at the "Wow...look at how good we are." attitude that some members have.  I don't buy into that either.

We are what we are.

And I thought that was what this thread was about.  

There is no doubt in my mnd that the men who lead the church now do so earnestly.  They give up titles and treasure to serve in ways that would make most peoples heads spin.

Gordon B. Hinckley was 97 when he passed away.  During the time that most people his age are sightseeing, golfing, and taking it easy, he was working long hours to lead the church.  He got after the church membes who were overleveraging their houses.  He came down hard on spouse and child abuse.  He came down hard on gambling.  He continued to hold up the same banners that the church has always held up.....mostly around individual responsibility.

What truth is in there ?  You can read his own words and see if they ae consistent.  It is up to each of us to make thos choices.

But, when it comes to talking about truth...I am always interested to know what the facts are.  I recently listened to a podcast where it was stated that 2/3 of the church is innactive.  I was stunned.  But, I can see that being the case.  That would be a statistical truth.  If that is the case, then we really only have about 5 million active members of the church.  And if that split is proportional to the membership outside the U.S., then there are less than 3 million active membes in the U.S.  Those would be facts.  That is less than 1% of the population of the U.S.

I always appreciate knowing what things really are.

If you want to talk testimony and conversion and personal behaviour...that is a different topic.

This thread was entitled "The truth about the mormons"


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> I am on a thread called the truth about mormons where you continually put out this concept of Joseph Smith as a con artist.  You indicate he is "wrong" or "false" by virtue of your reasoning.  And yet, the discipline of logic all works its way back to original premises that are either true or they are not.
> 
> We can deal with those based on what we want to believe for the rest of our lives.  There is no final arbiter.
> 
> I provided some web sites that counter your arguments.  I hvae never seen the sites I provided as being very strong in their arguments and, frankly, I don't get mormon apologetics.
> 
> You will never prove mormonism just like you will never prove christianity in general.  It is all based on faith.
> This thread was entitled "The truth about the mormons"



Mormonism is false because Smith made claims that he said he knew because he had been chatting with God.  We now know, by virtue of science, that all these things are NOT true.  

As for faith, Mark Twain had it right when he said, "Faith is believing in things you know ain't so."  

I go by what I can prove, what I can test, and what I can measure.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If you tell me a fantastic story, I look for the holes. That is my nature.  It got me more than a few wooden rulers over the knuckles by frustrated lesbians in habits who thought htey could pray away the gay.  

 Now, if your argument is, "Well, we are all nice people, so please excuse the batshit crazy beliefs" that's fine.  Frankly, the Mormons I've met personally or on line aren't the nice ones, I guess.  

But you all are trying to foist one of your own on the rest of us as President, and frankly, now would be a good time for some scrutiny.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> But you all are trying to foist one of your own on the rest of us as President, and frankly, now would be a good time for some scrutiny.




Nobody is "foisting" anyone. We are going to have an election, you dumb fuck.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Mormonism is false because Smith made claims that he said he knew because he had been chatting with God.  We now know, by virtue of science, that all these things are NOT true.



If you mean by virtue of testing....the sites I listed counter any argument that I have heard with regard to so-called "science".



JoeB131 said:


> As for faith, Mark Twain had it right when he said, "Faith is believing in things you know ain't so."



Boy that was real scientific. 



JoeB131 said:


> I go by what I can prove, what I can test, and what I can measure.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If you tell me a fantastic story, I look for the holes. That is my nature.  It got me more than a few wooden rulers over the knuckles by frustrated lesbians in habits who thought htey could pray away the gay.



I don't know what you do, but as a skeptic, scientist and engineer, I am always aware of the possibility of circumstances and facts that I don't have that could be used to explain things.  I deal with it all the time.  It is really humbling to know how much you don't know.  

I would say that to believe nothing beyond your five senses is pretty narrow minded.  I am glad the great scientists of the past and the innovators of today don't do the same.



JoeB131 said:


> Now, if your argument is, "Well, we are all nice people, so please excuse the batshit crazy beliefs" that's fine.  Frankly, the Mormons I've met personally or on line aren't the nice ones, I guess.



Strawman....never made that argument.  We are taught to be nice....but free agency rests with each person.



JoeB131 said:


> But you all are trying to foist one of your own on the rest of us as President, and frankly, now would be a good time for some scrutiny.



A religious litums test...how wonderful !

Sorry, but while there is a place for Romney at the table,  I am afraid the kind of bitterness you carry is what started the KKK (and I'd rather have a harmless Satan worshipper sitting next to me than someone wearing a white hood).


----------



## Listening

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you all are trying to foist one of your own on the rest of us as President, and frankly, now would be a good time for some scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is "foisting" anyone. We are going to have an election, you dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


It is good to know that people understand the difference.

Thanks.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you all are trying to foist one of your own on the rest of us as President, and frankly, now would be a good time for some scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is "foisting" anyone. We are going to have an election, you dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


Keep telling yourself that, guy.... 

Keep telling yourself the billionaires haven't already rigged this game.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you all are trying to foist one of your own on the rest of us as President, and frankly, now would be a good time for some scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is "foisting" anyone. We are going to have an election, you dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, guy....
> 
> Keep telling yourself the billionaires haven't already rigged this game.
Click to expand...



So, in addition to being a hateful, bigoted moron, you are also a conspiracy freak. You're painting quite the picture of yourself, you fucking loser.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is "foisting" anyone. We are going to have an election, you dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, guy....
> 
> Keep telling yourself the billionaires haven't already rigged this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, in addition to being a hateful, bigoted moron, you are also a conspiracy freak. You're painting quite the picture of yourself, you fucking loser.
Click to expand...


I'm a realist, man.  You don't think the big corporations have as tight a control on our politics and both parties as the Ayatollahs in Iran have on who gets to run for election in that country, you're deluded.  

We get the choices they give us.  Romney will be the nominee despite the fact 80% of Republicans don't want the guy.  And Obama is already bought and paid for.  So it's just a matter of letting the one win that be more pliable.


----------



## daws101

Despite popular Mormon folklore, Joseph Smith did not give his life innocently "like a lamb to the slaughter" in martyrom. He died after shooting three men with a pistol and desperately trying to prevent his death even with his last utterance. (One of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives, Zina D. Huntington, declared: "I am the widow of a master mason, who, when leaping from the window of Carthage Jail pierced with bullets, made the masonic sign of distress." Joeseph Smith made this sign hoping to appeal to Masons to save his life.)
- Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Volume 1, page 698 



Regarding Joseph Smith's death at Carthage Jail, Doctrine and Covenants 135:4 says:

"When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summers morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF MEHE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD." (emphasis in the original) 

When I was a mormon, it was said that his blood stains the floor to this day in the prison, but I do not know, I have never visited the prison.


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Despite popular Mormon folklore, Joseph Smith did not give his life innocently "like a lamb to the slaughter" in martyrom. He died after shooting three men with a pistol and desperately trying to prevent his death even with his last utterance. (One of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives, Zina D. Huntington, declared: "I am the widow of a master mason, who, when leaping from the window of Carthage Jail pierced with bullets, made the masonic sign of distress." Joeseph Smith made this sign hoping to appeal to Masons to save his life.)
> - Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Volume 1, page 698
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Joseph Smith's death at Carthage Jail, Doctrine and Covenants 135:4 says:
> 
> "When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summers morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF MEHE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD." (emphasis in the original)
> 
> When I was a mormon, it was said that his blood stains the floor to this day in the prison, but I do not know, I have never visited the prison.



And all this heresay is relevent how ?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> I'm a realist, man. .




No, 'man,' you are a bigoted, mentally defective asshole. You've made that more than clear.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite popular Mormon folklore, Joseph Smith did not give his life innocently "like a lamb to the slaughter" in martyrom. He died after shooting three men with a pistol and desperately trying to prevent his death even with his last utterance. (One of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives, Zina D. Huntington, declared: "I am the widow of a master mason, who, when leaping from the window of Carthage Jail pierced with bullets, made the masonic sign of distress." Joeseph Smith made this sign hoping to appeal to Masons to save his life.)
> - Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Volume 1, page 698
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Joseph Smith's death at Carthage Jail, Doctrine and Covenants 135:4 says:
> 
> "When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summers morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF MEHE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD." (emphasis in the original)
> 
> When I was a mormon, it was said that his blood stains the floor to this day in the prison, but I do not know, I have never visited the prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all this heresay is relevent how ?
Click to expand...

any quantitative proof that it's hearsay?


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite popular Mormon folklore, Joseph Smith did not give his life innocently "like a lamb to the slaughter" in martyrom. He died after shooting three men with a pistol and desperately trying to prevent his death even with his last utterance. (One of Joseph Smith's polygamous wives, Zina D. Huntington, declared: "I am the widow of a master mason, who, when leaping from the window of Carthage Jail pierced with bullets, made the masonic sign of distress." Joeseph Smith made this sign hoping to appeal to Masons to save his life.)
> - Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, Andrew Jenson, Volume 1, page 698
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Joseph Smith's death at Carthage Jail, Doctrine and Covenants 135:4 says:
> 
> "When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summers morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I SHALL DIE INNOCENT, AND IT SHALL YET BE SAID OF MEHE WAS MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD." (emphasis in the original)
> 
> When I was a mormon, it was said that his blood stains the floor to this day in the prison, but I do not know, I have never visited the prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all this heresay is relevent how ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> any quantitative proof that it's hearsay?
Click to expand...


Unless you can produce audiovisual's.....I'd say the argument isn't worth having.

You posted something that is no more truth than I am green.

The truth about mormons.....they have red blood...just like everyone else.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all this heresay is relevent how ?
> 
> 
> 
> any quantitative proof that it's hearsay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you can produce audiovisual's.....I'd say the argument isn't worth having.
> 
> You posted something that is no more truth than I am green.
> 
> The truth about mormons.....they have red blood...just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

dodge deflect model 666.

Joseph Smith
 There's two ways to look at Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon Church. On the one hand you can view him as a fraud -- a monomaniacal polygamist, an opportunist who shamelessly exploited his religious followers, who was murdered by an angry mob, infuriated by all his bullshit. On the other hand, you could be a Mormon. In which case, he's the greatest man who ever lived. Your call. 
One morning in 1820, fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith, Jr. had a problem: he needed to know which religion was right. So he went into the woods and prayed for guidance. Then Jesus and His Dad appeared and gave Smith some unbelievable news: 


Every church on earth was offensive to the Lord. All of them had ignored His teachings and commandments... or something like that. Therefore, Smith should join none of them. 

Smith was instructed to institute a new religion, restoring God's teachings. It would be the one true church. 
Smith told no one about the vision, and nothing happened for three years. 

Then he received another visitation, this time from an angel named Moroni. Sort of like the holographic schematics of the Death Star shown to the Rebel pilots during their briefing, Moroni showed Smith a cavity hidden inside a mountain, conveniently located just outside his hometown. (What a coincidence.) In the cave was a room with wooden furnishings, with a bunch of gold tablets stacked up on the table. Then the angel told him not to go near the site until he received specific orders to do so. So Smith never told anybody about that vision either. 

 Another four years passed, and then he finally got the go-ahead to grab the gold tablets. He also picked up two magical rocks which were made famous in the Old Testament: the Urim and Thummim. With those stones -- and a lucky brown rock he found at the bottom of a well -- he set out to transcribe the mysterious markings on the plates. 

The resulting divine scripture was the account of the lost tribe of Israel, which had sailed from Canaan across the seas to North America around 2250 B.C. They were met by an exotic land, full of elephants and horses and other things that don't make any sense. 

Anyway, these transplanted Hebrews established a vast civilization and were even visited by Jesus, who established a ministry there. This work, a 275,000-word tome entitled The Book of Mormon, provided the foundation for the LDS faith. After the book was translated, the angel came and repossessed the gold plates, which is why they haven't been exhibited in a museum someplace. 

The church grew rapidly. And why not? It contained the perfect American theology. For one thing, it proved that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was divinely-inspired. America was the chosen land. And, of course, it was represented as the church to supplant all others, the One True Faith. So it was the new and improved Christian religion. 

 Best of all, its prophet was a U.S. citizen, embodying the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country great. He wasn't content to be the Prometheus who brought the world the one true way. He had to claim credit and ownership. The first edition of The Book of Mormon bore the following on its title page: 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BY JOSEPH SMITH, JUNIOR,
AUTHOR AND PROPRIETOR. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, he wasn't just the day manager. Smith adopted the official title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, claiming he literally spoke for God. Just like the Pope, except he was a U.S. citizen. 

According to the church, God even endorsed the cornerstone of American society, despite its controversial status around the world. That being the centuries-old institution of involuntary servitude. As Joseph Smith, God's mouthpiece, wrote in April 1836: 


The fact is inconvertible, that the first mention we have of slavery, is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. 
And so far from that prediction being averse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument to the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! "And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." 

. . . The curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan . . . those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord, will learn when perhaps too late, for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not directed by His Counsel. 

The Scripture stands for itself; and I believe that these men were better qualified to teach the will of God, than all the Abolitionists in the world. 

As prophet, Smith yielded an incessant stream of revelations and divine judgments. God told the Mormons that a man could enter Heaven only by way of plural marriage (aka polygamy). Smith himself had at least 28 wives. But the government hounded them over this, and they were forced to deny it. God also told them to pool all their money and form a Mormon bank. It failed shortly thereafter. 

Years after William Miller started predicting that Jesus would be back Real Soon Now, Smith revealed a similar prophecy in February 1835. Except that Smith's was not exactly what you would call specific. When Joseph nagged God about the timing of Christ's return, the Creator answered with clear annoyance: 


I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 

Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble Me no more on this matter. 
I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the son of Man will not be any sooner than that time. 

Surprisingly, God appeared to be uncertain whether Joseph would live to be 85. You would think that if anyone could predict when somebody is going to die, it would be the Almighty. Of course, in the end God was correct to hedge His bet. 

 It all ended nine years later in an Illinois jail. Before he surrendered to custody in June 1844, Smith made a little speech to his Mormon brethren: 


"I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer's morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall be said of me -- he was murdered in cold blood." 
Or at least, that's what the Mormons say. It seems pretty damn unlikely, when you consider Smith's long track record of interstate flight from prosecution (not to mention evading his creditors). And besides, if he was genuinely acquiescing to his impending martyrdom, then why did he bring the gun? 

When the angry mob showed up, the lamb whipped out a pistol and shot three guys, killing two of them. But the crowd was too big and he ran out of bullets. Smith ran to the second-story window and looked out -- more armed vigilantes were outside. Smith climbed out on the windowsill. He may or may not have given a Masonic distress signal: "Is there no help for the widow's son?" Evidently not. 

Then Smith either jumped or fell, breaking his shoulder. One of the mob stabbed him several times with a bayonet, then dragged Smith against a well. That's when the mob shot him to pieces. 

After Smith's death, the Mormons split in half. His wife and son created the Reorganized LDS church (RLDS), and Brigham Young led the remnants of the original group westward to the Utah Territory. Young blamed the Masons for Smith's murder, and forbade any Mormons from joining the Freemasons. The Masons reciprocated in kind. 




timeline
5 Jan 1833 Joseph Smith predicts "And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine, and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. [...] Repent ye, repent ye, and embrace the everlasting covenant and flee to Zion, before the overflowing scourge overtake you, for there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled." 
15 Mar 1842 Joseph Smith is initiated into the Freemasons. The very next night, he will be promoted to the rank of Master Mason. 
6 May 1843 Joseph Smith announces "I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children, and the wholesale plunder and extermination of thousands of her citizens to go unpunished." 
27 Jun 1844 Joseph Smith pulled out of a jail in Carthage, Illinois and murdered by an angry mob. 

Joseph Smith


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a realist, man. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, 'man,' you are a bigoted, mentally defective asshole. You've made that more than clear.
Click to expand...


and yet you follow me around like a little puppy.... because everyone else ignores you most of the time..

He's so cute...


----------



## Listening

I just love the bitterness in this thread.

I think I'll do my home teaching twice this month.....just to mock you.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you all are trying to foist one of your own on the rest of us as President, and frankly, now would be a good time for some scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is "foisting" anyone. We are going to have an election, you dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, guy....
> 
> Keep telling yourself the billionaires haven't already rigged this game.
Click to expand...


They've rigged the game? So why play it?


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> I just love the bitterness in this thread.
> 
> I think I'll do my home teaching twice this month.....just to mock you.



I hope you do it for better reasons than that.

This thread has good moments too. Not everyone is as bitter as these late arrivals.


----------



## Amelia

Listening said:


> I just love the bitterness in this thread.
> 
> I think I'll do my home teaching twice this month.....just to mock you.





lol


----------



## Listening

Avatar4321 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just love the bitterness in this thread.
> 
> I think I'll do my home teaching twice this month.....just to mock you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you do it for better reasons than that.
> 
> This thread has good moments too. Not everyone is as bitter as these late arrivals.
Click to expand...


Have you seen any pictures of the K.C temple ?  It is awesome !!!

We are really excited to have it open...they are saying May.

It is about 30 minutes from my house.


----------



## Brucethethinker

I started reading this thread at the beginning.  Truthteller was offering to answer questions about the mormon religion.  I read about 8 pages, then realized the 300 or so pages would take days to read, so I skipped to the end.  The last few pages have been mostly generic potty-mouthed insults, which I'm not interested in.  I'm here to learn, and I have some questions about the mormon religion.  Is there a mormon following this thread who would like to answer them?


----------



## Avatar4321

Brucethethinker said:


> I started reading this thread at the beginning.  Truthteller was offering to answer questions about the mormon religion.  I read about 8 pages, then realized the 300 or so pages would take days to read, so I skipped to the end.  The last few pages have been mostly generic potty-mouthed insults, which I'm not interested in.  I'm here to learn, and I have some questions about the mormon religion.  Is there a mormon following this thread who would like to answer them?



Im sure if you ask your questions there will be plenty who will. I know there are a number lurking.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is "foisting" anyone. We are going to have an election, you dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, guy....
> 
> Keep telling yourself the billionaires haven't already rigged this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've rigged the game? So why play it?
Click to expand...


Maybe for no other reason to point out that it's rigged...


----------



## Brucethethinker

Avatar4321 said:


> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure if you ask your questions there will be plenty who will. I know there are a number lurking.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here are some questions.
> 1) Do mormons follow beliefs of one head person, somewhat like the catholics follow the pope?  For example, a catholic can't say the pope is wrong and still be a catholic, they believe god caused the pope to be there, so at least in regards to matters of doctrine and faith, he is correct.
> 2) I've heard that mormons don't go on welfare, the church takes care of members who find themselves in financial difficulty.  True?
> 3) Mormons don't smoke or drink alcohol of any kind, true?
> 4) Does anything in the book of mormon really change anything that was already in the bible?  Does it really matter if Jesus was in America?
> 5) Do mormons believe in the theory of evolution?
> That will do for now.  Thanks!
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

Brucethethinker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure if you ask your questions there will be plenty who will. I know there are a number lurking.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, here are some questions.
> 1) Do mormons follow beliefs of one head person, somewhat like the catholics follow the pope?  For example, a catholic can't say the pope is wrong and still be a catholic, they believe god caused the pope to be there, so at least in regards to matters of doctrine and faith, he is correct.
> 2) I've heard that mormons don't go on welfare, the church takes care of members who find themselves in financial difficulty.  True?
> 3) Mormons don't smoke or drink alcohol of any kind, true?
> 4) Does anything in the book of mormon really change anything that was already in the bible?  Does it really matter if Jesus was in America?
> 5) Do mormons believe in the theory of evolution?
> That will do for now.  Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> answer to question 1. the Mormons have a"president" who in there eyes is chosen by god
> to lead the church,he is also the head of the council of 12, the equivalent to the popes' entourage.
> "good" Mormons never disagree with the pres, I've never heard of any members being excommunicated for that reason but it's been nearly 40 years since I left Mormonism for reality...so anything is possible.
> BTW there are plenty of other rules to break to get booted from the church(I refer to the Mormon belief system as the church because "they" believe that it's the only true church)
> answer to question 2. the Mormons have their own welfare system which provides food clothing and cash...it's called deseret industries and has a beehive logo.
> also the Mormons own the largest cattle ranch on earth and many farms.
> answer to question 3.good Mormons are not suppose to to drink or smoke or use caffeine.
> other then the obvious health effects ,the reason we were given was to keep gods temple clean.
> like most faiths that demand their adherents follow a health code,there are some that do and some that don't and some who lie about it.
> answer to question 4. the Mormons claim that the events portrayed the book of Mormon run concurrent with the events of the bible.
> there is no evidence at ALL to substantiate these claims,it's a matter of faith not logic.
> answer to question 5. NO....they are strict creationists.
> some even believe that god destroyed other planets to create this world ....that's why we have fossils.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Daws- thanks for your insights on this thread.  

In reference to your response to Q5- They really belive that? Fossils are remains of creatures from other planets God blew up to make Earth? 

Wow, every time I think I find that I've hit bottom on LDS crazy, they find a new flavor of crazy.


----------



## Amelia

In 1980 belief in evolution was not considered inconsistent with Mormonism to the best of my understanding.

At BYU, it was taught that human remains have been found which are older than 6000 years.

God created the earth and put humans on the earth but we don't know the mechanism he used to do it.  It could have been through evolution.



Have LDS teachings changed since then?


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> In 1980 belief in evolution was not considered inconsistent with Mormonism to the best of my understanding.
> 
> At BYU, it was taught that human remains have been found which are older than 6000 years.
> 
> God created the earth and put humans on the earth but we don't know the mechanism he used to do it.  It could have been through evolution.
> 
> Have LDS teachings changed since then?



There is no God. 

We evolved from Monkeys. 

Learn to deal with it. 

"BYU" and "taught" shouldn't be used in the same sentence.


----------



## Amelia

Well, some of us may have evolved.

For some, monkey would be a step up the ladder.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Daws- thanks for your insights on this thread.
> 
> In reference to your response to Q5- They really belive that? Fossils are remains of creatures from other planets God blew up to make Earth?
> 
> Wow, every time I think I find that I've hit bottom on LDS crazy, they find a new flavor of crazy.



Having been a member for almost 35 years, this is the first time I have ever heard such silliness.  While the creation is a solid part of our doctrine, nobody has ever said what mechanism was utilized.

Now, we know evolution occurs.

Did men come from apes ?

Your very posts would tend to suppor that it might have happened.


----------



## Unkotare

Listening said:


> [
> 
> Now, we know evolution occurs.
> 
> Did men come from apes ?
> 
> Your very posts would tend to suppor that it might have happened.




No, his posts suggest that the process may be working in the other direction for some.


----------



## Brucethethinker

Sounds like the issue of evolution is a little up in the air.

I admire the mormons for having their own welfare system, their family values, and the fact that they'll change their doctrine as events unfold.  I have some background with catholicism, and I've always believed their main problem is their insistance that every pope is infalable.  I really don't understand why LDS feel they still need to keep the book of mormon, I don't see how anything would change if they just dropped it.

One more question.  I understand that the term "magic underwear" is offensive to mormons, and I don't mean to offend, so I'd like to know, what term do mormons prefer to use in place of "magic underwear", and what exactly are they?  I get the part about why it's underwear, so no one can see it, but how are a mormon's undergarments different than those of a non-mormon?

Thanks!


----------



## Amelia

They're called "garments".




They cover more of the body than typical underwear.  No short shorts for Mormons.  ( :


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws- thanks for your insights on this thread.
> 
> In reference to your response to Q5- They really belive that? Fossils are remains of creatures from other planets God blew up to make Earth?
> 
> Wow, every time I think I find that I've hit bottom on LDS crazy, they find a new flavor of crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having been a member for almost 35 years, this is the first time I have ever heard such silliness.  While the creation is a solid part of our doctrine, nobody has ever said what mechanism was utilized.
> 
> Now, we know evolution occurs.
> 
> Did men come from apes ?
> 
> Your very posts would tend to suppor that it might have happened.
Click to expand...


Your inability to spell words like "support" would probably insult the apes to call you a descendent. 

To the point, though, evolution and Christianity are incompatable. They both can't be true. 

Either God made man in his own image, or man simply evolved, with no Sky Pixies involved.  

Evidence for the Bible version- Zip, Zero, Nada. 

Evidence for the Darwin Version- Fossils.  Lots of them. Genetics. 

I'll have to research whether the "destroying other worlds" is part of the Mormon Crazy.  Sadly, I find it pretty plausible given that you guys lie about what you believe and all the other crazy nonsense.


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> Well, some of us may have evolved.
> 
> For some, monkey would be a step up the ladder.



Well, that's true.  I look at the "I've Got Mine, Screw You" element of the Republican Party, and think we haven't evolved at all.  

You know, the ones that look at Mitt Romney screwing working people out of jobs, and think, "Wow, what a wonderful businessman he is!"


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws- thanks for your insights on this thread.
> 
> In reference to your response to Q5- They really belive that? Fossils are remains of creatures from other planets God blew up to make Earth?
> 
> Wow, every time I think I find that I've hit bottom on LDS crazy, they find a new flavor of crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having been a member for almost 35 years, this is the first time I have ever heard such silliness.  While the creation is a solid part of our doctrine, nobody has ever said what mechanism was utilized.
> 
> Now, we know evolution occurs.
> 
> Did men come from apes ?
> 
> Your very posts would tend to suppor that it might have happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to spell words like "support" would probably insult the apes to call you a descendent.
> 
> To the point, though, evolution and Christianity are incompatable. They both can't be true.
> 
> Either God made man in his own image, or man simply evolved, with no Sky Pixies involved.
> 
> Evidence for the Bible version- Zip, Zero, Nada.
> 
> Evidence for the Darwin Version- Fossils.  Lots of them. Genetics.
> 
> I'll have to research whether the "destroying other worlds" is part of the Mormon Crazy.  Sadly, I find it pretty plausible given that you guys lie about what you believe and all the other crazy nonsense.
Click to expand...


Oh this is funny.

That someone as puny as a homo sapien will make a univeral statement about what is or isn't is the essence of arrogance.

The one thing that science teaches the open mind is how much we don't know and how things we believe are not plausible are actually very plausible.

It is that open mind point that disqualifies you.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> Oh this is funny.
> 
> That someone as puny as a homo sapien will make a univeral statement about what is or isn't is the essence of arrogance.
> 
> The one thing that science teaches the open mind is how much we don't know and how things we believe are not plausible are actually very plausible.
> 
> It is that open mind point that disqualifies you.



Bullshit, guy.  

The people who wrote the bible didn't know what an atom was or where the sun went at night.  The Genesis story is full of so many scientific implausibilities that it can be rejected forthwith. 

Like plants being created before the sun was.  

Can I absolutely say that there there's no possible way that a higher being could exist? Maybe not. 

Can I absolutely say the Bible and the Book of Mormon were bullshit made up by people who didn't know any better.  Yup.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is funny.
> 
> That someone as puny as a homo sapien will make a univeral statement about what is or isn't is the essence of arrogance.
> 
> The one thing that science teaches the open mind is how much we don't know and how things we believe are not plausible are actually very plausible.
> 
> It is that open mind point that disqualifies you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, guy.
> 
> The people who wrote the bible didn't know what an atom was or where the sun went at night.  The Genesis story is full of so many scientific implausibilities that it can be rejected forthwith.
> 
> Like plants being created before the sun was.
> 
> Can I absolutely say that there there's no possible way that a higher being could exist? Maybe not.
> 
> Can I absolutely say the Bible and the Book of Mormon were bullshit made up by people who didn't know any better.  Yup.
Click to expand...


Yes, the classic response from a close minded bigot like yourself.

I expected no less (of a stupid statement).

Please continue to reject all you will.

It is good thing the scientists of the 1800's didn't adhere to the conventions of the day (that is how we advanced to statistical thermodynamics and using wave theory to describe electrons....but you know all that....and, of course, there are boring stories in medical science....and how DNA was finally identified).

So, I guess we can count on you to NOT to do any discovering since you already have it figured out.

Your greatest contribution to society will be if they compost your body after you die so others might have more productive gardens.

Your conclusions about the bible and Book Of Mormon are only based in some pool of bitterness you developed long ago.

Sad.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is funny.
> 
> That someone as puny as a homo sapien will make a univeral statement about what is or isn't is the essence of arrogance.
> 
> The one thing that science teaches the open mind is how much we don't know and how things we believe are not plausible are actually very plausible.
> 
> It is that open mind point that disqualifies you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, guy.
> 
> The people who wrote the bible didn't know what an atom was or where the sun went at night.  The Genesis story is full of so many scientific implausibilities that it can be rejected forthwith.
> 
> Like plants being created before the sun was.
> 
> Can I absolutely say that there there's no possible way that a higher being could exist? Maybe not.
> 
> Can I absolutely say the Bible and the Book of Mormon were bullshit made up by people who didn't know any better.  Yup.
Click to expand...




It must be comforting for you to pretend to take pride in your ignorance.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, some of us may have evolved.
> 
> For some, monkey would be a step up the ladder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's true.  I look at the "I've Got Mine, Screw You" element of the Republican Party, and think we haven't evolved at all.
> 
> You know, the ones that look at Mitt Romney screwing working people out of jobs, and think, "Wow, what a wonderful businessman he is!"
Click to expand...




So you're done pretending you are a Republican, you stupid fucking bigot?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> So you're done pretending you are a Republican, you stupid fucking bigot?



No, I'm just not YOUR kind of Republican.  The kind that begs for scraps from the master's table hoping to be the master some day himself.  

This is one of the ways the Republicans went wrong after Reagan.  Not necessarily because of Reagan himself, but because of some of the mentality that rode along.  

If you think there isn't a big corporation that wouldn't sell this country out in a heartbeat, you're delusional.  They put profit before country, and that's the problem.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> Yes, the classic response from a close minded bigot like yourself.
> 
> I expected no less (of a stupid statement).
> 
> Please continue to reject all you will.
> 
> It is good thing the scientists of the 1800's didn't adhere to the conventions of the day (that is how we advanced to statistical thermodynamics and using wave theory to describe electrons....but you know all that....and, of course, there are boring stories in medical science....and how DNA was finally identified).
> 
> So, I guess we can count on you to NOT to do any discovering since you already have it figured out.
> 
> Your greatest contribution to society will be if they compost your body after you die so others might have more productive gardens.
> 
> Your conclusions about the bible and Book Of Mormon are only based in some pool of bitterness you developed long ago.
> 
> Sad.




No, Guy, what is sad is that you don't see a difference between scientific inquiry and religious bullshit.  

Religion has always been the enemy of knowledge and science.  From persecuting Galileo to burning the books of Pagan authors and creating the dark ages.  From calling vaccinations for smallpox "The Devil's Needle".   Religion has always been a roadblock to man's advancement. 

Whenever there has been something truly stupid, there's usually been a retard with a bible behind it.  Racism, Sexism, Homophobia.  Yup, and in every case, an asshole with a bible saying God endorses it.  Until of course, it became unacceptable, and they pretend they never said that.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> Religion has always been the enemy of knowledge and science.  .





Wrong. You're such an ignorant fuck.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're done pretending you are a Republican, you stupid fucking bigot?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm just not YOUR kind of Republican.  .
Click to expand...




You're not any kind of Republican, you dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Religion has always been the enemy of knowledge and science.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You're such an ignorant fuck.
Click to expand...


So all the words that followed that you didn't understand? 

How about Galileo, guy. Remember him. Had this whacky idea that the earth went around the sun.  But that contradicted the bible, so they tortured the poor fool until he renounced it.    The Catholic Church kept his writing on the "banned" list until the 19th century.  

And then there was this gem...

X. THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO INOCULATION, VACCINATION, AND THE USE OF



> Ultra-conservatives in medicine took fright at once on both sides of the Channel, and theology was soon finding profound reasons against the new practice. The French theologians of the Sorbonne solemnly condemned it; the English theologians were most loudly represented by the Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and published a sermon entitled _The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation_. In this he declared that Job's distemper was probably confluent smallpox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil; that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is "a diabolical operation." Not less vigorous was the sermon of the Rev. Mr. Delafaye, entitled _Inoculation an Indefensible Practice_. This struggle went on for thirty years. ...as late as 1753 we have a noted rector at Canterbury denouncing inoculation from his pulpit in the primatial city, and many of his brethren following his example.



Yup.  That's the Church, helping progress because they really care about people. 

Hell, this bullshit goes on today.  Everyone agrees the use of condoms will slow down the spread of HIV.  Well, everyone with a fucking lick of sense. You know who doesn't. 

The Catholic Church.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> You're not any kind of Republican, you dishonest piece of shit.



I'm just wondering, is that what you think the GOP should be about.  Protecting a few rich people while the rest of us live in shit?  Seriously?  

I think you and Romney should campaign on that. 

'Fuck your job, my mansion needs to be bigger". 

Except you'd be the one saying "Sho enough, massa Romney, youse need a bigger mansion!"


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> No, Guy, what is sad is that you don't see a difference between scientific inquiry and religious bullshit.
> 
> Religion has always been the enemy of knowledge and science.  From persecuting Galileo to burning the books of Pagan authors and creating the dark ages.  From calling vaccinations for smallpox "The Devil's Needle".   Religion has always been a roadblock to man's advancement.
> 
> Whenever there has been something truly stupid, there's usually been a retard with a bible behind it.  Racism, Sexism, Homophobia.  Yup, and in every case, an asshole with a bible saying God endorses it.  Until of course, it became unacceptable, and they pretend they never said that.



Sorry Buckwheat, but you really are a narrow minded bigot who tries to hide under the skirt of some poser called "science".

If you want to accuse everyone on this board who is religious of doing just what you said....be my guest.

Otherwise, I would expect you to retract your little rant.

Religion certainly has had it's bad apples and people have used religion to push their own agendas.

But the kind of generalizations you make here are almost retarded.

And since I am a mormon, I can tell you that I have never been told to do anything except learn as much as I can about as many things as I can.

And just how would you rate yourself as learned ?

Do you have a PhD ?


----------



## FactFinder

*The Truth about Mormons *

After 5700 + messages...it looks like y'all haven't figured it out yet.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not any kind of Republican, you dishonest piece of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering, is that what you think the GOP should be about.  Protecting a few rich people while the rest of us live in shit?  Seriously?
> 
> I think you and Romney should campaign on that.
> 
> 'Fuck your job, my mansion needs to be bigger".
> 
> Except you'd be the one saying "Sho enough, massa Romney, youse need a bigger mansion!"
Click to expand...




Why are you still bothering (from time to time) with this "I'm a Republican" act, shitstain? Absolutely no one is buying it. It's all too obvious that you are just another liberal democrat trying in vain to push silly lies about what you see as your opposition. Are you really getting paid enough to make this much of an ass of yourself?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Religion has always been the enemy of knowledge and science.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. You're such an ignorant fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the words that followed that you didn't understand? .
Click to expand...



None of your words, or your real agenda, are hard to understand, shitforbrains. It would be a waste of time to explain just how fucking idiotic your statement was because: 

 A) You're too stupid to follow

B) You don't want to know anything outside your bigotry and prejudice


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Why are you still bothering (from time to time) with this "I'm a Republican" act, shitstain? Absolutely no one is buying it. It's all too obvious that you are just another liberal democrat trying in vain to push silly lies about what you see as your opposition. Are you really getting paid enough to make this much of an ass of yourself?



Guy, the only one who seems to have a problem with it is you... 

But go and get your shine-box.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> None of your words, or your real agenda, are hard to understand, shitforbrains. It would be a waste of time to explain just how fucking idiotic your statement was because:
> 
> A) You're too stupid to follow



And you keep following me around like a puppy... you just don't have the intelligence to say anything in rebuttal.  Sad,really.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> Sorry Buckwheat, but you really are a narrow minded bigot who tries to hide under the skirt of some poser called "science".
> 
> If you want to accuse everyone on this board who is religious of doing just what you said....be my guest.
> 
> Otherwise, I would expect you to retract your little rant.
> 
> Religion certainly has had it's bad apples and people have used religion to push their own agendas.
> 
> But the kind of generalizations you make here are almost retarded.
> 
> And since I am a mormon, I can tell you that I have never been told to do anything except learn as much as I can about as many things as I can.
> 
> And just how would you rate yourself as learned ?
> 
> Do you have a PhD ?



Oh, I'm sure you do. And it's from some place run by Mormons... You'd be better off getting one on-line.  

Religion doesn't have bad apples, it is the bad apple.  2000 years of misogyny, homophobia, slavery, racism, and suppression of science.  

And the Mormons are the worst of the lot, because they all know it's a lie.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still bothering (from time to time) with this "I'm a Republican" act, shitstain? Absolutely no one is buying it. It's all too obvious that you are just another liberal democrat trying in vain to push silly lies about what you see as your opposition. Are you really getting paid enough to make this much of an ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the only one who seems to have a problem with it is you...
> 
> But go and get your shine-box.
Click to expand...




Oh, you don't like it when your little charade is exposed? Worried about job security, shill?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Buckwheat, but you really are a narrow minded bigot who tries to hide under the skirt of some poser called "science".
> 
> If you want to accuse everyone on this board who is religious of doing just what you said....be my guest.
> 
> Otherwise, I would expect you to retract your little rant.
> 
> Religion certainly has had it's bad apples and people have used religion to push their own agendas.
> 
> But the kind of generalizations you make here are almost retarded.
> 
> And since I am a mormon, I can tell you that I have never been told to do anything except learn as much as I can about as many things as I can.
> 
> And just how would you rate yourself as learned ?
> 
> Do you have a PhD ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure you do. And it's from some place run by Mormons... You'd be better off getting one on-line.
> 
> Religion doesn't have bad apples, it is the bad apple.  2000 years of misogyny, homophobia, slavery, racism, and suppression of science.
> 
> And the Mormons are the worst of the lot, because they all know it's a lie.
Click to expand...




Keep on chasing your own tail, you diseased dog.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you still bothering (from time to time) with this "I'm a Republican" act, shitstain? Absolutely no one is buying it. It's all too obvious that you are just another liberal democrat trying in vain to push silly lies about what you see as your opposition. Are you really getting paid enough to make this much of an ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the only one who seems to have a problem with it is you...
> 
> But go and get your shine-box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you don't like it when your little charade is exposed? Worried about job security, shill?
Click to expand...


No charade, man, the fact is, I point out the obvious.  

70% of Americans think the GOP puts the interest of the wealthy above those of working people.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/u...conomy-fuels-volatility-in-the-2012-race.html

The GOP has lost touch with working people, and that's it's biggest problem.  When I campaign for GOP candidates, the most common thing I hear is, "Why are you voting Republican, you're not rich?"  


Also, do you really think anyone pays anyone good money to post on a message board where only about 100 people post regularly and most already have their minds made up abotu things?  Really?  

I'm just wondering what kind of business model you think that works under.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, the only one who seems to have a problem with it is you...
> 
> But go and get your shine-box.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you don't like it when your little charade is exposed? Worried about job security, shill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No charade, man, the fact is, I point out the obvious.  .
Click to expand...




You point out nothing but your own prejudice, fear, and whatever else they pay you to post, you fucking fraud.


----------



## JoeB131

Uke is some kind of special retard who can't read more than one sentence...

It's said really.


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> Uke is some kind of special retard who can't read more than one sentence...
> 
> It's said really.





Not as said as you.


----------



## Amelia

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you don't like it when your little charade is exposed? Worried about job security, shill?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No charade, man, the fact is, I point out the obvious.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You point out nothing but your own prejudice, fear, and whatever else they pay you to post, you fucking fraud.
Click to expand...






I love the people who are still willing to take Joe on.

Anymore I just watch.  I haven't gotten around to blocking him yet because every now and then he makes an intelligent political comment when he can get his head out of the anti-Mormon septic tank.  

You go Unk!!!


----------



## JoeB131

Yawn, Amelia... another Romney shill... 

The guy is kind of a retard, you know. Even Jake the Fake says so, and he's one of your fellow Romney shills...


----------



## Amelia

Pobrecito Joe.


----------



## JoeB131

Well, if you really think Unk's swearing and not being able to comprehend beyond one sentence of a post is really adding to the debate level here, that's your perogative, I guess.  

I mean, at least Listening and Avatar try to make intelligent arguments in defense of the Crazy religion. It's occassionally painful to watch them twist and turn to avoid logic, but at least they make the effort, I'll give them that.  

Unk's whole thing is 1) Using potty mouth langauge and 2) being paranoid that someone is apparently payign me to annoy him.   (Seriously, people like that always end up in something involving a SWAT team.


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> Well, if you really think Unk's swearing and not being able to comprehend beyond one sentence of a post is really adding to the debate level here, that's your perogative, I guess.
> 
> I mean, at least Listening and Avatar try to make intelligent arguments in defense of the Crazy religion. It's occassionally painful to watch them twist and turn to avoid logic, but at least they make the effort, I'll give them that.
> 
> Unk's whole thing is 1) Using potty mouth langauge and 2) being paranoid that someone is apparently payign me to annoy him.   (Seriously, people like that always end up in something involving a SWAT team.





You bring the debate level down every time you post in this thread.  That is to say, every post of yours  that I have seen.  

That appears to be your aim.  If it is not your aim, then you are not sufficiently aware of your own MO.

Anyone who calls you on your hate is doing more for the debate than I have ever seen you do.


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> Well, if you really think Unk's swearing and not being able to comprehend beyond one sentence of a post is really adding to the debate level here, that's your perogative, I guess.
> 
> I mean, at least Listening and Avatar try to make intelligent arguments in defense of the Crazy religion. It's occassionally painful to watch them twist and turn to avoid logic, but at least they make the effort, I'll give them that.
> 
> Unk's whole thing is 1) Using potty mouth langauge and 2) being paranoid that someone is apparently payign me to annoy him.   (Seriously, people like that always end up in something involving a SWAT team.



Er, dude, you are the paranoid one. At a minimum you can be counted on to post the same crap about Mormons in at least four plus threads. Its not even fun anymore. And so predictable. It will be, bronze age "superstition" Thats your blanket intro to any topic of religion. Then there will be the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" comment, and that's not even original to you and was worn out years ago by famous anti Mormon. But you claiming another person is paranoid is the tea pot calling the kettle black.  Here they come Joe, they are under your bed. They gonna git ya!


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> You bring the debate level down every time you post in this thread.  That is to say, every post of yours  that I have seen.
> 
> That appears to be your aim.  If it is not your aim, then you are not sufficiently aware of your own MO.
> 
> Anyone who calls you on your hate is doing more for the debate than I have ever seen you do.



I look at it as though I am exposing a lie.  

There are only TWO approaches you can take towards LDS. 

1) Joseph Smith was really talking to God.  

2) Joseph Smith was making shit up to get money and sex off less smart people.  

There really isn't a middle ground.  It's not like say, Lutheranism, where Luther had a different interpreation of the Bible than the Pope did. 

Nope, it was either a real honest to God revelation or it was a very mean-spirited scam.  

and since - and follow me here- we know Joseph Smith was wrong about his translations, the Native Americans being Hebrews, there being people living on the moon, etc.  We can safely dismiss he was talking to any kind of God.


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> Well, if you really think Unk's swearing and not being able to comprehend beyond one sentence of a post is really adding to the debate level here, that's your perogative, I guess.
> 
> I mean, at least Listening and Avatar try to make intelligent arguments in defense of the Crazy religion. It's occassionally painful to watch them twist and turn to avoid logic, but at least they make the effort, I'll give them that.
> 
> Unk's whole thing is 1) Using potty mouth langauge and 2) being paranoid that someone is apparently payign me to annoy him.   (Seriously, people like that always end up in something involving a SWAT team.





People not being able to comprehend beyond one sentence of your posts is a common refrain with you.  

Here's the thing - people only give you so many chances to prove that your posts are worth attempting to comprehend.  And for many of us you've exhausted your chances.   


It takes only a split second to skim your posts to see if it's the same old anti-religion mantra.  



Though it is  rare to find you making posts which aren't spawned by your religious obsessions,  I've seen enough to know that you do have a decent brain when you care to use it.  You still make some surprising errors for someone who claims to have a history background, but the posts are worth reading.  WHEN you can stay away from religion.




But as long as you talk about religion, you aren't worth the time to read more than one sentence.  We should probably still try to resist the temptation to guffaw in your face, but you make it so very hard.


----------



## JoeB131

In short, you don't like when I kick your puppy.  

Get over it.  

I have a very simple solution.. You keep your bronze age bullshit in your houses and churches, and I won't make fun of it.  

When you parade it out for all to see, I take potshots at it...


----------



## Brucethethinker

Amelia said:


> They're called "garments".  They cover more of the body than typical underwear.  No short shorts for Mormons.  ( :


So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> In short, you don't like when I kick your puppy.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> I have a very simple solution.. You keep your bronze age bullshit in your houses and churches, and I won't make fun of it.
> 
> When you parade it out for all to see, I take potshots at it...






My puppy?

LOL.  You bash on people who don't parade their religion.  

Learn who you are before you try to tell us who we are.  If you had a clone and had to listen to yourself talk for a day, you would be in for a rude awakening.


----------



## JoeB131

Brucethethinker said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're called "garments".  They cover more of the body than typical underwear.  No short shorts for Mormons.  ( :
> 
> 
> 
> So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?
Click to expand...


Short answer- Joseph Smith had an obsession with Freemasonry, but they never let him in and taught him the secret handshake. So he thought it would be kind of cool if his new religion had some Mason kind of secrets, too.   Hense, the need for undergarmets with secret symbols on them.  

Mormonism and Freemasonry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, you don't like when I kick your puppy.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> I have a very simple solution.. You keep your bronze age bullshit in your houses and churches, and I won't make fun of it.
> 
> When you parade it out for all to see, I take potshots at it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My puppy?
> 
> LOL.  You bash on people who don't parade their religion.
> 
> Learn who you are before you try to tell us who we are.  If you had a clone and had to listen to yourself talk for a day, you would be in for a rude awakening.
Click to expand...


I know exactly who I am... 

And I know what most of you people are... 

You get offended because I call bullshit on the nonsense.  Have been ever since 1983, and the nasty old nun said there had to be a good reason why God let my mother, a woman she had worked with for a decade, die of a horrible disease.  

Pretty much have been at war with religion since then, and enjoying every minute of it.  It's especially fun because most Funditards don't actually know how much crazy stuff is in their own bible.  

And thus, I will leave you with my favorite Psalm.  137:9-  

_Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones_

The kind of messed up stuff that can only appear in the Bible.


----------



## Amelia

Brucethethinker said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're called "garments".  They cover more of the body than typical underwear.  No short shorts for Mormons.  ( :
> 
> 
> 
> So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?
Click to expand...



They're different from what a non-mormon would wear.   Well, the women's top is sort of like a camisole, so some women might wear something similar.  The pants go down to the tops of the knees.  Edit: there is also a long version available iiuc.

They reinforce modest styles of clothing.  I mentioned no short shorts.  The tops also rule out sleeveless clothes.  Worn year round.

They remind mormons of covenants they've made in the temple. And they have special insignia which you could probably learn about at an anti-mormon site but most mormons don't want to talk about the insignia, I think, coz then you're entering the realm of the sacred, where people want to tread lightly.


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> In short, you don't like when I kick your puppy.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> I have a very simple solution.. You keep your bronze age bullshit in your houses and churches, and I won't make fun of it.
> 
> When you parade it out for all to see, I take potshots at it...



See ? Haven't read the rest of the exchange, but there was the bronze age superstition. Waiting for the magic underwear and the giant spaghetti monster.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, you don't like when I kick your puppy.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> I have a very simple solution.. You keep your bronze age bullshit in your houses and churches, and I won't make fun of it.
> 
> When you parade it out for all to see, I take potshots at it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See ? Haven't read the rest of the exchange, but there was the bronze age superstition. Waiting for the magic underwear and the giant spaghetti monster.
Click to expand...


Actually, I rarely used FSM as a talking point... while amusing, I think it trivializes the point. 

More to the point, why do you find "Bronze Age" so offensive. Most of the bible was written in the Bronze Age, with a Bronze Age understanding of the universe.  We don't practice BA economics or medicine or food production, but that "old time" religion is good enough for some people.


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> They remind mormons of covenants they've made in the temple. And they have special insignia which you could probably learn about at an anti-mormon site but most mormons don't want to talk about the insignia, I think, coz then you're entering the realm of the sacred, where people want to tread lightly.



And that's the point, isn't it? Don't talk about my silly beliefs because they are sacred, and if I call them sacred, they somehow become less silly.... 

The insignia had to do with Smith's love/hate relationship with the Masons, not because of anything God told him or anything holy.  

I think most religions have a point where someone in charge says, "Man, I got these suckers eating out of the palm of my hand.  Let's see how silly I can make them act.. I know, Magic Underwear!"


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In short, you don't like when I kick your puppy.
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> I have a very simple solution.. You keep your bronze age bullshit in your houses and churches, and I won't make fun of it.
> 
> When you parade it out for all to see, I take potshots at it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See ? Haven't read the rest of the exchange, but there was the bronze age superstition. Waiting for the magic underwear and the giant spaghetti monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I rarely used FSM as a talking point... while amusing, I think it trivializes the point.
> 
> More to the point, why do you find "Bronze Age" so offensive. Most of the bible was written in the Bronze Age, with a Bronze Age understanding of the universe.  We don't practice BA economics or medicine or food production, but that "old time" religion is good enough for some people.
Click to expand...


Offended ? No, disappointed. In all your anti Mormon/Romney/ threads you will at least two or three times sat "bronze age superstition, magic underwear, or spaghetti monster.  A guy would think you could do better. You are cranky today. You did not even call me curly. LDS come to the door today ? An LDS get the big promotion ?


----------



## JoeB131

Never had an LDS show up at my door.  That would be amusing.... I suspect they have my house marked in red with skull and crossbones... 

Had some Jehovah's Witnesses show up once, but they were trying to recruit my Mexican girlfriend at the time. "Honey, there are some nice Jehovah Witlesses here to see you!" 

She didn't talk to me for a week!


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> They remind mormons of covenants they've made in the temple. And they have special insignia which you could probably learn about at an anti-mormon site but most mormons don't want to talk about the insignia, I think, coz then you're entering the realm of the sacred, where people want to tread lightly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the point, isn't it? Don't talk about my silly beliefs because they are sacred, and if I call them sacred, they somehow become less silly....
> 
> The insignia had to do with Smith's love/hate relationship with the Masons, not because of anything God told him or anything holy.
> 
> I think most religions have a point where someone in charge says, "Man, I got these suckers eating out of the palm of my hand.  Let's see how silly I can make them act.. I know, Magic Underwear!"
Click to expand...


Or drink poison kool aid, or what ever. All religions have their odd points.


----------



## JoeB131

And again, never used FSM as a major discussion point.  Now, I can see your confusion, as about six or seven people were blamed for being me who weren't on that other website (and maybe still are, for all I know) and their so 1990's messaging system, you can't really tell who was saying what.


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> And thus, I will leave you ....





Dangit, you got my hopes up.

I should have known it was too good to be true.


----------



## JoeB131

Not even a good dodge.  

So you think it's okay the bible advocates smashing babies heads on rocks?


----------



## earlycuyler

No man, you do that here. I tell you what, You post pretty decent most of the time. The only thing that screws it up is the Anti Mormon/Romney/Religion stuff. Even your points about Romny's politics and why he is no good for the country, I have to agree 100%, but its when you go on about the weird Mormon cult, yada, yada, yada that it gets boring.


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> Not even a good dodge.
> 
> So you think it's okay the bible advocates smashing babies heads on rocks?



And it could just be me but, I dont know any Christians who bash babies heads on rocks, no Pagans who sacrifice the kiddies, no Mormons who are married ti 15 13 year old girls.


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> Not even a good dodge.
> 
> So you think it's okay the bible advocates smashing babies heads on rocks?






You can't even read a psalm.  You aren't qualified to have a religious discussion.  

But you won't let that stop you from flailing around.  




Oh, and p.s., 

Just Because​


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a good dodge.
> 
> So you think it's okay the bible advocates smashing babies heads on rocks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even read a psalm.  You aren't qualified to have a religious discussion.
> 
> But you won't let that stop you from flailing around.
Click to expand...


Well, no. That Psalm is pretty clear to me.  The Bible thinks it's okay that the Judeans wanted to see the heads of their enemies babies smashed against rocks because THEY lost a war they started. 

Heck, one can even be sympathetic to the Babylonians. They beat down the Jews in 697 BCE, and not learning their lesson, they started up some shit again in 687 BCE. 

Sorry, the old "Well, you're taking that out of context" argument doesn't work, because there's no context the thing sounds good in.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a good dodge.
> 
> So you think it's okay the bible advocates smashing babies heads on rocks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it could just be me but, I dont know any Christians who bash babies heads on rocks, no Pagans who sacrifice the kiddies, no Mormons who are married ti 15 13 year old girls.
Click to expand...


No, but I know of "Christians" who wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns" when they rampaged over Europe and slaughtered millions. Wasn't in my lifetime, but it was in my father's.  The man had nightmares for the rest of his life. 

We are never too far away from the savage, and should always be ready to call the savage out.


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a good dodge.
> 
> So you think it's okay the bible advocates smashing babies heads on rocks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it could just be me but, I dont know any Christians who bash babies heads on rocks, no Pagans who sacrifice the kiddies, no Mormons who are married ti 15 13 year old girls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but I know of "Christians" who wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns" when they rampaged over Europe and slaughtered millions. Wasn't in my lifetime, but it was in my father's.  The man had nightmares for the rest of his life.
> 
> We are never too far away from the savage, and *should always be ready to call the savage out*.
Click to expand...



Remember that the next time you chafe at someone calling you out for your uncivil and irrational posting.


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it could just be me but, I dont know any Christians who bash babies heads on rocks, no Pagans who sacrifice the kiddies, no Mormons who are married ti 15 13 year old girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I know of "Christians" who wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns" when they rampaged over Europe and slaughtered millions. Wasn't in my lifetime, but it was in my father's.  The man had nightmares for the rest of his life.
> 
> We are never too far away from the savage, and *should always be ready to call the savage out*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that the next time you chafe at someone calling you out for your uncivil and irrational posting.
Click to expand...


Well, sorry,  I don't consider calling bullshit on crazy beliefs to be up there with slaughtering people. 

Nice way to draw irrational paralels...


----------



## Amelia

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I know of "Christians" who wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns" when they rampaged over Europe and slaughtered millions. Wasn't in my lifetime, but it was in my father's.  The man had nightmares for the rest of his life.
> 
> We are never too far away from the savage, and *should always be ready to call the savage out*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that the next time you chafe at someone calling you out for your uncivil and irrational posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, sorry,  I don't consider calling bullshit on crazy beliefs to be up there with slaughtering people.
> 
> Nice way to draw irrational paralels...
Click to expand...



If your crazy talk has any relation to your actions, then you are indeed not far away from the savage, and I'm calling you out.

Actually I doubt that how you talk here does have that much to do with how you act in real life because you wouldn't be able to get away with that kind of talk if you were doing it to people's faces.

But since you brought up calling out the savage, I take you up on your offer.


Your internet persona is scary nuts.

Now I'm going to go watch the debate.  I want to see how my future president fares tonight.  

tata


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but I know of "Christians" who wore belt buckles that said "Gott Mit Uns" when they rampaged over Europe and slaughtered millions. Wasn't in my lifetime, but it was in my father's.  The man had nightmares for the rest of his life.
> 
> We are never too far away from the savage, and *should always be ready to call the savage out*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that the next time you chafe at someone calling you out for your uncivil and irrational posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, sorry,  I don't consider calling bullshit on crazy beliefs to be up there with slaughtering people.
> 
> Nice way to draw irrational paralels...
Click to expand...


But Joe, no one is getting slaughtered. And you dont just call BS, but attempt to belittle, and it just makes you sound crazy. It marks you as a guy with a deep seated hatred for folks who are secure and happy in there beliefs. You come across as a guy who hate them for being that way. You sound as crazy as the folks you criticize.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> But Joe, no one is getting slaughtered. And you dont just call BS, but attempt to belittle, and it just makes you sound crazy. It marks you as a guy with a deep seated hatred for folks who are secure and happy in there beliefs. You come across as a guy who hate them for being that way. You sound as crazy as the folks you criticize.



Nooo, I could care less if they are happy in their silly, retarded and false beliefs.  To each his own. 

I'm worried that they want to inflict that shit on the rest of us, because they kind of have a history of doing that sort of thing, from the Mountain Meadows Massacre to Prop 8.  

And honestly, they are all really kind of creepy.


----------



## JoeB131

Amelia said:


> If your crazy talk has any relation to your actions, then you are indeed not far away from the savage, and I'm calling you out.
> 
> Actually I doubt that how you talk here does have that much to do with how you act in real life because you wouldn't be able to get away with that kind of talk if you were doing it to people's faces.
> 
> But since you brought up calling out the savage, I take you up on your offer.
> 
> Your internet persona is scary nuts.
> 
> Now I'm going to go watch the debate.  I want to see how my future president fares tonight.



Oh, Obama is going to be there? Because the way you RINO's are going to fuck it up, I think we are going to have to learn to live with that fool for a while.  

In real life, everyone knows what my political views are.  So, no, I don't talk about politics at work that much because everyone already kind of knows what I'm going to say.  Also I am a very large and kind of scary looking man with an evil sounding laugh, so people tend to give me a wide berth. 

(When people get to know me, they realize I'm mostly harmless. And seriously, I don't know how many people have told me my laugh sounds evil.) 

I did have someone ask me what I thought about Herman Cain, and I said the same things about Cain I've said here.  I don't know if he did it, but he handled it so badly he's pretty  much disqualified himself. 

I've even had some interesting religious discussions with a co-worker who is a Jehovah's Witless. (who have beliefs just as crazy as the Mormons, but aren't half as scummy.)


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> But Joe, no one is getting slaughtered. And you dont just call BS, but attempt to belittle, and it just makes you sound crazy. It marks you as a guy with a deep seated hatred for folks who are secure and happy in there beliefs. You come across as a guy who hate them for being that way. You sound as crazy as the folks you criticize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nooo, I could care less if they are happy in their silly, retarded and false beliefs.  To each his own.
> 
> I'm worried that they want to inflict that shit on the rest of us, because they kind of have a history of doing that sort of thing, from the Mountain Meadows Massacre to Prop 8.
> 
> And honestly, they are all really kind of creepy.
Click to expand...


Dude mountain meadows was how long ago ? And prop 8 ? Come on Joe, pleas dont tell me that the Illuminati runs the government, and is conspiring with the Builderbergs to ring the new world order. There is no conspiracy Joe. Not even with prop 8. In the end they did nothing more then hand out money. No secret conspiracy shit there. Only politics.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> Dude mountain meadows was how long ago ? And prop 8 ? Come on Joe, pleas dont tell me that the Illuminati runs the government, and is conspiring with the Builderbergs to ring the new world order. There is no conspiracy Joe. Not even with prop 8. In the end they did nothing more then hand out money. No secret conspiracy shit there. Only politics.



Didn't call it a Bilderberger thing. 

What happened was kind of scary. 

There was this proposition to amend the state constitution in California.  Seemed like it was going to lose, pretty easily. 

Then the "Prophet",Thomas Monson, announced that this just had to be stopped. And people emptied out their kids' college funds to pay for this.  Even though LDS only represented 2% of the population of California, LDS across the country made up 70% of funding to pro-Prop 8 groups. 

Now to my mind this sort of shit should be illegal. Once a church gets involved in politics, it should lose it's tax exempt status. 

Everyone likes to compare Romney to JFK, but the fact is, if the Pope tried to pull something like this, we'd have people screaming, including Catholics.


----------



## earlycuyler

Money is politics. In the end Californians voted. And its only scarey because you dont like them. I dont like Romney, and look forward to when they put the heat on him. He wont last when they do. I dont care about his faith. There are laws to protect me from his faith.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> Money is politics. In the end Californians voted. And its only scarey because you dont like them. I dont like Romney, and look forward to when they put the heat on him. He wont last when they do. I dont care about his faith. There are laws to protect me from his faith.



The Japanese Americans thought there were laws that protected them from being rounded up and sent to internment camps. How'd that work out? 

In the end, the people voted because the Prop-8 forces used all that money to tell a lot of lies, like they were going to teach homosexuality in the schools and let them recruit their kids. 

I see his faith as the problem because I think it contributes to his character. But you are right, there are a lot of other good reasons to vote against him. The fact he will say anything to get elected, the fact he thought it was perfectly okay to screw working people out of jobs. His outright hypocrisy on immigration.


----------



## Unkotare

So now you're afraid the Mormons are gonna round you up and throw you in a concentration camp for bigoted idiots? Really?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> In real life, everyone knows what my political views are.  So, no, I don't talk about politics at work that much because everyone already kind of knows what I'm going to say.





In other words, you're ignored and ostracized because you're such a little hateful, OCD asshole.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, everyone knows what my political views are.  So, no, I don't talk about politics at work that much because everyone already kind of knows what I'm going to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're ignored and ostracized because you're such a little hateful, OCD asshole.
Click to expand...


My coworkers love me.  Even threw me a nice little party for my last birthday.... 

Somehow, I don't picture anyone like you much,Punkotare.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> So now you're afraid the Mormons are gonna round you up and throw you in a concentration camp for bigoted idiots? Really?



Well, they do have a record of killing people who are dumb enough to trust them and don't share their whacky beliefs... 

In case you missed out on the whole Mountain Meadows Massacre thing.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're afraid the Mormons are gonna round you up and throw you in a concentration camp for bigoted idiots? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they do have a record of killing people who are dumb enough to trust them and don't share their whacky beliefs... .
Click to expand...




Atheists? Yeah, they do (so does just about every other identifiable group that ever had the power to do so). 

Just in case you forgot since the last time I told you: YOU ARE A HATEFUL BIGOT AND YOU SHOULD GO FUCK YOURSELF.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're afraid the Mormons are gonna round you up and throw you in a concentration camp for bigoted idiots? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they do have a record of killing people who are dumb enough to trust them and don't share their whacky beliefs... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists? Yeah, they do (so does just about every other identifiable group that ever had the power to do so).
> 
> Just in case you forgot since the last time I told you: YOU ARE A HATEFUL BIGOT AND YOU SHOULD GO FUCK YOURSELF.
Click to expand...


Atheists have never killed anyone based on atheism, PunkoTard.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In real life, everyone knows what my political views are.  So, no, I don't talk about politics at work that much because everyone already kind of knows what I'm going to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you're ignored and ostracized because you're such a little hateful, OCD asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My coworkers love me.  Even threw me a nice little party for my last birthday.... .
Click to expand...




Yeah, from what you've displayed here I really, really believe that. It's more likely they threw you out a window on your birthday.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, they do have a record of killing people who are dumb enough to trust them and don't share their whacky beliefs... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists? Yeah, they do (so does just about every other identifiable group that ever had the power to do so).
> 
> Just in case you forgot since the last time I told you: YOU ARE A HATEFUL BIGOT AND YOU SHOULD GO FUCK YOURSELF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists have never killed anyone based on atheism.
Click to expand...



Wrong, or are you going to try and pull the "anyone who commits acts of terrorism can't really be a Muslim" sort of thing?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Yeah, from what you've displayed here I really, really believe that. It's more likely they threw you out a window on your birthday.



125 Rep points in 4 months and 701 thanks in teh same period... I'd say that there are people here who like me, too


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, from what you've displayed here I really, really believe that. It's more likely they threw you out a window on your birthday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 125 Rep points in 4 months and 701 thanks in teh same period... I'd say that there are people here who like me, too
Click to expand...



There are, unfortunately, other bigoted assholes around here other than you.


----------



## Brucethethinker

JoeB131 said:


> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're called "garments".  They cover more of the body than typical underwear.  No short shorts for Mormons.  ( :
> 
> 
> 
> So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short answer- Joseph Smith had an obsession with Freemasonry, but they never let him in and taught him the secret handshake. So he thought it would be kind of cool if his new religion had some Mason kind of secrets, too.   Hense, the need for undergarmets with secret symbols on them.
> 
> Freemasonry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
Click to expand...

The link you provided really didn't explain much.  I did a google search and found this link, a video that explains it quite well and shows some, I'd give the link but I'm not allowed to post links  It's the first result when you google "mormon underwear photos".  I'd like to get some of those myself, they look warm!


----------



## Unkotare

Weekly Standard: Bigoted Against Brigham's Faith? : NPR


----------



## JoeB131

Punkotard, I think you fail to understand the difference between freedom of religion and using religion as a judgment call.  

What if Romney were a Satanist?  

Or a Scientologist? 

Or was a Raelean? 

Incidently, the thing was, Kennedy had to specifically state that he would not take the Pope's phone calls or let the Pope dictate policy to him.  JFK's administration didn't even grant diplomatic recognition to the Vatican.  (Reagan did that bit of stupidity.)   

Has Romney stated that he will not take phone calls or let Thomas Monson dictate his policy?


----------



## Unkotare

Article VI of the Constitution, asshole. You cannot justify your unamerican bigotry so you might as well stop trying. EVERYONE here sees you for the filthy little scumbag that you are.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Article VI of the Constitution, asshole. You cannot justify your unamerican bigotry so you might as well stop trying. EVERYONE here sees you for the filthy little scumbag that you are.



Sorry, man, where does it say in there that I have to vote for him?  

I missed that part.


----------



## Unkotare

Who the fuck told you that you had to vote for him, douchebag? What a pathetic attempt at misdirection.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Who the fuck told you that you had to vote for him, douchebag? What a pathetic attempt at misdirection.



Not at all, you said that Article whatever I dont' give a fuck about was why I had to ignore the fact that his batshit crazy religion is a good reason not to vote for him. 

He believes batshit crazy stuff.  

I ain't going to vote for him. 

End of the discussion.  

Oh, yeah, and about 22% of the electorate feels the same way... So Good luck with that.


----------



## Unkotare

"Article whatever"

Doesn't that just say it all about what an ignorant, hateful, unamerican little fucker you are? You are not fit to set one foot in my country, let alone be a citizen, you scumbag.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> "Article whatever"
> 
> Doesn't that just say it all about what an ignorant, hateful, unamerican little fucker you are? You are not fit to set one foot in my country, let alone be a citizen, you scumbag.



I've got a box of medals that says otherwise... 

Anyway, you pretty much admitted the article doesn't say what you say it says... 

Here's the simple part for me. 

Mormons are lying scum with batshit crazy religion. 

Batshit Crazy and Nukes don't mix.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Article whatever"
> 
> Doesn't that just say it all about what an ignorant, hateful, unamerican little fucker you are? You are not fit to set one foot in my country, let alone be a citizen, you scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals that says otherwise... .
Click to expand...



IF you have served the country and are now disgracing both that service and the country itself, then so much more the pity. Whatever the hell you are right now does not deserve to be in my country, so take your hateful shit on the road, asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> Batshit Crazy and Nukes don't mix.





So stay the fuck away from nukes, you sick, stupid son of a bitch.


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Money is politics. In the end Californians voted. And its only scarey because you dont like them. I dont like Romney, and look forward to when they put the heat on him. He wont last when they do. I dont care about his faith. There are laws to protect me from his faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Japanese Americans thought there were laws that protected them from being rounded up and sent to internment camps. How'd that work out?
> 
> In the end, the people voted because the Prop-8 forces used all that money to tell a lot of lies, like they were going to teach homosexuality in the schools and let them recruit their kids.
> 
> I see his faith as the problem because I think it contributes to his character. But you are right, there are a lot of other good reasons to vote against him. The fact he will say anything to get elected, the fact he thought it was perfectly okay to screw working people out of jobs. His outright hypocrisy on immigration.
Click to expand...


He does have the spine of a jelly fish, and politics is what I have against the guy. And you can point that out SO well, then there is the other stuff. We were bombed by the Japanese, we were at war with them. Paranoia lead to them being rounded up. Notice after 9/11 there were no Muslim internment camps. Society has come a long way since then. I have enough faith in my fellow Americans (even you) that I know for a fact that an ethnic or religious group will never go through what the Japanese and Germans went through in WW2.


----------



## Unkotare

The word is 'Japanese'


----------



## earlycuyler

corrected.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> He does have the spine of a jelly fish, and politics is what I have against the guy. And you can point that out SO well, then there is the other stuff. We were bombed by the Japanese, we were at war with them. Paranoia lead to them being rounded up. Notice after 9/11 there were no Muslim internment camps. Society has come a long way since then. I have enough faith in my fellow Americans (even you) that I know for a fact that an ethnic or religious group will never go through what the Japanese and Germans went through in WW2.



i don't have that much faith in humanity.   I guess that's part of the my German heritage.  The Germans were the most cultured, advanced, intelligent people in Europe... but when things got bad enough, they still followed a Hitler.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Article whatever"
> 
> Doesn't that just say it all about what an ignorant, hateful, unamerican little fucker you are? You are not fit to set one foot in my country, let alone be a citizen, you scumbag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals that says otherwise... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IF you have served the country and are now disgracing both that service and the country itself, then so much more the pity. Whatever the hell you are right now does not deserve to be in my country, so take your hateful shit on the road, asshole.
Click to expand...


Sorry, man. I have my opinion, and it is based on history and common sense.  A con started by a guy who wanted to screw children doesn't become less evil because you call it a "religion".  

By their fruits you shall know them indeed.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> i don't have that much faith in humanity.





The feeling is mutual.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a box of medals that says otherwise... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF you have served the country and are now disgracing both that service and the country itself, then so much more the pity. Whatever the hell you are right now does not deserve to be in my country, so take your hateful shit on the road, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, man. I have my opinion.
Click to expand...




And that opinion is hateful, unamerican, and unhinged. Go the fuck away.


----------



## JoeB131

Guy, do you like have no life. It's obvious you have no friends...  

I mean, if you want to run with the big dogs, at least come with a real argument before you waste my time.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, do you like have no life. It's obvious you have no friends...
> .



Look who's talking, you hateful, fucking lunatic.


----------



## JoeB131

Dance, my little puppet, dance....


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> Daws- thanks for your insights on this thread.
> 
> In reference to your response to Q5- They really belive that? Fossils are remains of creatures from other planets God blew up to make Earth?
> 
> Wow, every time I think I find that I've hit bottom on LDS crazy, they find a new flavor of crazy.


in misspent youth I did many LSD trips none were nearly as strange as the crap the LDS were PUSHING AS FACT.


----------



## daws101

Amelia said:


> In 1980 belief in evolution was not considered inconsistent with Mormonism to the best of my understanding.
> 
> At BYU, it was taught that human remains have been found which are older than 6000 years.
> 
> God created the earth and put humans on the earth but we don't know the mechanism he used to do it.  It could have been through evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Have LDS teachings changed since then?


The point is that evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious dogma, so the Church's official position is one of neutrality. The statements of some leaders notwithstanding. 

a former-mormon scientist comments: 
This argument is fallacious. The Mormon church is NOT neutral on a number of issues that are not strictly religious. The equal-rights amendment was officially opposed by the Mormon church, yet it is a political statement, not religious dogma. The idea that the Mormon church is neutral on any subject that is not religious dogma is ridiculous. At the end of this post I list dozens of quotations from Mormon prophets, apostles, seers, and revelators that show the Mormon church and its leaders are definitely NOT neutral on the subject of Darwinian evolution. 

One simply cannot offer a credible argument on the subject by asserting that the consistent statements of Mormonism's most prominent priesthood leaders is not significant or relevant to the discussion.


someone continued: 
A FAQ is in the process of being put together on Eyring-L to help people understand this better. 

a former-mormon scientist comments: 
A FAQ containing statements by prominent Mormon Priesthood leaders on the subject of Darwinian evolution would be most welcome. Following are a number of quotations that I submit for inclusion into the FAQ. 

The official statement of the Mormon church on the origin of the earth and life is in Moses chapter 2 and Abraham chapter 4 in the Pearl of Great Price. The Pearl of Great Price is one of Mormonism's standard works. It is held by the Mormon church and its leaders as revelation from god, and official church doctrine. Chapter 2 is supposedly a revelation from god to Joseph Smith describing how god created the earth, and life on it. Chapter 4 basically repeats chapter 2, with some minor modifications. The heading for chapter 2 reads "As revealed to Joseph Smith the Prophet, in December, 1830. The first verse reads "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning the heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest." 

*Edited-copywrite violation-Meister*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can Mormons believe in evolution given what their leaders have said?


----------



## daws101

Brucethethinker said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're called "garments".  They cover more of the body than typical underwear.  No short shorts for Mormons.  ( :
> 
> 
> 
> So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?
Click to expand...

YES THERE IS "garments" are thin cotton and have folding panel that opens when you heed the call of nature and have a tab of cloth on each sleeve and leg. as I recall they are short sleeved and end just above the need.
they are purported to be endowed with "magical" power given to them by god.      

we were taught that they would protect the wearer from injury (physical and spiritual)
if that was the case why cover just the torso and not the head?
my dad was in a car accident while wearing his garments broke 3 ribs and separated his shoulder.......was the magic turned off that night or what?


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're called "garments".  They cover more of the body than typical underwear.  No short shorts for Mormons.  ( :
> 
> 
> 
> So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES THERE IS "garments" are thin cotton and have folding panel that opens when you heed the call of nature and have a tab of cloth on each sleeve and leg. as I recall they are short sleeved and end just above the need.
> they are purported to be endowed with "magical" power given to them by god.
> 
> we were taught that they would protect the wearer from injury (physical and spiritual)
> if that was the case why cover just the torso and not the head?
> my dad was in a car accident while wearing his garments broke 3 ribs and separated his shoulder.......was the magic turned off that night or what?
Click to expand...


As a mormon, I have never been told my garments were magic or that they would prevent injury.  There are statements made regarding them, but I keep it in context.

When people use the term "magic underwear" I wonder what they are making reference to.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?
> 
> 
> 
> YES THERE IS "garments" are thin cotton and have folding panel that opens when you heed the call of nature and have a tab of cloth on each sleeve and leg. as I recall they are short sleeved and end just above the need.
> they are purported to be endowed with "magical" power given to them by god.
> 
> we were taught that they would protect the wearer from injury (physical and spiritual)
> if that was the case why cover just the torso and not the head?
> my dad was in a car accident while wearing his garments broke 3 ribs and separated his shoulder.......was the magic turned off that night or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a mormon, I have never been told my garments were magic or that they would prevent injury.  There are statements made regarding them, but I keep it in context.
> 
> When people use the term "magic underwear" I wonder what they are making reference to.
Click to expand...

bullshit!


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brucethethinker said:
> 
> 
> 
> So mormons wear long underwear?  So do I when it's cold.  Do they wear them in the summer when it's hot?  What's the rational behind wearing long underwear, and are their long underwear any different than what a non-mormon would wear?
> 
> 
> 
> YES THERE IS "garments" are thin cotton and have folding panel that opens when you heed the call of nature and have a tab of cloth on each sleeve and leg. as I recall they are short sleeved and end just above the need.
> they are purported to be endowed with "magical" power given to them by god.
> 
> we were taught that they would protect the wearer from injury (physical and spiritual)
> if that was the case why cover just the torso and not the head?
> my dad was in a car accident while wearing his garments broke 3 ribs and separated his shoulder.......was the magic turned off that night or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a mormon, I have never been told my garments were magic or that they would prevent injury.  There are statements made regarding them, but I keep it in context.
> 
> When people use the term "magic underwear" I wonder what they are making reference to.
Click to expand...


They are mocking so to poison the well of discussion.

See they don't want honest discussion. So they go to whatever extent they can to avoid such discussion.

Honest discussion leads to recognizing mistakes and repentence. They are avoiding that for whatever reason they might have.

It's easier to mock than to discuss doctrine.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws- thanks for your insights on this thread.
> 
> In reference to your response to Q5- They really belive that? Fossils are remains of creatures from other planets God blew up to make Earth?
> 
> Wow, every time I think I find that I've hit bottom on LDS crazy, they find a new flavor of crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> in misspent youth I did many LSD trips none were nearly as strange as the crap the LDS were PUSHING AS FACT.
Click to expand...


Well, drug use explains quite alot. I sincerely hope you have recovered from such addictions. If not, we will be more than happy to help you in any way we can.


----------



## Listening

Avatar4321 said:


> They are mocking so to poison the well of discussion.
> 
> See they don't want honest discussion. So they go to whatever extent they can to avoid such discussion.
> 
> Honest discussion leads to recognizing mistakes and repentence. They are avoiding that for whatever reason they might have.
> 
> It's easier to mock than to discuss doctrine.



I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.

I read bitterness and apostacy.

People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.

I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.

But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daws- thanks for your insights on this thread.
> 
> In reference to your response to Q5- They really belive that? Fossils are remains of creatures from other planets God blew up to make Earth?
> 
> Wow, every time I think I find that I've hit bottom on LDS crazy, they find a new flavor of crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> in misspent youth I did many LSD trips none were nearly as strange as the crap the LDS were PUSHING AS FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, drug use explains quite alot. I sincerely hope you have recovered from such addictions. If not, we will be more than happy to help you in any way we can.
Click to expand...

your lack of a sense of humor shines!


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are mocking so to poison the well of discussion.
> 
> See they don't want honest discussion. So they go to whatever extent they can to avoid such discussion.
> 
> Honest discussion leads to recognizing mistakes and repentence. They are avoiding that for whatever reason they might have.
> 
> It's easier to mock than to discuss doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
> 
> I read bitterness and apostacy.
> 
> People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
> 
> I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
> 
> But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
Click to expand...

then your reading is flawed ...
BTW there is no quantifiable evidence of god...no bitterness . Did you mean: apostasy.(  Apostasy in Christianity refers to the rejection of Christianity by someone who formerly was a Christian ) since I never chose to be a Mormon or Christian that term (Apostasy) is meaningless .


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are mocking so to poison the well of discussion.
> 
> See they don't want honest discussion. So they go to whatever extent they can to avoid such discussion.
> 
> Honest discussion leads to recognizing mistakes and repentence. They are avoiding that for whatever reason they might have.
> 
> It's easier to mock than to discuss doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
> 
> I read bitterness and apostacy.
> 
> People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
> 
> I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
> 
> But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
Click to expand...


quite. 

Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.  

 Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are mocking so to poison the well of discussion.
> 
> See they don't want honest discussion. So they go to whatever extent they can to avoid such discussion.
> 
> Honest discussion leads to recognizing mistakes and repentence. They are avoiding that for whatever reason they might have.
> 
> It's easier to mock than to discuss doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
> 
> I read bitterness and apostacy.
> 
> People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
> 
> I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
> 
> But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quite.
> 
> Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
> 
> Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
Click to expand...

well you see Joe, the Mormons believe that our god is not the only god, in their teachings "Our" god only rules this planet, other gods rule other planets .
so if the universe is infinite there are an infinite number of gods ,kinda like the greek and roman pantheon only more mormony!


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in misspent youth I did many LSD trips none were nearly as strange as the crap the LDS were PUSHING AS FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, drug use explains quite alot. I sincerely hope you have recovered from such addictions. If not, we will be more than happy to help you in any way we can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your lack of a sense of humor shines!
Click to expand...


I dont think it good to laugh at druggies. They need help and sympathy. Not to be mocked.

I have no problem laughing when something is actually funny. Good humor is hard to come by these days.


----------



## JoeB131

daws101 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
> 
> I read bitterness and apostacy.
> 
> People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
> 
> I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
> 
> But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quite.
> 
> Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
> 
> Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you see Joe, the Mormons believe that our god is not the only god, in their teachings "Our" god only rules this planet, other gods rule other planets .
> so if the universe is infinite there are an infinite number of gods ,kinda like the greek and roman pantheon only more mormony!
Click to expand...


My bad. I should have specified the "Christian" God.  Not the Mormon God, who apparently used to be Adam or something.  Listening was implying the Mormon God was the same God.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are mocking so to poison the well of discussion.
> 
> See they don't want honest discussion. So they go to whatever extent they can to avoid such discussion.
> 
> Honest discussion leads to recognizing mistakes and repentence. They are avoiding that for whatever reason they might have.
> 
> It's easier to mock than to discuss doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
> 
> I read bitterness and apostacy.
> 
> People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
> 
> I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
> 
> But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> quite.
> 
> Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
> 
> Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
Click to expand...


That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being.  He tells us why.

As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
> 
> I read bitterness and apostacy.
> 
> People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
> 
> I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
> 
> But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quite.
> 
> Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
> 
> Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being.  He tells us why.
> 
> As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
Click to expand...


He doesnt' tell us anything. 

Egotistical people who make up bibles in order to get power tell us things, but they are bullshit.  

Seriously, do you spend time caring about the Ants under your porch?  I mean individual ants....  I mean, you might spray them if they get into the house or something... but you aren't really spending time worried about their personal conduct.  

But your Invisible Friend in the Sky is so much above us than we are to an ant... and yet he is just up there obsessing about our lives and how much we kiss his ass.  

Really.  

"I'm God, and I'm insecure. I need a hug."


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite.
> 
> Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
> 
> Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being.  He tells us why.
> 
> As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesnt' tell us anything.
> 
> Egotistical people who make up bibles in order to get power tell us things, but they are bullshit.
> 
> Seriously, do you spend time caring about the Ants under your porch?  I mean individual ants....  I mean, you might spray them if they get into the house or something... but you aren't really spending time worried about their personal conduct.
> 
> But your Invisible Friend in the Sky is so much above us than we are to an ant... and yet he is just up there obsessing about our lives and how much we kiss his ass.
> 
> Really.
> 
> "I'm God, and I'm insecure. I need a hug."
Click to expand...


You are right on cue.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, drug use explains quite alot. I sincerely hope you have recovered from such addictions. If not, we will be more than happy to help you in any way we can.
> 
> 
> 
> your lack of a sense of humor shines!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont think it good to laugh at druggies. They need help and sympathy. Not to be mocked.
> 
> I have no problem laughing when something is actually funny. Good humor is hard to come by these days.
Click to expand...

well that two false assumptions in two posts first you assume that any one who ever did drugs is an addict then you reinforce that ignorance by calling them druggies. the only addiction I see here is yours.
BTW everything can and should be mocked just to keep them or it humble.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect the last thing they are interested in is discussing doctrine.
> 
> I read bitterness and apostacy.
> 
> People like that seem to tear away at things they don't like instead of offering up things they feel will be better.
> 
> I find it funny that Joe somehow has become the center of the religious universe.  He knows God does not exist.  He is a spec on a spec rock that is part of a spec solar system.  And we DO know what is out there in terms of galaxies and the like.
> 
> But Joe is grand enough to know.....There is no God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> quite.
> 
> Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
> 
> Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being.  He tells us why.
> 
> As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
Click to expand...

(cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneous


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> quite.
> 
> Because the God of Mormonism is illogical.  He has a 14 billion year plan to create a universe, but then he takes time out of his busy eternity to become a man, after he gets bored tormenting the ants for a while.
> 
> Simply put, if we are a spec in the universe, why would any God, who again is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc really care which church I go to or what hole I'm sticking my dick in?  By your own definition, he should be indifferent to such matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being.  He tells us why.
> 
> As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> (cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneous
Click to expand...


I would have been O.K. with subjective, except that there are people who have claimed to have seen him.  That makes it a matter of faith (in them as well as in general).

Since you have not been around the entire universe and not found him your second claim is simply without foundation.

Who......are you to make such a claim ?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the nice thing about a higly intelligent being.  He tells us why.
> 
> As opposed to yourself (being the opposite of intelligent) who knows nothing.....except to wonder about what hole.........
> 
> 
> 
> (cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would have been O.K. with subjective, except that there are people who have claimed to have seen him.  That makes it a matter of faith (in them as well as in general).
> 
> Since you have not been around the entire universe and not found him your second claim is simply without foundation.
> 
> Who......are you to make such a claim ?
Click to expand...

do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal  compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states 
4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> 

people claiming to see god is not evidence of gods existence ,people have been seeing god in person in clouds ,tacos ,trees, smoke etc...since the concept of god was invented.
All of those sightings can be attributed and proven to be from other causes and sources.
such as  mental illness, suggestibility,hallucinations and good ol' misidentification. 
 faith is just another word for belief, which is not evidence of the thing believed in, but evidence of it's self, nothing more.  

my second claim is based on the best available evidence...the universe is infinite (or SO large) that we don't have the math to measure it's size..
we (humans)will never explore it all (unless we can change the laws of physics).
so using that as your basis of comparison to explain why I have not found "him" is asinine and childish.
you might as well have said : "I know you are, but what am  or fatty fatty fat fat. they would have no less relevance.
your own doctrine precludes god from being too far from earth as this is "his" one and only planet to rule anything else, by your own belief system would be trespassing. wouldn't that mean if "he" existed ,evidence would be easy to find cause it's all here on earth.
most of it in the U.S.A.      
Last but not least, "who am I to make such a claim"? I am an intelligent, curious, analytical human.
It's my right to make these claims.
I didn't know I needed  permission from your sky god to ask them.


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (cue buzzer) you have no proof god exists in reality, so any supposed utterance is subjective and erroneous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have been O.K. with subjective, except that there are people who have claimed to have seen him.  That makes it a matter of faith (in them as well as in general).
> 
> Since you have not been around the entire universe and not found him your second claim is simply without foundation.
> 
> Who......are you to make such a claim ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal  compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
> 4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations>
> 
> people claiming to see god is not evidence of gods existence ,people have been seeing god in person in clouds ,tacos ,trees, smoke etc...since the concept of god was invented.
> All of those sightings can be attributed and proven to be from other causes and sources.
> such as  mental illness, suggestibility,hallucinations and good ol' misidentification.
> faith is just another word for belief, which is not evidence of the thing believed in, but evidence of it's self, nothing more.
> 
> my second claim is based on the best available evidence...the universe is infinite (or SO large) that we don't have the math to measure it's size..
> we (humans)will never explore it all (unless we can change the laws of physics).
> so using that as your basis of comparison to explain why I have not found "him" is asinine and childish.
> you might as well have said : "I know you are, but what am  or fatty fatty fat fat. they would have no less relevance.
> your own doctrine precludes god from being too far from earth as this is "his" one and only planet to rule anything else, by your own belief system would be trespassing. wouldn't that mean if "he" existed ,evidence would be easy to find cause it's all here on earth.
> most of it in the U.S.A.
> Last but not least, "who am I to make such a claim"? I am an intelligent, curious, analytical human.
> It's my right to make these claims.
> I didn't know I needed  permission from your sky god to ask them.
Click to expand...


All of your statements about peoples claims are nothing but speculaiton.  Unless you can go through, one by one and disprove each one....you really have no case against them.  Nevertheless, it is certainly not proof He exists.  It only leaves the door open (so I'll ask you if you understand the defintion of faith....things not seen and all that).

You don't need anyone's permission to look like an ass.  And as near as I can tell, you didn't ask for it.  As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself.

Many, who are likely much more educated than you, have said they see "God's hand" at the very molecular level of our existence.  Meaning, of course, they marvel at the way things fit together and work in such a complex way.  But I am sure you have a critical comment for them too.

Save you breath, you'll only make yourself look more stupid.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have been O.K. with subjective, except that there are people who have claimed to have seen him.  That makes it a matter of faith (in them as well as in general).
> 
> Since you have not been around the entire universe and not found him your second claim is simply without foundation.
> 
> Who......are you to make such a claim ?
> 
> 
> 
> do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal  compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
> 4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations>
> 
> people claiming to see god is not evidence of gods existence ,people have been seeing god in person in clouds ,tacos ,trees, smoke etc...since the concept of god was invented.
> All of those sightings can be attributed and proven to be from other causes and sources.
> such as  mental illness, suggestibility,hallucinations and good ol' misidentification.
> faith is just another word for belief, which is not evidence of the thing believed in, but evidence of it's self, nothing more.
> 
> my second claim is based on the best available evidence...the universe is infinite (or SO large) that we don't have the math to measure it's size..
> we (humans)will never explore it all (unless we can change the laws of physics).
> so using that as your basis of comparison to explain why I have not found "him" is asinine and childish.
> you might as well have said : "I know you are, but what am  or fatty fatty fat fat. they would have no less relevance.
> your own doctrine precludes god from being too far from earth as this is "his" one and only planet to rule anything else, by your own belief system would be trespassing. wouldn't that mean if "he" existed ,evidence would be easy to find cause it's all here on earth.
> most of it in the U.S.A.
> Last but not least, "who am I to make such a claim"? I am an intelligent, curious, analytical human.
> It's my right to make these claims.
> I didn't know I needed  permission from your sky god to ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your statements about peoples claims are nothing but speculaiton.  Unless you can go through, one by one and disprove each one....you really have no case against them.  Nevertheless, it is certainly not proof He exists.  It only leaves the door open (so I'll ask you if you understand the defintion of faith....things not seen and all that).
> 
> You don't need anyone's permission to look like an ass.  And as near as I can tell, you didn't ask for it.  As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself.
> 
> Many, who are likely much more educated than you, have said they see "God's hand" at the very molecular level of our existence.  Meaning, of course, they marvel at the way things fit together and work in such a complex way.  But I am sure you have a critical comment for them too.
> 
> Save you breath, you'll only make yourself look more stupid.
Click to expand...

there is no need  to question all of them, nice dodge though. 
the laws of probability are in my favor. 
yes I understand that very narrow defintion of faith and it is completely subjective.  
on the other hand this definition:  firm belief in something for which there is no proof is in context and is far more accurate and objective. 
please explain this statement specifically: "As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself."
what did I not ask for? 
do you mean "giving my self to christ'? if that's the case, it was all done long before I had any say in the matter.
how am I being an ass? 
from my pov I'm pointing up the major flaws in your belief system, if you or it cannot endure a little hard scrutiny, then maybe you might want to rethink your belife.
if that makes me an ass ,than I'm an ass. 
"gods hand" is a poetic but highly inaccurate description of the mechanism of life.
It also infers a condition or action that can't be quantified.
it also breaks one of the basic rules of science, objectivity .


----------



## JoeB131

Hey, Daws, I admire your ability to following Listening into his strange Mormon bunny holes where you have to be able to absolutely prove that ridiculous things are false.  

Obviously, he has no idea how evidence works. Or how proof works. 

He's the one making impossible claims.  If you make impossible claims, you should back them up with evidence.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, Daws, I admire your ability to following Listening into his strange Mormon bunny holes where you have to be able to absolutely prove that ridiculous things are false.
> 
> Obviously, he has no idea how evidence works. Or how proof works.
> 
> He's the one making impossible claims.  If you make impossible claims, you should back them up with evidence.



And what claims have I made...oh, enlightened one ?


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you understand what subjective means? in this context it means: a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal  compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
> 4a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations>
> 
> people claiming to see god is not evidence of gods existence ,people have been seeing god in person in clouds ,tacos ,trees, smoke etc...since the concept of god was invented.
> All of those sightings can be attributed and proven to be from other causes and sources.
> such as  mental illness, suggestibility,hallucinations and good ol' misidentification.
> faith is just another word for belief, which is not evidence of the thing believed in, but evidence of it's self, nothing more.
> 
> my second claim is based on the best available evidence...the universe is infinite (or SO large) that we don't have the math to measure it's size..
> we (humans)will never explore it all (unless we can change the laws of physics).
> so using that as your basis of comparison to explain why I have not found "him" is asinine and childish.
> you might as well have said : "I know you are, but what am  or fatty fatty fat fat. they would have no less relevance.
> your own doctrine precludes god from being too far from earth as this is "his" one and only planet to rule anything else, by your own belief system would be trespassing. wouldn't that mean if "he" existed ,evidence would be easy to find cause it's all here on earth.
> most of it in the U.S.A.
> Last but not least, "who am I to make such a claim"? I am an intelligent, curious, analytical human.
> It's my right to make these claims.
> I didn't know I needed  permission from your sky god to ask them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your statements about peoples claims are nothing but speculaiton.  Unless you can go through, one by one and disprove each one....you really have no case against them.  Nevertheless, it is certainly not proof He exists.  It only leaves the door open (so I'll ask you if you understand the defintion of faith....things not seen and all that).
> 
> You don't need anyone's permission to look like an ass.  And as near as I can tell, you didn't ask for it.  As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself.
> 
> Many, who are likely much more educated than you, have said they see "God's hand" at the very molecular level of our existence.  Meaning, of course, they marvel at the way things fit together and work in such a complex way.  But I am sure you have a critical comment for them too.
> 
> Save you breath, you'll only make yourself look more stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is no need  to question all of them, nice dodge though.
> the laws of probability are in my favor.
> yes I understand that very narrow defintion of faith and it is completely subjective.
> on the other hand this definition:  firm belief in something for which there is no proof is in context and is far more accurate and objective.
> please explain this statement specifically: "As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself."
> what did I not ask for?
> do you mean "giving my self to christ'? if that's the case, it was all done long before I had any say in the matter.
> how am I being an ass?
> from my pov I'm pointing up the major flaws in your belief system, if you or it cannot endure a little hard scrutiny, then maybe you might want to rethink your belife.
> if that makes me an ass ,than I'm an ass.
> "gods hand" is a poetic but highly inaccurate description of the mechanism of life.
> It also infers a condition or action that can't be quantified.
> it also breaks one of the basic rules of science, objectivity .
Click to expand...


Then you would more accurately say, there is a high probability there is no God.  An absolute claim is not warrented.

"Major Flaws" ???  ROTF

Against what standard ?  Or in other words..."Who died and left you in charge ?".  I have no problem with scrutiny that is honest.  Yours is simply built around a foregone conclusion and why I even respond to you is beyond me.

As I indicated, you petty little statement about how others see the world is just more of a contradiction against what you claim to be.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening's Holy Book..


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening's Holy Book..



So, tell me Joe;

What else don't you understand that you chose to make fun of (to make yourself feel better) ?


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening's Holy Book..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell me Joe;
> 
> What else don't you understand that you chose to make fun of (to make yourself feel better) ?
Click to expand...


As Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I understand perfectly fine.  

The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listening's Holy Book..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell me Joe;
> 
> What else don't you understand that you chose to make fun of (to make yourself feel better) ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I understand perfectly fine.
> 
> The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...


I have never been a fan of ol' Mark.  He is way overrated.

In this case, the use of the word "understand" on his part and yours is to be questioned.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, tell me Joe;
> 
> What else don't you understand that you chose to make fun of (to make yourself feel better) ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I understand perfectly fine.
> 
> The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never been a fan of ol' Mark.  He is way overrated.
> 
> In this case, the use of the word "understand" on his part and yours is to be questioned.
Click to expand...


Mark Twain is the greatest writer in American history.  The fact you don't realize this is probably due to the fact he said some truly cutting things about your whackadoodle cult. 

(He dedicates three chapters in one of his books, "Roughing it" to ripping on the Mormons. Awesome.) 

I think what he has to say about religion in general is spot on.  

God, so atrocious in the Old Testament, so attractive in the New--the Jekyl and Hyde of sacred romance.
- Notebook, 1904

If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian.
- Mark Twain's Notebook

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
-Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar

"There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is -- in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree -- it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime -- the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."
Reflections on Religion


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me, it's the parts I understand perfectly fine.
> 
> The same can be said about the Book of Mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been a fan of ol' Mark.  He is way overrated.
> 
> In this case, the use of the word "understand" on his part and yours is to be questioned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Mark Twain is the greatest writer in American history.  *The fact you don't realize this is probably due to the fact he said some truly cutting things about your whackadoodle cult.
> 
> (He dedicates three chapters in one of his books, "Roughing it" to ripping on the Mormons. Awesome.)
> 
> I think what he has to say about religion in general is spot on.
> 
> God, so atrocious in the Old Testament, so attractive in the New--the Jekyl and Hyde of sacred romance.
> - Notebook, 1904
> 
> If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be--a Christian.
> - Mark Twain's Notebook
> 
> There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
> -Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
> 
> "There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is -- in our country particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree -- it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime -- the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor His Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt."
> Reflections on Religion
Click to expand...


And you accuse others of holding to articles of faith.

Ol' Mark was way overrated.

Greatest American writer ???

ROTF


----------



## JoeB131

He's a writer who is still widely read a century after his death, so yeah. Definitely one of the greats.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> He's a writer who is still widely read a century after his death, so yeah. Definitely one of the greats.



A. So is Jesus.

B. So is Karl Marx.

C. What is your point ?

D. Don't bother to answer C.  I know the answer....you don't have one.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a writer who is still widely read a century after his death, so yeah. Definitely one of the greats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. So is Jesus.
> 
> B. So is Karl Marx.
> 
> C. What is your point ?
> 
> D. Don't bother to answer C.  I know the answer....you don't have one.
Click to expand...


A- Jesus didn't write anything.  If he existed at all, other people wrote about him.  

B- Karl Marx is major political philosopher. He's also not an American, and I was speaking specifically about American writers.  

C- My point was that Mark Twain was a unique voice of his time and said things that still resonate today.  His works have never gone out of print, which says a lot. 

D- The only point is on your head.


----------



## Skeptik

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's a writer who is still widely read a century after his death, so yeah. Definitely one of the greats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. So is Jesus.
> 
> B. So is Karl Marx.
> 
> C. What is your point ?
> 
> D. Don't bother to answer C.  I know the answer....you don't have one.
Click to expand...


Can you name something that Jesus wrote?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your statements about peoples claims are nothing but speculaiton.  Unless you can go through, one by one and disprove each one....you really have no case against them.  Nevertheless, it is certainly not proof He exists.  It only leaves the door open (so I'll ask you if you understand the defintion of faith....things not seen and all that).
> 
> You don't need anyone's permission to look like an ass.  And as near as I can tell, you didn't ask for it.  As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself.
> 
> Many, who are likely much more educated than you, have said they see "God's hand" at the very molecular level of our existence.  Meaning, of course, they marvel at the way things fit together and work in such a complex way.  But I am sure you have a critical comment for them too.
> 
> Save you breath, you'll only make yourself look more stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> there is no need  to question all of them, nice dodge though.
> the laws of probability are in my favor.
> yes I understand that very narrow defintion of faith and it is completely subjective.
> on the other hand this definition:  firm belief in something for which there is no proof is in context and is far more accurate and objective.
> please explain this statement specifically: "As for your ascribing specifics to things not specfied, it is all the more a contradiction to your claims about yourself."
> what did I not ask for?
> do you mean "giving my self to christ'? if that's the case, it was all done long before I had any say in the matter.
> how am I being an ass?
> from my pov I'm pointing up the major flaws in your belief system, if you or it cannot endure a little hard scrutiny, then maybe you might want to rethink your belife.
> if that makes me an ass ,than I'm an ass.
> "gods hand" is a poetic but highly inaccurate description of the mechanism of life.
> It also infers a condition or action that can't be quantified.
> it also breaks one of the basic rules of science, objectivity .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you would more accurately say, there is a high probability there is no God.  An absolute claim is not warrented.
> 
> "Major Flaws" ???  ROTF
> 
> Against what standard ?  Or in other words..."Who died and left you in charge ?".  I have no problem with scrutiny that is honest.  Yours is simply built around a foregone conclusion and why I even respond to you is beyond me.
> 
> As I indicated, you petty little statement about how others see the world is just more of a contradiction against what you claim to be.
Click to expand...

an absolute claim ? it's not a claim, it's a fact: "there is no quantifiable proof that god exists." 
 as to major flaws: there is a huge inequality in the role women play in your church, they hold no positions of authority and no real say in workings the church.
standard and scrutiny. the only standard that counts is evidence.
I love it when people assume...my scrutiny is as honest as it can be.
you seem to forget that I was a member of your belief system and found it lacking.
All anyone has to do is read your literature  with a critical eye to see that it reeks of fantasy.
my so called "petty statement" is also based in fact:  "people who claim to see god are either mentally ill, highly suggestible, or lying. do you have any empirical evidence to disprove that fact.?
there is no contradiction.


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> an absolute claim ? it's not a claim, it's a fact: "there is no quantifiable proof that god exists."



There is no proof He does not exist either.

It is interesting how you think your position is the default.

Fail.




daws101 said:


> as to major flaws: there is a huge inequality in the role women play in your church, they hold no positions of authority and no real say in workings the church.



Strange.....that hasn't been my experience.

They have plenty of decision making power and even more influence.  All those authoritative men were raised by......their mothers.  hhhhmmmmm........



daws101 said:


> standard and scrutiny. the only standard that counts is evidence.



And what standard have you produced that we have agreed to ?

None that I can see.



daws101 said:


> I love it when people assume...my scrutiny is as honest as it can be.



Oh, I don't assume your scrutiny to be at all honest.



daws101 said:


> you seem to forget that I was a member of your belief system and found it lacking.



And who died and put you in charge ?

You made a personal decision.  And somehow that is supposed to be universal ?

Give me a break.



daws101 said:


> All anyone has to do is read your literature  with a critical eye to see that it reeks of fantasy


.

Such well defined and well structured arguments.  Only you fogot to bring them.



daws101 said:


> my so called "petty statement" is also based in fact:  "people who claim to see god are either mentally ill, highly suggestible, or lying. do you have any empirical evidence to disprove that fact.?



It isn't a fact that needs to be disproved.

In fact, it isn't a fact at all.



daws101 said:


> there is no contradiction.



That's because there is no valid argument.

This post was good for a laugh.  Glad I had five minutes to waste pointing out your flaws.


----------



## Listening

And once again, I will bring up the fact that this thread was called....

"The Truth....."

In reading this, I get the feeling it should be called "Why I am bitter......."


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> an absolute claim ? it's not a claim, it's a fact: "there is no quantifiable proof that god exists."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof He does not exist either.
> 
> It is interesting how you think your position is the default.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as to major flaws: there is a huge inequality in the role women play in your church, they hold no positions of authority and no real say in workings the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange.....that hasn't been my experience.
> 
> They have plenty of decision making power and even more influence.  All those authoritative men were raised by......their mothers.  hhhhmmmmm........
> 
> 
> 
> And what standard have you produced that we have agreed to ?
> 
> None that I can see.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't assume your scrutiny to be at all honest.
> 
> 
> 
> And who died and put you in charge ?
> 
> You made a personal decision.  And somehow that is supposed to be universal ?
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> .
> 
> Such well defined and well structured arguments.  Only you fogot to bring them.
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> my so called "petty statement" is also based in fact:  "people who claim to see god are either mentally ill, highly suggestible, or lying. do you have any empirical evidence to disprove that fact.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't a fact that needs to be disproved.
> 
> In fact, it isn't a fact at all.
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there is no valid argument.
> 
> This post was good for a laugh.  Glad I had five minutes to waste pointing out your flaws.
Click to expand...

I had a truly scathing retort all worked out, but I'm past it now!


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> an absolute claim ? it's not a claim, it's a fact: "there is no quantifiable proof that god exists."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof He does not exist either.
> 
> It is interesting how you think your position is the default.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as to major flaws: there is a huge inequality in the role women play in your church, they hold no positions of authority and no real say in workings the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange.....that hasn't been my experience.
> 
> They have plenty of decision making power and even more influence.  All those authoritative men were raised by......their mothers.  hhhhmmmmm........
> 
> 
> 
> And what standard have you produced that we have agreed to ?
> 
> None that I can see.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't assume your scrutiny to be at all honest.
> 
> 
> 
> And who died and put you in charge ?
> 
> You made a personal decision.  And somehow that is supposed to be universal ?
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> .
> 
> Such well defined and well structured arguments.  Only you fogot to bring them.
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> my so called "petty statement" is also based in fact:  "people who claim to see god are either mentally ill, highly suggestible, or lying. do you have any empirical evidence to disprove that fact.?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't a fact that needs to be disproved.
> 
> In fact, it isn't a fact at all.
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no contradiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because there is no valid argument.
> 
> This post was good for a laugh.  Glad I had five minutes to waste pointing out your flaws.
Click to expand...

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> And once again, I will bring up the fact that this thread was called....
> 
> "The Truth....."
> 
> In reading this, I get the feeling it should be called "Why I am bitter......."



I've learned that the truth is something people nowadays don't really care about. It's sad because it's the truth that sets us free. And only by building our lives on a foundation of the truth can we become a free people again.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again, I will bring up the fact that this thread was called....
> 
> "The Truth....."
> 
> In reading this, I get the feeling it should be called "Why I am bitter......."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've learned that the truth is something people nowadays don't really care about. It's sad because it's the truth that sets us free. And only by building our lives on a foundation of the truth can we become a free people again.
Click to expand...


It's kind of hard to discuss "the truth" with people who work so hard to believe lies.


----------



## Unkotare

It's impossible to discuss anything with a stupid fucking bigot like you.


----------



## Douger

The truth is thad added the extra *M* to try and fool you.


----------



## Unkotare

Fuck you, troll.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> It's impossible to discuss anything with a stupid fucking bigot like you.



Okay, Spanky, I'm going to try to treat you like you really aren't a Mormon.  

Since you claim that you are not a member of the LDS, then you do not really believe that Joseph Smith was talking to God.  

So that means that you believe that Joseph Smith was lying.   

No other way around it. You either accept Smith was really talking to God, in which case you'd better sign up, or you believe he is a liar, in which case, all Mormons are dupes or liars themselves. 

I mean, I know you want to take the poltiically correct position that respects their right to a religion and shit, but intellectually, those are the only two choices on the menu.  

Let's see if you can answer this one without screaming a bunch of obscenities...


----------



## Unkotare

Not in any way interested in your failed attempts at theology, you stupid bigot. You have proven yourself too stupid and self-obsessed to understand any faith or even faith itself, you failure of a human being. In fact, you have proven yourself to be an absolute moron in general, regardless of the topic. Fuck off.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> Not in any way interested in your failed attempts at theology, you stupid bigot. You have proven yourself too stupid and self-obsessed to understand any faith or even faith itself, you failure of a human being. In fact, you have proven yourself to be an absolute moron in general, regardless of the topic. Fuck off.



See, I knew you were incapable of it... 



Argument fail.


----------



## Unkotare

What did I just tell you, fool?


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> What did I just tell you, fool?



That you were incapable of refuting the argument.  We all get that.   Don't feel bad.  Your secret is safe with me.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just tell you, fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you were incapable of refuting the argument.  We all get that.   Don't feel bad.  Your secret is safe with me.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot. The only argument I am concerned with is that you are a stupid fucking bigot. You are utterly incapable of discussing theology, so trying to change the subject (gee, did you think I wouldn't notice? ) is, like everything else you do, not going to work. You're really bad at this.


----------



## daws101

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just tell you, fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you were incapable of refuting the argument.  We all get that.   Don't feel bad.  Your secret is safe with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The only argument I am concerned with is that you are a stupid fucking bigot. You are utterly incapable of discussing theology, so trying to change the subject (gee, did you think I wouldn't notice? ) is, like everything else you do, not going to work. You're really bad at this.
Click to expand...

so much for christian good will.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just tell you, fool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you were incapable of refuting the argument.  We all get that.   Don't feel bad.  Your secret is safe with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're an idiot. The only argument I am concerned with is that you are a stupid fucking bigot. You are utterly incapable of discussing theology, so trying to change the subject (gee, did you think I wouldn't notice? ) is, like everything else you do, not going to work. You're really bad at this.
Click to expand...


I think I understood the theology of the issue pretty well.  

Either Joseph Smith was really talking to God, or he just made this shit up. 

Unlike the bible, there really isn't a middle ground. 

Since you (claim) you don't believe he was talking to God, then you have to believe he was a liar and con man, and anyone who believes him is a dupe.  You see, no real middle ground, really.


----------



## Listening

Douger said:


> The truth is thad added the extra *M* to try and fool you.



I resemble that remark.....but don't tell Chris.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> I think I understood the theology of the issue pretty well.  .





That's because you don't realize how stupid you are (seriously).


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Since you (claim) you don't believe he was talking to God.




I didn't say anything about that. Dishonest is not 'clever,' you fucking moron.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you (claim) you don't believe he was talking to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about that. Dishonest is not 'clever,' you fucking moron.
Click to expand...


You run up and down here and claim you aren't a Mormon, then you have to reject the notion that Joseph Smith (Dumdumdumdumdum) was talking to God. 

Only two intellectually honest approaches. 

He was talking to God- Where do I sign up?

He was not talking to God- Which means he's a liar and Mormons are dupes. 

There simply is NO third or middle ground on this point.  The whole "I have to respect their beliefs" is bullshit. They are making extraordinary claims, without proof.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you (claim) you don't believe he was talking to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about that. Dishonest is not 'clever,' you fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You run up and down here and claim you aren't a Mormon.
Click to expand...




That's right, I'm not. And I've told you several times that you are unequiped to discuss theology so stop begging for something you're not going to get. Your vile, repeated bigotry absolutely disqualifies you from being taken seriously on the subject.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say anything about that. Dishonest is not 'clever,' you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You run up and down here and claim you aren't a Mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right, I'm not. And I've told you several times that you are unequiped to discuss theology so stop begging for something you're not going to get. Your vile, repeated bigotry absolutely disqualifies you from being taken seriously on the subject.
Click to expand...


Now, now, we know you can't answer the question, guy. It's okay, your secret is safe with me.


----------



## Unkotare

If you really wanted to talk about it you shouldn't have spent countless hours proving yourself a vile, OCD bigot. You'd still be an idiot but at least you'd have a chance at the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> If you really wanted to talk about it you shouldn't have spent countless hours proving yourself a vile, OCD bigot. You'd still be an idiot but at least you'd have a chance at the benefit of the doubt.



Screaming "bigot" all day does not detract from your inability to answer the question.  

Do you really think Joseph Smith was talking to God?  

I don't. 

Therefore I reject Mormonism as a false religion. 

I actually think all Religions are bullshit, but rarely do you find the fraud as being so blatant.  Well.  Maybe Scientology.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really wanted to talk about it you shouldn't have spent countless hours proving yourself a vile, OCD bigot. You'd still be an idiot but at least you'd have a chance at the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming "bigot" all day does not detract from your inability to answer the question.  .
Click to expand...




Bigot is what you (very, very clearly) are. If you wanted a discussion you should have thought of that before smearing your hateful shit all over this forum, douchebag. You are disqualified.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really wanted to talk about it you shouldn't have spent countless hours proving yourself a vile, OCD bigot. You'd still be an idiot but at least you'd have a chance at the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming "bigot" all day does not detract from your inability to answer the question.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bigot is what you (very, very clearly) are. If you wanted a discussion you should have thought of that before smearing your hateful shit all over this forum, douchebag. You are disqualified.
Click to expand...


Whatever, guy.  I know I hurt your little Mormon feelings by pointing out your "prophet" was a lying pedophile, but you really need to get over it.... 

And stop lying about being a Mormon.  You won't get into the Celestial Heaven if you keep doing that...


----------



## Unkotare

No point in begging, bigot. Go get treated for your OCD and maybe we'll talk in a year if you prove you can behave yourself and are keeping on your meds.


----------



## JoeB131

Dance, my little puppet, Dance...


----------



## Unkotare

You're the one performing the same old song and dance you have thousands and thousands of times here, you OCD bigoted fool.


----------



## JoeB131

So the fact that you couldn't answer the questions the first time I asked them makes it okay you still  can't answer them now... 

Got it.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeB131 said:


> So the fact that you couldn't answer the questions the first time I asked them makes it okay you still  can't answer them now...
> 
> Got it.



I told you before that dishonest does not mean 'clever,' you douchebag. Did you really think your brilliant, 3rd grade "I guess that means you can't answer!" approach was going to work? Really? You just make yourself look desperate for attention, which of course you are. Once again, you are unequipped to participate in any real discussion of any kind because you have proven ad nausea that your one and only agenda is repeating your bigoted bullshit over and over and over. Stop begging, it won't help you.


----------



## JoeB131

Unkotare said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the fact that you couldn't answer the questions the first time I asked them makes it okay you still  can't answer them now...
> 
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you before that dishonest does not mean 'clever,' you douchebag. Did you really think your brilliant, 3rd grade "I guess that means you can't answer!" approach was going to work? Really? You just make yourself look desperate for attention, which of course you are. Once again, you are unequipped to participate in any real discussion of any kind because you have proven ad nausea that your one and only agenda is repeating your bigoted bullshit over and over and over. Stop begging, it won't help you.
Click to expand...


Guy, just man up and admit you can't answer the question.  

Seriously, did they put your balls in a lockbox when you were measured for your magic underwear?


----------



## earlycuyler

JoeB131 said:


> Dance, my little puppet, Dance...



How close to the truth that picture is. I wonder ho many know how close to the truth the picture and the statement is?


----------



## daws101

earlycuyler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dance, my little puppet, Dance...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How close to the truth that picture is. I wonder ho many know how close to the truth the picture and the statement is?
Click to expand...

depends on how you interpret the picture


----------



## earlycuyler

No, Not just the picture. One time when I was a kid We had a light snow. My Father took us rabbit hunting. He told us it was best to hunt them in the snow because you could see there tracks, but that the snow was not necessary to track the rabbits. He taught us you can track the rabbits by sitting still and watching, and at some point the rabbit would give them selves away. Its the same with people. Lots of wisdom in rabbit hunting.


----------



## daws101

earlycuyler said:


> No, Not just the picture. One time when I was a kid We had a light snow. My Father took us rabbit hunting. He told us it was best to hunt them in the snow because you could see there tracks, but that the snow was not necessary to track the rabbits. He taught us you can track the rabbits by sitting still and watching, and at some point the rabbit would give them selves away. Its the same with people. Lots of wisdom in rabbit hunting.


not for the rabbits..


----------



## earlycuyler

daws101 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Not just the picture. One time when I was a kid We had a light snow. My Father took us rabbit hunting. He told us it was best to hunt them in the snow because you could see there tracks, but that the snow was not necessary to track the rabbits. He taught us you can track the rabbits by sitting still and watching, and at some point the rabbit would give them selves away. Its the same with people. Lots of wisdom in rabbit hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> not for the rabbits..
Click to expand...


Hm. You would be surprised. Only the stupid ones get eaten.


----------



## daws101

earlycuyler said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Not just the picture. One time when I was a kid We had a light snow. My Father took us rabbit hunting. He told us it was best to hunt them in the snow because you could see there tracks, but that the snow was not necessary to track the rabbits. He taught us you can track the rabbits by sitting still and watching, and at some point the rabbit would give them selves away. Its the same with people. Lots of wisdom in rabbit hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> not for the rabbits..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hm. You would be surprised. Only the stupid ones get eaten.
Click to expand...

been hunting a time or two, in my experience it's the slow or the old..


----------



## earlycuyler

daws101 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> not for the rabbits..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hm. You would be surprised. Only the stupid ones get eaten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> been hunting a time or two, in my experience it's the slow or the old..
Click to expand...


True, but the young and stupid dont fare well either. One thing is for sure, a patient and methodical predator gets them both more often then old age .


----------



## daws101

earlycuyler said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm. You would be surprised. Only the stupid ones get eaten.
> 
> 
> 
> been hunting a time or two, in my experience it's the slow or the old..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but the young and stupid dont fare well either. One thing is for sure, a patient and methodical predator gets them both more often then old age .
Click to expand...

no disagreement here


----------



## Unkotare

earlycuyler said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hm. You would be surprised. Only the stupid ones get eaten.
> 
> 
> 
> been hunting a time or two, in my experience it's the slow or the old..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but the young and stupid dont fare well either. One thing is for sure, a patient and methodical predator gets them both more often then old age .
Click to expand...



That's true for more than huntin' rabbits.


----------



## daws101

unkotare said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> been hunting a time or two, in my experience it's the slow or the old..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true, but the young and stupid dont fare well either. One thing is for sure, a patient and methodical predator gets them both more often then old age .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that's true for more than huntin' rabbits.
Click to expand...

:d


----------



## amrchaos

By the way--where is Truthspeaker?


----------



## earlycuyler

amrchaos said:


> By the way--where is Truthspeaker?


----------



## daws101

amrchaos said:


> By the way--where is Truthspeaker?


 Robin Williams?


----------



## HUGGY

Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?


----------



## JoeB131

HUGGY said:


> Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?



Did we really need to ressurect this thread?


----------



## HUGGY

JoeB131 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did we really need to ressurect this thread?
Click to expand...


Yes.  It is obvious that the Morman religion will be an issue right up till november.


----------



## JoeB131

HUGGY said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did we really need to ressurect this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is obvious that the Morman religion will be an issue right up till november.
Click to expand...


Well, actually, to my surprise, it hasn't been as big of one as I expected, yet.  No one on the GOP side is pulling what Huckabee did in 2008, and pointing out just how crazy Mormons are.  

I do think this will change when Romney has the nomination locked down, and the MSM starts doing stories on how weird Mormons actually are.  

Of course, if the Unemployment Rate continues to drop, Obama's probably going to be golden for a second term, anyway.


----------



## HUGGY

JoeB131 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we really need to ressurect this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is obvious that the Morman religion will be an issue right up till november.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually, to my surprise, it hasn't been as big of one as I expected, yet.  No one on the GOP side is pulling what Huckabee did in 2008, and pointing out just how crazy Mormons are.
> 
> I do think this will change when Romney has the nomination locked down, and the MSM starts doing stories on how weird Mormons actually are.
> 
> Of course, if the Unemployment Rate continues to drop, Obama's probably going to be golden for a second term, anyway.
Click to expand...


I'm not taking any chances.  I would love it if my party came to it's senses and purged all of the religious wackadoodles from it's leadership positions...but that isn't the reality we face.  In the mean time I will do everything I can to see that a Morman does not occupy the white house.


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?



It's momons...not mormans.

The official name of the Church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.

Some use the term LDS...not to be confused with LSD (but some say it is the same).

BTW: I am a mormon.

I read very little truth here.

I see we have a bitter individual in the form of Joe who can't make an argument against the church.....he is obsessed with Joseph Smith and paints him as someone who lusts after 14 year old girls.....

After all....that is the ONLY explanation for events of 200 years ago.

And there is someone else....a former mormon...who somehow thinks she has an angle that others have not tried.

Still giving my 10 percent !


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is obvious that the Morman religion will be an issue right up till november.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually, to my surprise, it hasn't been as big of one as I expected, yet.  No one on the GOP side is pulling what Huckabee did in 2008, and pointing out just how crazy Mormons are.
> 
> I do think this will change when Romney has the nomination locked down, and the MSM starts doing stories on how weird Mormons actually are.
> 
> Of course, if the Unemployment Rate continues to drop, Obama's probably going to be golden for a second term, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not taking any chances.  I would love it if my party came to it's senses and purged all of the religious wackadoodles from it's leadership positions...but that isn't the reality we face.  In the mean time I will do everything I can to see that a Morman does not occupy the white house.
Click to expand...


What do you want in the White House ?

Someone who is honest ?

Someone with fortitude ?

Someone who sticks to his guns ?

What do you want ?

I've seen that in Baptists, Catholics, and Mormons.

I've seen the opposite of that in the same groups.

What does being mormon have to do with it ?

You are either honest or you are not.

You are either experienced or you are not.

You are a good leader or you are not.

What do you want ?


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we really need to ressurect this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is obvious that the Morman religion will be an issue right up till november.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, actually, to my surprise, it hasn't been as big of one as I expected, yet.  No one on the GOP side is pulling what Huckabee did in 2008, and pointing out just how crazy Mormons are.
> 
> I do think this will change when Romney has the nomination locked down, and the MSM starts doing stories on how weird Mormons actually are.
> 
> Of course, if the Unemployment Rate continues to drop, Obama's probably going to be golden for a second term, anyway.
Click to expand...


I am afraid that many won't share your obsession or bitterness.

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's momons...not mormans.
> 
> The official name of the Church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Some use the term LDS...not to be confused with LSD (but some say it is the same).
> 
> BTW: I am a mormon.
> 
> I read very little truth here.
> 
> I see we have a bitter individual in the form of Joe who can't make an argument against the church.....he is obsessed with Joseph Smith and paints him as someone who lusts after 14 year old girls.....
> 
> After all....that is the ONLY explanation for events of 200 years ago.
> 
> And there is someone else....a former mormon...who somehow thinks she has an angle that others have not tried.
> 
> Still giving my 10 percent !
Click to expand...


It's "Morman" because I say it is.  It is an insult...irritating...NOT a typo.  I started hating the Mormans when they took advantage of one of my heros..Howard Hughes.  The poor guy was the most genius creator of true wealth and machining ingenuity that America had ever seen in the industrial age and the fucking evil Mormans took advantage of his lapse into mental ilness and stole his wealth.  Piss on the MORMANS!!!!

Evil fucking cultists!!!!

I don't make many mistakes.  Don't you.  The Mormans have earned hatred..  Goody two shoes bimbos should be lost in Aruba and not defending religious monsters.


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's momons...not mormans.
> 
> The official name of the Church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Some use the term LDS...not to be confused with LSD (but some say it is the same).
> 
> BTW: I am a mormon.
> 
> I read very little truth here.
> 
> I see we have a bitter individual in the form of Joe who can't make an argument against the church.....he is obsessed with Joseph Smith and paints him as someone who lusts after 14 year old girls.....
> 
> After all....that is the ONLY explanation for events of 200 years ago.
> 
> And there is someone else....a former mormon...who somehow thinks she has an angle that others have not tried.
> 
> Still giving my 10 percent !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's "Morman" because I say it is.  It is an insult...irritating...NOT a typo.  I started hating the Mormans when they took advantage of one of my heros..Howard Hughes.  The poor guy was the most genius creator of true wealth and machining ingenuity that America had ever seen in the industrial age and the fucking evil Mormans took advantage of his lapse into mental ilness and stole his wealth.  Piss on the MORMANS!!!!
> 
> Evil fucking cultists!!!!
> 
> I don't make many mistakes.  Don't you.  The Mormans have earned hatred..  Goody two shoes bimbos should be lost in Aruba and not defending religious monsters.
Click to expand...


I see...

more bitterness and obsession.

I hope it's not contageous.


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's momons...not mormans.
> 
> The official name of the Church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Some use the term LDS...not to be confused with LSD (but some say it is the same).
> 
> BTW: I am a mormon.
> 
> I read very little truth here.
> 
> I see we have a bitter individual in the form of Joe who can't make an argument against the church.....he is obsessed with Joseph Smith and paints him as someone who lusts after 14 year old girls.....
> 
> After all....that is the ONLY explanation for events of 200 years ago.
> 
> And there is someone else....a former mormon...who somehow thinks she has an angle that others have not tried.
> 
> Still giving my 10 percent !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's "Morman" because I say it is.  It is an insult...irritating...NOT a typo.  I started hating the Mormans when they took advantage of one of my heros..Howard Hughes.  The poor guy was the most genius creator of true wealth and machining ingenuity that America had ever seen in the industrial age and the fucking evil Mormans took advantage of his lapse into mental ilness and stole his wealth.  Piss on the MORMANS!!!!
> 
> Evil fucking cultists!!!!
> 
> I don't make many mistakes.  Don't you.  The Mormans have earned hatred..  Goody two shoes bimbos should be lost in Aruba and not defending religious monsters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see...
> 
> more bitterness and obsession.
> 
> I hope it's not contageous.
Click to expand...


My hope is that it is.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  It is obvious that the Morman religion will be an issue right up till november.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually, to my surprise, it hasn't been as big of one as I expected, yet.  No one on the GOP side is pulling what Huckabee did in 2008, and pointing out just how crazy Mormons are.
> 
> I do think this will change when Romney has the nomination locked down, and the MSM starts doing stories on how weird Mormons actually are.
> 
> Of course, if the Unemployment Rate continues to drop, Obama's probably going to be golden for a second term, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am afraid that many won't share your obsession or bitterness.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...


When I talk to people about this, most of them don't know the Mormon from the Amish.  Most people do not really know about the crazy stuff you guys believe.  the MSM will be happy to educate them, though, and when they do, Whooops, too bad, so sad.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't we need more truthiness from Mormans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's momons...not mormans.
> 
> The official name of the Church is The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.
> 
> Some use the term LDS...not to be confused with LSD (but some say it is the same).
> 
> BTW: I am a mormon.
> 
> I read very little truth here.
> 
> *I see we have a bitter individual in the form of Joe who can't make an argument against the church.....he is obsessed with Joseph Smith and paints him as someone who lusts after 14 year old girls.....
> 
> After all....that is the ONLY explanation for events of 200 years ago.*
> 
> And there is someone else....a former mormon...who somehow thinks she has an angle that others have not tried.
> 
> Still giving my 10 percent !
Click to expand...



My argument against the Cult is very clear. 

Joseph Smith lied.  There were no Hebrews living in Ancient America, Jesus did not stop by to visit, there were no Quakers on the moon, the book of Abraham is not a record of Abraham's time in Egypt.  They guy wrote a lot of awful Bible Fan-Fic and tried to pass it off as religion. It was to scam less smart people out of money and sex. 

that's the top and bottom of it.  We know everything he said was wrong.  We know that the elders of your cult are living in mortal fear people are figuring it out, which is why they paid Mark Hoffman all that money when he was 'discovering' papers that contradicted their view of history.  because they know that Smith was a flake, and when Hoffman came up with a letter that claimed he got the Golden Plates from a White Salamander, well, that wasn't too crazy to be unbelievable.  

Which was funny, until Hoffman started blowing people up.  Then it became fucking hilarious.  

And Mitt Romney is one of these loons.  That should disqualify him right there.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually, to my surprise, it hasn't been as big of one as I expected, yet.  No one on the GOP side is pulling what Huckabee did in 2008, and pointing out just how crazy Mormons are.
> 
> I do think this will change when Romney has the nomination locked down, and the MSM starts doing stories on how weird Mormons actually are.
> 
> Of course, if the Unemployment Rate continues to drop, Obama's probably going to be golden for a second term, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid that many won't share your obsession or bitterness.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I talk to people about this, most of them don't know the Mormon from the Amish.  Most people do not really know about the crazy stuff you guys believe.  the MSM will be happy to educate them, though, and when they do, Whooops, too bad, so sad.
Click to expand...


I am sure that when you explain it to them, they wonder what institution accidently released you early.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HSlbuli7HM]What Mormons Really Believe - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wuLsxnl9fQ]Mitt Romney and The White Horse Prophecy (1 of 3) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> I am sure that when you explain it to them, they wonder what institution accidently released you early.



No, you see, I live where religious nutbags are laughed at, as they should be.  

It will be a happy day when all churches are laughable, but especially your cult.


----------



## grampamurdoc

xsited1 said:


> I had a lot of Mormon friends when I lived in Phoenix back in the 90s.  There aren't many Mormons in Arkansas.  I have seen the movies "The God Makers" and "The God Makers II".  Quite interesting.



I watched those movies also and found that they were based more on hearsay then fact.


----------



## grampamurdoc

HUGGY said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's "Morman" because I say it is.  It is an insult...irritating...NOT a typo.  I started hating the Mormans when they took advantage of one of my heros..Howard Hughes.  The poor guy was the most genius creator of true wealth and machining ingenuity that America had ever seen in the industrial age and the fucking evil Mormans took advantage of his lapse into mental ilness and stole his wealth.  Piss on the MORMANS!!!!
> 
> Evil fucking cultists!!!!
> 
> I don't make many mistakes.  Don't you.  The Mormans have earned hatred..  Goody two shoes bimbos should be lost in Aruba and not defending religious monsters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see...
> 
> more bitterness and obsession.
> 
> I hope it's not contageous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My hope is that it is.
Click to expand...


Huggy you really need to grow up and act like an adult, but I doubt it.


----------



## grampamurdoc

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that when you explain it to them, they wonder what institution accidently released you early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see, I live where religious nutbags are laughed at, as they should be.
> 
> It will be a happy day when all churches are laughable, but especially your cult.
Click to expand...


I see how a good site brings out the hatemonger liberal idiots.


----------



## grampamurdoc

froggy said:


> The bible says "In the begining was God" mormons don't believe this.



Nope the Bible says:  "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God."

And we do believe that.


----------



## grampamurdoc

Hister said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hister said:
> 
> 
> 
> That might work if the bible wasn't all second hand hearsay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, unlike some people, I am aware of my audience. Froggy has professed a belief in the Bible. So I am citing references that he finds authoritative. If I had been talking to you, I would have had a much different approach because you need to learn how to recieve revelation for yourself and to find that the scriptures are reliable before the revelations will be authoritative to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like, it starts out with bs: the world was made in 6 days. Too bad it didn't say: the world is flat, then you could all see the bs, because for some reason, some people still think that 6 days was what it took.
> So what's the next story? The pillar of salt guy? Noah's boat? In all seriousness, what's there to believe?
Click to expand...


It also says to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day.  Do the math it is easy.  It could mean that the world was made in 6 thousand years or any time in between.


----------



## HUGGY

grampamurdoc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that when you explain it to them, they wonder what institution accidently released you early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see, I live where religious nutbags are laughed at, as they should be.
> 
> It will be a happy day when all churches are laughable, but especially your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see how a good site brings out the hatemonger liberal idiots.
Click to expand...


I offer no apology for my disgust of the mental social disease religion...especially Morman...and I'm not even a liberal.


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> grampamurdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see, I live where religious nutbags are laughed at, as they should be.
> 
> It will be a happy day when all churches are laughable, but especially your cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see how a good site brings out the hatemonger liberal idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offer no apology for my disgust of the mental social disease religion...especially Morman...and I'm not even a liberal.
Click to expand...


And you shouldn't.

Nobody can apologize for being ignorant.  They don't know they are.

Evil Cultists.....I like that.


----------



## grampamurdoc

HUGGY said:


> grampamurdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see, I live where religious nutbags are laughed at, as they should be.
> 
> It will be a happy day when all churches are laughable, but especially your cult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see how a good site brings out the hatemonger liberal idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I offer no apology for my disgust of the mental social disease religion...especially Morman...and I'm not even a liberal.
Click to expand...


The point is there is a reason that you come to a site that you disagree with.  Now we know you don't come here to learn about Mormons, you come here to troll and that is the only reason you spread your hatred.  And that is a liberal tactic, it always has been.  If you are not here to discuss the Mormon religion with fact, then we must conclude that you have the purpose of a bigotry for the Mormon people.  If that makes you feel like a man, well you have a very low opinion of yourself and the human race.  I feel sad for people like you that are that self loathing.


----------



## grampamurdoc

earlycuyler said:


> No, Not just the picture. One time when I was a kid We had a light snow. My Father took us rabbit hunting. He told us it was best to hunt them in the snow because you could see there tracks, but that the snow was not necessary to track the rabbits. He taught us you can track the rabbits by sitting still and watching, and at some point the rabbit would give them selves away. Its the same with people. Lots of wisdom in rabbit hunting.



Hey it is Elmer Fudd, sorry it just popped in my head.


----------



## HUGGY

grampamurdoc said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> grampamurdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see how a good site brings out the hatemonger liberal idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I offer no apology for my disgust of the mental social disease religion...especially Morman...and I'm not even a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is there is a reason that *you come to a site that you disagree with*.  Now we know you don't come here to learn about Mormons, you come here to troll and that is the only reason you spread your hatred.  And that is a liberal tactic, it always has been.  If you are not here to discuss the Mormon religion with fact, then we must conclude that you have the purpose of a bigotry for the Mormon people.  If that makes you feel like a man, well you have a very low opinion of yourself and the human race.  I feel sad for people like you that are that self loathing.
Click to expand...


And you come to a reply you disagree with...big whoop!  You are a student of the half truth which is the bread and butter of religion and the deceitful.  You assume...which is the flawed foundation of religion...and idiots.  

I've read the Book of Morman.  I know lots of Mormans.  I've investigated many peoples claims about Morman pro and con.  I have drawn my conclusions from a preponderance of evidense.

You don't dispute my point of view with support of the tenants of Mormanism which is par for the course because the the Morman dogma is insane and you don't want to appear insane...SO you attack me on a personal level with juvenile taunts that have no basis in fact like a school yard bully...or a silly junior high school girl more interested in the group approval mentality than reason.

I did not come to this site for any special purpose other than I was banned from the last one about four years ago for calling the mods and admin pussies for supporting the Iraq war and not insisting Bush find Bin Ladin.  They agreed with Bush that Bin Ladin was not important anymore.   So I flamed out in a splash of verbal glory which actually DID make me feel more like a man than the sheep that still post there and cowtow to the politically correct in the GOP.  As it turned out I was more hawkish than chickenhawkish for thier tastes.

As for my attacks on Mormanism on this board...It is this thread specifically which is obviosly a religious plant and was the biggest thread at the time I joined USMB.  SO..I started a thread designed to overtake it in popularity..."The List"...  I passed the Mormans by three thousand posts but the Mormans couldn't take that so one of em padded the "views" by nearly a quarter of a million in the past several months.  Nothing surprising...Mormans are an evil lying stealing cult with no intention of standing by honesty or merit.

Bigotry for Mormans?  Damn Skippy Sport.  Mormans are cultist theives and liars.  The last thing this country needs is bigger crazier liars running it.


----------



## JoeB131

grampamurdoc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that when you explain it to them, they wonder what institution accidently released you early.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you see, I live where religious nutbags are laughed at, as they should be.
> 
> It will be a happy day when all churches are laughable, but especially your cult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see how a good site brings out the hatemonger liberal idiots.
Click to expand...


1) Not that liberal. 

2) Sorry, what you guys believe is really nuts.  Now, unfortunately, political correctness being what it is, no one is allowed to say, "MAN, that shit is really nuts." 

We now know that  - 

a) There were no hebrews in Ancient America. Genetic studies have proven the two groups are not related in any way. 

b) The "Book of Abraham" is in fact a Ptomoleic Funerary Scroll. Joseph Smith said it was an account of Abraham's time in Egypt. 

c) The Kinderhook Tablets were fakes made by Smith's Neighbors to prank him.  He insisted that they were an account of a descendent of Ham.  

d) There are no Quakers living on the Moon.  

e) Dark skin is not a curse imposed by God.​
3) Crazy insane beliefs do not become less crazy or insane because you slap vestments on them and call them a "religion".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Never worry about an atheist's position on deity.  S/he can't formulate either scientific or philosophical opposition that makes any sense.  In that, then, an atheist is merely a faith believer in a belief of non-deity, much like those who follow Confucianism or Taoism.


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> Never worry about an atheist's position on deity.  S/he can't formulate either scientific or philosophical opposition that makes any sense.  In that, then, an atheist is merely a faith believer in a belief of non-deity, much like those who follow Confucianism or Taoism.



Many atheists don't "follow" anything but what they see as comon sense.


----------



## JoeB131

If Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And JoeB is not a prophet of belief in lack of deity.


----------



## eots

The Garden of Eden was not in Missouri and anyone who thinks it was is not fit to be President


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anyone who believes that 9-11 was a gubmint conspiracy is not fit to post intelligent comments.


----------



## eots

JakeStarkey said:


> Anyone who believes that 9-11 was a gubmint conspiracy is not fit to post intelligent comments.



OH REALLY..YOU MEAN LIKE FORMER PRESIDENTS OF THE US AIR CRASH INVESTIGATION BOARD,LEADING NASA SCIENTIST ,NORAD TAC DIRECTORS

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEkDZTldt8]Patriots Question 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


----------



## eots

You wouldn't happen to have any leading nasa scientist that that believe that believe quakers live on the moon would you ?


----------



## elvis

eots said:


> You wouldn't happen to have any leading nasa scientist that that believe that believe quakers live on the moon would you ?


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## eots

*It would be like having this guy for president*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dziK04-9qqQ]Scientology Video: L. Ron Hubbard: Founder - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Listening

eots said:


> You wouldn't happen to have any leading nasa scientist that that believe that believe quakers live on the moon would you ?



What does it matter ?

If he's a good scientist, he is a good scientist.

What is the difference between believing in God or believing in martians ?


----------



## Listening

eots said:


> The Garden of Eden was not in Missouri and anyone who thinks it was is not fit to be President



Can you prove it wasn't ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is the crux of the issue with believers, including me.  Our presidents have believed in many things and some have not been Christian and, I think, at least one did not believe in God as the average American believes in at least something.  Being American means respecting the other person's belief or lack of it.


----------



## JoeB131

eots said:


> The Garden of Eden was not in Missouri and anyone who thinks it was is not fit to be President



Branson isn't the Garden of Eden?


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't happen to have any leading nasa scientist that that believe that believe quakers live on the moon would you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter ?
> 
> If he's a good scientist, he is a good scientist.
> 
> What is the difference between believing in God or believing in martians ?
Click to expand...


Or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, for that matter...  

I think there is a thing called "Evidence".


----------



## JakeStarkey

Evidence cannot prove that God does not exist.

Neither does philosophy.

You are out of luck, JoeB.


----------



## 007

The only thing I ever thought might be interesting about the Church of Mormon was plural marriage. If you can afford and take care of multiple wives, that could turn out to be quite fun... if you know what I mean.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Evidence cannot prove that God does not exist.
> 
> Neither does philosophy.
> 
> You are out of luck, JoeB.



It's not incumbant upon me to prove a negative.  

Whether it's God or Flying Saucers or Bigfoot or Evil Space Lord Zenu, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

You theists make extraordinary claims.  Where's your evidence?


----------



## JakeStarkey

It is incumbent on you to be American about others' beliefs.  You can't prove God does not exist, and whether it's your negative or not is immaterial.  You know it, I know it, and you are trapped in your logical fallacy.  Continue living with it, oh believer of nothing.


----------



## eots

Listening said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't happen to have any leading nasa scientist that that believe that believe quakers live on the moon would you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter ?
> 
> If he's a good scientist, he is a good scientist.
> 
> What is the difference between believing in God or believing in martians ?
Click to expand...


I provided the statements of top level scientist from nasa and u.s military that support the controlled demolition theory and condemn the the lack of real science or investigation in the NIST report and theory...I am asking if you can produce any mormon NASA employees that support the quaker on the moon theory ??


----------



## JakeStarkey

eots said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't happen to have any leading nasa scientist that that believe that believe quakers live on the moon would you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter ?
> 
> If he's a good scientist, he is a good scientist.
> 
> What is the difference between believing in God or believing in martians ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided the statements of top level scientist from nasa and u.s military that support the controlled demolition theory and condemn the the lack of real science or investigation in the NIST report and theory...I am asking if you can produce any mormon NASA employees that support the quaker on the moon theory ??
Click to expand...


So you presented an argument that can't stand up to the facts.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't happen to have any leading nasa scientist that that believe that believe quakers live on the moon would you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter ?
> 
> If he's a good scientist, he is a good scientist.
> 
> What is the difference between believing in God or believing in martians ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, for that matter...
> 
> I think there is a thing called "Evidence".
Click to expand...


Is there a question on the job application about whether or not you believe there are Quakers on the moon ?  If not, then it must not seem that NASA really cares.

So who are you and why does anyone owe you an explanation.

You can't even prove you are smart.


----------



## Avatar4321

eots said:


> I provided the statements of top level scientist from nasa and u.s military that support the controlled demolition theory and condemn the the lack of real science or investigation in the NIST report and theory...I am asking if you can produce any mormon NASA employees that support the quaker on the moon theory ??



And why on earth would we care?


----------



## eots

Avatar4321 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided the statements of top level scientist from nasa and u.s military that support the controlled demolition theory and condemn the the lack of real science or investigation in the NIST report and theory...I am asking if you can produce any mormon NASA employees that support the quaker on the moon theory ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why on earth would we care?
Click to expand...


because the lack of critical thinking displayed by anyone who would believe that in 1978 god told a prophet it was ok to stop segregation or believes that quakers live on the moon or  Eden is in Missouri is not someone I would welcome to deal with matters of national security


----------



## Avatar4321

eots said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided the statements of top level scientist from nasa and u.s military that support the controlled demolition theory and condemn the the lack of real science or investigation in the NIST report and theory...I am asking if you can produce any mormon NASA employees that support the quaker on the moon theory ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why on earth would we care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because the lack of critical thinking displayed by anyone who would believe that in 1978 god told a prophet it was ok to stop segregation or believes that quakers live on the moon or  Eden is in Missouri is not someone I would welcome to deal with matters of national security
Click to expand...


1) We were never segregated. We've always had multi racial congregations.
2) There is no doctrine that quakers live on the moon.
3) The Garden of Eden _was_ in Missouri. But what does it's location have anything to do with national security matters?

I'd be much more worried about people who can't put together coherent thoughts and arguments to justify their positions.


----------



## eots




----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuSde2jGhm8&feature=related]Donny & Marie Osmond On Why Blacks Can&#39;t Hold Priesthood In Mormon Church - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## eots

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, And Extraterrestrial Quakers!

The Watchman Expositor: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Extraterrestrial Quakers!


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter ?
> 
> If he's a good scientist, he is a good scientist.
> 
> What is the difference between believing in God or believing in martians ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, for that matter...
> 
> I think there is a thing called "Evidence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is there a question on the job application about whether or not you believe there are Quakers on the moon ?  If not, then it must not seem that NASA really cares.
> 
> So who are you and why does anyone owe you an explanation.
> 
> You can't even prove you are smart.
Click to expand...


Oh, I believe I have many times.  

My belief in science isn't part of my job description.  If I lacked a basic understanding of the things related to my job, I wouldn't have a job.  

Are we really still arguing the "Quakers on teh Moon" issue here? I thought you guys all claimed Smith didn't say that even though the Mormon cult for decades claimed he did.


----------



## JoeB131

eots said:


> Donny & Marie Osmond On Why Blacks Can't Hold Priesthood In Mormon Church - YouTube



What really horrifies me in this video is that Marie looks like a whipped dog when she isn't performing.  

Later on her son committted suicide, and the suicide rate in Utah is one of the highest in the country. No surprise there.


----------



## HUGGY

I like this thread.  It is the perfect platform to present the real "Truth About Mormans".


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> I like this thread.  It is the perfect platform to present the real "Truth About Mormans".


 I was one....


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> I like this thread.  It is the perfect platform to present the real "Truth About Mormans".



And yet, you guys get things so wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, for that matter...
> 
> I think there is a thing called "Evidence".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a question on the job application about whether or not you believe there are Quakers on the moon ?  If not, then it must not seem that NASA really cares.
> 
> So who are you and why does anyone owe you an explanation.
> 
> You can't even prove you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe I have many times.  My belief in science isn't part of my job description.  If I lacked a basic understanding of the things related to my job, I wouldn't have a job.  Are we really still arguing the "Quakers on teh Moon" issue here? I thought you guys all claimed Smith didn't say that even though the Mormon cult for decades claimed he did.
Click to expand...


You may be smart, but you mistake your beliefs in atheism as fact, for instance.  You believe that deity does not exist.  Don't whine about trying to disprove a negative, when you can't even prove a positive, kiddo.

The issue about who is an atheist, who is a Mormon, or whether Uncensored and bigreb share digs on the dark side of the moon ~~ has nothing to do with the presidency and who holds it.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> You may be smart, but you mistake your beliefs in atheism as fact, for instance.  You believe that deity does not exist.  Don't whine about trying to disprove a negative, when you can't even prove a positive, kiddo.
> 
> The issue about who is an atheist, who is a Mormon, or whether Uncensored and bigreb share digs on the dark side of the moon ~~ has nothing to do with the presidency and who holds it.



Guy, it's not my job to prove everything I don't think exists.  

If I have to prove there isn't a God. You have to prove there isn't a Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Amaterasu, Ba'al, Marduk, Osiris, Bhudda, and every other God you obviously don't believe in. There are a bunch of Gods you don't believe in, I just believe in one less than you do.  

Clearly, you should come to the table with proof all these Gods don't exist, either, you your own questionable reasoning.  

Or you should come to the table with proof your God exists.  

Now, leaving the issue of God alone, there's a bunch of secular stuff in the Book of Mormon that is either provable or not provable.  

 You have to accept that there were people called Nephites and Lamanites who precded the Native Americans, built huge towered cities that left no trace and rode on horse and elephants, grew grain and barely, rode in chariots and wagons, traded in gold coin, and so on, none of which is supported by the archeological evidence. 

 Romney believes that this stuff is true.  Which makes me question his reasoning skills.  And frankly, the mental handstands I've seen guys like Listening and Avatar go through to try to rationalize why this must all still be true despite the lack of evidence or logic, makes me wonder, if similar gymnastics are going on inside Romney's head, and whether I want that head anywhere near the button that blows up the world.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Once again you demonstrate the weakness of your analytical ability.

Accept the fact what you believe about Romney is not going to affect the candidacy of the GOP and that Mormonism itself is not going to drive folks into the hands of the Dem.  You can assert it, but you can't prove it.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Once again you demonstrate the weakness of your analytical ability.
> 
> Accept the fact what you believe about Romney is not going to affect the candidacy of the GOP and that Mormonism itself is not going to drive folks into the hands of the Dem.  You can assert it, but you can't prove it.


just as you can not prove the opposite.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Once again you demonstrate the weakness of your analytical ability.
> 
> Accept the fact what you believe about Romney is not going to affect the candidacy of the GOP and that Mormonism itself is not going to drive folks into the hands of the Dem.  You can assert it, but you can't prove it.



Romney will lose by a bigger margin than McCain did, and you'll be back here whining about how the "bigots" couldn't support him because of his religion.  

Obama's already leading Romney by 6 points in the ABC Poll, and they haven't even gotten started on him yet.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Holy Smokes it's been a long time... I gotta get caught up... I Recently moved and a lot has gone on since I was up in here.. I guess this thread really isn't about me... wink... it just seems to keep on kicking with or without me. Marvelous ain't it?


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> Holy Smokes it's been a long time... I gotta get caught up... I Recently moved and a lot has gone on since I was up in here.. I guess this thread really isn't about me... wink... it just seems to keep on kicking with our without me. Marvelous ain't it?



Ya it one of those Morman modern day miracles.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Huggy!!! after nearly a year of absence I almost missed you  buddy!.. I gotta read like a hundred pages that I haven't read so stay tuned.


----------



## Skeptik

eots said:


> The Garden of Eden was not in Missouri and anyone who thinks it was is not fit to be President



How do you know?  Were you there?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anybody who does not believe in the Christian God should not be there, many think, and Lincoln proved them wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, for that matter...
> 
> I think there is a thing called "Evidence".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a question on the job application about whether or not you believe there are Quakers on the moon ?  If not, then it must not seem that NASA really cares.
> 
> So who are you and why does anyone owe you an explanation.
> 
> You can't even prove you are smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I believe I have many times.
> 
> My belief in science isn't part of my job description.  If I lacked a basic understanding of the things related to my job, I wouldn't have a job.
> 
> Are we really still arguing the "Quakers on teh Moon" issue here? I thought you guys all claimed Smith didn't say that even though the Mormon cult for decades claimed he did.
Click to expand...


Well, stop mentioning it and there wont be any discussion on it. Most people realize that it's not wise to rely on a single second hand source of what someone supposedly said decades before when the second hand source was 10 years old as reliable, let alone doctrine of any meaningful organization.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may be smart, but you mistake your beliefs in atheism as fact, for instance.  You believe that deity does not exist.  Don't whine about trying to disprove a negative, when you can't even prove a positive, kiddo.
> 
> The issue about who is an atheist, who is a Mormon, or whether Uncensored and bigreb share digs on the dark side of the moon ~~ has nothing to do with the presidency and who holds it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, it's not my job to prove everything I don't think exists.
> 
> If I have to prove there isn't a God. You have to prove there isn't a Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Amaterasu, Ba'al, Marduk, Osiris, Bhudda, and every other God you obviously don't believe in. There are a bunch of Gods you don't believe in, I just believe in one less than you do.
> 
> Clearly, you should come to the table with proof all these Gods don't exist, either, you your own questionable reasoning.
> 
> Or you should come to the table with proof your God exists.
> 
> Now, leaving the issue of God alone, there's a bunch of secular stuff in the Book of Mormon that is either provable or not provable.
> 
> You have to accept that there were people called Nephites and Lamanites who precded the Native Americans, built huge towered cities that left no trace and rode on horse and elephants, grew grain and barely, rode in chariots and wagons, traded in gold coin, and so on, none of which is supported by the archeological evidence.
> 
> Romney believes that this stuff is true.  Which makes me question his reasoning skills.  And frankly, the mental handstands I've seen guys like Listening and Avatar go through to try to rationalize why this must all still be true despite the lack of evidence or logic, makes me wonder, if similar gymnastics are going on inside Romney's head, and whether I want that head anywhere near the button that blows up the world.
Click to expand...


Not really difficult to deny lies. If you think that's mental gymnastics, no wonder you cant be honest about us.


----------



## Avatar4321

Oh and as I know JoeB has claimed that the so called Fundamentalists have more in common with early Church leaders than the modern Church does, I thought I'd post this to dispell the lie.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Oh and as I know JoeB has claimed that the so called Fundamentalists have more in common with early Church leaders than the modern Church does, I thought I'd post this to dispell the lie.



Joseph Smith was having sex with little girls. 
Brigham Young was having sex with  little girls.
Warren Jeff was having sex with little girls.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jeffs, yes.  Smith and Young had sex with young women, but by definition, they were not pedophiles.

Romney is neither polygamist nor pedophile, but you are a poseur and a fake.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and as I know JoeB has claimed that the so called Fundamentalists have more in common with early Church leaders than the modern Church does, I thought I'd post this to dispell the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was having sex with little girls.
> Brigham Young was having sex with  little girls.
> Warren Jeff was having sex with little girls.
Click to expand...


Except there is zero evidence for your first two assertions.

Nice try.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Joseph Smith was having sex with little girls.
> Brigham Young was having sex with  little girls.
> Warren Jeff was having sex with little girls.



We all know you are obsessed about having sex with little girls.

Can we move on ?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was having sex with little girls.
> Brigham Young was having sex with  little girls.
> Warren Jeff was having sex with little girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you are obsessed about having sex with little girls.
> 
> Can we move on ?
Click to expand...

no ...answere the question!
smith and young had sex with young girls then married them..(so did all the other morman men)
today that would be statutory rape...
back then it was standard operating  procedure 
 so the truth is, they did have sex with young girls.
no harm in admitting it!


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was having sex with little girls.
> Brigham Young was having sex with  little girls.
> Warren Jeff was having sex with little girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you are obsessed about having sex with little girls.
> 
> Can we move on ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no ...answere the question!
> smith and young had sex with young girls then married them..(so did all the other morman men)
> today that would be statutory rape...
> back then it was standard operating  procedure
> so the truth is, they did have sex with young girls.
> no harm in admitting it!
Click to expand...


You are pissed they didn't have sex with you.

There was no question...or did you figure that out.

Just a load of assertion bullcrap.

Was Joe there ?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you are obsessed about having sex with little girls.
> 
> Can we move on ?
> 
> 
> 
> no ...answere the question!
> smith and young had sex with young girls then married them..(so did all the other morman men)
> today that would be statutory rape...
> back then it was standard operating  procedure
> so the truth is, they did have sex with young girls.
> no harm in admitting it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are pissed they didn't have sex with you.
> 
> There was no question...or did you figure that out.
> 
> Just a load of assertion bullcrap.
> 
> Was Joe there ?
Click to expand...

I had plenty of sex with young girls when I was young.
please ass wipe there is nothing to assert there are plenty of reports from that time confirming that mormon men married young girls. 
and if you look at old tintypes of mormon families it's easy to tell who the patriarch is playing hide the sausage with


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no ...answere the question!
> smith and young had sex with young girls then married them..(so did all the other morman men)
> today that would be statutory rape...
> back then it was standard operating  procedure
> so the truth is, they did have sex with young girls.
> no harm in admitting it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are pissed they didn't have sex with you.
> 
> There was no question...or did you figure that out.
> 
> Just a load of assertion bullcrap.
> 
> Was Joe there ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I had plenty of sex with young girls when I was young.
> please ass wipe there is nothing to assert there are plenty of reports from that time confirming that mormon men married young girls.
> and if you look at old tintypes of mormon families it's easy to tell who the patriarch is playing hide the sausage with
Click to expand...


Well supported and ironclad. 

You need someone to wipe your ass ?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pissed they didn't have sex with you.
> 
> There was no question...or did you figure that out.
> 
> Just a load of assertion bullcrap.
> 
> Was Joe there ?
> 
> 
> 
> I had plenty of sex with young girls when I was young.
> please ass wipe there is nothing to assert there are plenty of reports from that time confirming that mormon men married young girls.
> and if you look at old tintypes of mormon families it's easy to tell who the patriarch is playing hide the sausage with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well supported and ironclad.
> 
> You need someone to wipe your ass ?
Click to expand...

once again you dodge.
iron clad proof you are covering up!


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was having sex with little girls.
> Brigham Young was having sex with  little girls.
> Warren Jeff was having sex with little girls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you are obsessed about having sex with little girls.
> 
> Can we move on ?
Click to expand...


I'm not obsessed with it, just think it's wrong and no one can do it and claim he's a "Prophet" from God.  

But these three stooges all claimed they were.


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all know you are obsessed about having sex with little girls.
> 
> Can we move on ?
> 
> 
> 
> no ...answere the question!
> smith and young had sex with young girls then married them..(so did all the other morman men)
> today that would be statutory rape...
> back then it was standard operating  procedure
> so the truth is, they did have sex with young girls.
> no harm in admitting it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are pissed they didn't have sex with you.
> 
> There was no question...or did you figure that out.
> 
> Just a load of assertion bullcrap.
> 
> Was Joe there ?
Click to expand...


No, but it was a matter of historical record these things happened, guy.  

Now, modern Mormons don't do this because people won't tolerate it, and they want to be invited to the Interfaith Pancake Breakfast.  But to say that Warren Jeffs wasn't doing the exact same stuff Smith and Young were doing is kind of silly. Of course they were.  

Jeffs just kept doing it when it wasn't acceptable anymore.


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no ...answere the question!
> smith and young had sex with young girls then married them..(so did all the other morman men)
> today that would be statutory rape...
> back then it was standard operating  procedure
> so the truth is, they did have sex with young girls.
> no harm in admitting it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are pissed they didn't have sex with you.
> 
> There was no question...or did you figure that out.
> 
> Just a load of assertion bullcrap.
> 
> Was Joe there ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it was a matter of historical record these things happened, guy.
> 
> Now, modern Mormons don't do this because people won't tolerate it, and they want to be invited to the Interfaith Pancake Breakfast.  But to say that Warren Jeffs wasn't doing the exact same stuff Smith and Young were doing is kind of silly. Of course they were.
> 
> Jeffs just kept doing it when it wasn't acceptable anymore.
Click to expand...

the earliest age of a significant number of first marriages, and noted that this age depends on age laws, the onset of menarche, and traditional community standards. As noted earlier, empirically this age was around 13.5 or 14.0 in the mid 19th century.
19th century nuptiality and anti-Mormon propaganda | FAIR Blog


----------



## JakeStarkey

FAIR is an apologetics arm of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University.

The article is slanted and the stats are truly fuzzy.

Find something more appropriate, please.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> FAIR is an apologetics arm of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University.
> 
> The article is slanted and the stats are truly fuzzy.
> 
> Find something more appropriate, please.


no thanks, if you think it's inappropriate then you find a more appropriate article!


----------



## JakeStarkey

You should read the comments of good temple-going LDS historians like Richard Bushman or Todd Compton about the guys and gals from FAIR.  Those kiddos do more damage for the LDS church than twenty devils.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> You should read the comments of good temple-going LDS historians like Richard Bushman or Todd Compton about the guys and gals from FAIR.  Those kiddos do more damage for the LDS church than twenty devils.


well thanks, but I was a mormon, first hand experience and all that!


----------



## JakeStarkey

If you "were" (meaning "not now"?), who cares?  That does make you _ipso facto _solidly knowledgable on the subject.


----------



## Papageorgio

I thought liberals were supposed to be beyond bigotry, hatred and intolerance. Rev. Wright was a hate filled bigoted racist, according to the left, religion is not important.


----------



## HUGGY

I wonder how a push poll would go asking: *"If Mittens gets elected Prezident will you convert to Mormanizm?".....?????*

Which answer best fits your thoughts on Mittens????

#1  Absofuckinlutely..where is my neearest cult?

#2  Only if Mittens orders me to.

#3  Maybe ..do I hafta wear the gay underwear?

#4  Only if I get to wear some gay underwear.

#5  I don't think so I already believe in some crazy shit and my head is full.

#6  No.

#7 HELL!!  NO!!

#8  I've recently purchased a 50 caliber sniper rifle...can't wait to try it out.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read the comments of good temple-going LDS historians like Richard Bushman or Todd Compton about the guys and gals from FAIR.  Those kiddos do more damage for the LDS church than twenty devils.
> 
> 
> 
> well thanks, but I was a mormon, first hand experience and all that!
Click to expand...


So when did you leave the cult ?


----------



## Avatar4321

Papageorgio said:


> I thought liberals were supposed to be beyond bigotry, hatred and intolerance. Rev. Wright was a hate filled bigoted racist, according to the left, religion is not important.



Who told you that lie?


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read the comments of good temple-going LDS historians like Richard Bushman or Todd Compton about the guys and gals from FAIR.  Those kiddos do more damage for the LDS church than twenty devils.
> 
> 
> 
> well thanks, but I was a mormon, first hand experience and all that!
Click to expand...


You'd be amazed how many people have told me that who have been lying through their teeth or completely ignorant of what the Church actually taught. Not saying you are one. But it happens more often than I'd like to see.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> FAIR is an apologetics arm of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University.
> 
> The article is slanted and the stats are truly fuzzy.
> 
> Find something more appropriate, please.



Prove the stats are fuzzy.


----------



## Listening

This thread continues to provide no truth about mormons.


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> This thread continues to provide no truth about mormons.



Then it's time to open our mouths.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCpjJlb9ap4]8 Silly Things About Mormonism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321

eots said:


> 8 Silly Things About Mormonism - YouTube



Are you ever going to actually attempt to have an intelligent conversation on this thread?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIR is an apologetics arm of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University.
> 
> The article is slanted and the stats are truly fuzzy.
> 
> Find something more appropriate, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove the stats are fuzzy.
Click to expand...


They are your stats.  Prove they are right.  You can't.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 Silly Things About Mormonism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ever going to actually attempt to have an intelligent conversation on this thread?
Click to expand...


I would like the "planet" thing FULLY expalined.


----------



## HUGGY

I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> you should read the comments of good temple-going lds historians like richard bushman or todd compton about the guys and gals from fair.  Those kiddos do more damage for the lds church than twenty devils.
> 
> 
> 
> well thanks, but i was a mormon, first hand experience and all that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so when did you leave the cult ?
Click to expand...

1975


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read the comments of good temple-going LDS historians like Richard Bushman or Todd Compton about the guys and gals from FAIR.  Those kiddos do more damage for the LDS church than twenty devils.
> 
> 
> 
> well thanks, but I was a mormon, first hand experience and all that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'd be amazed how many people have told me that who have been lying through their teeth or completely ignorant of what the Church actually taught. Not saying you are one. But it happens more often than I'd like to see.
Click to expand...

you're right I'm not one.
but that's off topic at least in this part of the thread the point was did the founders of the LDS church have sex with under age females, the answer is yes they did.
that makes them no different than any other 19th century Christian group ,since the average marring age was between 13-16 years for women and 17 to 20 for men at the time.
the rub came in this thread  when the "Mormons" denied it,either directly or indirectly.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.


they do it to make more mormons in the after life.
their excuse is that they are the one true faith.
a few years ago they were sued by a group of jews for it.


Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews


 m for the dead
Baptism for the dead is one of many un-biblical practices of the Mormon Church  which, theologicaly, is a cult of Christianity
What is Baptism for the Dead?
The Mormon/Jewish Controversy chronicles the controversy between leaders of the Jewish faith and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the Mormon practice of posthumously baptizing deceased Jews into the Mormon faith.

Research resources on the Mormon Church
Comments & resources by ReligionNewsBlog.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well thanks, but I was a mormon, first hand experience and all that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amazed how many people have told me that who have been lying through their teeth or completely ignorant of what the Church actually taught. Not saying you are one. But it happens more often than I'd like to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're right I'm not one.
> but that's off topic at least in this part of the thread the point was did the founders of the LDS church have sex with under age females, the answer is yes they did.
> that makes them no different than any other 19th century Christian group ,since the average marring age was between 13-16 years for women and 17 to 20 for men at the time.
> the rub came in this thread  when the "Mormons" denied it,either directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...


When it happened in the first marriage, yes.  However, the stats are skewed.   Folks in few numbers married at those ages.

Now when you look at LDS men marrying the second and third and fourth times. his age goes up and the women's ages drop dramatically.  Lyman Wight, for instance, at the age of almost 50 took n 18 year old as his fourth wife.  Plenty of examples exist of this decreasing age phenomenon.

No, LDS plural relationships did not mirror Americans society.


----------



## HUGGY

Without appearing "silly"...What is the TRUTH about the underwear?


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> FAIR is an apologetics arm of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at Brigham Young University.
> 
> The article is slanted and the stats are truly fuzzy.
> 
> Find something more appropriate, please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove the stats are fuzzy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are your stats.  Prove they are right.  You can't.
Click to expand...


Im not responsible for the article. You are the one claiming they are fuzzy. What evidence do you have other than a Mormon said them?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 Silly Things About Mormonism - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ever going to actually attempt to have an intelligent conversation on this thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like the "planet" thing FULLY expalined.
Click to expand...


You're going to need to be more specific.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amazed how many people have told me that who have been lying through their teeth or completely ignorant of what the Church actually taught. Not saying you are one. But it happens more often than I'd like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> you're right I'm not one.
> but that's off topic at least in this part of the thread the point was did the founders of the LDS church have sex with under age females, the answer is yes they did.
> that makes them no different than any other 19th century Christian group ,since the average marring age was between 13-16 years for women and 17 to 20 for men at the time.
> the rub came in this thread  when the "Mormons" denied it,either directly or indirectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it happened in the first marriage, yes.  However, the stats are skewed.   Folks in few numbers married at those ages.
> 
> Now when you look at LDS men marrying the second and third and fourth times. his age goes up and the women's ages drop dramatically.  Lyman Wight, for instance, at the age of almost 50 took n 18 year old as his fourth wife.  Plenty of examples exist of this decreasing age phenomenon.
> 
> No, LDS plural relationships did not mirror Americans society.
Click to expand...

(cue buzzer)wrong!
the only place it does not match societal norms is in it's plurality 
the rest is dead on.
you're leaving out the fact that the average life expectancy in the 19th century for men was 53 and women 57.
so it made biological sense to marry young


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> Without appearing "silly"...What is the TRUTH about the underwear?


the "garments" as they are called, are supposed to protect you from any spiritual or physical damage..
they are also a sign of your loyalty to the faith.
on the other hand they've proven rather useless against arrows ,bullets, fires, plane and car crashes...etc..


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are leaving out the truth that most marriages in that day and age did not occur that young.

You believe in a counter-conspiracy theory that LDS marriage patterns followed the norm from the 1840s to the 1880s, particularly in the plural marriages, and that is where this argument goes.  Even if your contention about first marriages is true (it is not), that is a red herring to distract from the plural marriages, which is the issue here.

Sorry, but that's how it is.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> You are leaving out the truth that most marriages in that day and age did not occur that young.
> 
> You believe in a counter-conspiracy theory that LDS marriage patterns followed the norm from the 1840s to the 1880s, particularly in the plural marriages, and that is where this argument goes.  Even if your contention about first marriages is true (it is not), that is a red herring to distract from the plural marriages, which is the issue here.
> 
> Sorry, but that's how it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are leaving out the truth that most marriages in that day and age did not occur that young.
> 
> You believe in a counter-conspiracy theory that LDS marriage patterns followed the norm from the 1840s to the 1880s, particularly in the plural marriages, and that is where this argument goes.  Even if your contention about first marriages is true (it is not), that is a red herring to distract from the plural marriages, which is the issue here.
> 
> Sorry, but that's how it is.
Click to expand...


    Good reads disproving Daws can be found at

_Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage _by B Carmon Hardy ...

_Doing the Works of Abraham, Mormon Polygamy: Its Origin, Practice, and Demise _B Carmon Hardy . . . .

_In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith _Todd Compton


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.



Christ stated that unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Baptism is the entry way into the Kingdom because it is a symbolization of the death of the old sinner and rebirth in Christ of becoming a new Person. It's also signifies an acceptance of the covenants we make God to accept Jesus Christ, to remember Him and Keep His commandments. And by doing so God promises to give us the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Yet, there is an obvious dilemna here. If we can only enter into the Kingdom of Heaven through Baptism, then what about all those people who died without hearing the Gospel in this life? God is not unjust. He gives them the same opportunities we have.

The time between our deaths and resurrection is a time where missionary work will continue among the dead. When Christ died on the cross, he went to the Spirit world and preached the Spirits who were held in captivity between death and resurrection. Peter talked about this in First Peter where he testified that "*For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.*" (1 Peter 4:6)

We've learned more specifics about what Christ did during the three days between His death and resurrection in D&C 138:



> 6 I opened the Bible and read the third and fourth chapters of the first epistle of Peter, and as I read I was greatly impressed, more than I had ever been before, with the following passages:
> 
> 7 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
> 
> 8 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> 
> 9 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:1820.)
> 
> 10 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6.)
> 
> 11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.
> 
> 12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;
> 
> 13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemers name.
> 
> 14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
> 
> 15 I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand.
> 
> 16 They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the spirit world, to declare their redemption from the bands of death.
> 
> 17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.
> 
> 18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful;
> 
> 19 And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.
> 
> 20 But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised;
> 
> 21 Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.
> 
> 22 Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace;
> 
> 23 And the saints rejoiced in their redemption, and bowed the knee and acknowledged the Son of God as their Redeemer and Deliverer from death and the chains of hell.
> 
> 24 Their countenances shone, and the radiance from the presence of the Lord rested upon them, and they sang praises unto his holy name.
> 
> 25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three years in his ministry among the Jews and those of the house of Israel, endeavoring to teach them the everlasting gospel and call them unto repentance;
> 
> 26 And yet, notwithstanding his mighty works, and miracles, and proclamation of the truth, in great power and authority, there were but few who hearkened to his voice, and rejoiced in his presence, and received salvation at his hands.
> 
> 27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection;
> 
> 28 And I wondered at the words of Peterwherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noahand how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.
> 
> 29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;
> 
> 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.
> 
> 31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.
> 
> 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
> 
> 33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,
> 
> 34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
> 
> 35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.
> 
> 36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh;



So Christ organized the righteous to preach liberty to those who had not had the chance to repent on earth, those who had not heard the Gospel and those who sinned as those who were lost in the flood as Peter mentioned. But we still have this issue of Baptism being necessary. So how is this reconciled?

Through baptism for the dead. As Christ acted as a proxy taking on the transgression for our sins, so we are called to act as proxies to be baptized on behalf of those who cannot be baptized for themselves. Many of those who had no chance to do so in this life or who were mislead and decieved in this life and thus didn't have a chance to enter into the covenant with God. 

We do this on their behalf so they can have a choice whether to accept it or reject it if they choose to. And doing so we reaffirm our testimonies of the resurrection. For as Paul stated "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor 15:29). Our actions are pointless without our faith in the resurrection. If there is no resurrection, nothing we do matters. If there is a resurrection, it's very clear why we do it, so that those who have passed on before us can likewise have hope through Christ as we do.

I know that was a bit long winded, but it's not exactly a quick topic. If you want to know more about the practice I suggest reading the revelations Joseph Smith Jr recieved that are D&C 127 and D&C 128.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are leaving out the truth that most marriages in that day and age did not occur that young.
> 
> You believe in a counter-conspiracy theory that LDS marriage patterns followed the norm from the 1840s to the 1880s, particularly in the plural marriages, and that is where this argument goes.  Even if your contention about first marriages is true (it is not), that is a red herring to distract from the plural marriages, which is the issue here.
> 
> Sorry, but that's how it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good reads disproving Daws can be found at
> 
> _Solemn Covenant: The Mormon Polygamous Passage _by B Carmon Hardy ...
> 
> _Doing the Works of Abraham, Mormon Polygamy: Its Origin, Practice, and Demise _B Carmon Hardy . . . .
> 
> "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" Todd Compton
Click to expand...

these are mormon writers?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ stated that unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Baptism is the entry way into the Kingdom because it is a symbolization of the death of the old sinner and rebirth in Christ of becoming a new Person. It's also signifies an acceptance of the covenants we make God to accept Jesus Christ, to remember Him and Keep His commandments. And by doing so God promises to give us the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Yet, there is an obvious dilemna here. If we can only enter into the Kingdom of Heaven through Baptism, then what about all those people who died without hearing the Gospel in this life? God is not unjust. He gives them the same opportunities we have.
> 
> The time between our deaths and resurrection is a time where missionary work will continue among the dead. When Christ died on the cross, he went to the Spirit world and preached the Spirits who were held in captivity between death and resurrection. Peter talked about this in First Peter where he testified that "*For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.*" (1 Peter 4:6)
> 
> We've learned more specifics about what Christ did during the three days between His death and resurrection in D&C 138:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 I opened the Bible and read the third and fourth chapters of the first epistle of Peter, and as I read I was greatly impressed, more than I had ever been before, with the following passages:
> 
> 7 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
> 
> 8 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> 
> 9 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:1820.)
> 
> 10 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6.)
> 
> 11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.
> 
> 12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;
> 
> 13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemers name.
> 
> 14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
> 
> 15 I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand.
> 
> 16 They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the spirit world, to declare their redemption from the bands of death.
> 
> 17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.
> 
> 18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful;
> 
> 19 And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.
> 
> 20 But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised;
> 
> 21 Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.
> 
> 22 Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace;
> 
> 23 And the saints rejoiced in their redemption, and bowed the knee and acknowledged the Son of God as their Redeemer and Deliverer from death and the chains of hell.
> 
> 24 Their countenances shone, and the radiance from the presence of the Lord rested upon them, and they sang praises unto his holy name.
> 
> 25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three years in his ministry among the Jews and those of the house of Israel, endeavoring to teach them the everlasting gospel and call them unto repentance;
> 
> 26 And yet, notwithstanding his mighty works, and miracles, and proclamation of the truth, in great power and authority, there were but few who hearkened to his voice, and rejoiced in his presence, and received salvation at his hands.
> 
> 27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection;
> 
> 28 And I wondered at the words of Peterwherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noahand how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.
> 
> 29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;
> 
> 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.
> 
> 31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.
> 
> 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
> 
> 33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,
> 
> 34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
> 
> 35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.
> 
> 36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Christ organized the righteous to preach liberty to those who had not had the chance to repent on earth, those who had not heard the Gospel and those who sinned as those who were lost in the flood as Peter mentioned. But we still have this issue of Baptism being necessary. So how is this reconciled?
> 
> Through baptism for the dead. As Christ acted as a proxy taking on the transgression for our sins, so we are called to act as proxies to be baptized on behalf of those who cannot be baptized for themselves. Many of those who had no chance to do so in this life or who were mislead and decieved in this life and thus didn't have a chance to enter into the covenant with God.
> 
> We do this on their behalf so they can have a choice whether to accept it or reject it if they choose to. And doing so we reaffirm our testimonies of the resurrection. For as Paul stated "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor 15:29). Our actions are pointless without our faith in the resurrection. If there is no resurrection, nothing we do matters. If there is a resurrection, it's very clear why we do it, so that those who have passed on before us can likewise have hope through Christ as we do.
> 
> I know that was a bit long winded, but it's not exactly a quick topic. If you want to know more about the practice I suggest reading the revelations Joseph Smith Jr recieved that are D&C 127 and D&C 128.
Click to expand...

where I come from we call that rationalizing


----------



## JakeStarkey

Todd is a temple-going LDS writer and historian of renown.

Carmon is a former Stake President and historian who voluntarily left the LDS church many years.

I am sure you have read of Richard L. Bushman?  Read his church-renowned _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling _.

The fact is this: plural marriage relationships in age dynamics among the LDS and other polygamous Mormon sects have always been dysfunctional in relation to non-LDS marriages in American history.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Todd is a temple-going LDS writer and historian of renown.
> 
> Carmon is a former Stake President and historian who voluntarily left the LDS church many years.
> 
> I am sure you have read of Richard L. Bushman?  Read his church-renowned _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling _.
> 
> The fact is this: plural marriage relationships in age dynamics among the LDS and other polygamous Mormon sects have always been dysfunctional in relation to non-LDS marriages in American history.


so their writing is far from objective.?


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well thanks, but I was a mormon, first hand experience and all that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amazed how many people have told me that who have been lying through their teeth or completely ignorant of what the Church actually taught. Not saying you are one. But it happens more often than I'd like to see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're right I'm not one.
> but that's off topic at least in this part of the thread the point was did the founders of the LDS church have sex with under age females, the answer is yes they did.
> that makes them no different than any other 19th century Christian group ,since the average marring age was between 13-16 years for women and 17 to 20 for men at the time.
> the rub came in this thread  when the "Mormons" denied it,either directly or indirectly.
Click to expand...


problem is there is no evidence of that. As Im sure any married man can attest to, just because you are married doesnt mean there is any sex. Absent children or eye witness testimony, there cant be any evidence. 

Not to mention it completely fails to address that in the Church marriage can occur for 1) Time
2) Time & Eternity, or just for 3) Eternity. And while it's not common nowadays among the living, at the beginning of the Restoration there were many of the plural marriages which were merely sealings for Eternity and had absolutely no binding in mortality and which provided none of the marital benefits of mortality. 

It's possible that some of the plural marriages were consumated. But there is no evidence of it. Especially not with "underage girls" which you have pointed out were quite of age for the time period.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Without appearing "silly"...What is the TRUTH about the underwear?



In short, they are a symbolic reminder of the covenants we make when we enter into the Endowment covenants in the Temple. Nothing magic about it. Nor have I ever see anyone but critics who want to sensationally attack the Church claim otherwise. Though I wouldn't be surprised if some mormon made some comment sometimes to give them reason to.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amazed how many people have told me that who have been lying through their teeth or completely ignorant of what the Church actually taught. Not saying you are one. But it happens more often than I'd like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> you're right I'm not one.
> but that's off topic at least in this part of the thread the point was did the founders of the LDS church have sex with under age females, the answer is yes they did.
> that makes them no different than any other 19th century Christian group ,since the average marring age was between 13-16 years for women and 17 to 20 for men at the time.
> the rub came in this thread  when the "Mormons" denied it,either directly or indirectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> problem is there is no evidence of that. As Im sure any married man can attest to, just because you are married doesnt mean there is any sex. Absent children or eye witness testimony, there cant be any evidence.
> 
> Not to mention it completely fails to address that in the Church marriage can occur for 1) Time
> 2) Time & Eternity, or just for 3) Eternity. And while it's not common nowadays among the living, at the beginning of the Restoration there were many of the plural marriages which were merely sealings for Eternity and had absolutely no binding in mortality and which provided none of the marital benefits of mortality.
> 
> It's possible that some of the plural marriages were consumated. But there is no evidence of it. Especially not with "underage girls" which you have pointed out were quite of age for the time period.
Click to expand...

so you're going with the old if nobody saw it or more accurately if nobody talked about it,it did'nt happen ploy .
the "absent children" statement does not wash...why ? simple "how do you know who your daddy was because your mama said so" old southern saying.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Todd is a temple-going LDS writer and historian of renown.
> 
> Carmon is a former Stake President and historian who voluntarily left the LDS church many years.
> 
> I am sure you have read of Richard L. Bushman?  Read his church-renowned _Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling _.
> 
> The fact is this: plural marriage relationships in age dynamics among the LDS and other polygamous Mormon sects have always been dysfunctional in relation to non-LDS marriages in American history.
> 
> 
> 
> so their writing is far from objective.?
Click to expand...


The writings of Bushman (loved by the LDS authorities and hierarchy), Compton (respected by historians pro- anti- and neutral), and Hardy (considered by all the best historian of the three) are, yes, very objective.

You have not read any of the three.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be amazed how many people have told me that who have been lying through their teeth or completely ignorant of what the Church actually taught. Not saying you are one. But it happens more often than I'd like to see.
> 
> 
> 
> you're right I'm not one.
> but that's off topic at least in this part of the thread the point was did the founders of the LDS church have sex with under age females, the answer is yes they did.
> that makes them no different than any other 19th century Christian group ,since the average marring age was between 13-16 years for women and 17 to 20 for men at the time.
> the rub came in this thread  when the "Mormons" denied it,either directly or indirectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> problem is there is no evidence of that. As Im sure any married man can attest to, just because you are married doesnt mean there is any sex. Absent children or eye witness testimony, there cant be any evidence.
> 
> Not to mention it completely fails to address that in the Church marriage can occur for 1) Time
> 2) Time & Eternity, or just for 3) Eternity. And while it's not common nowadays among the living, at the beginning of the Restoration there were many of the plural marriages which were merely sealings for Eternity and had absolutely no binding in mortality and which provided none of the marital benefits of mortality.
> 
> It's possible that some of the plural marriages were consummated. But there is no evidence of it. Especially not with "underage girls" which you have pointed out were quite of age for the time period.
Click to expand...


Horse crap, Avatar.  Bushman, Compton, Hardy, Johnson, Bennett, and on and on and on, will all disagree with you.  Plural marriages by General Authorities (many of them, including some of Smith's) were consummated.

Those who are knowledgeable about these matters have watched with disbelief at the growing disinformation by non-scholars, such as yourself, who, despite the journals, diaries, and commentaries of leading authorities of the LDS church, suggest that plural marriage was not all that big of a deal.

If you insist it isn't, and since I know you are a smart person, your disbelief of the obvious is willful.  That's a shame.

You begin your education here http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=smith+plural+marriage


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ stated that unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, He cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Baptism is the entry way into the Kingdom because it is a symbolization of the death of the old sinner and rebirth in Christ of becoming a new Person. It's also signifies an acceptance of the covenants we make God to accept Jesus Christ, to remember Him and Keep His commandments. And by doing so God promises to give us the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> Yet, there is an obvious dilemna here. If we can only enter into the Kingdom of Heaven through Baptism, then what about all those people who died without hearing the Gospel in this life? God is not unjust. He gives them the same opportunities we have.
> 
> The time between our deaths and resurrection is a time where missionary work will continue among the dead. When Christ died on the cross, he went to the Spirit world and preached the Spirits who were held in captivity between death and resurrection. Peter talked about this in First Peter where he testified that "*For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.*" (1 Peter 4:6)
> 
> We've learned more specifics about what Christ did during the three days between His death and resurrection in D&C 138:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6 I opened the Bible and read the third and fourth chapters of the first epistle of Peter, and as I read I was greatly impressed, more than I had ever been before, with the following passages:
> 
> 7 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
> 
> 8 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
> 
> 9 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3:1820.)
> 
> 10 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6.)
> 
> 11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.
> 
> 12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;
> 
> 13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemers name.
> 
> 14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
> 
> 15 I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand.
> 
> 16 They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the spirit world, to declare their redemption from the bands of death.
> 
> 17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.
> 
> 18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful;
> 
> 19 And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.
> 
> 20 But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised;
> 
> 21 Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.
> 
> 22 Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace;
> 
> 23 And the saints rejoiced in their redemption, and bowed the knee and acknowledged the Son of God as their Redeemer and Deliverer from death and the chains of hell.
> 
> 24 Their countenances shone, and the radiance from the presence of the Lord rested upon them, and they sang praises unto his holy name.
> 
> 25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three years in his ministry among the Jews and those of the house of Israel, endeavoring to teach them the everlasting gospel and call them unto repentance;
> 
> 26 And yet, notwithstanding his mighty works, and miracles, and proclamation of the truth, in great power and authority, there were but few who hearkened to his voice, and rejoiced in his presence, and received salvation at his hands.
> 
> 27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection;
> 
> 28 And I wondered at the words of Peterwherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noahand how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.
> 
> 29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;
> 
> 30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.
> 
> 31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.
> 
> 32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
> 
> 33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,
> 
> 34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
> 
> 35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross.
> 
> 36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Christ organized the righteous to preach liberty to those who had not had the chance to repent on earth, those who had not heard the Gospel and those who sinned as those who were lost in the flood as Peter mentioned. But we still have this issue of Baptism being necessary. So how is this reconciled?
> 
> Through baptism for the dead. As Christ acted as a proxy taking on the transgression for our sins, so we are called to act as proxies to be baptized on behalf of those who cannot be baptized for themselves. Many of those who had no chance to do so in this life or who were mislead and decieved in this life and thus didn't have a chance to enter into the covenant with God.
> 
> We do this on their behalf so they can have a choice whether to accept it or reject it if they choose to. And doing so we reaffirm our testimonies of the resurrection. For as Paul stated "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Cor 15:29). Our actions are pointless without our faith in the resurrection. If there is no resurrection, nothing we do matters. If there is a resurrection, it's very clear why we do it, so that those who have passed on before us can likewise have hope through Christ as we do.
> 
> I know that was a bit long winded, but it's not exactly a quick topic. If you want to know more about the practice I suggest reading the revelations Joseph Smith Jr recieved that are D&C 127 and D&C 128.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that the only way somebody can protect their corpse from a further degradation than death is to hire a hit man to cap any of you whack jobs that think they have the right to sneak up on your dead body and mumble some mumbo jumbo over your remains.  I'll get right on that.  Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> so you're going with the old if nobody saw it or more accurately if nobody talked about it,it did'nt happen ploy .
> the "absent children" statement does not wash...why ? simple "how do you know who your daddy was because your mama said so" old southern saying.



No. Im saying if no one saw it or talked about it, we have no evidence.

The only other way to know is if there were children. Which there are none.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Horse crap, Avatar.  Bushman, Compton, Hardy, Johnson, Bennett, and on and on and on, will all disagree with you.  Plural marriages by General Authorities (many of them, including some of Smith's) were consummated.
> 
> Those who are knowledgeable about these matters have watched with disbelief at the growing disinformation by non-scholars, such as yourself, who, despite the journals, diaries, and commentaries of leading authorities of the LDS church, suggest that plural marriage was not all that big of a deal.
> 
> If you insist it isn't, and since I know you are a smart person, your disbelief of the obvious is willful.  That's a shame.
> 
> You begin your education here The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Search



There is no evidence Joseph Smith ever consumated a single plural marriage. And I find it amazing you are simply assuming i know nothing about it. Never said anything about Brigham or other General Authorities after the practice was well known. But then they arent ever the ones accused of going after "underage girls"


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> So what you are saying is that the only way somebody can protect their corpse from a further degradation than death is to hire a hit man to cap any of you whack jobs that think they have the right to sneak up on your dead body and mumble some mumbo jumbo over your remains.  I'll get right on that.  Thanks for the heads up!



No dead bodies are involved. I would think that's obvious.


----------



## JoeB131

HUGGY said:


> I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.



You mean like Mitt's father in law....


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Mitt's father in law....
Click to expand...

and several million other non mormons.
Here's a bit of irony, I once said to our bishop "isn't it wrong to baptize other people into this faith  after they're dead"?
he said "they'er dead and won't care.
odd as the Mormon's believe the soul survives death!!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

You ask for testimony.

3. But did Joseph Smith obey the commandment and have sex with his wives?

Compton writes:  "Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."

- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

- In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

- Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

joseph smithIn total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.

- Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
(William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

- Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)

- Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.) 

Joseph Smith Polygamy Sex LDS Mormon


----------



## JakeStarkey

Check the ages.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Check the ages.


no ages posted.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Do the research. But I will help.

The Wives of Joseph Smith


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Do the research. But I will help.
> 
> The Wives of Joseph Smith


most of them are under 20.


----------



## earlycuyler

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid that many won't share your obsession or bitterness.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I talk to people about this, most of them don't know the Mormon from the Amish.  Most people do not really know about the crazy stuff you guys believe.  the MSM will be happy to educate them, though, and when they do, Whooops, too bad, so sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure that when you explain it to them, they wonder what institution accidently released you early.
Click to expand...


You are not the first to ask. When you get the better of this one you will meet the other Joe from the UK.


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like a full explaination of why Mormans baptise dead people of other faiths and of people who claimed an avout disbelief in a god.  I would like to know how Mormans do not see this practice as disrepect for others views and wishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Mitt's father in law....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and several million other non mormons.
> Here's a bit of irony, I once said to our bishop "isn't it wrong to baptize other people into this faith  after they're dead"?
> he said "they'er dead and won't care.
> odd as the Mormon's believe the soul survives death!!!!
Click to expand...


How old were you when you asked ?

Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.


----------



## JoeB131

earlycuyler said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I talk to people about this, most of them don't know the Mormon from the Amish.  Most people do not really know about the crazy stuff you guys believe.  the MSM will be happy to educate them, though, and when they do, Whooops, too bad, so sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure that when you explain it to them, they wonder what institution accidently released you early.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not the first to ask. When you get the better of this one you will meet the other Joe from the UK.
Click to expand...


Oh, you're back to that again?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Mitt's father in law....
> 
> 
> 
> and several million other non mormons.
> Here's a bit of irony, I once said to our bishop "isn't it wrong to baptize other people into this faith  after they're dead"?
> he said "they'er dead and won't care.
> odd as the Mormon's believe the soul survives death!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How old were you when you asked ?
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.
Click to expand...

I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
not worth the time? how Christian of you!


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and several million other non mormons.
> Here's a bit of irony, I once said to our bishop "isn't it wrong to baptize other people into this faith  after they're dead"?
> he said "they'er dead and won't care.
> odd as the Mormon's believe the soul survives death!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you asked ?
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
Click to expand...


I don't think that those in the church truly believe they can fool everyone with thier fantasy fairy cloud god.  I would take it as a compliment that the bishop or preist blew you off.  They have plenty of willing suckers to talk to...why waste their time on someone that isn't foolish?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you asked ?
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that those in the church truly believe they can fool everyone with thier fantasy fairy cloud god.  I would take it as a compliment that the bishop or preist blew you off.  They have plenty of willing suckers to talk to...why waste their time on someone that isn't foolish?
Click to expand...


There is no point to being there if you dont believe.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you asked ?
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think that those in the church truly believe they can fool everyone with thier fantasy fairy cloud god.  I would take it as a compliment that the bishop or preist blew you off.  They have plenty of willing suckers to talk to...why waste their time on someone that isn't foolish?
Click to expand...

I was (at the time) attempting trying to understand how people can say one thing and then do another (duality ).  

btw I never was a believer,can't remember a time when I was.
it was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that those in the church truly believe they can fool everyone with thier fantasy fairy cloud god.  I would take it as a compliment that the bishop or preist blew you off.  They have plenty of willing suckers to talk to...why waste their time on someone that isn't foolish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no point to being there if you dont believe.
Click to expand...

the major problem with that is you have to be taught to believe . it does not come in the basic human skill set.


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was 16  again you miss the point ...i do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy it might as well have been harry potter !
> Not worth the time? How christian of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think that those in the church truly believe they can fool everyone with thier fantasy fairy cloud god.  I would take it as a compliment that the bishop or preist blew you off.  They have plenty of willing suckers to talk to...why waste their time on someone that isn't foolish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i was (at the time) attempting trying to understand how people can say one thing and then do another (duality ).
> 
> Btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences.
Click to expand...


your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think that those in the church truly believe they can fool everyone with thier fantasy fairy cloud god.  I would take it as a compliment that the bishop or preist blew you off.  They have plenty of willing suckers to talk to...why waste their time on someone that isn't foolish?
> 
> 
> 
> i was (at the time) attempting trying to understand how people can say one thing and then do another (duality ).
> 
> Btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot
Click to expand...

as usual you're talking out your ass...
MUST HAVE MISSED THIS....."Btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences".


----------



## Avatar4321

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't think that those in the church truly believe they can fool everyone with thier fantasy fairy cloud god.  I would take it as a compliment that the bishop or preist blew you off.  They have plenty of willing suckers to talk to...why waste their time on someone that isn't foolish?
> 
> 
> 
> i was (at the time) attempting trying to understand how people can say one thing and then do another (duality ).
> 
> Btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot
Click to expand...


Still nothing substantial to say?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was (at the time) attempting trying to understand how people can say one thing and then do another (duality ).
> 
> Btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still nothing substantial to say?
Click to expand...

you expected more from eot's?


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing substantial to say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you expected more from eot's?
Click to expand...


I expect more from all people. God has given us ability to excel. No point in wallowing in the mud. God has expectations from us and I tend to have the same of others. I want to see their best, not trolling or anything like that.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still nothing substantial to say?
> 
> 
> 
> you expected more from eot's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I expect more from all people. God has given us ability to excel. No point in wallowing in the mud. God has expectations from us and I tend to have the same of others. I want to see their best, not trolling or anything like that.
Click to expand...

is'nt that hubris


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you expected more from eot's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i expect more from all people. God has given us ability to excel. No point in wallowing in the mud. God has expectations from us and i tend to have the same of others. I want to see their best, not trolling or anything like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is'nt that hubris
Click to expand...


daws is upset now that you dissed trolls


----------



## eots

daws101 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was (at the time) attempting trying to understand how people can say one thing and then do another (duality ).
> 
> Btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as usual you're talking out your ass...
> Must have missed this....."btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences".
Click to expand...


never said you accepted it..I said it was your upbringing


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> and several million other non mormons.
> Here's a bit of irony, I once said to our bishop "isn't it wrong to baptize other people into this faith  after they're dead"?
> he said "they'er dead and won't care.
> odd as the Mormon's believe the soul survives death!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you asked ?
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
Click to expand...


If you understood the doctrine, you would not have asked such a stupid question.


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you asked ?
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understood the doctrine, you would not have asked such a stupid question.
Click to expand...


There are no stupid questions. Only stupid answers.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you expected more from eot's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I expect more from all people. God has given us ability to excel. No point in wallowing in the mud. God has expectations from us and I tend to have the same of others. I want to see their best, not trolling or anything like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is'nt that hubris
Click to expand...


No. I think it's actually close to the opposite hubris. 

Hubris is basically pride. You think you are better than others. It creates emnity and contempt.

When you are focused on encouraging others to do their best, you aren't focused on self, which I believe is a requirement for hubris.


----------



## Avatar4321

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i expect more from all people. God has given us ability to excel. No point in wallowing in the mud. God has expectations from us and i tend to have the same of others. I want to see their best, not trolling or anything like that.
> 
> 
> 
> is'nt that hubris
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> daws is upset now that you dissed trolls
Click to expand...


I dont really see evidence that he is upset at all. Just asking a question.


----------



## Avatar4321

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot
> 
> 
> 
> as usual you're talking out your ass...
> Must have missed this....."btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> never said you accepted it..I said it was your upbringing
Click to expand...


And being raised Mormon is a pretty good upbringing in my honest opinion.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSXZS4lncFA&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLFADB2456B2D5D31A]Secret World Of Mormonism - An overview of the religion - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

eots said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot
> 
> 
> 
> as usual you're talking out your ass...
> Must have missed this....."btw i never was a believer,can't remember a time when i was.
> It was one of those things you do because your parents say you have to or suffer the consequences".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> never said you accepted it..I said it was your upbringing
Click to expand...

you're still wrong as always...by saying this:"your upbringing in such a cult...explains a lot" your assuming that I was born into it...another false ASSumption.
 I was 8 years when my parents CONVERTED TO MORMONISM.
ASSCLOWN!


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> How old were you when you asked ?
> 
> Obviously you don't understand the doctrine...and it would appear that either your bishop didn't either or he didn't think you were worth the time.
> 
> 
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understood the doctrine, you would not have asked such a stupid question.
Click to expand...

I asked because even then I knew the doctrine was fantasy and disrespectful of other faiths....btw understanding the dogma (doctrine ) does not equate to buying into it.
it's obvious you did ....no questions ask...IMO that's the height of ignorance!


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you understood the doctrine, you would not have asked such a stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked because even then I knew the doctrine was fantasy and disrespectful of other faiths....btw understanding the dogma (doctrine ) does not equate to buying into it.
> it's obvious you did ....no questions ask...IMO that's the height of ignorance!
Click to expand...


Can you pull your head of of the same place you pulled this comment from ?

You don't understand the doctrine because it is not disrespectful to other faiths.

It's obvious..?  How did you draw that conclusion Einstein ?  And you blither about being ignorant.


----------



## Listening

Avatar4321 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was 16  again you miss the point ...I do understand the doctrine and since it's fantasy It might as well have been harry potter !
> not worth the time? how Christian of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you understood the doctrine, you would not have asked such a stupid question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no stupid questions. Only stupid answers.
Click to expand...



There are exceptions to every rule.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you understood the doctrine, you would not have asked such a stupid question.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked because even then I knew the doctrine was fantasy and disrespectful of other faiths....btw understanding the dogma (doctrine ) does not equate to buying into it.
> it's obvious you did ....no questions ask...IMO that's the height of ignorance!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you pull your head of of the same place you pulled this comment from ?
> 
> You don't understand the doctrine because it is not disrespectful to other faiths.
> 
> It's obvious..?  How did you draw that conclusion Einstein ?  And you blither about being ignorant.
Click to expand...

RATIONALIZE  MUCH?
any belief system that attempts to erase another's faith, customs, teaching with their own dogma is by definition disrespectful and wrong. if you choose not to see that,it's intentional ignorance..
if you buy the concept of souls surviving death, then you (Mormons) are not only disrespecting their memory here but their living souls in heaven.
asshole!


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked because even then I knew the doctrine was fantasy and disrespectful of other faiths....btw understanding the dogma (doctrine ) does not equate to buying into it.
> it's obvious you did ....no questions ask...IMO that's the height of ignorance!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you pull your head of of the same place you pulled this comment from ?
> 
> You don't understand the doctrine because it is not disrespectful to other faiths.
> 
> It's obvious..?  How did you draw that conclusion Einstein ?  And you blither about being ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> RATIONALIZE  MUCH?
> any belief system that attempts to erase another's faith, customs, teaching with their own dogma is by definition disrespectful and wrong. if you choose not to see that,it's intentional ignorance..
> if you buy the concept of souls surviving death, then you (Mormons) are not only disrespecting their memory here but their living souls in heaven.
> asshole!
Click to expand...


I hope your drug rehab program improves.  Right now it isn't working.

There is no attempt to erase another's faith.  Where did you get that defintion because according to it, it would be wrong to take the Hitler Youth and tell them their faith was wrong.

Your last statment indeed shows a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine and everything that goes around it.  In fact, it is open acknowledgement of their worth and value.

Are you sure they didn't say you were a moron...not mormon.


----------



## daws101

listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> can you pull your head of of the same place you pulled this comment from ?
> 
> You don't understand the doctrine because it is not disrespectful to other faiths.
> 
> It's obvious..?  How did you draw that conclusion einstein ?  And you blither about being ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> rationalize  much?
> Any belief system that attempts to erase another's faith, customs, teaching with their own dogma is by definition disrespectful and wrong. If you choose not to see that,it's intentional ignorance..
> If you buy the concept of souls surviving death, then you (mormons) are not only disrespecting their memory here but their living souls in heaven.
> Asshole!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i hope your drug rehab program improves.  Right now it isn't working.
> 
> There is no attempt to erase another's faith.  Where did you get that defintion because according to it, it would be wrong to take the hitler youth and tell them their faith was wrong.
> 
> Your last statment indeed shows a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine and everything that goes around it.  In fact, it is open acknowledgement of their worth and value.
> 
> Are you sure they didn't say you were a moron...not mormon.
Click to expand...

rationalize  much?
I love it 
hitler youth...


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> rationalize  much?
> I love it
> hitler youth...



If you argument sucks...it sucks.  What can I say.

Your defintion was bogus.

And your rebuttal never showed up.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rationalize  much?
> I love it
> hitler youth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you argument sucks...it sucks.  What can I say.
> 
> Your defintion was bogus.
> 
> And your rebuttal never showed up.
Click to expand...

what rebuttal? 
my definition was dead on...rationalize some more!


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rationalize  much?
> Any belief system that attempts to erase another's faith, customs, teaching with their own dogma is by definition disrespectful and wrong. If you choose not to see that,it's intentional ignorance..
> If you buy the concept of souls surviving death, then you (mormons) are not only disrespecting their memory here but their living souls in heaven.
> Asshole!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i hope your drug rehab program improves.  Right now it isn't working.
> 
> There is no attempt to erase another's faith.  Where did you get that defintion because according to it, it would be wrong to take the hitler youth and tell them their faith was wrong.
> 
> Your last statment indeed shows a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine and everything that goes around it.  In fact, it is open acknowledgement of their worth and value.
> 
> Are you sure they didn't say you were a moron...not mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> rationalize  much?
> I love it
> hitler youth...
Click to expand...


When cornered..play the Hitler card..


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> i hope your drug rehab program improves.  Right now it isn't working.
> 
> There is no attempt to erase another's faith.  Where did you get that defintion because according to it, it would be wrong to take the hitler youth and tell them their faith was wrong.
> 
> Your last statment indeed shows a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine and everything that goes around it.  In fact, it is open acknowledgement of their worth and value.
> 
> Are you sure they didn't say you were a moron...not mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> rationalize  much?
> I love it
> hitler youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When cornered..play the Hitler card..
Click to expand...

ain't that the truth!


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> i hope your drug rehab program improves.  Right now it isn't working.
> 
> There is no attempt to erase another's faith.  Where did you get that defintion because according to it, it would be wrong to take the hitler youth and tell them their faith was wrong.
> 
> Your last statment indeed shows a complete lack of understanding of the doctrine and everything that goes around it.  In fact, it is open acknowledgement of their worth and value.
> 
> Are you sure they didn't say you were a moron...not mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> rationalize  much?
> I love it
> hitler youth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When cornered..play the Hitler card..
Click to expand...


Hey Huggy,

Why don't you try and argue against the analogy (I was shooting at his defintions) instead of talking out your backside.

Cornered ?

You obviously haven't been keeping up.  Your ADD meds are not just once a week.


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rationalize  much?
> I love it
> hitler youth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When cornered..play the Hitler card..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ain't that the truth!
Click to expand...


Well, that would about the first truth you has posted.

Except that you would not know truth if it reached up and bit you in your fat rear end.


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> rationalize  much?
> I love it
> hitler youth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When cornered..play the Hitler card..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Huggy,
> 
> Why don't you try and argue against the analogy (I was shooting at his defintions) instead of talking out your backside.
> 
> Cornered ?
> 
> You obviously haven't been keeping up.  Your ADD meds are not just once a week.
Click to expand...


Whoah there pilgrim!  This is the truthiness about the mormans thread.  I didn't bring up Hitler.  I barely knew the guy.  My MEDS are none of your beezwax!  

I was engaged in this thread long before Mittens became a serious prez candidate. It was, when I joined, the biggest thread at USMB with around 2000 posts.  I have had a strong dislike for the mormans since they took advantage of Howard Hughes.  Since then..around 40 years ago, I have watched their activities..read their book and become fairly well aquainted with the activities of their cult.  I especially find the "mission" an aborant practice as it destroys the fabric of native culture replaced with their brand of bullshit.

Ya..Ya..there are "good" people sleepwalking through life as mormans.  There were "good" Germans too.  

I pick on mormans because they are especially crazy and pushy with their nonsense.  Much of what I do on this thread is slash and burn.  It doesn't have to make sense...much like the morman religion.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Whoah there pilgrim!  This is the truthiness about the mormans thread.  I didn't bring up Hitler.  I barely knew the guy.  My MEDS are none of your beezwax!



I agree there. It's pointless to having an edifying discussion and you didn't mention hitler. Can we all be adults here?



> I was engaged in this thread long before Mittens became a serious prez candidate.



Not exactly true. This thread wasn't started until after Romney was a serious Pres candidate in 2008.




> It was, when I joined, the biggest thread at USMB with around 2000 posts.  I have had a strong dislike for the mormans since they took advantage of Howard Hughes.  Since then..around 40 years ago, I have watched their activities..read their book and become fairly well aquainted with the activities of their cult.  I especially find the "mission" an aborant practice as it destroys the fabric of native culture replaced with their brand of bullshit.



No Mormons took advantage of Howard Hughes. Nor do I see any evidence of you being well acquainted when you repeatedly fail to understand easy to understand practices and make little effort to try to.



> Ya..Ya..there are "good" people sleepwalking through life as mormans.  There were "good" Germans too.



And the fact taht you can't even spell mormon currectly despite there being several hundred posts in this thread.

And they are good mormons specifically because of the teachings of the Restored Gospel. It's not just happenstance.



> I pick on mormans because they are especially crazy and pushy with their nonsense.  Much of what I do on this thread is slash and burn.  It doesn't have to make sense...much like the morman religion.



Of course it doesnt make sense to you! You haven't bothered putting in any effort to understand it.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoah there pilgrim!  This is the truthiness about the mormans thread.  I didn't bring up Hitler.  I barely knew the guy.  My MEDS are none of your beezwax!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there. It's pointless to having an edifying discussion and you didn't mention hitler. Can we all be adults here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was engaged in this thread long before Mittens became a serious prez candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not exactly true. This thread wasn't started until after Romney was a serious Pres candidate in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Mormons took advantage of Howard Hughes*. Nor do I see any evidence of you being well acquainted when you repeatedly fail to understand easy to understand practices and make little effort to try to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya..Ya..there are "good" people sleepwalking through life as mormans.  There were "good" Germans too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And the fact taht you can't even spell mormon *currectly despite there being several hundred posts in this thread.
> 
> And they are good mormons specifically because of the teachings of the Restored Gospel. It's not just happenstance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pick on mormans because they are especially crazy and pushy with their nonsense.  Much of what I do on this thread is slash and burn.  It doesn't have to make sense...much like the morman religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it doesnt make sense to you! *You haven't bothered putting in any effort *to understand it.
Click to expand...


They most certainly did take advantage of Hughes.

I can spell morman just fine.

I know enough about this cult to have formed a valid opinion.

Your last critiscism is what all religions say.. you haven't immersed yourself in it so you don't have enough information.  

Bullshit!  It is a cult.  Its dogma is insane.  It's candidate for president is unacceptable.


----------



## Sky Dancer

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoah there pilgrim!  This is the truthiness about the mormans thread.  I didn't bring up Hitler.  I barely knew the guy.  My MEDS are none of your beezwax!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there. It's pointless to having an edifying discussion and you didn't mention hitler. Can we all be adults here?
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly true. This thread wasn't started until after Romney was a serious Pres candidate in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Mormons took advantage of Howard Hughes*. Nor do I see any evidence of you being well acquainted when you repeatedly fail to understand easy to understand practices and make little effort to try to.
> 
> 
> 
> *And the fact taht you can't even spell mormon *currectly despite there being several hundred posts in this thread.
> 
> And they are good mormons specifically because of the teachings of the Restored Gospel. It's not just happenstance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pick on mormans because they are especially crazy and pushy with their nonsense.  Much of what I do on this thread is slash and burn.  It doesn't have to make sense...much like the morman religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it doesnt make sense to you! *You haven't bothered putting in any effort *to understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They most certainly did take advantage of Hughes.
> 
> I can spell morman just fine.
> 
> I know enough about this cult to have formed a valid opinion.
> 
> Your last critiscism is what all religions say.. you haven't immersed yourself in it so you don't have enough information.
> 
> Bullshit!  It is a cult.  Its dogma is insane.  It's candidate for president is unacceptable.
Click to expand...


If I ever meet an enlightened Mormon I'll be the first to say LDS is a true, spiritual path.


----------



## Douger

BUMP


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> Whoah there pilgrim!  This is the truthiness about the mormans thread.  I didn't bring up Hitler.  I barely knew the guy.



Well, then keep your mouth shut.  If you don't get the context of the argument, then stay out of it.  Someone is pushing the idea that some of our doctrine is "by definition" offensive to others.  I simply pointed out that the defintion was bogus by applying Hilter Youth to it.  And it fails.



HUGGY said:


> My MEDS are none of your beezwax!



I didn't ask you...I told you.



HUGGY said:


> I was engaged in this thread long before Mittens became a serious prez candidate. It was, when I joined, the biggest thread at USMB with around 2000 posts.  I have had a strong dislike for the mormans since they took advantage of Howard Hughes.  Since then..around 40 years ago, I have watched their activities..read their book and become fairly well aquainted with the activities of their cult.



You can sit in a calculus class for semesters on end and never know anything about calculus.  And I have no idea about the Howard Hughes thing....and frankly don't care.



HUGGY said:


> I especially find the "mission" an aborant practice as it destroys the fabric of native culture replaced with their brand of bullshit.



Your brand of B.S. is better ?



HUGGY said:


> Ya..Ya..there are "good" people sleepwalking through life as mormans.  There were "good" Germans too.



Who are you ?  Just who put you in charge ?  Mormons are people, just like you.  No better and no worse.



HUGGY said:


> I pick on mormans because they are especially crazy and pushy with their nonsense.



You try to pick on mormons.  What you really do is make yourself look stupid.  But if that is what you need to do....you are successful.  Keep at it.



HUGGY said:


> Much of what I do on this thread is slash and burn.



You mean open your mouth and stick your foot in it.  



HUGGY said:


> It doesn't have to make sense...



Most often it doesn't......



HUGGY said:


> much like the morman religion.



To you....

It is unfortunate that you ascribe your lack of reckoning to others.


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> They most certainly did take advantage of Hughes.
> 
> I can spell morman just fine.
> 
> I know enough about this cult to have formed a valid opinion.
> 
> Your last critiscism is what all religions say.. you haven't immersed yourself in it so you don't have enough information.
> 
> Bullshit!  It is a cult.  Its dogma is insane.  It's candidate for president is unacceptable.



Smokin' hot argument there.

Loaded with lots of facts and rationale.


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoah there pilgrim!  This is the truthiness about the mormans thread.  I didn't bring up Hitler.  I barely knew the guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Well, then keep your mouth shut.*  If you don't get the context of the argument, then stay out of it.  Someone is pushing the idea that some of our doctrine is "by definition" offensive to others.  I simply pointed out that the defintion was bogus by applying Hilter Youth to it.  And it fails.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> My MEDS are none of your beezwax!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you...I told you.
> 
> 
> 
> You can sit in a calculus class for semesters on end and never know anything about calculus.  And I have no idea about the Howard Hughes thing....and frankly don't care.
> 
> 
> 
> Your brand of B.S. is better ?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you ?  Just who put you in charge ?  Mormons are people, just like you.  No better and no worse.
> 
> 
> 
> You try to pick on mormons.  What you really do is make yourself look stupid.  But if that is what you need to do....you are successful.  Keep at it.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean open your mouth and stick your foot in it.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to make sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most often it doesn't......
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> much like the morman religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To you....
> 
> It is unfortunate that you ascribe your lack of reckoning to others.
Click to expand...


"Well, then keep your mouth shut."

You are a funny little moman faggot.(no offense to stand up gay people)  I'm 62 and in that time nobody has been able to make that request stick.  Oh that's right... "you told me.."  And I got so deep into your goofy head that you had to make another post...  Check this out Sparky.  You don't call the shots here and you damn sure don't call any shots in MY life. 

You do not matter to me.... you are an insignificant obstacle on MY mission to put you stupid morman assholes on front street every opportunity I get.   No likey? Tough shit!


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> "Well, then keep your mouth shut."
> 
> You are a funny little moman faggot.(no offense to stand up gay people)  I'm 62 and in that time nobody has been able to make that request stick.  Oh that's right... "you told me.."  And I got so deep into your goofy head that you had to make another post...  Check this out Sparky.  You don't call the shots here and you damn sure don't call any shots in MY life.
> 
> You do not matter to me.... you are an insignificant obstacle on MY mission to put you stupid morman assholes on front street every opportunity I get.   No likey? Tough shit!



Given that you enjoy making a fool of yourself....be my guest.

Keeping your mouth shut might help your credibility, but as you indicated you really don't care if you are credible or not.  It was a suggestion (until you gain context).

Keep on with your mission !  It is people like you that are some of the best advertisement for the church.

Keep huffing and puffing.

We will have several convert baptisms in our ward this month.  You don't seem to be doing so well.


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Well, then keep your mouth shut."
> 
> You are a funny little moman faggot.(no offense to stand up gay people)  I'm 62 and in that time nobody has been able to make that request stick.  Oh that's right... "you told me.."  And I got so deep into your goofy head that you had to make another post...  Check this out Sparky.  You don't call the shots here and you damn sure don't call any shots in MY life.
> 
> You do not matter to me.... you are an insignificant obstacle on MY mission to put you stupid morman assholes on front street every opportunity I get.   No likey? Tough shit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Given that you enjoy making a fool of yourself*....be my guest.
> 
> Keeping your mouth shut might help your credibility, but as you indicated you really don't care if you are credible or not.  It was a suggestion (until you gain context).
> 
> Keep on with your mission !  It is people like you that are some of the best advertisement for the church.
> 
> Keep huffing and puffing.
> 
> We will have several convert baptisms in our ward this month.  You don't seem to be doing so well.
Click to expand...


"you" meaning me/I?  This is an anonmous internet message board.  Everyones identity is made up.  There is no you, me, they, us.  It's all made up out of whole cloth just like your stupid cult.  I post here because of the views.  There are hundreds of thousands on this thread and the one I built called "The List".  Is my message "foolish"?  More foolish than your underwear?  The gold dinner service that appeared then magically diappeared.  Thinking you have some special ownership of other planets?  Thinking you have the right to disrespect the beliefs of others and displace those beliefs with yours?  Baptising devout atheists?  Baptising Jews?  You mean foolish like THAT?

You REALLY believe that intelligent people come and view "The Truthiness About Mormans" to see what y'all have to say for yourselves and look at what mormans believe and see me questioning it and come to the conclusion that I am a fool? 

You just keep on keepin on Sport.  It is the presence of zombies such as yourself that makes my "work" here so "enjoyable".


----------



## Avatar4321

how is calling each other names really beneficial to conversation?

When we speak with the Spirit of God, both the speaker and the listener are edified and uplifted. This spirit here is not the Spirit of God, but the spirit of contention. 

We can have much more fruitful discussions if we arent insulting one another.


----------



## Listening

Avatar4321 said:


> We can have much more fruitful discussions if we arent insulting one another.



But it is so much fun.

I don't see it as contending.

It would just be a one-sided fight.

Huggy is just a play thing.


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> "you" meaning me/I?  This is an anonmous internet message board.  Everyones identity is made up.  There is no you, me, they, us.  It's all made up out of whole cloth just like your stupid cult.  I post here because of the views.  There are hundreds of thousands on this thread and the one I built called "The List".  Is my message "foolish"?  More foolish than your underwear?  The gold dinner service that appeared then magically diappeared.  Thinking you have some special ownership of other planets?  Thinking you have the right to disrespect the beliefs of others and displace those beliefs with yours?  Baptising devout atheists?  Baptising Jews?  You mean foolish like THAT?
> 
> You REALLY believe that intelligent people come and view "The Truthiness About Mormans" to see what y'all have to say for yourselves and look at what mormans believe and see me questioning it and come to the conclusion that I am a fool?
> 
> You just keep on keepin on Sport.  It is the presence of zombies such as youself that makes my "work" here so "enjoyable".



Are you making up arguments again.....stupid ?

They will come here and see you make comments out of context....and realize you are a fool.

I am glad you enjoy yourself.

You, somewhat remind me of the Black Knight on Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

A lot of talk.


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you" meaning me/I?  This is an anonmous internet message board.  Everyones identity is made up.  There is no you, me, they, us.  It's all made up out of whole cloth just like your stupid cult.  I post here because of the views.  There are hundreds of thousands on this thread and the one I built called "The List".  Is my message "foolish"?  More foolish than your underwear?  The gold dinner service that appeared then magically diappeared.  Thinking you have some special ownership of other planets?  Thinking you have the right to disrespect the beliefs of others and displace those beliefs with yours?  Baptising devout atheists?  Baptising Jews?  You mean foolish like THAT?
> 
> You REALLY believe that intelligent people come and view "The Truthiness About Mormans" to see what y'all have to say for yourselves and look at what mormans believe and see me questioning it and come to the conclusion that I am a fool?
> 
> You just keep on keepin on Sport.  It is the presence of zombies such as youself that makes my "work" here so "enjoyable".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making up arguments again.....stupid ?
> 
> They will come here and see you make comments out of context....and realize you are a fool.
> 
> I am glad you enjoy yourself.
> 
> You, somewhat *remind me of the Black Knight on Monty Python *and the Holy Grail.
> 
> A lot of talk.
Click to expand...


Ya maybe...with the main difference that I am a more COMPETENT fighter than he.  I am like him in that I am paid to protect access to property and do whatever in neccesary to achieve that end.  I make no exceptions and offer no excuses when I do my work.  The people I confront are usually armed and on some drug.  I am still undamaged and frankly..a beautiful figure of a man with all my limbs and such.  If I was attacked by a group of British faggots like in the skit they would not fare very well.  They wouldn't even make it past my pit bulls.  They would all be killed including the horses.  My 120 lb red nose has a jaw strong enough to bite your leg below the knee clean off.  The 70 lb female blue is a psychpath that can jump eight feet into the air.  She would clear the riders off the horses and the big male would hamstring the horses.  If the stupid white knight raised his hand with sword he would lose his hand.  Now with all this going on I would go through the injured and put them down.   I don't use a sword.  I'm partial to aluminum baseball bats and lead.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC7M04i8igk&feature=related]rappin mormon - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101




----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you" meaning me/I?  This is an anonmous internet message board.  Everyones identity is made up.  There is no you, me, they, us.  It's all made up out of whole cloth just like your stupid cult.  I post here because of the views.  There are hundreds of thousands on this thread and the one I built called "The List".  Is my message "foolish"?  More foolish than your underwear?  The gold dinner service that appeared then magically diappeared.  Thinking you have some special ownership of other planets?  Thinking you have the right to disrespect the beliefs of others and displace those beliefs with yours?  Baptising devout atheists?  Baptising Jews?  You mean foolish like THAT?
> 
> You REALLY believe that intelligent people come and view "The Truthiness About Mormans" to see what y'all have to say for yourselves and look at what mormans believe and see me questioning it and come to the conclusion that I am a fool?
> 
> You just keep on keepin on Sport.  It is the presence of zombies such as youself that makes my "work" here so "enjoyable".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making up arguments again.....stupid ?
> 
> They will come here and see you make comments out of context....and realize you are a fool.
> 
> I am glad you enjoy yourself.
> 
> You, somewhat *remind me of the Black Knight on Monty Python *and the Holy Grail.
> 
> A lot of talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya maybe...with the main difference that I am a more COMPETENT fighter than he.  I am like him in that I am paid to protect access to property and do whatever in neccesary to achieve that end.  I make no exceptions and offer no excuses when I do my work.  The people I confront are usually armed and on some drug.  I am still undamaged and frankly..a beautiful figure of a man with all my limbs and such.  If I was attacked by a group of British faggots like in the skit they would not fare very well.  They wouldn't even make it past my pit bulls.  They would all be killed including the horses.  My 120 lb red nose has a jaw strong enough to bite your leg below the knee clean off.  The 70 lb female blue is a psychpath that can jump eight feet into the air.  She would clear the riders off the horses and the big male would hamstring the horses.  If the stupid white knight raised his hand with sword he would lose his hand.  Now with all this going on I would go through the injured and put them down.   I don't use a sword.  I'm partial to aluminum baseball bats and lead.
Click to expand...


Yep, you sound a lot like him.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making up arguments again.....stupid ?
> 
> They will come here and see you make comments out of context....and realize you are a fool.
> 
> I am glad you enjoy yourself.
> 
> You, somewhat *remind me of the Black Knight on Monty Python *and the Holy Grail.
> 
> A lot of talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya maybe...with the main difference that I am a more COMPETENT fighter than he.  I am like him in that I am paid to protect access to property and do whatever in neccesary to achieve that end.  I make no exceptions and offer no excuses when I do my work.  The people I confront are usually armed and on some drug.  I am still undamaged and frankly..a beautiful figure of a man with all my limbs and such.  If I was attacked by a group of British faggots like in the skit they would not fare very well.  They wouldn't even make it past my pit bulls.  They would all be killed including the horses.  My 120 lb red nose has a jaw strong enough to bite your leg below the knee clean off.  The 70 lb female blue is a psychpath that can jump eight feet into the air.  She would clear the riders off the horses and the big male would hamstring the horses.  If the stupid white knight raised his hand with sword he would lose his hand.  Now with all this going on I would go through the injured and put them down.   I don't use a sword.  I'm partial to aluminum baseball bats and lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, you sound a lot like him.
Click to expand...

dodge!


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making up arguments again.....stupid ?
> 
> They will come here and see you make comments out of context....and realize you are a fool.
> 
> I am glad you enjoy yourself.
> 
> You, somewhat *remind me of the Black Knight on Monty Python *and the Holy Grail.
> 
> A lot of talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya maybe...with the main difference that I am a more COMPETENT fighter than he.  I am like him in that I am paid to protect access to property and do whatever in neccesary to achieve that end.  I make no exceptions and offer no excuses when I do my work.  The people I confront are usually armed and on some drug.  I am still undamaged and frankly..a beautiful figure of a man with all my limbs and such.  If I was attacked by a group of British faggots like in the skit they would not fare very well.  They wouldn't even make it past my pit bulls.  They would all be killed including the horses.  My 120 lb red nose has a jaw strong enough to bite your leg below the knee clean off.  The 70 lb female blue is a psychpath that can jump eight feet into the air.  She would clear the riders off the horses and the big male would hamstring the horses.  If the stupid white knight raised his hand with sword he would lose his hand.  Now with all this going on I would go through the injured and put them down.   I don't use a sword.  I'm partial to aluminum baseball bats and lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, you sound a lot like him.
Click to expand...


Speaking of the devils..heh...heh.. Just last night some yahoo jacked up on some drug or just fucking crazy tried to get over the fence surrounding one of the buildings I am protecting.. THIS even as my pits were on the inside of the fence growling at the moron.  I yelled at him to step back from the fence and he ignored my warning.  So I had to grab the bat and head own the stairs to "assist" him leaving.  Only then when I was about to open the gate and deliver a serious beating did he run off.  Welcome to my world.  Ya...I guess me and the Black Knight have a little in comon.


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can have much more fruitful discussions if we arent insulting one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is so much fun.
> 
> I don't see it as contending.
> 
> It would just be a one-sided fight.
> 
> Huggy is just a play thing.
Click to expand...


It can be fun. But it gets old after a while. I'd prefer to have the Spirit present. He doesnt seem to stick around much when it gets ugly in here.


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya maybe...with the main difference that I am a more COMPETENT fighter than he.  I am like him in that I am paid to protect access to property and do whatever in neccesary to achieve that end.  I make no exceptions and offer no excuses when I do my work.  The people I confront are usually armed and on some drug.  I am still undamaged and frankly..a beautiful figure of a man with all my limbs and such.  If I was attacked by a group of British faggots like in the skit they would not fare very well.  They wouldn't even make it past my pit bulls.  They would all be killed including the horses.  My 120 lb red nose has a jaw strong enough to bite your leg below the knee clean off.  The 70 lb female blue is a psychpath that can jump eight feet into the air.  She would clear the riders off the horses and the big male would hamstring the horses.  If the stupid white knight raised his hand with sword he would lose his hand.  Now with all this going on I would go through the injured and put them down.   I don't use a sword.  I'm partial to aluminum baseball bats and lead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you sound a lot like him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of the devils..heh...heh.. Just last night some yahoo jacked up on some drug or just fucking crazy tried to get over the fence surrounding one of the buildings I am protecting.. THIS even as my pits were on the inside of the fence growling at the moron.  I yelled at him to step back from the fence and he ignored my warning.  So I had to grab the bat and head own the stairs to "assist" him leaving.  Only then when I was about to open the gate and deliver a serious beating did he run off.  Welcome to my world.  Ya...I guess me and the Black Knight have a little in comon.
Click to expand...



Well, blacky.....

Talk talk talk talk......

Without a video to back it up.....

Talk talk talk talk......

But, let's not let the obvious get in the way of the fact that you (at your ripe old age and full of wisdom) are bitter about something that (as near as I can tell) never really happened.

I am glad I have not followed your lead.  There are plenty of people who have done things I think were wrong, but I don't hold it against friends who belong to the same groups because I know that people are people.

Get a clue there B.K.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvSo0ate4tM&feature=g-vrec&context=G2bf941cRVAAAAAAAAAg]The Untold Story of the Death of Joseph Smith - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you sound a lot like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of the devils..heh...heh.. Just last night some yahoo jacked up on some drug or just fucking crazy tried to get over the fence surrounding one of the buildings I am protecting.. THIS even as my pits were on the inside of the fence growling at the moron.  I yelled at him to step back from the fence and he ignored my warning.  So I had to grab the bat and head own the stairs to "assist" him leaving.  Only then when I was about to open the gate and deliver a serious beating did he run off.  Welcome to my world.  Ya...I guess me and the Black Knight have a little in comon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, blacky.....
> 
> Talk talk talk talk......
> 
> Without a video to back it up.....
> 
> Talk talk talk talk......
> 
> But, let's not let the obvious get in the way of the fact that you (at your ripe old age and full of wisdom) are bitter about something that (as near as I can tell) never really happened.
> 
> I am glad I have not followed your lead.  There are plenty of people who have done things I think were wrong, but I don't hold it against friends who belong to the same groups because I know that people are people.
> 
> Get a clue there B.K.
Click to expand...

burger king?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can have much more fruitful discussions if we arent insulting one another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it is so much fun.
> 
> I don't see it as contending.
> 
> It would just be a one-sided fight.
> 
> Huggy is just a play thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can be fun. But it gets old after a while. I'd prefer to have the Spirit present. He doesnt seem to stick around much when it gets ugly in here.
Click to expand...

talking about making shit up!


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you sound a lot like him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of the devils..heh...heh.. Just last night some yahoo jacked up on some drug or just fucking crazy tried to get over the fence surrounding one of the buildings I am protecting.. THIS even as my pits were on the inside of the fence growling at the moron.  I yelled at him to step back from the fence and he ignored my warning.  So I had to grab the bat and head own the stairs to "assist" him leaving.  Only then when I was about to open the gate and deliver a serious beating did he run off.  Welcome to my world.  Ya...I guess me and the Black Knight have a little in comon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, blacky.....
> 
> Talk talk talk talk......
> 
> Without a video to back it up.....
> 
> Talk talk talk talk......
> 
> But, let's not let the obvious get in the way of the fact that you (at your ripe old age and full of wisdom) are bitter about something that (as near as I can tell) never really happened.
> 
> I am glad I have not followed your lead.  There are plenty of people who have done things I think were wrong, but I don't hold it against friends who belong to the same groups because I know that people are people.
> 
> Get a clue there B.K.
Click to expand...


So you believe I am your plaything.  A toy to amuse you.  

It doesn't matter what you believe about me...there is no me.

The topic of this thread is the truth about momans.  

You are not obligated to believe anything on the internet.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it is so much fun.
> 
> I don't see it as contending.
> 
> It would just be a one-sided fight.
> 
> Huggy is just a play thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can be fun. But it gets old after a while. I'd prefer to have the Spirit present. He doesnt seem to stick around much when it gets ugly in here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talking about making shit up!
Click to expand...


And what exactly have I made up?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> So you believe I am your plaything.  A toy to amuse you.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe about me...there is no me.
> 
> The topic of this thread is the truth about momans.
> 
> You are not obligated to believe anything on the internet.



Actually, the topic of the thread is the Truth about Mormons. I would think after participating in the thread this long you'd be able to spell it correctly. But perhaps not since we havent been talking about the Truth about Mormons for quite a while.

The only thing we are obligated to believe is the truth.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe I am your plaything.  A toy to amuse you.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe about me...there is no me.
> 
> The topic of this thread is the truth about momans.
> 
> You are not obligated to believe anything on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the topic of the thread is the Truth about Mormons. I would think after participating in the thread this long *you'd be able to spell it correctly*. But perhaps not since we havent been talking about the Truth about Mormons for quite a while.
> 
> The only thing we are obligated to believe is the truth.
Click to expand...


What a crazy person desires is of little consequence.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you believe I am your plaything.  A toy to amuse you.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you believe about me...there is no me.
> 
> The topic of this thread is the truth about momans.
> 
> You are not obligated to believe anything on the internet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the topic of the thread is the Truth about Mormons. I would think after participating in the thread this long *you'd be able to spell it correctly*. But perhaps not since we havent been talking about the Truth about Mormons for quite a while.
> 
> The only thing we are obligated to believe is the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a crazy person desires is of little consequence.
Click to expand...


You really think insults are going to cover your inability to spell?

You are quite amusing huggy, I'll give you that.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the topic of the thread is the Truth about Mormons. I would think after participating in the thread this long *you'd be able to spell it correctly*. But perhaps not since we havent been talking about the Truth about Mormons for quite a while.
> 
> The only thing we are obligated to believe is the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a crazy person desires is of little consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really think insults are going to cover your inability to spell?
> 
> You are quite amusing huggy, I'll give you that.
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ifn39Y8V0]JoE PeSci Do I aMuSe YoU GoOd FellaS - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321

To answer that, yes. You do amuse me.


----------



## eots

Crazy		77	38.69%


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITo9K4Wg0ss]Wayne May on Book of Mormon Archeology - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It can be fun. But it gets old after a while. I'd prefer to have the Spirit present. He doesnt seem to stick around much when it gets ugly in here.
> 
> 
> 
> talking about making shit up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what exactly have I made up?
Click to expand...

"the spirit!


----------



## HUGGY

Pity bump.


----------



## HUGGY

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvH7TKLgT4g]George Harrison - Isn&#39;t It A Pity (Original Demo - Beatles Get Back Sessions 1969) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dr.House

427k + views...  Popular thread and few YouTubez...


----------



## HUGGY

Dr.House said:


> 427k + views...  Popular thread and few YouTubez...



Too bad a quarter million of em are fake.  Not as much REAL interest as ya might think.


----------



## Dr.House

HUGGY said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 427k + views...  Popular thread and few YouTubez...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad a quarter million of em are fake.  Not as much REAL interest as ya might think.
Click to expand...


There's more discussion in this thread than any other on USMB....

Makes sense it would be viewed more often....


----------



## JoeB131

HUGGY said:


> Pity bump.



Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.  

I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.


----------



## HUGGY

JoeB131 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
Click to expand...


They believe in lies ..then like this thread..they artificially bump the views to somehow make the claim that there is this huge interest in their religion.  HouseGimp knows exactly what I am talking about.  He is a dumb guy PLAYING it even dumber.

Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.  Tell a big enough lie often enough and simple minded people see it as credibility.


Ya this thread was "old" when it was 1500 replies old..but now that we have one of these crazy fucks with his sights on the white house it is the duty of all knowledgeable Americans to out these clowns.

Fun?..not so much...neccessry..  Damn Skippy!


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believe in lies ..then like this thread..they artificially bump the views to somehow make the claim that there is this huge interest in their religion.  HouseGimp knows exactly what I am talking about.  He is a dumb guy PLAYING it even dumber.
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.  Tell a big enough lie often enough and simple minded people see it as credibility.
> 
> 
> Ya this thread was "old" when it was 1500 replies old..but now that we have one of these crazy fucks with his sights on the white house it is the duty of all knowledgeable Americans to out these clowns.
> 
> Fun?..not so much...neccessry..  Damn Skippy!
Click to expand...


Keep outing there dumbass.......

With posts like this one, people are going to take you real seriously.

The LDS church will just keep right on cruising and you and Joe can sit back and suck on it.


----------



## Dr.House

Diaper Boy said:
			
		

> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diaper Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.
Click to expand...

Back it up, homo...  Where's your proof?

Honest discussion beats YouTubez any day...  That bugs you, as anything you do here is relegated to "also ran" status...


----------



## Listening

Dr.House said:


> Diaper Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> 
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Back it up, homo...  Where's your proof?
> 
> Honest discussion beats YouTubez any day...  That bugs you, as anything you do here is relegated to "also ran" status...
Click to expand...


It is hysterical sometimes.

These guys can't rant enough about the "blind" and "stupid" beliefs of the mormons.

And yet their hatred comes through with all kinds of blind and stupid bigotry.

If they could only see this from the outside........


----------



## HUGGY

Mormans are idiots, thieves and liars.  Their MO is dishonesty and taking advatage of weak minded suckers.

True story.


----------



## Dr.House

Little Diaper Dude mad....


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> Mormans are idiots, thieves and liars.  Their MO is dishonesty and taking advatage of weak minded suckers.
> 
> True story.



Yes, well.

I could see you as a weak minded sucker.

But...as I said....rollin'  rollin'  rollin'.........


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They believe in lies ..then like this thread..they artificially bump the views to somehow make the claim that there is this huge interest in their religion.  HouseGimp knows exactly what I am talking about.  He is a dumb guy PLAYING it even dumber.
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.  Tell a big enough lie often enough and simple minded people see it as credibility.
> 
> 
> Ya this thread was "old" when it was 1500 replies old..but now that we have one of these crazy fucks with his sights on the white house it is the duty of all knowledgeable Americans to out these clowns.
> 
> Fun?..not so much...neccessry..  Damn Skippy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep outing there dumbass.......
> 
> With posts like this one, people are going to take you real seriously.
> 
> The LDS church will just keep right on cruising and you and Joe can sit back and suck on it.
Click to expand...


No one need take me seriously.  This is the internet.  Your opinions do not affect my life.  What people should do is take your cult seriously.


----------



## Dr.House

HUGGY said:
			
		

> No one need take me seriously.



Nobody believes anything you say, Diaper Boy....


----------



## HUGGY

Dr.House said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one need take me seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes anything you say, Diaper Boy....
Click to expand...


I'm sure you know your way around a diaper faggot.


----------



## Dr.House

HUGGY said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one need take me seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody believes anything you say, Diaper Boy....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know your way around a diaper faggot.
Click to expand...


That's what you and your life partner always say...  It's old, poofter....

Go pretend to invent something....


----------



## JoeB131

Listening said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diaper Boy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up, homo...  Where's your proof?
> 
> Honest discussion beats YouTubez any day...  That bugs you, as anything you do here is relegated to "also ran" status...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is hysterical sometimes.
> 
> These guys can't rant enough about the "blind" and "stupid" beliefs of the mormons.
> 
> And yet their hatred comes through with all kinds of blind and stupid bigotry.
> 
> If they could only see this from the outside........
Click to expand...



Guy, you can whine bout "bigotry" all day.  

If you told me you believed in Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and I called your beliefs silly, no one would have a question about that, they are silly things that can be easily disproven.  

But you tell me that you believe in Golden Plates no one saw, or a magic Hebrew civilzation in America that left no archeological trace, or Magic Underpants... and when I call that silly, you blurt back "but...but...but... that's my religion! You Bigot! "  

Sorry, taking silly, irrational beliefs and slapping vestments on them and calling them a religion does not  make them less silly.  

It might put people off. Hell, I found myself doing it once in a while. Had to listen to a co-worker go on yesterday about how blood transfusions are against the bible (She's a Jehovah's Witness, a bunch that give the LDS a run in the Religious stupid Department.) Really, really felt like telling her how stupid she was, but I realize I have to work with her until the boss figures out she's worthless and fires her.


----------



## Listening

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up, homo...  Where's your proof?
> 
> Honest discussion beats YouTubez any day...  That bugs you, as anything you do here is relegated to "also ran" status...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is hysterical sometimes.
> 
> These guys can't rant enough about the "blind" and "stupid" beliefs of the mormons.
> 
> And yet their hatred comes through with all kinds of blind and stupid bigotry.
> 
> If they could only see this from the outside........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can whine bout "bigotry" all day.
> 
> If you told me you believed in Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and I called your beliefs silly, no one would have a question about that, they are silly things that can be easily disproven.
> 
> But you tell me that you believe in Golden Plates no one saw, or a magic Hebrew civilzation in America that left no archeological trace, or Magic Underpants... and when I call that silly, you blurt back "but...but...but... that's my religion! You Bigot! "
> 
> Sorry, taking silly, irrational beliefs and slapping vestments on them and calling them a religion does not  make them less silly.
> 
> It might put people off. Hell, I found myself doing it once in a while. Had to listen to a co-worker go on yesterday about how blood transfusions are against the bible (She's a Jehovah's Witness, a bunch that give the LDS a run in the Religious stupid Department.) Really, really felt like telling her how stupid she was, but I realize I have to work with her until the boss figures out she's worthless and fires her.
Click to expand...


I have no issues with people calling the the LDS faith silly.  That is perfectly understandable coming from people who have never really been engaged in it.

What you seem to miss the context on is the rather funny blatherings of that moron Huggy.

I don't care if you call my faith irrational.  Any faith, including no faith, can be called the same.

But to blindly spew the kind of invective he does about our so called bigotry......is just hilarious.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is hysterical sometimes.
> 
> These guys can't rant enough about the "blind" and "stupid" beliefs of the mormons.
> 
> And yet their hatred comes through with all kinds of blind and stupid bigotry.
> 
> If they could only see this from the outside........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can whine bout "bigotry" all day.
> 
> If you told me you believed in Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and I called your beliefs silly, no one would have a question about that, they are silly things that can be easily disproven.
> 
> But you tell me that you believe in Golden Plates no one saw, or a magic Hebrew civilzation in America that left no archeological trace, or Magic Underpants... and when I call that silly, you blurt back "but...but...but... that's my religion! You Bigot! "
> 
> Sorry, taking silly, irrational beliefs and slapping vestments on them and calling them a religion does not  make them less silly.
> 
> It might put people off. Hell, I found myself doing it once in a while. Had to listen to a co-worker go on yesterday about how blood transfusions are against the bible (She's a Jehovah's Witness, a bunch that give the LDS a run in the Religious stupid Department.) Really, really felt like telling her how stupid she was, but I realize I have to work with her until the boss figures out she's worthless and fires her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no issues with people calling the the LDS faith silly.  That is perfectly understandable coming from people who have never really been engaged in it.
> 
> What you seem to miss the context on is the rather funny blatherings of that moron Huggy.
> 
> I don't care if you call my faith irrational.  Any faith, including no faith, can be called the same.
> 
> But to blindly spew the kind of invective he does about our so called bigotry......is just hilarious.
Click to expand...

I was one and it is silly...what context? the LDS "faith" begins and ends with the delusion's  of it's founder.
I will say this, the Mormons are no more bigoted then any other faith group...
the thing to remember is, they have no evidence of any kind to prove the book of Mormon and it's companion texts are NOT fiction.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believe in lies ..then like this thread..they artificially bump the views to somehow make the claim that there is this huge interest in their religion.  HouseGimp knows exactly what I am talking about.  He is a dumb guy PLAYING it even dumber.
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.  Tell a big enough lie often enough and simple minded people see it as credibility.
> 
> 
> Ya this thread was "old" when it was 1500 replies old..but now that we have one of these crazy fucks with his sights on the white house it is the duty of all knowledgeable Americans to out these clowns.
> 
> Fun?..not so much...neccessry..  Damn Skippy!
Click to expand...


You're still making the bogus claim that us Mormons are manipulating the number of people viewing the thread. Why? For what purpose? Why on earth would you think a higher number of views to this thread means squat to us? You think we want to see you fighting with people about nonsense using degrading language with on another while completely ignoring anything to actually do with the Restored Gospel? You think we have so little lives that we need to manipulate views to a thread on a small internet message board that most of the world is probably unaware of?

Seriously, you think that happened, but you think it's improbable that God speaks to heaven and would reveal the Book of Mormon to Twelve witnesses?

And for the record, i did a search of "The truth about mormons" and this is one of the top entries. It's not very unlikely for people to do a search in that and find this thread. Not that this thread matters much.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Mormans are idiots, thieves and liars.  Their MO is dishonesty and taking advatage of weak minded suckers.
> 
> True story.



If that was true you'd be joining them


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> No one need take me seriously.  This is the internet.  Your opinions do not affect my life.  What people should do is take your cult seriously.



I agree. They should take us seriously. They should listen to the message we present to the world concerning the Savior and the Restoration of the Gospel. They should study the Book of Mormon, Bible, and modern revelations. And they should seek the Lord to find out whether it's true or not. 

I can promise anyone who reads this that if you take Moroni's challenge, you can find out for yourselves that the Book of Mormon is true. The book truly is a miracle.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up, homo...  Where's your proof?
> 
> Honest discussion beats YouTubez any day...  That bugs you, as anything you do here is relegated to "also ran" status...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is hysterical sometimes.
> 
> These guys can't rant enough about the "blind" and "stupid" beliefs of the mormons.
> 
> And yet their hatred comes through with all kinds of blind and stupid bigotry.
> 
> If they could only see this from the outside........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can whine bout "bigotry" all day.
> 
> If you told me you believed in Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and I called your beliefs silly, no one would have a question about that, they are silly things that can be easily disproven.
> 
> But you tell me that you believe in Golden Plates no one saw, or a magic Hebrew civilzation in America that left no archeological trace, or Magic Underpants... and when I call that silly, you blurt back "but...but...but... that's my religion! You Bigot! "
> 
> Sorry, taking silly, irrational beliefs and slapping vestments on them and calling them a religion does not  make them less silly.
> 
> It might put people off. Hell, I found myself doing it once in a while. Had to listen to a co-worker go on yesterday about how blood transfusions are against the bible (She's a Jehovah's Witness, a bunch that give the LDS a run in the Religious stupid Department.) Really, really felt like telling her how stupid she was, but I realize I have to work with her until the boss figures out she's worthless and fires her.
Click to expand...


Except, people did see the plates. You just leave that out because it's inconvenient for your argument. Easier to just refuse to acknowledge their existence than try to explain it away from them.

There are countless civilizations lost to history and you think it's silly that there might be one. There are civilizations we know existed that there is absolutely no achaelogical evidence for. 

Fact is that archaelogy doesnt prove or disprove the Gospel. Anyone trying to claim either one doesn't understand the things of God. The things of God is only proved by the Spirit. That requires personal experiences with the Divine. And I can promise you that man can and does have experiences with the Father and the Son.


----------



## daws101

Book of Mormon Witnesses 
Why were the witnesses only allowed to see the plates with "spiritual eyes"? 
If the plates were real, why would it take faith to see them? (D&C17:2) (How could he have translated without the plates, as his scribes said, if he was doing a literal translation of a physical object?) 
Why does the church now extol the witnesses when Joseph Smith condemned them? 
Why would most of them leave the church? 
Why did Brigham Young say that the 3 witnesses doubted and disbelieved in their experience? "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (JOD 7:164 1859). 
Why were all of the witnesses (except Martin Harris) related to Joseph Smith or David Whitmer? 
Difficult Questions for Mormons to answer




THE WITNESSES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON©
What did they really see?
by Janis Hutchinson



The printed statement of the three witnesses, as contained in the front of the Book of Mormon, states that they saw the plates and the engravings. Another statement of eight witnesses adds that they &#8220;hefted&#8221; the plates.

Many ask, &#8220;Certainly, they wouldn&#8217;t testify to something unless it was true! Or, would they?&#8221;

WHO WROTE THE TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE BOOK OF MORMON?

Where did the printed statement of the three witnesses, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer come from? Did they actually write the testimony themselves? No!

It is believed that Joseph Smith wrote the statement for them to sign. This appears to be evident since, at that time, he knew none of the witnesses had ever seen the plates with their natural eyes, as they themselves later admitted. Yet, when he worded it, he deliberately gave the impression they had.

Stretching or misrepresenting the truth was no problem for Smith, for he had altered other revelations. According to Apostle William E. McLellin, the testimony of the Twelve Apostles contained in the Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants, was a &#8220;base forgery&#8221; and Smith had seriously altered other revelations. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, accused Joseph of the same thing.

WHAT DID THE WITNESSES SEE?

Whatever they saw and by whatever means, it was not in the dimension of physical reality.

Martin Harris admitted he never saw anything with his natural eyes. He stated: &#8220;I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.&#8221;

Further, he admitted the same to the printer who was working on the first edition of the Book of Mormon:

During the printing of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, he (Harris) was in the print shop while the type was being set for the testimony of the three witnesses. The printer, John Gilbert, asked him if he had seen the plates with his naked eye. &#8220;Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, &#8216;No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.&#8221; 

He further told a Palmyra lawyer, who asked him: &#8220;Did you see the plates and the engravings upon them with your bodily eyes?&#8221; He responded:

I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time they were covered with a cloth.

Harris further let the cat out of the bag when he revealed that the other eight witnesses saw no plates either. On April 15, 1838, Stephen Burnett gave the following report:

I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it - loth to give it up - but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave away . . . . I therefore three weeks since in the Stone Chapel gave . . . the reasons why I took the course which I was resolved to do, and renounced the Book of Mormon. . . .

I was followed by W. Parrish, Luke Johnson & John Boynton, all of who concurred with me, (sic) after we were done speaking M. Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them, only as he saw a city through a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of (him) but should have let it passed as it was.

So, in reality, the witnesses saw nothing!


http://www.janishutchinson.com/threewit.html


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can whine bout "bigotry" all day.
> 
> If you told me you believed in Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and I called your beliefs silly, no one would have a question about that, they are silly things that can be easily disproven.
> 
> But you tell me that you believe in Golden Plates no one saw, or a magic Hebrew civilzation in America that left no archeological trace, or Magic Underpants... and when I call that silly, you blurt back "but...but...but... that's my religion! You Bigot! "
> 
> Sorry, taking silly, irrational beliefs and slapping vestments on them and calling them a religion does not  make them less silly.
> 
> It might put people off. Hell, I found myself doing it once in a while. Had to listen to a co-worker go on yesterday about how blood transfusions are against the bible (She's a Jehovah's Witness, a bunch that give the LDS a run in the Religious stupid Department.) Really, really felt like telling her how stupid she was, but I realize I have to work with her until the boss figures out she's worthless and fires her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issues with people calling the the LDS faith silly.  That is perfectly understandable coming from people who have never really been engaged in it.
> 
> What you seem to miss the context on is the rather funny blatherings of that moron Huggy.
> 
> I don't care if you call my faith irrational.  Any faith, including no faith, can be called the same.
> 
> But to blindly spew the kind of invective he does about our so called bigotry......is just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was one and it is silly...what context? the LDS "faith" begins and ends with the delusion's  of it's founder.
> I will say this, the Mormons are no more bigoted then any other faith group...
> the thing to remember is, they have no evidence of any kind to prove the book of Mormon and it's companion texts are NOT fiction.
Click to expand...


All evidence indicates you were never in.  You may have been baptized, but that means little without the rest......

The context that in his rants which are loaded with bigotry....he calls us bigots.

Stope the peyote and pay attention.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issues with people calling the the LDS faith silly.  That is perfectly understandable coming from people who have never really been engaged in it.
> 
> What you seem to miss the context on is the rather funny blatherings of that moron Huggy.
> 
> I don't care if you call my faith irrational.  Any faith, including no faith, can be called the same.
> 
> But to blindly spew the kind of invective he does about our so called bigotry......is just hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> I was one and it is silly...what context? the LDS "faith" begins and ends with the delusion's  of it's founder.
> I will say this, the Mormons are no more bigoted then any other faith group...
> the thing to remember is, they have no evidence of any kind to prove the book of Mormon and it's companion texts are NOT fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All evidence indicates you were never in.  You may have been baptized, but that means little without the rest......
> 
> The context that in his rants which are loaded with bigotry....he calls us bigots.
> 
> Stope the peyote and pay attention.
Click to expand...

you just keep believing that !

since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief. 

"Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
and this: "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.

if by "IN" YOU MEAN BUYING INTO JOE SMITH'S MASTURBATION FANTASY... NO! I was never that gulible even as a child.
 a planet name kolob....baahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was one and it is silly...what context? the LDS "faith" begins and ends with the delusion's  of it's founder.
> I will say this, the Mormons are no more bigoted then any other faith group...
> the thing to remember is, they have no evidence of any kind to prove the book of Mormon and it's companion texts are NOT fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence indicates you were never in.  You may have been baptized, but that means little without the rest......
> 
> The context that in his rants which are loaded with bigotry....he calls us bigots.
> 
> Stope the peyote and pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just keep believing that !
> 
> since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief.
> 
> "Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
> and this "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.
Click to expand...


Yes, yes...you are a real doctrinal warrior.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was one and it is silly...what context? the LDS "faith" begins and ends with the delusion's  of it's founder.
> I will say this, the Mormons are no more bigoted then any other faith group...
> the thing to remember is, they have no evidence of any kind to prove the book of Mormon and it's companion texts are NOT fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence indicates you were never in.  You may have been baptized, but that means little without the rest......
> 
> The context that in his rants which are loaded with bigotry....he calls us bigots.
> 
> Stope the peyote and pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just keep believing that !
> 
> since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief.
> 
> "Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
> and this: "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.
> 
> if by "IN" YOU MEAN BUYING INTO JOE SMITH'S MASTURBATION FANTASY... NO! I was never that gulible even as a child.
> a planet name kolob....baahahahahahahahahahaha!
Click to expand...


See, you really undermine yourself when you say stuff like that. Kolob isn't a planet.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence indicates you were never in.  You may have been baptized, but that means little without the rest......
> 
> The context that in his rants which are loaded with bigotry....he calls us bigots.
> 
> Stope the peyote and pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep believing that !
> 
> since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief.
> 
> "Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
> and this "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes...you are a real doctrinal warrior.
Click to expand...

dodge! where's your evidence!  that's right, you have none!


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence indicates you were never in.  You may have been baptized, but that means little without the rest......
> 
> The context that in his rants which are loaded with bigotry....he calls us bigots.
> 
> Stope the peyote and pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep believing that !
> 
> since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief.
> 
> "Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
> and this: "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.
> 
> if by "IN" YOU MEAN BUYING INTO JOE SMITH'S MASTURBATION FANTASY... NO! I was never that gulible even as a child.
> a planet name kolob....baahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you really undermine yourself when you say stuff like that. Kolob isn't a planet.
Click to expand...

say stuff like what? you really have a problem with directness.
anyway,
 you are the kind of Mormon that thinks kolob is a metaphor ....right ?

The Planet KolobPosted on Dec 15, 2011 | 1 comment

The planet Kolob and the song about it.

Kolob is a star or planet described in Mormon scripture. Reference to Kolob is found in the Book of Abraham, a work published by Latter Day Saint (LDS) prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. According to this work, Kolob is the heavenly body nearest to the throne or residence of God. While the Book of Abraham refers to Kolob as a star,[1] it also refers to planets as stars,[2] and therefore, some LDS commentators consider Kolob to be a planet.[3] Other Latter Day Saints (commonly referred to as Mormons) consider Kolob to be a Christian metaphor.

Kolob has never been identified with any modern astronomical object and is not recognized as an ancient concept by modern Egyptology. Kolob is rarely discussed in modern LDS religious contexts, but it is periodically a topic of discussion in criticism of Mormonism. The idea also appears within LDS culture, and there is a LDS hymn about it. Kolob is also the inspiration for the planet Kobol within the Battlestar Galactica universe, created by Glen A. Larson, a Mormon.[4][5]

By: Jeannie


----------



## sealybobo

Let me explain like my Mormon friend explained it to me.  Jesus dies and so did his apostles.  Somewhere around 2000 years ago they all died off and they did not pass on their moral authority when they did.  Then the dark ages came where corrupt popes rewrote the bible and all the spin offs like presbeterians, lutherans, protestants, catholics, greek orthodox, etc.  

None of us have the authority from God.

But God visited Joseph Smith in America around 1400.  He did give Joseph Smith the authority and that has been passed down and still exists to this day.  So today the Mormon church has actual apostles.  Passed down from 1400.  

But the rest of us are following a false God/Religion.  A cult so to speak.


----------



## sealybobo

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> All evidence indicates you were never in.  You may have been baptized, but that means little without the rest......
> 
> The context that in his rants which are loaded with bigotry....he calls us bigots.
> 
> Stope the peyote and pay attention.
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep believing that !
> 
> since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief.
> 
> "Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
> and this: "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.
> 
> if by "IN" YOU MEAN BUYING INTO JOE SMITH'S MASTURBATION FANTASY... NO! I was never that gulible even as a child.
> a planet name kolob....baahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, you really undermine yourself when you say stuff like that. Kolob isn't a planet.
Click to expand...


Are you wearing your magic underwear?  

I have to admit, you Mormons are really polite people.  Crazy, but nice.


----------



## daws101

sealybobo said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep believing that !
> 
> since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief.
> 
> "Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
> and this: "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.
> 
> if by "IN" YOU MEAN BUYING INTO JOE SMITH'S MASTURBATION FANTASY... NO! I was never that gulible even as a child.
> a planet name kolob....baahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, you really undermine yourself when you say stuff like that. Kolob isn't a planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you wearing your magic underwear?
> 
> I have to admit, you Mormons are really polite people.  Crazy, but nice.
Click to expand...

  the underwear in question is  only magical in the minds of it's wearers ...


----------



## Listening

sealybobo said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you just keep believing that !
> 
> since you have no evidence at all this statement "All evidence indicates you were never in."-l  is bullshit and it proves your need to rationalize your belief.
> 
> "Stope the peyote and Stope the peyote and pay attention" what the fuck is stope, a new deseret mouth wash?
> and this: "and pay attention" ....  might want to take your own advise.
> 
> if by "IN" YOU MEAN BUYING INTO JOE SMITH'S MASTURBATION FANTASY... NO! I was never that gulible even as a child.
> a planet name kolob....baahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, you really undermine yourself when you say stuff like that. Kolob isn't a planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you wearing your magic underwear?
> 
> I have to admit, you Mormons are really polite people.  Crazy, but nice.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with people asking me about what I wear because of my religion.

However, making reference to it as "magic underwear" is offensive.

I don't think of it as "magic".  It has special significance to me that is personal.

I could ask you personal questions that I think you would find offensive.  Think about it.

And what business is it of yours anyway.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, you really undermine yourself when you say stuff like that. Kolob isn't a planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you wearing your magic underwear?
> 
> I have to admit, you Mormons are really polite people.  Crazy, but nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people asking me about what I wear because of my religion.
> 
> However, making reference to it as "magic underwear" is offensive.
> 
> I don't think of it as "magic".  It has special significance to me that is personal.
> 
> I could ask you personal questions that I think you would find offensive.  Think about it.
> 
> And what business is it of yours anyway.
Click to expand...

 there you go dodging again!
what else would you call underwear that has been purported by practicing Mormons  to have healing powers?
fruit of the loom?


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you wearing your magic underwear?
> 
> I have to admit, you Mormons are really polite people.  Crazy, but nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people asking me about what I wear because of my religion.
> 
> However, making reference to it as "magic underwear" is offensive.
> 
> I don't think of it as "magic".  It has special significance to me that is personal.
> 
> I could ask you personal questions that I think you would find offensive.  Think about it.
> 
> And what business is it of yours anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there you go dodging again!
> what else would you call underwear that has been purported by practicing Mormons  to have healing powers?
> fruit of the loom?
Click to expand...


I would again point out that this shows how little you know about the religion.

Healing Powers ?  Don't think I have ever heard that before.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people asking me about what I wear because of my religion.
> 
> However, making reference to it as "magic underwear" is offensive.
> 
> I don't think of it as "magic".  It has special significance to me that is personal.
> 
> I could ask you personal questions that I think you would find offensive.  Think about it.
> 
> And what business is it of yours anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> there you go dodging again!
> what else would you call underwear that has been purported by practicing Mormons  to have healing powers?
> fruit of the loom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would again point out that this shows how little you know about the religion.
> 
> Healing Powers ?  Don't think I have ever heard that before.
Click to expand...

in reality it's just the opposite:Nov 30, 2011 ... Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it," and the ... There are some special colored temple garments that can be worn by .... a belief that an article of clothing or an item has special powers. Hence the faith-promoting stories of garments saving people from accidents, burns, providing healing, etc. 
About Mormonism - Mormon Underwear


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there you go dodging again!
> what else would you call underwear that has been purported by practicing Mormons  to have healing powers?
> fruit of the loom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would again point out that this shows how little you know about the religion.
> 
> Healing Powers ?  Don't think I have ever heard that before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in reality it's just the opposite:Nov 30, 2011 ... Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it," and the ... There are some special colored temple garments that can be worn by .... a belief that an article of clothing or an item has special powers. Hence the faith-promoting stories of garments saving people from accidents, burns, providing healing, etc.
> About Mormonism - Mormon Underwear
Click to expand...


You are not going to find that anywhere in our doctrine that I have ever seen.

What you cited was the "faith promoting stories" of others.  That does not translate into a doctrine of healing underwear.

And there are a couple of other mis-statements in this article too.

Of course, you wouldn't know.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would again point out that this shows how little you know about the religion.
> 
> Healing Powers ?  Don't think I have ever heard that before.
> 
> 
> 
> in reality it's just the opposite:Nov 30, 2011 ... Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it," and the ... There are some special colored temple garments that can be worn by .... a belief that an article of clothing or an item has special powers. Hence the faith-promoting stories of garments saving people from accidents, burns, providing healing, etc.
> About Mormonism - Mormon Underwear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not going to find that anywhere in our doctrine that I have ever seen.
> 
> What you cited was the "faith promoting stories" of others.  That does not translate into a doctrine of healing underwear.
> 
> And there are a couple of other mis-statements in this article too.
> 
> Of course, you wouldn't know.
Click to expand...

the key phrases here is "that I have ever seen." and "Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it"
which means you've never look outside your own faith...like most christians you only read the parts of the bible and the book of mormon that please you and forget the rest..
what I cited was stories told to others by mormons... I heard  that same shit when I was a deacon passing sacrament on fast and testimony Sundays.
it's amusing when you make asinine assumptions about what I know or don't know.
matter of  Fact I don't make those Assumptions about you..but then again you fit the stereotype like a glove ..


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people asking me about what I wear because of my religion.
> 
> However, making reference to it as "magic underwear" is offensive.
> 
> I don't think of it as "magic".  It has special significance to me that is personal.
> 
> I could ask you personal questions that I think you would find offensive.  Think about it.
> 
> And what business is it of yours anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> there you go dodging again!
> what else would you call underwear that has been purported by practicing Mormons  to have healing powers?
> fruit of the loom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would again point out that this shows how little you know about the religion.
> 
> Healing Powers ?  Don't think I have ever heard that before.
Click to expand...


Nor have I


----------



## Listening

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in reality it's just the opposite:Nov 30, 2011 ... Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it," and the ... There are some special colored temple garments that can be worn by .... a belief that an article of clothing or an item has special powers. Hence the faith-promoting stories of garments saving people from accidents, burns, providing healing, etc.
> About Mormonism - Mormon Underwear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not going to find that anywhere in our doctrine that I have ever seen.
> 
> What you cited was the "faith promoting stories" of others.  That does not translate into a doctrine of healing underwear.
> 
> And there are a couple of other mis-statements in this article too.
> 
> Of course, you wouldn't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the key phrases here is "that I have ever seen." and "Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it"
> which means you've never look outside your own faith...like most christians you only read the parts of the bible and the book of mormon that please you and forget the rest..
> what I cited was stories told to others by mormons... I heard  that same shit when I was a deacon passing sacrament on fast and testimony Sundays.
> it's amusing when you make asinine assumptions about what I know or don't know.
> matter of  Fact I don't make those Assumptions about you..but then again you fit the stereotype like a glove ..
Click to expand...


If this is somehow supposed to be an argument, it sucks.  I am a convert.  I've been on the other side.

What you cited were stories, not doctrine.  If you can show where it is doctrinal, I'll listen.  You heard what when you were a deacon ?

You've clearly shown you don't know much.

You make plenty of assumptions.  And you misread stuff too.

Get it straight.


----------



## Listening

Avatar4321 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there you go dodging again!
> what else would you call underwear that has been purported by practicing Mormons  to have healing powers?
> fruit of the loom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would again point out that this shows how little you know about the religion.
> 
> Healing Powers ?  Don't think I have ever heard that before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor have I
Click to expand...


Kinda like the story a woman told me in all earnestness about how her sister was kidnapped and held in the Salt Lake Temple.  She was about to be sacraficed but she jumped off the walls into the Great Salt Lake and swam to safety.  

Then I told her I was LDS.  I could see the blood drain from her face.


----------



## Mr. Peepers

You forgot "cult", because that is exactly what Mormonism is.  I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven", and they absolutely want to establish a theocracy here.  No thanks.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/0385509510]Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books[/ame]

Why don't you enlighten the peeps here as to how they sanctify welfare fraud.  How many billions a year is that?


----------



## Katiegrrl0

Mormons are people who have a faith. What other truth is required. Will Romney be judged by his political prowess or by his religion. It certainly should be his political ability.


----------



## daws101

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Mormons are people who have a faith. What other truth is required. Will Romney be judged by his political prowess or by his religion. It certainly should be his political ability.


as this election cycle has shown lots of Americans will judge him as they do everyone else, by their religion it's not right or fair but many of faith have become fanatics ..


----------



## Listening

Mr. Peepers said:


> You forgot "cult", because that is exactly what Mormonism is.  I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven", and they absolutely want to establish a theocracy here.  No thanks.
> 
> Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books
> 
> Why don't you enlighten the peeps here as to how they sanctify welfare fraud.  How many billions a year is that?



Gee....for 30 years...I have only been told by the church is that it will stay out of the politics, but that people (in the church) are encouraged to get involved because government and liberty is very important !!

In fact, the Book Of Mormon speaks a great deal about government (and in several instances, religious leaders refused to get involved in public situations).

30 Years ?????

Where have I been ?


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not going to find that anywhere in our doctrine that I have ever seen.
> 
> What you cited was the "faith promoting stories" of others.  That does not translate into a doctrine of healing underwear.
> 
> And there are a couple of other mis-statements in this article too.
> 
> Of course, you wouldn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> the key phrases here is "that I have ever seen." and "Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it"
> which means you've never look outside your own faith...like most christians you only read the parts of the bible and the book of mormon that please you and forget the rest..
> what I cited was stories told to others by mormons... I heard  that same shit when I was a deacon passing sacrament on fast and testimony Sundays.
> it's amusing when you make asinine assumptions about what I know or don't know.
> matter of  Fact I don't make those Assumptions about you..but then again you fit the stereotype like a glove ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this is somehow supposed to be an argument, it sucks.  I am a convert.  I've been on the other side.
> 
> What you cited were stories, not doctrine.  If you can show where it is doctrinal, I'll listen.  You heard what when you were a deacon ?
> 
> You've clearly shown you don't know much.
> 
> You make plenty of assumptions.  And you misread stuff too.
> 
> Get it straight.
Click to expand...

spin much?
doctrine is just  pov  it's no more true then the stories that you deny. simply because they are not in your narrow users guide..
to put it simply " There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."{ hamlet act one scene five}

"You heard what when you were a deacon ?"-l

"what I cited was stories told to others by mormons... I heard  that same shit when I was a deacon passing sacrament on fast and testimony Sundays."

 seems clear as crystal to me,but since you have comprehension and retention difficulties.
We were discussing the alledge healing powers of garments..


----------



## daws101

Mr. Peepers said:


> You forgot "cult", because that is exactly what Mormonism is.  I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven", and they absolutely want to establish a theocracy here.  No thanks.
> 
> Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books
> 
> Why don't you enlighten the peeps here as to how they sanctify welfare fraud.  How many billions a year is that?


Early last month I wrote an article called Rising Christian Imperialism Fueled by Dominion Theology. The article is mainly about the danger of Far Right Christian dominionists gaining control after the Obama failure brings about a Far Right backlash in America.

Little did I know when I wrote it that there is already a plan in place to establish a world theocracy from America. It is part of Mormon prophetic doctrine. Now some might say that this is just some pipe dream of a cult. However, if you read this article you might not be so complacent. Mormons have been working toward that end for 160 years and they have infiltrated high levels of government especially top secret intelligence positions. One of their own Bishops, Mitt Romney, is still one of the top contenders for President of the United States in 2012.

Is it just a coincidence that Christian Dominionism is rising within the Far Right Tea Party that is being fueled at least in part by the rhetoric of a Mormon named Glen Beck and the membership of the Mormon Church? Is it just a coincidence that the main contenders for President or Vice President in 2012 are still Mormon Bishop Mitt Romney and Christian Dominionist Sarah Palin?

Mormon plan to establish a world theocracy from America.


----------



## HUGGY

Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?


----------



## Listening

HUGGY said:


> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?



Nothing he would say would satisfy you.

Hey, I know you are interested.  They dedicated the Kansas City temple today.

The Spirit of God Like A Fire Is Burning !!!


----------



## HUGGY

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing he would say would satisfy you.
> 
> Hey, I know you are interested.  They dedicated the Kansas City temple today.
> 
> The Spirit of God Like A Fire Is Burning !!!
Click to expand...


I agree.  RoMoMoney is going down in flames and spending much of the morman war chest in the proccess.  It is very satisfying.


----------



## daws101

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing he would say would satisfy you.
> 
> Hey, I know you are interested.  They dedicated the Kansas City temple today.
> 
> The Spirit of God Like A Fire Is Burning !!!
Click to expand...

your point? other then it being a property asset...


----------



## Avatar4321

Mr. Peepers said:


> You forgot "cult", because that is exactly what Mormonism is.  I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven", and they absolutely want to establish a theocracy here.  No thanks.
> 
> Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books
> 
> Why don't you enlighten the peeps here as to how they sanctify welfare fraud.  How many billions a year is that?



Read the Book. Not impressed. It's as accurate as a drunk shooting darts.

How does upholding the Constitution establish a theocracy? How is encouraging self sufficiency and honesty equate to welfare fraud?


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot "cult", because that is exactly what Mormonism is.  I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven", and they absolutely want to establish a theocracy here.  No thanks.
> 
> Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books
> 
> Why don't you enlighten the peeps here as to how they sanctify welfare fraud.  How many billions a year is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee....for 30 years...I have only been told by the church is that it will stay out of the politics, but that people (in the church) are encouraged to get involved because government and liberty is very important !!
> 
> In fact, the Book Of Mormon speaks a great deal about government (and in several instances, religious leaders refused to get involved in public situations).
> 
> 30 Years ?????
> 
> Where have I been ?
Click to expand...


Reading the Book of Mormon. Something Peepers hasnt done and probably wont do.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot "cult", because that is exactly what Mormonism is.  I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven", and they absolutely want to establish a theocracy here.  No thanks.
> 
> Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books
> 
> Why don't you enlighten the peeps here as to how they sanctify welfare fraud.  How many billions a year is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee....for 30 years...I have only been told by the church is that it will stay out of the politics, but that people (in the church) are encouraged to get involved because government and liberty is very important !!
> 
> In fact, the Book Of Mormon speaks a great deal about government (and in several instances, religious leaders refused to get involved in public situations).
> 
> 30 Years ?????
> 
> Where have I been ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading the Book of Mormon. Something Peepers hasnt done and probably wont do.
Click to expand...

have you read the book? or are you just dismissing it out of hand?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?



Im sure he would if you got into a theological discussion with him. But since he's running for political office he probably isnt going to focus on theology rather than political policies.


----------



## Avatar4321

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing he would say would satisfy you.
> 
> Hey, I know you are interested.  They dedicated the Kansas City temple today.
> 
> The Spirit of God Like A Fire Is Burning !!!
Click to expand...


Did they? How the heck did I miss this?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing he would say would satisfy you.
> 
> Hey, I know you are interested.  They dedicated the Kansas City temple today.
> 
> The Spirit of God Like A Fire Is Burning !!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  RoMoMoney is going down in flames and spending much of the morman war chest in the proccess.  It is very satisfying.
Click to expand...


Mormon war chess?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing he would say would satisfy you.
> 
> Hey, I know you are interested.  They dedicated the Kansas City temple today.
> 
> The Spirit of God Like A Fire Is Burning !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  RoMoMoney is going down in flames and spending much of the morman war chest in the proccess.  It is very satisfying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mormon war chess?
Click to expand...

 mattel toys makes it!


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee....for 30 years...I have only been told by the church is that it will stay out of the politics, but that people (in the church) are encouraged to get involved because government and liberty is very important !!
> 
> In fact, the Book Of Mormon speaks a great deal about government (and in several instances, religious leaders refused to get involved in public situations).
> 
> 30 Years ?????
> 
> Where have I been ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the Book of Mormon. Something Peepers hasnt done and probably wont do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> have you read the book? or are you just dismissing it out of hand?
Click to expand...


Which book?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading the Book of Mormon. Something Peepers hasnt done and probably wont do.
> 
> 
> 
> have you read the book? or are you just dismissing it out of hand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which book?
Click to expand...

 not the joe smith manifesto


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> have you read the book? or are you just dismissing it out of hand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not the joe smith manifesto
Click to expand...


That narrows it down since there is no "Joe smith manifesto"


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which book?
> 
> 
> 
> not the joe smith manifesto
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That narrows it down since there is no "Joe smith manifesto"
Click to expand...

how bout the totally imaginary and silly writing of Joseph smith


----------



## Skeptik

HUGGY said:


> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?



I don't think he's running for national pastor.  Why would he discuss religion at all?  

We do still have a separation of church and state, after all.


----------



## Listening

Avatar4321 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why won't Mittens tell *THE TRUTH ABOUT MORMANS*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing he would say would satisfy you.
> 
> Hey, I know you are interested.  They dedicated the Kansas City temple today.
> 
> The Spirit of God Like A Fire Is Burning !!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they? How the heck did I miss this?
Click to expand...


Don't know.....but it's 45 minutes now instead of 3 hours to Winter Quarters or 4 hours to St. Louis.

Things keep moving in spite of the haters.

90,000 visits during the open house !!!


----------



## HUGGY

All mormans are sneaky.  Take christians...they go on and on about every friggin word in the bible.  They aren't scaredy cats like mormans.  The muslims quote the koran to nauseum...The mormans???...Nix to that idea...it's all hush hush.  Why don't you morman freaks stand up loud and proud and tell the world about morman stuff?  Maybe everybody wouldn't think you were cult freaks if ya didn't act like you are doing something wrong all of the time.  The truth about mormans??...youzzsome wack mofos.


----------



## Skeptik

HUGGY said:


> All mormans are sneaky.  Take christians...they go on and on about every friggin word in the bible.  They aren't scaredy cats like mormans.  The muslims quote the koran to nauseum...The mormans???...Nix to that idea...it's all hush hush.  Why don't you morman freaks stand up loud and proud and tell the world about morman stuff?  Maybe everybody wouldn't think you were cult freaks if ya didn't act like you are doing something wrong all of the time.  The truth about mormans??...youzzsome wack mofos.



Yes, it is quite disturbing how they hide the Book of Mormon and won't let anyone else read it.

(Yes, of course it was sarcasm.  Surely, no one had to wonder, did they?)


----------



## HUGGY

Skeptik said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> All mormans are sneaky.  Take christians...they go on and on about every friggin word in the bible.  They aren't scaredy cats like mormans.  The muslims quote the koran to nauseum...The mormans???...Nix to that idea...it's all hush hush.  Why don't you morman freaks stand up loud and proud and tell the world about morman stuff?  Maybe everybody wouldn't think you were cult freaks if ya didn't act like you are doing something wrong all of the time.  The truth about mormans??...youzzsome wack mofos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is quite disturbing how they hide the Book of Mormon and won't let anyone else read it.
> 
> (Yes, of course it was sarcasm.  Surely, no one had to wonder, did they?)
Click to expand...


It isn't just about the "Book of Mormans".  These freaks have a whole long list of whack shit they don't talk about in public...  Is "magic underwear" covered in the Book of Morman?  That whole planet thingy...other worlds..  Why they are so bent and financed against gays...  How they aquired much of thier finacial resources..  Stealing Hughes fortune..  Ripping off the native Americans..  Banking for the Mafia..  Ya these are some real upstanding mofos.  Not to mention destroying much of the native belief systems and ancient societies and traditions on the planet in the name of "missions".  Piss on Mormans.

(Not sarcastic)


----------



## Skeptik

HUGGY said:


> It isn't just about the "Book of Mormans".  These freaks have a whole long list of whack shit they don't talk about in public...  Is "magic underwear" covered in the Book of Morman?



There is nothing 'magic" about their underwear. It has religious symbolism, much like wearing a crucifix or a yamulka. 



HUGGY said:


> That whole planet thingy...other worlds..



Do you not believe that there could be other worlds?  Just think how many other suns there are, and we're beginning to discover that some of them at least have planets. 



HUGGY said:


> Why they are so bent and financed against gays...



Same reason other Christian fundamentalist types are against it.  They consider it a sin. 




HUGGY said:


> How they aquired much of thier finacial resources..  Stealing Hughes fortune..  Ripping off the native Americans..  Banking for the Mafia..  Ya these are some real upstanding mofos.  Not to mention destroying much of the native belief systems and ancient societies and traditions on the planet in the name of "missions".  Piss on Mormans.
> 
> (Not sarcastic)



Now, that's just nonsense.


----------



## Listening

Skeptik said:


> Now, that's just nonsense.



That would be HUGGY !


----------



## Katzndogz

Why ever in the world would Mormons want to have, or see the need to have, some sort of public discussion about their religious beliefs.  They doh't have to justify their beliefs any more than a Sikh has to justify wearing a kirpan under their clothing.


----------



## daws101

katzndogz said:


> why ever in the world would mormons want to have, or see the need to have, some sort of public discussion about their religious beliefs.  They doh't have to justify their beliefs any more than a sikh has to justify wearing a kirpan under their clothing.


they do have that right.


----------



## HUGGY

Skeptik said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just about the "Book of Mormans".  These freaks have a whole long list of whack shit they don't talk about in public...  Is "magic underwear" covered in the Book of Morman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing 'magic" about their underwear. It has religious symbolism, much like wearing a crucifix or a yamulka.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> That whole planet thingy...other worlds..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not believe that there could be other worlds?  Just think how many other suns there are, and we're beginning to discover that some of them at least have planets.
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why they are so bent and financed against gays...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Same reason other Christian fundamentalist types are against it.  They consider it a sin.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How they aquired much of thier finacial resources..  Stealing Hughes fortune..  Ripping off the native Americans..  Banking for the Mafia..  Ya these are some real upstanding mofos.  Not to mention destroying much of the native belief systems and ancient societies and traditions on the planet in the name of "missions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piss on Mormans.
> 
> (Not sarcastic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, that's just nonsense.
Click to expand...


No.  It is not nonsense.  It is fact.  I see you are just as casual and hypocritical about what you disbelieve as you are in what you believe.

Hughes was one of my heros when I was growing up.  Hughes went mad and the mormans kept him secluded, fed him a bunch of nonsense and stole his money that was rightfully his heirs.  I was highly offended about it and I will never forget it.

Piss on Mormans.

"Houston, Texas, USA --- Houston:The body of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes is rushed to a waiting hearse at Methodist Hospital after an autopsy revealed that Hughes had died of kidney failure. Hughes was buried in the family plot at Glenwood Cemetery in Houston. Later examination of autopsy reports indicate he died of either malnutrition, dehydration, a fatal dose of codeine or a combination of all three, not kidney failure. 4/6/1976 

Sadly in the final years of his life some of the workers Hughes surrounded himself with for protection had perhaps become his greatest threat. The 'palace guard,' taking orders from Bill Gay, took advantage of their role as gatekeepers of one of the richest men in America. They used his declined mental and physical health and the fact that they were his only connection to the outside world for financial gain. Though he attempted rehabilitation and attempted to start flying again with the help of Jack Real, the aides kept him doped up, secluded and bed ridden, moving from the Bahamas to Mexico under the false pretense that his supply of codeine had dried up. One of Howard's doctors even used his drug supply to solicit a life contract, and appointment to the HHMI board of directors. When informed that Hughes had taken a turn for the worse this doctor, the head of Howard's staff doctors sent word that he was going to a party, and would come in a few days. Finally as the gravity of the situation set in a local doctor in Mexico was summoned. He was shocked by the condition of richest man in the world, who at 6'4 tall weighed only 90lbs. Howard Hughes, covered in sores and needle marks was comatose and starving to death. The doctor told the aides that Hughes needed immediate medical attention. Had they taken action sooner, he may have recovered. Due to the concentration of Codeine in his blood, it is believed that someone injected Hughes with a large amount of the drug six to eight hours before he died. After the aides finished shredding possibly incriminating files, he was put on a Learjet to Houston. He died in the air. Though the doctor in Mexico requested criminal investigations, only a couple of these people have been prosecuted for the role they played in the death of Howard Hughes."

last pictures of howard hughes | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Skeptik

HUGGY said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't just about the "Book of Mormans".  These freaks have a whole long list of whack shit they don't talk about in public...  Is "magic underwear" covered in the Book of Morman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing 'magic" about their underwear. It has religious symbolism, much like wearing a crucifix or a yamulka.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not believe that there could be other worlds?  Just think how many other suns there are, and we're beginning to discover that some of them at least have planets.
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason other Christian fundamentalist types are against it.  They consider it a sin.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How they aquired much of thier finacial resources..  Stealing Hughes fortune..  Ripping off the native Americans..  Banking for the Mafia..  Ya these are some real upstanding mofos.  Not to mention destroying much of the native belief systems and ancient societies and traditions on the planet in the name of "missions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piss on Mormans.
> 
> (Not sarcastic)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, that's just nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It is not nonsense.  It is fact.  I see you are just as casual and hypocritical about what you disbelieve as you are in what you believe.
> 
> Hughes was one of my heros when I was growing up.  Hughes went mad and the mormans kept him secluded, fed him a bunch of nonsense and stole his money that was rightfully his heirs.  I was highly offended about it and I will never forget it.
> 
> Piss on Mormans.
> 
> "Houston, Texas, USA --- Houston:The body of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes is rushed to a waiting hearse at Methodist Hospital after an autopsy revealed that Hughes had died of kidney failure. Hughes was buried in the family plot at Glenwood Cemetery in Houston. Later examination of autopsy reports indicate he died of either malnutrition, dehydration, a fatal dose of codeine or a combination of all three, not kidney failure. 4/6/1976
> 
> Sadly in the final years of his life some of the workers Hughes surrounded himself with for protection had perhaps become his greatest threat. The 'palace guard,' taking orders from Bill Gay, took advantage of their role as gatekeepers of one of the richest men in America. They used his declined mental and physical health and the fact that they were his only connection to the outside world for financial gain. Though he attempted rehabilitation and attempted to start flying again with the help of Jack Real, the aides kept him doped up, secluded and bed ridden, moving from the Bahamas to Mexico under the false pretense that his supply of codeine had dried up. One of Howard's doctors even used his drug supply to solicit a life contract, and appointment to the HHMI board of directors. When informed that Hughes had taken a turn for the worse this doctor, the head of Howard's staff doctors sent word that he was going to a party, and would come in a few days. Finally as the gravity of the situation set in a local doctor in Mexico was summoned. He was shocked by the condition of richest man in the world, who at 6'4 tall weighed only 90lbs. Howard Hughes, covered in sores and needle marks was comatose and starving to death. The doctor told the aides that Hughes needed immediate medical attention. Had they taken action sooner, he may have recovered. Due to the concentration of Codeine in his blood, it is believed that someone injected Hughes with a large amount of the drug six to eight hours before he died. After the aides finished shredding possibly incriminating files, he was put on a Learjet to Houston. He died in the air. Though the doctor in Mexico requested criminal investigations, only a couple of these people have been prosecuted for the role they played in the death of Howard Hughes."
> 
> last pictures of howard hughes | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Click to expand...


and that, in your parallel universe, proves that the Mormon church stole Hughes fortune?  

I'm sure you must have a similar proof of them "ripping off the native Americans, Banking for the Mafia, destroying much of the native belief systems and ancient societies and traditions on the planet in the name of "missions"."


----------



## HUGGY

Skeptik said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing 'magic" about their underwear. It has religious symbolism, much like wearing a crucifix or a yamulka.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not believe that there could be other worlds?  Just think how many other suns there are, and we're beginning to discover that some of them at least have planets.
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason other Christian fundamentalist types are against it.  They consider it a sin.
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Now, that's just nonsense.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> No.  It is not nonsense.  It is fact.  I see you are just as casual and hypocritical about what you disbelieve as you are in what you believe.
> 
> Hughes was one of my heros when I was growing up.  Hughes went mad and the mormans kept him secluded, fed him a bunch of nonsense and stole his money that was rightfully his heirs.  I was highly offended about it and I will never forget it.
> 
> Piss on Mormans.
> 
> "Houston, Texas, USA --- Houston:The body of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes is rushed to a waiting hearse at Methodist Hospital after an autopsy revealed that Hughes had died of kidney failure. Hughes was buried in the family plot at Glenwood Cemetery in Houston. Later examination of autopsy reports indicate he died of either malnutrition, dehydration, a fatal dose of codeine or a combination of all three, not kidney failure. 4/6/1976
> 
> Sadly in the final years of his life some of the workers Hughes surrounded himself with for protection had perhaps become his greatest threat. The 'palace guard,' taking orders from Bill Gay, took advantage of their role as gatekeepers of one of the richest men in America. They used his declined mental and physical health and the fact that they were his only connection to the outside world for financial gain. Though he attempted rehabilitation and attempted to start flying again with the help of Jack Real, the aides kept him doped up, secluded and bed ridden, moving from the Bahamas to Mexico under the false pretense that his supply of codeine had dried up. One of Howard's doctors even used his drug supply to solicit a life contract, and appointment to the HHMI board of directors. When informed that Hughes had taken a turn for the worse this doctor, the head of Howard's staff doctors sent word that he was going to a party, and would come in a few days. Finally as the gravity of the situation set in a local doctor in Mexico was summoned. He was shocked by the condition of richest man in the world, who at 6'4 tall weighed only 90lbs. Howard Hughes, covered in sores and needle marks was comatose and starving to death. The doctor told the aides that Hughes needed immediate medical attention. Had they taken action sooner, he may have recovered. Due to the concentration of Codeine in his blood, it is believed that someone injected Hughes with a large amount of the drug six to eight hours before he died. After the aides finished shredding possibly incriminating files, he was put on a Learjet to Houston. He died in the air. Though the doctor in Mexico requested criminal investigations, only a couple of these people have been prosecuted for the role they played in the death of Howard Hughes."
> 
> last pictures of howard hughes | Flickr - Photo Sharing!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> and that, in your parallel universe, proves that the Mormon church stole Hughes fortune?
> 
> I'm sure you must have a similar proof of them "ripping off the native Americans, Banking for the Mafia, destroying much of the native belief systems and ancient societies and traditions on the planet in the name of "missions"."*
Click to expand...

*

This IS The Truth About Mormans thread isn't it?  I don't care what universe you subscribe to.  They did it.  Hughes stock was worth in excess of 7 billion when it was converted to the Hughes medical foundation under thecare of the Mormans..Hughes claimed "he could trust them".  Under Bain Capital it was last reported at a worth of 18 million.  I don't give a rat shit what you call it.  I call it stealing.*


----------



## Skeptik

HUGGY said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  It is not nonsense.  It is fact.  I see you are just as casual and hypocritical about what you disbelieve as you are in what you believe.
> 
> Hughes was one of my heros when I was growing up.  Hughes went mad and the mormans kept him secluded, fed him a bunch of nonsense and stole his money that was rightfully his heirs.  I was highly offended about it and I will never forget it.
> 
> Piss on Mormans.
> 
> "Houston, Texas, USA --- Houston:The body of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes is rushed to a waiting hearse at Methodist Hospital after an autopsy revealed that Hughes had died of kidney failure. Hughes was buried in the family plot at Glenwood Cemetery in Houston. Later examination of autopsy reports indicate he died of either malnutrition, dehydration, a fatal dose of codeine or a combination of all three, not kidney failure. 4/6/1976
> 
> Sadly in the final years of his life some of the workers Hughes surrounded himself with for protection had perhaps become his greatest threat. The 'palace guard,' taking orders from Bill Gay, took advantage of their role as gatekeepers of one of the richest men in America. They used his declined mental and physical health and the fact that they were his only connection to the outside world for financial gain. Though he attempted rehabilitation and attempted to start flying again with the help of Jack Real, the aides kept him doped up, secluded and bed ridden, moving from the Bahamas to Mexico under the false pretense that his supply of codeine had dried up. One of Howard's doctors even used his drug supply to solicit a life contract, and appointment to the HHMI board of directors. When informed that Hughes had taken a turn for the worse this doctor, the head of Howard's staff doctors sent word that he was going to a party, and would come in a few days. Finally as the gravity of the situation set in a local doctor in Mexico was summoned. He was shocked by the condition of richest man in the world, who at 6'4 tall weighed only 90lbs. Howard Hughes, covered in sores and needle marks was comatose and starving to death. The doctor told the aides that Hughes needed immediate medical attention. Had they taken action sooner, he may have recovered. Due to the concentration of Codeine in his blood, it is believed that someone injected Hughes with a large amount of the drug six to eight hours before he died. After the aides finished shredding possibly incriminating files, he was put on a Learjet to Houston. He died in the air. Though the doctor in Mexico requested criminal investigations, only a couple of these people have been prosecuted for the role they played in the death of Howard Hughes."
> 
> last pictures of howard hughes | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that, in your parallel universe, proves that the Mormon church stole Hughes fortune?
> 
> I'm sure you must have a similar proof of them "ripping off the native Americans, Banking for the Mafia, destroying much of the native belief systems and ancient societies and traditions on the planet in the name of "missions"."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This *IS* The Truth About Mormans thread isn't it?  I don't care what universe you subscribe to.  They did it.  Hughes stock was worth in excess of 7 billion when it was converted to the Hughes medical foundation under thecare of the Mormans..Hughes claimed "he could trust them".  Under Bain Capital it was last reported at a worth of 18 million.  I don't give a rat shit what you call it.  I call it stealing.
Click to expand...


I don't care if you call it all of the seven deadly sins.  You haven't shown that the Mormons stole the Hughes fortune.  

You've made several statements. Now, let's see if you can back them up, or if you're just blowing hot air.


----------



## Listening

Skeptik said:


> I don't care if you call it all of the seven deadly sins.  You haven't shown that the Mormons stole the Hughes fortune.
> 
> *You've made several statements. Now, let's see if you can back them up, or if you're just blowing hot air*.



That would be Huggy.


----------



## Skeptik

Listening said:


> Skeptik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if you call it all of the seven deadly sins.  You haven't shown that the Mormons stole the Hughes fortune.
> 
> *You've made several statements. Now, let's see if you can back them up, or if you're just blowing hot air*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be Huggy.
Click to expand...


So, he's known for making outrageous statements that he can't back up?  OK, Huggy, your turn to prove yourself.

Right now, I'm inclined to believe that Listening is right.


----------



## daws101

Newsvine - Official Mormon Bookstore Selling Native American Figurine With Racist Descriptions


Is The Mormon Church stuck with an embarrassing book it cannot historically support? 
May 16, 2002 
By Rick Ross 
Mormons grow up with the belief that Native Americans are somehow related to a lost tribe from Israel. That tribe, they are told, came across the ocean about 600 B.C. to America, led by an otherwise unknown Jewish prophet named "Lehi." 

To a Mormon this story is history, but to historians it is simply a fiction, concocted by Joseph Smith within his "Book of Mormon." The complete lack of any objective archaeological or historical proof to support such a story is explained away by Mormon apologists to the faithful. Mormons appear to believe that faith, makes fiction fact. But archaeologists, linguists and genetic experts, outside the subculture of Mormonism, have known for some time that Native Americans actually originated from Asia and not Israel. 

Science and faith have increasingly collided as the Mormon religion continues on from its early beginnings. Confronted by historical evidence that repeatedly disproves their holy book, Mormons have long hoped for some artifact or research that would support their faith. Some felt that day might have indeed come through research at The Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young University in Provo, where genetic tests were being done during 2000. 

Mormon doctrine claims that Lehi's children eventually became two warring factions, which included the good, white Nephites and the bad, brown Lamanites. The Lamanites, eventually killed all the Nephites by 500 A.D. But the bad, brown Laminates continued to live on and are now called Native Americans. 

The Book of Mormon originally stated that when Lamanites converted they would then become "white and delightsome." In 1981 the church decided to replace the word "white" with "pure." It has been said that such Mormon beliefs reflect racism. And though every faithful male Mormon may enter its priesthood, blacks were excluded until 1978. Based upon such stories about the Lamanites, modern Mormon missionaries today often feel called to proselytize amongst aboriginal cultures in South America and the Pacific Islands. 

Is The Mormon Church stuck with an embarrassing book it cannot historically support?



Mormons and Mitochondrial DNA
by Chad Ressler

In August 2004 Simon Southerton released a book entitled Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church.1  Southerton concludes from studies of mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans that the Mormon claim of their descent from Israeli immigrants is unsupported by DNA evidence.  Wading through the scientific claims can be a daunting task for anyone not having specialized knowledge of the field.  The basic concept though is that the mitochondrial DNA taken from a group of surviving Native Americans demonstrates that they were descended from Asians and not the ten lost tribes of Israel as the Book of Mormon claims.2  So close is the connection that surviving Native American connection to Asiatic origin is close to 99%.3

Of course, these findings are devastating for the book of Mormon unless one decides to take a position of intellectual dishonesty which, oddly enough, is what the Mormon Church has done.  While there have been some detailed technical articles written by Mormon apologists they can be very difficult to read unless one has a good understanding of various fields in biology.  This is what Mormon apologists are counting on; that Mormon lay people will simply see there is a rebuttal, superficially skim through it, and be assured that their feelings are still correct.  Though the majority of us may not be able to understand all the arguments, I think it is plausible to conclude that this book does some serious damage to the veracity of the Book of Mormon.

The research by Southerton screams for an answer to the question: If the so-called "Lamanites" (Native Americans) were spawned from an escaped tribe of Israelites, why does their DNA show a 98.6% Asian connection and 0% Middle Eastern?4  The answer according to Southerton is,  It's all mythology. Historical fiction.5

A very telling response from LDS author John Butler says:

A spiritual witness is the only way to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  Although DNA studies have made links between Native Americans and Asians, these studies in no way invalidate the Book of Mormon despite the loud voices of detractors.6

Notice what Butler said.  Although the evidence appears to disprove what so called prophet Joseph Smith wrote, you should ignore the evidence and simply trust your feelings.  Joseph Smith claimed that the Israelites found the New World uninhabited when they arrived, yet the evidence says otherwise.  Mormons claim to be Christians, but Christianity is not rooted in blind faith apart from evidence.  The Bible is clearly historical being grounded in real people who lived in real places which archaeology has time and again confirmed.  The Christian need not refer to his or her feelings as their primary epistemic justification for faith even in the face of contrary evidence.  The truth of Gods Word has stood the test of time, but Joseph Smiths word, and his reputation as a prophet, seems to be discredited.


Mormons and Mitochondrial DNA|Mormon claims of Native Americans Unsupported | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


----------



## HUGGY

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWiYE1wwUZs]Mormon Church Breaks the Law to Fund Mitt Romney - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> Mormon Church Breaks the Law to Fund Mitt Romney - YouTube


not godz law!


----------



## froggy

Mormans are still coning people out of their money just like Joesph Smith did when he started that cult, see what it has done for Romney.


----------



## HUGGY

*WHAT ???????????*

Did you really think I was gonna let this gem of a thread stay buried??????


----------



## Gadawg73

froggy said:


> Mormans are still coning people out of their money just like Joesph Smith did when he started that cult, see what it has done for Romney.



How much did he con from you?
*SUCKER*


----------



## Zoom

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.


1978.  Really?


----------



## HUGGY

Zoom said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 1978.  Really?
Click to expand...


TS.... ?????

Was starting this thread in any way related to you getting your own planet?


----------



## HUGGY

HUGGY said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 1978.  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TS.... ?????
> 
> Was starting this thread in any way related to you getting your own planet?
Click to expand...


Will you be populating your planet with black folks you met in South Africa?


----------



## ima

Hey Truthspeaker, isn't facial hair frowned upon in the mormon church?


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> Hey Truthspeaker, isn't facial hair frowned upon in the mormon church?


it was when I was a member in the late 60's and early 70's ,
in my "ward" they wanted all the young men to wear their hair short so as not to emulate  the evil hippie movement...


----------



## NeoTemplar

I have a question but its more political in origin then religous, Christians own up to the Crusades and Muslims sometimes admit to Jihad but why is it that mormons never own up the things they have done?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Mormans are still coning people out of their money just like Joesph Smith did when he started that cult, see what it has done for Romney.



How has Romney conned anyone out of money?


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> *WHAT ???????????*
> 
> Did you really think I was gonna let this gem of a thread stay buried??????



Yeah. figured youd prefer your list thread to remain on top.


----------



## Avatar4321

NeoTemplar said:


> I have a question but its more political in origin then religous, Christians own up to the Crusades and Muslims sometimes admit to Jihad but why is it that mormons never own up the things they have done?



What exactly do you think Mormons have to own up to?


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormans are still coning people out of their money just like Joesph Smith did when he started that cult, see what it has done for Romney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How has Romney conned anyone out of money?
Click to expand...


Aside from pretending to have black hair?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ima said:


> Hey Truthspeaker, isn't facial hair frowned upon in the mormon church?



Brigham Young had one of those silly beard with no mustache things going, so it would surprise me if that were the case.


----------



## ima

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Truthspeaker, isn't facial hair frowned upon in the mormon church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brigham Young had one of those silly beard with no mustache things going, so it would surprise me if that were the case.
Click to expand...


The look of pure evil!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avatar4321 said:


> What exactly do you think Mormons have to own up to?



The Mountain Meadows Massacre to start.


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think Mormons have to own up to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mountain Meadows Massacre to start.
Click to expand...


Those who engaged in it were charged and prosecuted. Who else do you expect to take responsibility for it other than the ones who actually participated in it?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avatar4321 said:


> Those who engaged in it were charged and prosecuted. Who else do you expect to take responsibility for it other than the ones who actually participated in it?



Brigham Young ordered it. Utah (Deseret) was a theocracy at the time, nothing happened that didn't come as an order from Young.

So no, those who engaged were not charged and prosecuted, just a few patsies.


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who engaged in it were charged and prosecuted. Who else do you expect to take responsibility for it other than the ones who actually participated in it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brigham Young ordered it. Utah (Deseret) was a theocracy at the time, nothing happened that didn't come as an order from Young.
> 
> So no, those who engaged were not charged and prosecuted, just a few patsies.
Click to expand...


No. He didn't. His letter to them specifically told them to leave the wagons be. The letter just arrived late. And, no utah wasn't a theocracy, it was a territory of the United States.

And lots of things happened that didnt come as orders from Young. We are talking about a vast territory without the benefits of telephones, telegraphs, easy communication or transportation. Most communities were completely self sufficient.


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> NeoTemplar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question but its more political in origin then religous, Christians own up to the Crusades and Muslims sometimes admit to Jihad but why is it that mormons never own up the things they have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think Mormons have to own up to?
Click to expand...


Being total retards for one.


----------



## daws101

NeoTemplar said:


> I have a question but its more political in origin then religous, Christians own up to the Crusades and Muslims sometimes admit to Jihad but why is it that mormons never own up the things they have done?


you mean like this  MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE 
Total Articles: 23 
The Mountain Meadow's Massacre was a dark chapter in Mormon history. More than 120 pioneers, families traveling from Arkansas to California in 1857, were attacked and slaughtered by Mormons at Mountain Meadows, a grassy oasis in southern Utah. Most of the victims, which included infants in their mothers' arms, were executed after the travelers surrendered their weapons. Mormonism has covered up the truth about the MMM.


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NeoTemplar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question but its more political in origin then religous, Christians own up to the Crusades and Muslims sometimes admit to Jihad but why is it that mormons never own up the things they have done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think Mormons have to own up to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being total retards for one.
Click to expand...


We believe that man must be punished for his own sins. Sorry.


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think Mormons have to own up to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being total retards for one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that man must be punished for his own sins. Sorry.
Click to expand...


Um... I dunno... but... isn't that called a court system and jail?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think Mormons have to own up to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being total retards for one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We believe that man must be punished for his own sins. Sorry.
Click to expand...

whos we? kind of presumptive to speak for others ...


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being total retards for one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that man must be punished for his own sins. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> whos we? kind of presumptive to speak for others ...
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting that Mormons dont believe their Articles of Faith now?

How is it presumptive to cite the scriptures Latter-day Saints profess belief in?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe that man must be punished for his own sins. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> whos we? kind of presumptive to speak for others ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that Mormons dont believe their Articles of Faith now?
> 
> How is it presumptive to cite the scriptures Latter-day Saints profess belief in?
Click to expand...

as always you miss the point ..."we" infers that you were somehow granted the right to speak for others..."we" also is an appeal to an imaginary authority.
SINCE WE BELIEVE IT IT MUST BE TRUE...even when it's  not..

btw you misquoted this: 1 We abelieve in bGod, the Eternal Father, and in His cSon, Jesus Christ, and in the dHoly Ghost.

 2 We believe that men will be apunished for their bown sins, and not for Adam&#8217;s ctransgression.

 3 We believe that through the aAtonement of Christ, all bmankind may be csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

 4 We believe that the first principles and aordinances of the Gospel are: first, bFaith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, cRepentance; third, dBaptism by eimmersion for the fremission of sins; fourth, Laying on of ghands for the hgift of the Holy Ghost.

 5 We believe that a man must be acalled of God, by bprophecy, and by the laying on of chands by those who are in dauthority, to epreach the Gospel and administer in the fordinances thereof.

 6 We believe in the same aorganization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, bprophets, cpastors, dteachers, eevangelists, and so forth.

 7 We believe in the agift of btongues, cprophecy, drevelation, evisions, fhealing, ginterpretation of tongues, and so forth.

 8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

 9 We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 10 We believe in the literal agathering of Israel and in the restoration of the bTen Tribes; that cZion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will dreign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be erenewed and receive its fparadisiacal gglory.

 11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the bdictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them dworship how, where, or what they may.

 12 We believe in being asubject to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.

 13 aWe believe in being bhonest, true, cchaste, dbenevolent, virtuous, and in doing egood to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul&#8212;We believe all things, we fhope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to gendure all things. If there is anything hvirtuous, ilovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.


Joseph Smith.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Ah!! It really is good to be back! My my my, the things that I've missed. I just started reading all the things I've missed since September of 2011 and I'm up to page 376 now as I'm catching up and I haven't replied to anything except this great person who sounds like a reasonable human being. I promise to get back in here more often. I feel slightly proud at the moment that you all have carried on the thread without me. Thanks AV for stickin up for us so long without any of my help.



> 1) Do mormons follow beliefs of one head person, somewhat like the catholics follow the pope?  For example, a catholic can't say the pope is wrong and still be a catholic, they believe god caused the pope to be there, so at least in regards to matters of doctrine and faith, he is correct.


We follow the counsels of Jesus Christ through the modern day Prophet who is presently Thomas S. Monson. He's really a wonderful and kind man. But at the same time we are always encouraged to question and pray about everything and that the prophet is not infallible like the Pope is purported to be. 


> 2) I've heard that mormons don't go on welfare, the church takes care of members who find themselves in financial difficulty.  True?


 In many cases yes but the purpose for going on welfare is temporary and we are always given counsel from our leaders to help us take care of our own problems as soon as possible. In my opinion the true purpose of welfare.


> 3) Mormons don't smoke or drink alcohol of any kind, true?


There are plenty enough that do but they are definitely not supposed to according to the laws of God in the Word of Wisdom


> 4) Does anything in the book of mormon really change anything that was already in the bible?  Does it really matter if Jesus was in America?


yes and yes. The reason being is that if Jesus did have more to say, do you think that it would be of eternal worth if he decided to speak more? Would not more of the words of Christ be better and possibly reveal more that could help us in our lives?



> 5) Do mormons believe in the theory of evolution?
> That will do for now.  Thanks


No we do not.


----------



## Truthspeaker

FactFinder said:


> *The Truth about Mormons *
> 
> After 5700 + messages...it looks like y'all haven't figured it out yet.



Perhaps so facty! But we just might be here till Jesus comes back to close the mouths of the ignorant and arrogant


----------



## Truthspeaker

earlycuyler said:


> Money is politics. In the end Californians voted. And its only scarey because you dont like them. I dont like Romney, and look forward to when they put the heat on him. He wont last when they do. I dont care about his faith. There are laws to protect me from his faith.



Our faith protects you better than the government would. We don't force anyone through our doors. Hah! To think of the heat placed on Romney during the debate tonight! Wow how Obama sharted all over himself while Romney was the one punishing mr. Hussein for 90 minutes. It's Barry feeling the heat now. And this was in a liberal den in Colorado to boot!


----------



## USNJake

daws101 said:


> NeoTemplar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question but its more political in origin then religous, Christians own up to the Crusades and Muslims sometimes admit to Jihad but why is it that mormons never own up the things they have done?
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like this  MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
> Total Articles: 23
> The Mountain Meadow's Massacre was a dark chapter in Mormon history. More than 120 pioneers, families traveling from Arkansas to California in 1857, were attacked and slaughtered by Mormons at Mountain Meadows, a grassy oasis in southern Utah. Most of the victims, which included infants in their mothers' arms, were executed after the travelers surrendered their weapons. Mormonism has covered up the truth about the MMM.
Click to expand...


Interesting , i wasnt aware of this at all. Perhaps rather than skipping over it our host will give us some insight to what really happened.


----------



## Truthspeaker

eots said:


> Secret World Of Mormonism - An overview of the religion - YouTube



The pukes who made this video are full of hate and ignorance. I don't insult people too often but this is one of the more malicious videos I've seen pretending at informing. So much is erroneous about this video


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> When cornered..play the Hitler card..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Huggy,
> 
> Why don't you try and argue against the analogy (I was shooting at his defintions) instead of talking out your backside.
> 
> Cornered ?
> 
> You obviously haven't been keeping up.  Your ADD meds are not just once a week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whoah there pilgrim!  This is the truthiness about the mormans thread.  I didn't bring up Hitler.  I barely knew the guy.  My MEDS are none of your beezwax!
> 
> I was engaged in this thread long before Mittens became a serious prez candidate. It was, when I joined, the biggest thread at USMB with around 2000 posts.  I have had a strong dislike for the mormans since they took advantage of Howard Hughes.  Since then..around 40 years ago, I have watched their activities..read their book and become fairly well aquainted with the activities of their cult.  I especially find the "mission" an aborant practice as it destroys the fabric of native culture replaced with their brand of bullshit.
> 
> Ya..Ya..there are "good" people sleepwalking through life as mormans.  There were "good" Germans too.
> 
> I pick on mormans because they are especially crazy and pushy with their nonsense.  Much of what I do on this thread is slash and burn.  It doesn't have to make sense...much like the morman religion.
Click to expand...

Oh huggy. It's been too long since I've heard your rhetoric. It's good to be back


----------



## Truthspeaker

Sky Dancer said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree there. It's pointless to having an edifying discussion and you didn't mention hitler. Can we all be adults here?
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly true. This thread wasn't started until after Romney was a serious Pres candidate in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No Mormons took advantage of Howard Hughes*. Nor do I see any evidence of you being well acquainted when you repeatedly fail to understand easy to understand practices and make little effort to try to.
> 
> 
> 
> *And the fact taht you can't even spell mormon *currectly despite there being several hundred posts in this thread.
> 
> And they are good mormons specifically because of the teachings of the Restored Gospel. It's not just happenstance.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it doesnt make sense to you! *You haven't bothered putting in any effort *to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly did take advantage of Hughes.
> 
> I can spell morman just fine.
> 
> I know enough about this cult to have formed a valid opinion.
> 
> Your last critiscism is what all religions say.. you haven't immersed yourself in it so you don't have enough information.
> 
> Bullshit!  It is a cult.  Its dogma is insane.  It's candidate for president is unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I ever meet an enlightened Mormon I'll be the first to say LDS is a true, spiritual path.
Click to expand...

Yo sky. I think the only thing that keeps you from seeing me as enlightened is the fact we won't accept homosexuality


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believe in lies ..then like this thread..they artificially bump the views to somehow make the claim that there is this huge interest in their religion.  HouseGimp knows exactly what I am talking about.  He is a dumb guy PLAYING it even dumber.
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.  Tell a big enough lie often enough and simple minded people see it as credibility.
> 
> 
> Ya this thread was "old" when it was 1500 replies old..but now that we have one of these crazy fucks with his sights on the white house it is the duty of all knowledgeable Americans to out these clowns.
> 
> Fun?..not so much...neccessry..  Damn Skippy!
Click to expand...

You know hug, I disappeared for over a year on this thread because I got busy with work and life and stuff. Then something clicked the other day and made me want to peek back in and see if this thread was still alive. Thanks to enormous interest and animosity towards the church, people like you just can't stay away from us "crazies". You must really have an attraction to the insane or you're a closet investigator. Which one hug? 

I know you've missed me haven't you. Admit it!


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> "you" meaning me/I?  This is an anonmous internet message board.  Everyones identity is made up.  There is no you, me, they, us.  It's all made up out of whole cloth just like your stupid cult.  I post here because of the views.  There are hundreds of thousands on this thread and the one I built called "The List".  Is my message "foolish"?  More foolish than your underwear?  The gold dinner service that appeared then magically diappeared.  Thinking you have some special ownership of other planets?  Thinking you have the right to disrespect the beliefs of others and displace those beliefs with yours?  Baptising devout atheists?  Baptising Jews?  You mean foolish like THAT?
> 
> You REALLY believe that intelligent people come and view "The Truthiness About Mormans" to see what y'all have to say for yourselves and look at what mormans believe and see me questioning it and come to the conclusion that I am a fool?
> 
> You just keep on keepin on Sport.  It is the presence of zombies such as youself that makes my "work" here so "enjoyable".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making up arguments again.....stupid ?
> 
> They will come here and see you make comments out of context....and realize you are a fool.
> 
> I am glad you enjoy yourself.
> 
> You, somewhat *remind me of the Black Knight on Monty Python *and the Holy Grail.
> 
> A lot of talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya maybe...with the main difference that I am a more COMPETENT fighter than he.  I am like him in that I am paid to protect access to property and do whatever in neccesary to achieve that end.  I make no exceptions and offer no excuses when I do my work.  The people I confront are usually armed and on some drug.  I am still undamaged and frankly..a beautiful figure of a man with all my limbs and such.  If I was attacked by a group of British faggots like in the skit they would not fare very well.  They wouldn't even make it past my pit bulls.  They would all be killed including the horses.  My 120 lb red nose has a jaw strong enough to bite your leg below the knee clean off.  The 70 lb female blue is a psychpath that can jump eight feet into the air.  She would clear the riders off the horses and the big male would hamstring the horses.  If the stupid white knight raised his hand with sword he would lose his hand.  Now with all this going on I would go through the injured and put them down.   I don't use a sword.  I'm partial to aluminum baseball bats and lead.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your input tough guy. On another note, what are your dog's names?


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


>



You know one day you will regret your mocking of real events that actually happened. I guess what really drove you away from the church was the pledge to be kind to others. I don't see much kindess in you.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a crazy person desires is of little consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really think insults are going to cover your inability to spell?
> 
> You are quite amusing huggy, I'll give you that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75ifn39Y8V0]JoE PeSci Do I aMuSe YoU GoOd FellaS - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


what amused me the most when watching this movie on tbs one day was the amount of times they used the word Frickin on national television. I think just maybe they might have been dubbing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Pity bump.



Usually you only have pity on things you love or like. Curious


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
Click to expand...


So you know what that's like? Somehow I don't see you taking time out of your day to go to the convalescent hospitals.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Listening said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They believe in lies ..then like this thread..they artificially bump the views to somehow make the claim that there is this huge interest in their religion.  HouseGimp knows exactly what I am talking about.  He is a dumb guy PLAYING it even dumber.
> 
> Right around last christmas this thread and several others were getting between 10-15 thousand views a day.  99% of them were fake computer generated.  But that's just how these scum roll.  Tell a big enough lie often enough and simple minded people see it as credibility.
> 
> 
> Ya this thread was "old" when it was 1500 replies old..but now that we have one of these crazy fucks with his sights on the white house it is the duty of all knowledgeable Americans to out these clowns.
> 
> Fun?..not so much...neccessry..  Damn Skippy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep outing there dumbass.......
> 
> With posts like this one, people are going to take you real seriously.
> 
> The LDS church will just keep right on cruising and you and Joe can sit back and suck on it.
Click to expand...


As the resident old guy on this thread, my advice to you would be to take it easy on the cuss words in response to the trolls. You're not helping us much with your fiery responses. Granted I've had a few of my own, but try to answer as much the way Jesus would. He also got fiery at times, but his words always had a clear purpose to expose the hypocrites rather than just call them names. You'll catch on as they come and go, they're pretty much all the same. 
Don't let them get to you as much as you have. Stay strong brother!


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Mormans are idiots, thieves and liars.  Their MO is dishonesty and taking advatage of weak minded suckers.
> 
> True story.



Thanks for that enlightenment. I'll ignore the personal attack and say, God Bless you wherever you may go. May you find bitterness removed from you one day. May your dogs live long without any rabies.


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you can whine bout "bigotry" all day.
> 
> If you told me you believed in Bigfoot, or Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy, and I called your beliefs silly, no one would have a question about that, they are silly things that can be easily disproven.
> 
> But you tell me that you believe in Golden Plates no one saw, or a magic Hebrew civilzation in America that left no archeological trace, or Magic Underpants... and when I call that silly, you blurt back "but...but...but... that's my religion! You Bigot! "
> 
> Sorry, taking silly, irrational beliefs and slapping vestments on them and calling them a religion does not  make them less silly.
> 
> It might put people off. Hell, I found myself doing it once in a while. Had to listen to a co-worker go on yesterday about how blood transfusions are against the bible (She's a Jehovah's Witness, a bunch that give the LDS a run in the Religious stupid Department.) Really, really felt like telling her how stupid she was, but I realize I have to work with her until the boss figures out she's worthless and fires her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no issues with people calling the the LDS faith silly.  That is perfectly understandable coming from people who have never really been engaged in it.
> 
> What you seem to miss the context on is the rather funny blatherings of that moron Huggy.
> 
> I don't care if you call my faith irrational.  Any faith, including no faith, can be called the same.
> 
> But to blindly spew the kind of invective he does about our so called bigotry......is just hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was one and it is silly...what context? the LDS "faith" begins and ends with the delusion's  of it's founder.
> I will say this, the Mormons are no more bigoted then any other faith group...
> the thing to remember is, they have no evidence of any kind to prove the book of Mormon and it's companion texts are NOT fiction.
Click to expand...


You can redefine evidence as whatever you want, but the hard truth is there is plenty of hard evidence which point hard to the plausibility of the Book of Mormon. You've just chosen to ignore it because it's not what you're looking for. In fact you're not looking for any evidence so you'd reject it even if an angel did appear to you with the actual plates. You'd just call them a fake and still dismiss it. So really it doesn't matter what we show you. You have to really search for that conversation with God for yourself. You've never done it because by your own admission you've never really believed. You were just forced to go to church by your parents. Finding God is much harder than you ever imagined, so you never tried or gave up quickly. Be honest with yourself.


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Book of Mormon Witnesses
> 
> 
> 
> Why were the witnesses only allowed to see the plates with "spiritual eyes"?
> 
> 
> 
> They were allowed to see them with both sets. You must not have read the account of witnesses
> 
> 
> 
> If the plates were real, why would it take faith to see them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because God would not let Joseph show them until they had proven their faith.(D&C17:2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (How could he have translated without the plates, as his scribes said, if he was doing a literal translation of a physical object?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't. He always had the plates present.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the church now extol the witnesses when Joseph Smith condemned them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because people are not perfect they are subject to periods of sin. Many of the witnesses had fallings out with the church, but none ever denied it.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would most of them leave the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great question. This gospel requires total devotion and the mere witnessing of miracles is not enough to change someone's life. It's just a witnessing of a miracle. That's why the Egyptians didn't become Israelites after they witnessed Moses' miracles. Many of them couldn't take the pressure and responsibility of being a member of this church.
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Brigham Young say that the 3 witnesses doubted and disbelieved in their experience? "Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel." (JOD 7:164 1859).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some had thoughts of doubt after they had left the church and looked for reasons to justify their leaving the church. But all of them came to in time to remember that it was a real vision and they knew better than to offend God by retracting their statements. Which is why all of them went to their graves swearing they saw what they saw and would not be misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> Why were all of the witnesses (except Martin Harris) related to Joseph Smith or David Whitmer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that's who God trusted at the time. You ever think God chose Joseph's family for a reason. God discriminates where he will and who are we to judge?
> 
> 
> 
> Difficult Questions for Mormons to answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This link is full of all the easy ones. I mean come on I've already dealt with each one in turn. You're a newcomer here. Which one is you're biggest problem. Let's go one at a time and you should be quite satsified if you have the stamina and intelligence to learn knowledge. Come please I implore you!
> 
> 
> 
> THE WITNESSES OF THE BOOK OF MORMON©
> What did they really see?
> by Janis Hutchinson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The printed statement of the three witnesses, as contained in the front of the Book of Mormon, states that they saw the plates and the engravings. Another statement of eight witnesses adds that they hefted the plates.
> 
> Many ask, Certainly, they wouldnt testify to something unless it was true! Or, would they?
> 
> WHO WROTE THE TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF THE BOOK OF MORMON?
> 
> Where did the printed statement of the three witnesses, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer come from? Did they actually write the testimony themselves? No!
> 
> It is believed that Joseph Smith wrote the statement for them to sign. This appears to be evident since, at that time, he knew none of the witnesses had ever seen the plates with their natural eyes, as they themselves later admitted. Yet, when he worded it, he deliberately gave the impression they had.
> 
> Stretching or misrepresenting the truth was no problem for Smith, for he had altered other revelations. According to Apostle William E. McLellin, the testimony of the Twelve Apostles contained in the Introduction to the Doctrine and Covenants, was a base forgery and Smith had seriously altered other revelations. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses, accused Joseph of the same thing.
> 
> WHAT DID THE WITNESSES SEE?
> 
> Whatever they saw and by whatever means, it was not in the dimension of physical reality.
> 
> Martin Harris admitted he never saw anything with his natural eyes. He stated: I never saw the golden plates, only in a visionary or entranced state.
> 
> Further, he admitted the same to the printer who was working on the first edition of the Book of Mormon:
> 
> During the printing of the first edition of the Book of Mormon, he (Harris) was in the print shop while the type was being set for the testimony of the three witnesses. The printer, John Gilbert, asked him if he had seen the plates with his naked eye. Martin looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.
> 
> He further told a Palmyra lawyer, who asked him: Did you see the plates and the engravings upon them with your bodily eyes? He responded:
> 
> I did not see them as I do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see anything around me - though at the time they were covered with a cloth.
> 
> Harris further let the cat out of the bag when he revealed that the other eight witnesses saw no plates either. On April 15, 1838, Stephen Burnett gave the following report:
> 
> I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it - loth to give it up - but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver nor David & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave away . . . . I therefore three weeks since in the Stone Chapel gave . . . the reasons why I took the course which I was resolved to do, and renounced the Book of Mormon. . . .
> 
> I was followed by W. Parrish, Luke Johnson & John Boynton, all of who concurred with me, (sic) after we were done speaking M. Harris arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them, only as he saw a city through a mountain. And said that he never should have told that the testimony of the eight was false, if it had not been picked out of (him) but should have let it passed as it was.
> 
> So, in reality, the witnesses saw nothing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are reading one of the misquotes given by a reporter who tried to slander the church and the witnesses about their testimony. Here are the real last testimonies of the men before they died, discrediting the snakes who lied on them.
> Martin Harris' last testimony:
> Testimony of Martin Harris in Clarkston, Utah 1875
> 
> Oliver's last testimony:
> Shortly before Cowdery died of a respiratory illness, he was visited by Jacob Gates, an early Mormon leader in the church, who inquired about his witness concerning the Book of Mormon. Cowdery reaffirmed his witness saying,[40][41]
> 
> "Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I am a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie? I know,' said he, 'that this Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mindit was real".
> 
> On March 3, 1850, Cowdery died in David Whitmer's home in Richmond, Missouri.[42]
> David Whitmer's last testimony:
> 
> Whitmer responded by publishing A Proclamation, reaffirming his testimony and saying,
> 
> "It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the BOOK OF MORMON. To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published. He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; it was no delusion!"[34]
> 
> To the Proclamation Whitmer attached an affidavit attesting to his honesty and standing in the community.[35] Whitmer ordered that his testimony to the Book of Mormon be placed on his tombstone.[36]
> 
> The weak twistings of these parasites who have nothing better to do than try and find some weird loophole to get around their insecurities about being detached from the faith never cease to amaze me.
> If it's such a delusion and we're so whacked, why does it then become their personal mission to destroy someone elses faith instead of pursuing their own? It's because they know deep down inside it's true but don't like that it's true and believe it shouldn't be true because the truth should agree with them instead of them conforming to the truth. It's all pride and vain ambition. so so so sad.
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in reality it's just the opposite:Nov 30, 2011 ... Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it," and the ... There are some special colored temple garments that can be worn by .... a belief that an article of clothing or an item has special powers. Hence the faith-promoting stories of garments saving people from accidents, burns, providing healing, etc.
> About Mormonism - Mormon Underwear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not going to find that anywhere in our doctrine that I have ever seen.
> 
> What you cited was the "faith promoting stories" of others.  That does not translate into a doctrine of healing underwear.
> 
> And there are a couple of other mis-statements in this article too.
> 
> Of course, you wouldn't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the key phrases here is "that I have ever seen." and "Mormons believe in being "in the world, but not of it"
> which means you've never look outside your own faith...like most christians you only read the parts of the bible and the book of mormon that please you and forget the rest..
> what I cited was stories told to others by mormons... I heard  that same shit when I was a deacon passing sacrament on fast and testimony Sundays.
> it's amusing when you make asinine assumptions about what I know or don't know.
> matter of  Fact I don't make those Assumptions about you..but then again you fit the stereotype like a glove ..
Click to expand...


Exactly which parts of the bible or book of mormon do we ignore? Let's have them please


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Mr. Peepers said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot "cult", because that is exactly what Mormonism is.  I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven", and they absolutely want to establish a theocracy here.  No thanks.
> 
> Amazon.com: Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith (9780385509510): Jon Krakauer: Books
> 
> Why don't you enlighten the peeps here as to how they sanctify welfare fraud.  How many billions a year is that?
> 
> 
> 
> Early last month I wrote an article called Rising Christian Imperialism Fueled by Dominion Theology. The article is mainly about the danger of Far Right Christian dominionists gaining control after the Obama failure brings about a Far Right backlash in America.
> 
> Little did I know when I wrote it that there is already a plan in place to establish a world theocracy from America. It is part of Mormon prophetic doctrine. Now some might say that this is just some pipe dream of a cult. However, if you read this article you might not be so complacent. Mormons have been working toward that end for 160 years and they have infiltrated high levels of government especially top secret intelligence positions. One of their own Bishops, Mitt Romney, is still one of the top contenders for President of the United States in 2012.
> 
> Is it just a coincidence that Christian Dominionism is rising within the Far Right Tea Party that is being fueled at least in part by the rhetoric of a Mormon named Glen Beck and the membership of the Mormon Church? Is it just a coincidence that the main contenders for President or Vice President in 2012 are still Mormon Bishop Mitt Romney and Christian Dominionist Sarah Palin?
> 
> Mormon plan to establish a world theocracy from America.
Click to expand...


Weak.

Let's look at the religious affiliations of all the other members of the house and government and military. I'm sure you'd find a lot more members of other churches than members of ours. You're consipiracy theory is juvenile and beyond paranoid.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> All mormans are sneaky.  Take christians...they go on and on about every friggin word in the bible.  They aren't scaredy cats like mormans.  The muslims quote the koran to nauseum...The mormans???...Nix to that idea...it's all hush hush.  Why don't you morman freaks stand up loud and proud and tell the world about morman stuff?  Maybe everybody wouldn't think you were cult freaks if ya didn't act like you are doing something wrong all of the time.  The truth about mormans??...youzzsome wack mofos.



uhhh.. whaddya think I'm doing here explaining everything. If I'm not loud and proud about my faith then what more do you expect from me?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Katzndogz said:


> Why ever in the world would Mormons want to have, or see the need to have, some sort of public discussion about their religious beliefs.  They doh't have to justify their beliefs any more than a Sikh has to justify wearing a kirpan under their clothing.



I do this, so that I can answer honest questions when they come from really interested folks. Unfortunately you have to wade through the riff raff most of the time.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Mormon Church Breaks the Law to Fund Mitt Romney - YouTube



These whining, and derelict children pretend to know something. It's hilarious. Their literally AMAZING reach because an individual member of our church made a mistake in using his church email to solicit contributions for Romney was the fault of that individual. 
So he makes one little error doing his personal work from his church email and these clowns think they have a real zinger. Well as long as people remain imperfect, these apes think they have something on the squeaky clean Romney. 
their interest in protecting someone's right to perform strange sexual acts is greater than their desire to strengthen the country economically, morally and militarily. 

These kids are embarrassing.


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Newsvine - Official Mormon Bookstore Selling Native American Figurine With Racist Descriptions
> 
> 
> Is The Mormon Church stuck with an embarrassing book it cannot historically support?
> May 16, 2002
> By Rick Ross
> Mormons grow up with the belief that Native Americans are somehow related to a lost tribe from Israel. That tribe, they are told, came across the ocean about 600 B.C. to America, led by an otherwise unknown Jewish prophet named "Lehi."
> 
> To a Mormon this story is history, but to historians it is simply a fiction, concocted by Joseph Smith within his "Book of Mormon." The complete lack of any objective archaeological or historical proof to support such a story is explained away by Mormon apologists to the faithful. Mormons appear to believe that faith, makes fiction fact. But archaeologists, linguists and genetic experts, outside the subculture of Mormonism, have known for some time that Native Americans actually originated from Asia and not Israel.
> 
> Science and faith have increasingly collided as the Mormon religion continues on from its early beginnings. Confronted by historical evidence that repeatedly disproves their holy book, Mormons have long hoped for some artifact or research that would support their faith. Some felt that day might have indeed come through research at The Mormon Church-owned Brigham Young University in Provo, where genetic tests were being done during 2000.
> 
> Mormon doctrine claims that Lehi's children eventually became two warring factions, which included the good, white Nephites and the bad, brown Lamanites. The Lamanites, eventually killed all the Nephites by 500 A.D. But the bad, brown Laminates continued to live on and are now called Native Americans.
> 
> The Book of Mormon originally stated that when Lamanites converted they would then become "white and delightsome." In 1981 the church decided to replace the word "white" with "pure." It has been said that such Mormon beliefs reflect racism. And though every faithful male Mormon may enter its priesthood, blacks were excluded until 1978. Based upon such stories about the Lamanites, modern Mormon missionaries today often feel called to proselytize amongst aboriginal cultures in South America and the Pacific Islands.
> 
> Is The Mormon Church stuck with an embarrassing book it cannot historically support?
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons and Mitochondrial DNA
> by Chad Ressler
> 
> In August 2004 Simon Southerton released a book entitled Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church.1  Southerton concludes from studies of mitochondrial DNA of Native Americans that the Mormon claim of their descent from Israeli immigrants is unsupported by DNA evidence.  Wading through the scientific claims can be a daunting task for anyone not having specialized knowledge of the field.  The basic concept though is that the mitochondrial DNA taken from a group of surviving Native Americans demonstrates that they were descended from Asians and not the &#8220;ten lost tribes of Israel&#8221; as the Book of Mormon claims.2  So close is the connection that surviving Native American connection to Asiatic origin is close to 99%.3
> 
> Of course, these findings are devastating for the book of Mormon unless one decides to take a position of intellectual dishonesty which, oddly enough, is what the Mormon Church has done.  While there have been some detailed technical articles written by Mormon apologists they can be very difficult to read unless one has a good understanding of various fields in biology.  This is what Mormon apologists are counting on; that Mormon lay people will simply see there is a rebuttal, superficially skim through it, and be assured that their &#8220;feelings&#8221; are still correct.  Though the majority of us may not be able to understand all the arguments, I think it is plausible to conclude that this book does some serious damage to the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
> 
> The research by Southerton screams for an answer to the question: &#8220;If the so-called "Lamanites" (Native Americans) were spawned from an escaped tribe of Israelites, why does their DNA show a 98.6% Asian connection and 0% Middle Eastern?&#8221;4  The answer according to Southerton is,  &#8220;It's all mythology. Historical fiction.&#8221;5
> 
> A very telling response from LDS author John Butler says:
> 
> &#8220;A spiritual witness is the only way to know the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.  Although DNA studies have made links between Native Americans and Asians, these studies in no way invalidate the Book of Mormon despite the loud voices of detractors.&#8221;6
> 
> Notice what Butler said.  Although the evidence appears to disprove what so called &#8220;prophet&#8221; Joseph Smith wrote, you should ignore the evidence and simply trust your feelings.  Joseph Smith claimed that the Israelites found the New World uninhabited when they arrived, yet the evidence says otherwise.  Mormons claim to be Christians, but Christianity is not rooted in blind faith apart from evidence.  The Bible is clearly historical being grounded in real people who lived in real places which archaeology has time and again confirmed.  The Christian need not refer to his or her &#8220;feelings&#8221; as their primary epistemic justification for faith even in the face of contrary evidence.  The truth of God&#8217;s Word has stood the test of time, but Joseph Smith&#8217;s word, and his reputation as a prophet, seems to be discredited.
> 
> 
> Mormons and Mitochondrial DNA|Mormon claims of Native Americans Unsupported | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry


Newby,
Will you please go back and search the thread on the thread search tool for the complete answers I've given to all of your zingers. I mean come one. it's been four years almost. You think I haven't heard this stuff already. 
Dude are you serious? Please read the thread to avoid repeating yourself and then I won't have to as much either. Your supposed stumpers are really quite easily answered. 
I mean come on.  I kept studying this stuff when you quit and left. I got my answers and you left before you could get any. 
You anti's are so so tired.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zoom said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 1978.  Really?
Click to expand...


Hey zoom... You think you're really original with your use of the word "really". Come on stop repeating the rhetoric of some dude who thought of it's current use around circa 2005 or so. Be original will ya?
And yes 1978. that was the time. Are you ready to grow up and learn knowledge or are you gonna come with some more juvenile unverisity of colorado phrases to make you seem cool?


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 1978.  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TS.... ?????
> 
> Was starting this thread in any way related to you getting your own planet?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the hiatus. It's been a year, so forgive me for the rust. But to answer your question. No.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ima said:


> Hey Truthspeaker, isn't facial hair frowned upon in the mormon church?



Take a good look. no. Look at Jesus. Look at a lot of our past church leaders. But nowadays, the dress code for leadership is clean cut so as to take away focus on our leadership's appearance and just focus on the doctrine. 

The reason the missionaries are clean cut is because they don't want people to focus on their appearance as much as the message of the gospel itself. There are people who would send them away immediately if they saw a beard, or long hair or a tatoo or a weird piercing. So you can see it's just to avoid steering conversation toward one's face instead of the message itself. Does that make sense?


----------



## Avatar4321

you know, you dont have to keep this thread alive...


----------



## Truthspeaker

USNJake said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NeoTemplar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question but its more political in origin then religous, Christians own up to the Crusades and Muslims sometimes admit to Jihad but why is it that mormons never own up the things they have done?
> 
> 
> 
> you mean like this  MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
> Total Articles: 23
> The Mountain Meadow's Massacre was a dark chapter in Mormon history. More than 120 pioneers, families traveling from Arkansas to California in 1857, were attacked and slaughtered by Mormons at Mountain Meadows, a grassy oasis in southern Utah. Most of the victims, which included infants in their mothers' arms, were executed after the travelers surrendered their weapons. Mormonism has covered up the truth about the MMM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting , i wasnt aware of this at all. Perhaps rather than skipping over it our host will give us some insight to what really happened.
Click to expand...


Easy, easy, I've been gone a long time... gimme a minute to catch up on a year's worth of comments. And believe me I've had to sift through a lot of garbage to get back to this point so please take it easy on your host. 
Now see here newby, I'm going to implore you to search the thread for the mmm all you want. Do you think that this hasn't come up in 4 years!!! Please think outside yourself for a moment. 
It never ceases to amaze me that a newby can think he can bring some new zinger that hasn't already been answered ad nauseum  already. Please go back. But to be swift in answering for now. 
Brigham Young told the members who committed this terrible crime to leave them alone. They committed great sin and will be punished for it by God worse than they were punished already by the law of the land. Of course everybody wants to blame Brigham Young because they really just have problems with Joseph Smith at the origin. 
As we've claimed all along, members of the church who commit crimes do it on their own since the church teaches them not to do these things. There is no doctrine they can interpret to justify murder. 
It's not like the extremist muslims who twist their scripture to justify their killings. There is no doctrine to twist. 
I hope that helps for now but like I said, please see my other answers and read through the thread or search it with the search tool. I only have so much time you know.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> you know, you dont have to keep this thread alive...



You're right, I don't. I tried to let it die. I was gone a whole year and somehow, the Gospel just won't go away on this board. It infiltrates everywhere. That's how you know it's not about me or you or anybody. It's about everybody and it's amazing that after a year of abscence, the thread somehow reaches people. For good or bad. 

hey you know I've since moved to Utah and I'd be interested in hearing what Catzmeow thinks about that now that I've been here for a year. Now she can't say I haven't lived here. i'll still keep the california tag though


----------



## Avatar4321

Truthspeaker said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know, you dont have to keep this thread alive...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I don't. I tried to let it die. I was gone a whole year and somehow, the Gospel just won't go away on this board. It infiltrates everywhere. That's how you know it's not about me or you or anybody. It's about everybody and it's amazing that after a year of abscence, the thread somehow reaches people. For good or bad.
> 
> hey you know I've since moved to Utah and I'd be interested in hearing what Catzmeow thinks about that now that I've been here for a year. Now she can't say I haven't lived here. i'll still keep the california tag though
Click to expand...


Of course, the Gospel won't go away on the board. I don't shut up. Even when it might be wise for me to do so.

But there are other threads. I've found this one has unfortunately gotten pretty crude pointless. I like responding to actual discussions on the Gospel. I dont see that happening as much unfortunately.


----------



## lareinedumonde

Mormons are no more likely to be crazy or bigoted than non-mormons, and they aren't Christian... or are you?  Do mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?  (my favorite definition of "Christian")


----------



## daws101

Truthspeaker said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know one day you will regret your mocking of real events that actually happened. I guess what really drove you away from the church was the pledge to be kind to others. I don't see much kindess in you.
Click to expand...

what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you know, you dont have to keep this thread alive...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I don't. I tried to let it die. I was gone a whole year and somehow, the Gospel just won't go away on this board. It infiltrates everywhere. That's how you know it's not about me or you or anybody. It's about everybody and it's amazing that after a year of abscence, the thread somehow reaches people. For good or bad.
> 
> hey you know I've since moved to Utah and I'd be interested in hearing what Catzmeow thinks about that now that I've been here for a year. Now she can't say I haven't lived here. i'll still keep the california tag though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course, the Gospel won't go away on the board. I don't shut up. Even when it might be wise for me to do so.
> 
> But there are other threads. I've found this one has unfortunately gotten pretty crude pointless. I like responding to actual discussions on the Gospel. I dont see that happening as much unfortunately.
Click to expand...


So what happened to the golden plates anyways?


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, I don't. I tried to let it die. I was gone a whole year and somehow, the Gospel just won't go away on this board. It infiltrates everywhere. That's how you know it's not about me or you or anybody. It's about everybody and it's amazing that after a year of abscence, the thread somehow reaches people. For good or bad.
> 
> hey you know I've since moved to Utah and I'd be interested in hearing what Catzmeow thinks about that now that I've been here for a year. Now she can't say I haven't lived here. i'll still keep the california tag though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the Gospel won't go away on the board. I don't shut up. Even when it might be wise for me to do so.
> 
> But there are other threads. I've found this one has unfortunately gotten pretty crude pointless. I like responding to actual discussions on the Gospel. I dont see that happening as much unfortunately.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what happened to the golden plates anyways?
Click to expand...

the mormon version is god took them back (kinda convenient don't ya think?) in reality they never existed..
no one ever saw them, unless you want to use what the mormons called "the spiritual eye"
AKA imagination.


----------



## Avatar4321

lareinedumonde said:


> Mormons are no more likely to be crazy or bigoted than non-mormons, and they aren't Christian... or are you?  Do mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?  (my favorite definition of "Christian")



Yes Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
> BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....



If we are talking about the church, why would we call it something else?


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> So what happened to the golden plates anyways?



They are still with Moroni and will remain so until it's time to translate the Sealed portion of the plates.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> the mormon version is god took them back (kinda convenient don't ya think?) in reality they never existed..
> no one ever saw them, unless you want to use what the mormons called "the spiritual eye"
> AKA imagination.



Then explain the witnesses who went to their graves affirming that they saw the plates.

Oh wait. Nevermind. You're just going to pretend they were lying.


----------



## Truthspeaker

lareinedumonde said:


> Mormons are no more likely to be crazy or bigoted than non-mormons, and they aren't Christian... or are you?  Do mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God?  (my favorite definition of "Christian")



Yes we do believe Jesus is the son of god


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> Yes we do believe Jesus is the son of god



Son of which god? Adam?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do believe Jesus is the son of god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son of which god? Adam?
Click to expand...


No. God God


----------



## ima

Truthspeaker said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we do believe Jesus is the son of god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son of which god? Adam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. God God
Click to expand...


But who made god god?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
> BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are talking about the church, why would we call it something else?
Click to expand...

 as already stated yours is not the only one.you (Mormons) are the only faith that uses that term in that way...are you this stupid all the time.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what happened to the golden plates anyways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are still with Moroni and will remain so until it's time to translate the Sealed portion of the plates.
Click to expand...

right. good story since their's no actual proof for either ..


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
> BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are talking about the church, why would we call it something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as already stated yours is not the only one.you (Mormons) are the only faith that uses that term in that way...are you this stupid all the time.
Click to expand...


Funny. I hear Catholics calling their Church "The Church" when refering to their church all the time. It seems kind of a no brainer to me that when you are talking about a specific Church, and others know which Church you are talking about, that you don't have to treat them like an idiot and spell it out for them all the time.

And, no I'm never that stupid. You shouldn't be either.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what happened to the golden plates anyways?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are still with Moroni and will remain so until it's time to translate the Sealed portion of the plates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right. good story since their's no actual proof for either ..
Click to expand...


Except, of course, the countless eye witnesses, the text itself, and the Holy Spirit.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

Ahhh, the bigoted left.  I have never seen a group of people who on one hand preach to the "masses" how everyone should be accepted and that each of us have our own worth (except of course if you're a fetus).  And yet, when a man from a particular religious group runs for President against the left's 'messiah', he becomes the follower of a religion that is 'crazy', 'insane' and simply laughable.  Say that about a muslim and the left just bristles though.  72 vigins and blowing up 12 year old children is the definition of a 'good' religion (although admittedly it does not represent the mainstream Muslim)?

I have read the book of Mormon and I have friends who are Mormon.  I do not subscribe to their religion and when the 'preaching' commences, I quietly, but respectfully excuse myself.  What I find is that this country is and should be respectful of a person's religion, I don't care what it is.  You want to worship the foam on a glass of beer?  I say that you should be able to and anyone who would deny you that right because, well it is after all a little nutty, should be reminded that a person's religion is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.

Those who trash the Mormom religion (SeaWytch to name just one) is practicing Democratic politics from the 1900's (Jim Crow comes to mind) in the guise of 'liberalism.'  Liberalism and Progressivism is the least tolerant political dogma on the face of this planet.  Remember, they don't care what you believe... so long as you believe what they tell you to.

God Bless each and every Mormon trying to do what they believe will land them in front of the Father.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are still with Moroni and will remain so until it's time to translate the Sealed portion of the plates.
> 
> 
> 
> right. good story since their's no actual proof for either ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except, of course, the countless eye witnesses, the text itself, and the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...

there are no countless eyewitnesses last count was between 8 and 13....so you can stow that bullshit now.
the text is a fantasy and has no EVIDENTIARY value as there are no originals (gold or paper) to prove the text's authenticity..
since the holey spirit is a imaginary supernatural creation it also has no EVIDENTIARY  value..  actual testimony.... 

   TRANSLATING THE BOOK OF MORMON

Joseph Smith's wife, Emma, was the first to serve as his scribe. And she maintained that he never looked at the gold plates during his translation. In a note to their son, Joseph Smith III, she stated: 
"I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us. " (History of the RLDS Church, 8 volumes (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356.) 
Emma's father, Isaac Hale, recorded the following in an affidavit: 
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with a stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods." (Affidavit of Isaac Hale dated March 20, 1834, cited in Rodger I. Anderson's, "Joseph Smith's New York Reputation Re-examined," [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990], pages 126-128.) 
David Whitmer was one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Most of the translating was done in his home. And he describes in detail the method used by Smith: 
"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal [sic] scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man." ("An Address to All Believers in Christ," page 12.) (Elder Russell M. Nelson, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, used this same quote in his article, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign, July, 1993, page 62.) 
There is plenty of other evidence available, all along the same lines, that makes it clear that Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Mormon by placing his head inside his hat and peering at his occultic stone. Not only did he not look at these elusive gold plates himself during his "translation," but nobody else ever saw them either. Those who had originally testified that they had seen them readily admitted that it had only been with their spiritual eyes, in a sort of a vision.

The LDS habitually sanitizes unpalatable truths from their past. And in their illustrations of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon they invariably show the gold plates laying directly in front of him on the table whilst he examines them. This gives one the false impression that he actually translated the Book of Mormon from engravings on gold plates. However, his scribes testified that this was not how the translating was done. Furthermore, he used the same occultic seer stone in his translation of the Book of Mormon that he had used earlier on when he had deceived his previous victims by conniving them into believing that he could divine the whereabouts of supposed hidden treasure for a fee. That was how he'd "earned" his living in pre-LDS days. And he freely admitted that he used this same seer stone to receive his supposed revelations from God.



THE WITNESSES

There are two sets of witnesses mentioned in the foreword of the Book of Mormon, one of three and another of eight. The impression is given that they actually saw the engraved gold plates with their own eyes. But that's not what happened. When Smith broached the subject of using their testimonies to promote the Book of Mormon, they knew that they would have to see the plates by faith, as he'd warned them that nobody was allowed to look at them for fear of being struck dead.

"The History of the Church" records that the first two attempts of the three witnesses ended in failure. As Martin Harris felt that he was to blame for not being sufficiently sanctified, he withdrew from the group. After he'd gone Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer each managed to have a vision of the gold plates. Then a few days later Martin Harris was finally able to conjure up a vision as well. But it should be noted that in spite of the testimonies they had signed, in published interviews and notarized affidavits the witnesses freely admitted to only having seen the plates by faith with "second sight," or with their spiritual eyes, and then only after much struggling.

According to the testimony of a Mr. Stephen Burnett given a bit further on, at first neither of the groups wanted to sign their testimonies, which had been composed by Joseph Smith. Their reluctance was due to the fact that Smith's wording gave the impression that they had actually physically seen the gold plates, which was not the case at all. But he eventually managed to persuade them to sign, anyway.

This sort of deliberate, manipulative deception would never be tolerated in a politician or anyone else in public leadership, and surely one should expect an even higher standard of integrity in a spiritual leader. Instead of being their inspiration for transparency, truthfulness and righteousness, Joseph Smith deliberately persuaded members of his church, who were under his spiritual guidance and care, to join him in his deception, against their wills. 

Because the combined testimonies of both the groups that are printed in the front of the Book of Mormon were a deliberate, premeditated, connived deception, they are not worth the paper they are written on. And if the truth had been told right at the start, it is doubtful whether anybody would have believed Smith's story about the angel Moroni and the gold plates; and the Book of Mormon would most likely never have got off the ground.

As it is, there is no proof at all that the Book of Mormon had been engraved upon solid plates of gold. Nor is there any proof either that an angel named Moroni had ever appeared to him. We only have the word of Joseph Smith himself. And as deception seems to have been his chosen way of life, his word is highly suspect. Quite apart from his obvious lack of integrity, his spiritual claims need to be considered with a great deal of caution on the grounds of his long standing involvement with the occult. (See An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, by LDS seminary teacher Grant Palmer; Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection by Lance S. Owens; Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn; No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brodie; Mormonism Unvailed, by Ed Howe, etc).

The Book of Mormon Witnesses Who Never Saw the Gold Plates


----------



## Truthspeaker

ima said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son of which god? Adam?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. God God
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who made god god?
Click to expand...


Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what drove me away from the Mormon religion was the Mormon religion..
> BTW it's it's the very pinnacle of hubris and arrogance to call it "the church" as if it's the only one.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are talking about the church, why would we call it something else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> as already stated yours is not the only one.you (Mormons) are the only faith that uses that term in that way...are you this stupid all the time.
Click to expand...


My how ignorant is your statement. Every church uses the statement "the church" when referring to their body. You must not have gone to any other church.


----------



## ima

Truthspeaker said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. God God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who made god god?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless
Click to expand...


You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> But who made god god?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.
Click to expand...


Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.


----------



## amrchaos

Time appears to have neither beginning nor end, but I grasp the basic concept of time as such a thing without any problem.

So tell us why is it that something without neither beginning nor end should be confusing to some one with a finite mind.  Come to think about it, the greeks used to play with infinite series long before Jesus walked the earth.  They even set about methods in terms of determining whether a series converge or diverged. 

 Tell me, does you god "converge" in his infiniteness or "diverge"? (Kind of a trick question here. One has to define what it means to converge or diverge in terms of tthe infinite.  One thing apparent, if any man could commune with god, then god must contain some points of convergence in our field of understanding in order for the finite to comprehend.)


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.
Click to expand...


Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?


----------



## ima

amrchaos said:


> Time appears to have neither beginning nor end, but I grasp the basic concept of time as such a thing without any problem.
> 
> So tell us why is it that something without neither beginning nor end should be confusing to some one with a finite mind.  Come to think about it, the greeks used to play with infinite series long before Jesus walked the earth.  They even set about methods in terms of determining whether a series converge or diverged.
> 
> Tell me, does you god "converge" in his infiniteness or "diverge"? (Kind of a trick question here. One has to define what it means to converge or diverge in terms of tthe infinite.  One thing apparent, if any man could commune with god, then god must contain some points of convergence in our field of understanding in order for the finite to comprehend.)


Time to you appears to have no beginning and no end. Did you know that years ago, the earth appeared to be flat?


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no proof to back up your statement, did you just make that up? Plus, you have no idea whether all matter was made or existed already, and will not even have an end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?
Click to expand...


There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.

It can however, be converted into and from energy.


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.
> 
> It can however, be converted into and from energy.
Click to expand...


A mormon quoting a scientific law? Won't you be excommunicated for that? 

Anyways, if you take a solid, like coal, turn it into energy like heat, and use that heat up to warm your house, it's gone. Poof! Just like magic.


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific proof link or just smoke blowing out the backdoor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.
> 
> It can however, be converted into and from energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mormon quoting a scientific law? Won't you be excommunicated for that?
> 
> Anyways, if you take a solid, like coal, turn it into energy like heat, and use that heat up to warm your house, it's gone. Poof! Just like magic.
Click to expand...


No. It's not gone. The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form.

And no. Why would I be excommunicated for citing scientific laws? We are commanded, encouraged, exhorted, etc to learn all knowledge. The Glory of God is intelligence.


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a scientific law that says matter is neither created nor destroyed.
> 
> It can however, be converted into and from energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mormon quoting a scientific law? Won't you be excommunicated for that?
> 
> Anyways, if you take a solid, like coal, turn it into energy like heat, and use that heat up to warm your house, it's gone. Poof! Just like magic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. It's not gone. The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form.
> 
> And no. Why would I be excommunicated for citing scientific laws? We are commanded, encouraged, exhorted, etc to learn all knowledge. The Glory of God is intelligence.
Click to expand...

Science tells us that a planet cannot be made in 6 days, with plants, animals, pre-made fossils...


These sentences "The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form." don't make any sense. it's not in the same state, it went for a solid (coal) to energy (heat) which dissipated.


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mormon quoting a scientific law? Won't you be excommunicated for that?
> 
> Anyways, if you take a solid, like coal, turn it into energy like heat, and use that heat up to warm your house, it's gone. Poof! Just like magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's not gone. The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form.
> 
> And no. Why would I be excommunicated for citing scientific laws? We are commanded, encouraged, exhorted, etc to learn all knowledge. The Glory of God is intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science tells us that a planet cannot be made in 6 days, with plants, animals, pre-made fossils...
> 
> 
> These sentences "The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form." don't make any sense. it's not in the same state, it went for a solid (coal) to energy (heat) which dissipated.
Click to expand...


Basic Chemistry demonstrates that there is a balance in any reaction. If you break down water, for example, you still have 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen. The matter is accounted, for it's just in a different form.

And no science, doesn't tell us anything about what God can do in Six days. Nor does it define how long a day is to God.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> No. God God



But Mormonism has thousands, maybe millions of gods. Wasn't Elohim first Adam who then became god of this world after peopling it with his wife?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless



That makes no sense. If I am a good Mormon of the Melchizedek Priesthood, when I die I will go to the celestial kingdom and according to D&C;

{20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.}

But I have a beginning, and as a god, will still have a beginning.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avatar4321 said:


> Matter has always existed. It's just a question of which state it's in. Most matter is still in it's unorganized state.



Not matter, energy. This is what confirmation of the Higgs field is all about, the creation of matter on the quantum level. Matter is created and destroyed all the time.


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. If I am a good Mormon of the Melchizedek Priesthood, when I die I will go to the celestial kingdom and according to D&C;
> 
> {20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.}
> 
> But I have a beginning, and as a god, will still have a beginning.
Click to expand...


That's the little secret. You don't have a beginning. You don't have an end. You've always existed in some way or another.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avatar4321 said:


> That's the little secret. You don't have a beginning. You don't have an end. You've always existed in some way or another.



If I pluck a drop of water from the ocean, has that drop always existed? If I return the drop to the ocean then once again pluck a drop, is it the same drop? Can it be? Or is the unique drop an event that occurs only at a single moment, then can never be again? Even in our corporal form, are we the same beings we were 20 years ago? Does the Alzheimer patient retain that which made him unique in his youth?

We are not permanent. We will return to the void. That which was us will reform into various other forms, but it will never be us again, just as the drop of water cannot be again.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Things that are made have a beginning. If it has a beginning it has an end. God had neither. It's a tough concept for the finite mind. But true nonetheless
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes no sense. If I am a good Mormon of the Melchizedek Priesthood, when I die I will go to the celestial kingdom and according to D&C;
> 
> {20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.}
> 
> But I have a beginning, and as a god, will still have a beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the little secret. You don't have a beginning. You don't have an end. You've always existed in some way or another.
Click to expand...

quotes from the D &C
another book of fiction.

JUST the facts mam:The age of the universe is the time elapsed since the Big Bang. The best current estimate of the age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.11 billion years[1][2] (4.339&#8201;±&#8201;0.035 ×1017 seconds) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[1] The uncertainty of 0.11 billion years has been obtained by the agreement of a number of scientific research projects, such as microwave background radiation measurements by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation give the cooling time of the universe since the Big Bang,[3] and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe can be used to calculate its approximate age by extrapolating backwards in time.


----------



## Truthspeaker

I'll reply again soon enough. Probably tomorrow but it's refreshing to have some more substantial discussion on these matters. But today I'm celebrating the Giants comeback victory over the reds.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pity bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, man.  You have no pity.  Do we really need to keep this insanity going.
> 
> I mean, I love bashing the Mormons, but this isn't even fun anymore.  It's like talking to adult retards who still believe in Santa Claus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know what that's like? Somehow I don't see you taking time out of your day to go to the convalescent hospitals.
Click to expand...


Nope. I pay taxes and let the professionals do that.  

The don't come over to my desk and tell me how to do my job, I don't go to their job and tell them how to do theirs.  

Still doesn't take away from the fact that you Mormons believe in absolute bullshit that didn't happen, and you are all fucking nuts.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> You know hug, I disappeared for over a year on this thread because I got busy with work and life and stuff. Then something clicked the other day and made me want to peek back in and see if this thread was still alive. Thanks to enormous interest and animosity towards the church, people like you just can't stay away from us "crazies". You must really have an attraction to the insane or you're a closet investigator. Which one hug?
> 
> I know you've missed me haven't you. Admit it!



The only reason I'm stuck paying attention to you crazies right now is that due to a bad economy, you have a slight chance of sneaking one of your whacky cultists into the white house.  

Of course, Romney won't talk about the crazy stuff publically, and no one has the balls to ask him because when you point out Mormonism is crazy, people scream about "bigotry".  

I will be happy when Romney loses, and I never have to spend much time thinking about the LDS again.


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. It's not gone. The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form.
> 
> And no. Why would I be excommunicated for citing scientific laws? We are commanded, encouraged, exhorted, etc to learn all knowledge. The Glory of God is intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> Science tells us that a planet cannot be made in 6 days, with plants, animals, pre-made fossils...
> 
> 
> These sentences "The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form." don't make any sense. it's not in the same state, it went for a solid (coal) to energy (heat) which dissipated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basic Chemistry demonstrates that there is a balance in any reaction. If you break down water, for example, you still have 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen. The matter is accounted, for it's just in a different form.
> 
> And no science, doesn't tell us anything about what God can do in Six days. Nor does it define how long a day is to God.
Click to expand...


Do you think that whomever wrote the part about the world being made in 6 days was referring to 6 god-days which are longer than a regular day? I didn't think so. Please try again.


----------



## onecut39

Truthspeaker said:


> For the shirtless man,(you gotta love a guy who has the guts to post himself shirtless). Bravo!
> I am glad that you brought up all those points. Most mormons have not done their homework the way I have. Most don't really have to because, like you said, faith in Christ and good principles are the only thing you really need. However, I find it fun to dig for the truth and mysteries of God. I am grateful to be able to answer your questions because I believe I can do so in a satisfactory manner.
> Point number 1: Yes we do believe that many tribes have some bloodline of descendency from people of Israel. But it is not that simple. Herein lies the misconception that even a lot of Mormons hold because they are not as studious of the Book of Mormon as they should be. There were three main migrations spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The nation of Lehites which divided into 2 peoples of the same blood called Nephites and Lamanites. The second people spoken of but often forgotten were the Jaredites. The third, often glossed over completely are the Mulekites. I can delve into each of their histories in detail later if you like, but to sum up. The first people here, the Jaredites actually came from Asiatic area of Babylon. Quite a different DNA scheme. They were the first ever to set foot on this continent. This people as a nation dissolved and spread into unknown parts of the continent, certainly later mixing in with the future nations that would come, first mixing with the Mulekite people, who also came from the land of Jerusalem about 12 years after the more famous Nephites and Lamanites.
> I can't remember exactly the study, but I can produce it later if need be that showed that the people of the Americas were found to be primarily descended from Asiatic origins, which would fit perfectly in with the chronology of the Book of Mormon.......whew!
> 
> Oh yes, point two, the "Nuclear submarines" in question. The vessels themselves had to be made differently than your normal ship of the day with it's sails and common boat shape. To be clear, the people who first used these vessels were the Jaredites when they were told by God to take up this voyage. To a westerner, I agree, this story does not make much sense. But when put into historical context, it is an impressive stamp on the authenticity of the book.
> First it has been well documented that most of what we have learned of Ancient weather and dates of storms and destruction has been discovered in the last 100 years with the carbon dating process and knowledge of Geology and so on. We have learned in this time that there was a great and terrible weather pattern which leveled entire civilizations and left thriving cities, such as Bablyon completely destitute circa 2200 bc, right around the time the jaredites left bablyon. Strikingly, The most learned scientists of 1830 had no such knowledge of this timeline of destruction. Certainly not a poor farmboy named Joseph Smith in upstate rural New York.
> Hence had these Jaredites been in regular ships with sails, it would have been a quick destruction for all on board. The construction of the ships was very peculiar, not like a submarine like you have described, but certainly "tight, like unto a dish" as Ether points out. "Ye shall put a hole in the top thereof, that will close tight like unto a dish so that when the mountain waves shall dash upon you, you shall not be broken into pieces. You shall be as a whale in the sea, and I shall cause my winds to blow and a tempest to be thy wind continually blowing toward the promised land." I know I slightly misquoted the scripture in Ether because I don't have my book with me, but those are basically the words spoken to "the brother of Jared" in the book. "And when ye shall suffer for air ye shall unstop the hole when you come to the surface".
> They were not submarines. They were boats that would normally float on the water, but because of their shape, could stand for short whiles to be underneath water for a time. Just like a whale that needs to come up for air......whew...
> Next point... where was I?
> Oh yes, the great cities and their locations. We all know that there have been cities that have been buried by volcanic eruptions, or erased by large earthquakes and floods and such throughout the ages. Then why not in America. But some may say, well certainly not all the cities would be lost right? It would take one heck of a natural disaster wouldn't it? Yes it would.
> The book of mormon talks about just such a disaster, where after the death of Christ, Mountains were removed out of their place and fell on cities, giant waves, tornadoes and and vicious earthquakes that lasted for the space of three hours. Do any of us have any idea what would happen if a magnitude 9 earthquake shook for three hours? We do if we look in the book of mormon. Think something like that couldn't happen? Just watch that show on TLC Mega Disasters.



The Book of Mormon is so fantastic that, by comparison, the Bible appears scientific.  That is quite an accomplishment!


----------



## Uncensored2008

onecut39 said:


> The Book of Mormon is so fantastic that, by comparison, the Bible appears scientific.  That is quite an accomplishment!



I've read the Bible, I've read the Koran, but the Book of Mormon was impossible to read, disjointed and repetitive, beyond boring.

I've made it clear that I like Mormons just fine, the ones I know are good people. But that Book of Mormon is the most boring thing I've ever encountered. And it's not bias, I think Christianity is just as absurd as Mormonism; and Islam is evil.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> onecut39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon is so fantastic that, by comparison, the Bible appears scientific.  That is quite an accomplishment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the Bible, I've read the Koran, but the Book of Mormon was impossible to read, disjointed and repetitive, beyond boring.
> 
> I've made it clear that I like Mormons just fine, the ones I know are good people. But that Book of Mormon is the most boring thing I've ever encountered. And it's not bias, I think Christianity is just as absurd as Mormonism; and Islam is evil.
Click to expand...

try to imagine being forced or coerced into reading it almost every day.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> onecut39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon is so fantastic that, by comparison, the Bible appears scientific.  That is quite an accomplishment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read the Bible, I've read the Koran, but the Book of Mormon was impossible to read, disjointed and repetitive, beyond boring.
> 
> I've made it clear that I like Mormons just fine, the ones I know are good people. But that Book of Mormon is the most boring thing I've ever encountered. And it's not bias, I think Christianity is just as absurd as Mormonism; and Islam is evil.
Click to expand...


Oh you're so full o crap! You did not read the Bible! What a wretched lie! Or the Koran for that matter. The Book of Mormon is 100 times easier to read than the Bible and 1000 times less boring because it skips he begat him and they begat them in Numbers and Deuteronomy. If you read the Bible all the way through then I'm Mickey Frickin Mouse.

Wow that was my first post after being out for so long? Blasted School and homework and finally moving to Utah


----------



## Truthspeaker

onecut39 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the shirtless man,(you gotta love a guy who has the guts to post himself shirtless). Bravo!
> I am glad that you brought up all those points. Most mormons have not done their homework the way I have. Most don't really have to because, like you said, faith in Christ and good principles are the only thing you really need. However, I find it fun to dig for the truth and mysteries of God. I am grateful to be able to answer your questions because I believe I can do so in a satisfactory manner.
> Point number 1: Yes we do believe that many tribes have some bloodline of descendency from people of Israel. But it is not that simple. Herein lies the misconception that even a lot of Mormons hold because they are not as studious of the Book of Mormon as they should be. There were three main migrations spoken of in the Book of Mormon. The nation of Lehites which divided into 2 peoples of the same blood called Nephites and Lamanites. The second people spoken of but often forgotten were the Jaredites. The third, often glossed over completely are the Mulekites. I can delve into each of their histories in detail later if you like, but to sum up. The first people here, the Jaredites actually came from Asiatic area of Babylon. Quite a different DNA scheme. They were the first ever to set foot on this continent. This people as a nation dissolved and spread into unknown parts of the continent, certainly later mixing in with the future nations that would come, first mixing with the Mulekite people, who also came from the land of Jerusalem about 12 years after the more famous Nephites and Lamanites.
> I can't remember exactly the study, but I can produce it later if need be that showed that the people of the Americas were found to be primarily descended from Asiatic origins, which would fit perfectly in with the chronology of the Book of Mormon.......whew!
> 
> Oh yes, point two, the "Nuclear submarines" in question. The vessels themselves had to be made differently than your normal ship of the day with it's sails and common boat shape. To be clear, the people who first used these vessels were the Jaredites when they were told by God to take up this voyage. To a westerner, I agree, this story does not make much sense. But when put into historical context, it is an impressive stamp on the authenticity of the book.
> First it has been well documented that most of what we have learned of Ancient weather and dates of storms and destruction has been discovered in the last 100 years with the carbon dating process and knowledge of Geology and so on. We have learned in this time that there was a great and terrible weather pattern which leveled entire civilizations and left thriving cities, such as Bablyon completely destitute circa 2200 bc, right around the time the jaredites left bablyon. Strikingly, The most learned scientists of 1830 had no such knowledge of this timeline of destruction. Certainly not a poor farmboy named Joseph Smith in upstate rural New York.
> Hence had these Jaredites been in regular ships with sails, it would have been a quick destruction for all on board. The construction of the ships was very peculiar, not like a submarine like you have described, but certainly "tight, like unto a dish" as Ether points out. "Ye shall put a hole in the top thereof, that will close tight like unto a dish so that when the mountain waves shall dash upon you, you shall not be broken into pieces. You shall be as a whale in the sea, and I shall cause my winds to blow and a tempest to be thy wind continually blowing toward the promised land." I know I slightly misquoted the scripture in Ether because I don't have my book with me, but those are basically the words spoken to "the brother of Jared" in the book. "And when ye shall suffer for air ye shall unstop the hole when you come to the surface".
> They were not submarines. They were boats that would normally float on the water, but because of their shape, could stand for short whiles to be underneath water for a time. Just like a whale that needs to come up for air......whew...
> Next point... where was I?
> Oh yes, the great cities and their locations. We all know that there have been cities that have been buried by volcanic eruptions, or erased by large earthquakes and floods and such throughout the ages. Then why not in America. But some may say, well certainly not all the cities would be lost right? It would take one heck of a natural disaster wouldn't it? Yes it would.
> The book of mormon talks about just such a disaster, where after the death of Christ, Mountains were removed out of their place and fell on cities, giant waves, tornadoes and and vicious earthquakes that lasted for the space of three hours. Do any of us have any idea what would happen if a magnitude 9 earthquake shook for three hours? We do if we look in the book of mormon. Think something like that couldn't happen? Just watch that show on TLC Mega Disasters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon is so fantastic that, by comparison, the Bible appears scientific.  That is quite an accomplishment!
Click to expand...


In very deed. Also I made this first post 4 years ago and we've learned even more since then. Welcome to the conversation... guy...


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. God God
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Mormonism has thousands, maybe millions of gods. Wasn't Elohim first Adam who then became god of this world after peopling it with his wife?
Click to expand...


No Adam and Elohim are two different people


----------



## Truthspeaker

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science tells us that a planet cannot be made in 6 days, with plants, animals, pre-made fossils...
> 
> 
> These sentences "The matter is still accounted for. It's just in the same state and form." don't make any sense. it's not in the same state, it went for a solid (coal) to energy (heat) which dissipated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basic Chemistry demonstrates that there is a balance in any reaction. If you break down water, for example, you still have 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen. The matter is accounted, for it's just in a different form.
> 
> And no science, doesn't tell us anything about what God can do in Six days. Nor does it define how long a day is to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think that whomever wrote the part about the world being made in 6 days was referring to 6 god-days which are longer than a regular day? I didn't think so. Please try again.
Click to expand...


who knows which day they were referring to in the universe. It couldn't have been an earth day since the earth wasn't created yet.


----------



## JoeB131

Guy, why are you resurrected this Zombie thread. 

Romney lost.  No one is interested in your silly little cult anymore.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> Oh you're so full o crap! You did not read the Bible! What a wretched lie! Or the Koran for that matter. The Book of Mormon is 100 times easier to read than the Bible and 1000 times less boring because it skips he begat him and they begat them in Numbers and Deuteronomy. If you read the Bible all the way through then I'm Mickey Frickin Mouse.
> 
> Wow that was my first post after being out for so long? Blasted School and homework and finally moving to Utah



Oh please.

Believe whatever crap you like, but the Book of Mormon is the most poorly written pile I've ever seen.

I was raised by eine sehr religiös, deutsche Mutter, die Täufer is. I read the Bible by the time I was 10.

I read the Koran after the attack on our marines in Lebanon, I wanted to know what the whole thing was about.

Both are infinitely more readable than the Book of Mormon.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> No Adam and Elohim are two different people



Why?

Why did the LDS church feel the need to change that? What does that mean to the veracity of the Mormon faith, that the church has to rewrite basic plot lines to make the whole thing more palatable? That isn't all that changed in the 1903 rewrite, either.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, why are you resurrected this Zombie thread.
> 
> Romney lost.  No one is interested in your silly little cult anymore.



Did you stop hating Mormons once Dear Leader was reelected, Comrade Stalin?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored cannot even tell anyone what the message of King Benjamin is about.

Stop your lying, peanut.


----------



## daws101

the book of Mormon is complete fiction, it's far too much like the king James version of the bible to be anything else.
no matter what Mormons claims no one ever saw the plates with their own eyes (spiritual eye does not count)


----------



## JoeB131

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, why are you resurrected this Zombie thread.
> 
> Romney lost.  No one is interested in your silly little cult anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you stop hating Mormons once Dear Leader was reelected, Comrade Stalin?
Click to expand...


Naw, I still hate them, but with Romney gone, it's easier to ignore them.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know hug, I disappeared for over a year on this thread because I got busy with work and life and stuff. Then something clicked the other day and made me want to peek back in and see if this thread was still alive. Thanks to enormous interest and animosity towards the church, people like you just can't stay away from us "crazies". You must really have an attraction to the insane or you're a closet investigator. Which one hug?
> 
> I know you've missed me haven't you. Admit it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I'm stuck paying attention to you crazies right now is that due to a bad economy, you have a slight chance of sneaking one of your whacky cultists into the white house.
> 
> Of course, Romney won't talk about the crazy stuff publically, and no one has the balls to ask him because when you point out Mormonism is crazy, people scream about "bigotry".
> 
> I will be happy when Romney loses, and I never have to spend much time thinking about the LDS again.
Click to expand...


You'll never stop thinking about us because you just can't stay away from this incredible immortal thread!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you're so full o crap! You did not read the Bible! What a wretched lie! Or the Koran for that matter. The Book of Mormon is 100 times easier to read than the Bible and 1000 times less boring because it skips he begat him and they begat them in Numbers and Deuteronomy. If you read the Bible all the way through then I'm Mickey Frickin Mouse.
> 
> Wow that was my first post after being out for so long? Blasted School and homework and finally moving to Utah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> Believe whatever crap you like, but the Book of Mormon is the most poorly written pile I've ever seen.
> 
> I was raised by eine sehr religiös, deutsche Mutter, die Täufer is. I read the Bible by the time I was 10.
> 
> I read the Koran after the attack on our marines in Lebanon, I wanted to know what the whole thing was about.
> 
> Both are infinitely more readable than the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...


Well _THAT'S_ rich. thanks for proving my point again. You obviously didn't read the Book of Mormon and I'll prove it to anyone who reads this again: 1. You can't tell me what the thesis of the book is and 2. You obviously didn't read the the book because the language is so much more modern and simple to read than the ancient Jewish symbolic writing of Isaiah mixed with medieval priestly interpolations by the Church of England which had already gone through Roman interpolations in the 3rd century. 
It would only makes sense that the Bible were easier to read if you were from Jerusalem in the 3rd century or from medieval England. 
Go read it for real Mr. Transparent Glass Man


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Adam and Elohim are two different people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Why did the LDS church feel the need to change that? What does that mean to the veracity of the Mormon faith, that the church has to rewrite basic plot lines to make the whole thing more palatable? That isn't all that changed in the 1903 rewrite, either.
Click to expand...

Not gonna let you get away with your misunderstanding of our doctrine. Adam was never purported to be Elohim. In fact the word Elohim in Hebrew simply means "gods" in the plural. Adam was one of the gods in the creation process under the direction of Christ. 
However Elohim is the name we use to refer to the father of Christ. So it's easy to see how an outsider can confuse Adam with Elohim because he was part of the council of gods in the creation. To avoid further confusion, Adam's name before he came to earth was Michael.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, why are you resurrected this Zombie thread.
> 
> Romney lost.  No one is interested in your silly little cult anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you stop hating Mormons once Dear Leader was reelected, Comrade Stalin?
Click to expand...


Stop hating? Do Comrades do that?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored cannot even tell anyone what the message of King Benjamin is about.
> 
> Stop your lying, peanut.



quite so. Welcome back Starksky


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> the book of Mormon is complete fiction, it's far too much like the king James version of the bible to be anything else.
> no matter what Mormons claims no one ever saw the plates with their own eyes (spiritual eye does not count)



15 eyewitnesses would disagree with you. As would I.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> Stop hating? Do Comrades do that?



Comrade JoeB apparently doesn't. He'd kinda like to have y'all put into death camps.


----------



## ima

If mormonism was the real truth, we'd all be mormons. So how come we're not?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> quite so. Welcome back Starksky



You're quite confused on the players of this little game.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> Not gonna let you get away with your misunderstanding of our doctrine. Adam was never purported to be Elohim. In fact the word Elohim in Hebrew simply means "gods" in the plural. Adam was one of the gods in the creation process under the direction of Christ.
> However Elohim is the name we use to refer to the father of Christ. So it's easy to see how an outsider can confuse Adam with Elohim because he was part of the council of gods in the creation. To avoid further confusion, Adam's name before he came to earth was Michael.



Uh yeah, I don't think so.

Adam?God doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mormons changed this all in 1903. Prior to that, Adam was the god of this world, per Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.


----------



## daws101

Truthspeaker said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the book of Mormon is complete fiction, it's far too much like the king James version of the bible to be anything else.
> no matter what Mormons claims no one ever saw the plates with their own eyes (spiritual eye does not count)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 eyewitnesses would disagree with you. As would I.
Click to expand...

there were no eyewitnesses the 15 you're talking about saw it with their spiritual eye.

SUMMARY

 · It is believed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon Statement for the witnesses and induced them to sign.

 · Smith knew that none of the witnesses had ever seen the plates with their natural eyes, yet worded the statement as if they had.

 · Historical accounts reveal that the three witnesses never saw the gold plates with their natural eyes. They were always covered with a cloth.

 · The witnesses were pressured to conjure up their own personal vision after Smith intimidated and hounded them over their lack of faith. They finally envisioned the plates in an empty box.

 · All of the witnesses were manipulated and pressured by Smith into seeing something that didnt physically exist, because they believed he was a Prophet of God.

 · The gold plates the eight witnesses later claimed to heft in such a casual manner, would have been impossible because of the weight. This suggests that some other kind of plates were provided by Smith.

 · That Smith forged false plates with inscriptions, was stated by John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt, wife of Apostle Orson Pratt.

 · All three witnesses, plus many of the eight, left the church and embraced another faith.

 · The testimony of the witnesses in their old age, proved to be embellished and exaggerated.

 *Copyright 2003 - 2009. This article cannot be copied and used in a professional publication without express permission of the author.



The Three Witnesses to the Gold Plates: www.janishutchinson.com


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Not gonna let you get away with your misunderstanding of our doctrine*. Adam was never purported to be Elohim. In fact the word Elohim in Hebrew simply means "gods" in the plural. Adam was one of the gods in the creation process under the direction of Christ.
> However Elohim is the name we use to refer to the father of Christ. So it's easy to see how an outsider can confuse Adam with Elohim because he was part of the council of gods in the creation. To avoid further confusion, Adam's name before he came to earth was Michael.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh yeah, I don't think so.
> 
> Adam?God doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Mormons changed this all in 1903. Prior to that, Adam was the god of this world, per Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Click to expand...


*Not gonna let you get away with your misunderstanding of our doctrine*

What are ya gonna do about it?  Raise the prices at Albertson's again?  Maybe yank Marie Osmond off of the TV commercials for fat neurotic Morman women?

You know you are crazy people.  Everyone with any sense knows you are crazy people.

There is no "mystery" about Mormans.  They are crazy.  It's really THAT simple.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know hug, I disappeared for over a year on this thread because I got busy with work and life and stuff. Then something clicked the other day and made me want to peek back in and see if this thread was still alive. Thanks to enormous interest and animosity towards the church, people like you just can't stay away from us "crazies". You must really have an attraction to the insane or you're a closet investigator. Which one hug?
> 
> I know you've missed me haven't you. Admit it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I'm stuck paying attention to you crazies right now is that due to a bad economy, you have a slight chance of sneaking one of your whacky cultists into the white house.
> 
> Of course, Romney won't talk about the crazy stuff publically, and no one has the balls to ask him because when you point out Mormonism is crazy, people scream about "bigotry".
> 
> I will be happy when Romney loses, and I never have to spend much time thinking about the LDS again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll never stop thinking about us because you just can't stay away from this incredible immortal thread!
Click to expand...


Naw, I just wondered why anyone was still harping on it after the "Mormon Moment" had passed...


----------



## TwistedSuze13

I was just wandering around in the Religion and Ethics section and spotted this incredible thread !

Of course I haven't read all 422 pages of posts.....but kudos to "Truthspeaker" for hanging in there all that time and answering and explaining thngs about Mormonism (even though  disappearing here and there...you came back).

I'm kind of basically Protestant, but have no issues with the Mormon version of Christianity.
I think it's deplorable that the Southern Baptist Convention teaches that it is a cult.
They are Soo mistaken.


Anyway, thanks, Truthspeaker......well done.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> *Not gonna let you get away with your misunderstanding of our doctrine*
> 
> What are ya gonna do about it?  Raise the prices at Albertson's again?  Maybe yank Marie Osmond off of the TV commercials for fat neurotic Morman women?
> 
> You know you are crazy people.  Everyone with any sense knows you are crazy people.
> 
> There is no "mystery" about Mormans.  They are crazy.  It's really THAT simple.



I'm so glad Huggy is here with his in depth analysis here. 

Oh and btw, someone can be totally crazy and absolutely right. You should try being crazy sometime. It's alot more fun than sanity.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, I just wondered why anyone was still harping on it after the "Mormon Moment" had passed...



If you think that was the end of the Mormon Moment, you haven't seen anything yet.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the book of Mormon is complete fiction, it's far too much like the king James version of the bible to be anything else.
> no matter what Mormons claims no one ever saw the plates with their own eyes (spiritual eye does not count)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 eyewitnesses would disagree with you. As would I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there were no eyewitnesses the 15 you're talking about saw it with their spiritual eye.
> 
> SUMMARY
> 
> · It is believed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon Statement for the witnesses and induced them to sign.
> 
> · Smith knew that none of the witnesses had ever seen the plates with their natural eyes, yet worded the statement as if they had.
> 
> · Historical accounts reveal that the three witnesses never saw the gold plates with their natural eyes. They were always covered with a cloth.
> 
> · The witnesses were pressured to conjure up their own personal vision after Smith intimidated and hounded them over their lack of faith. They finally envisioned the plates in an empty box.
> 
> · All of the witnesses were manipulated and pressured by Smith into seeing something that didnt physically exist, because they believed he was a Prophet of God.
> 
> · The gold plates the eight witnesses later claimed to heft in such a casual manner, would have been impossible because of the weight. This suggests that some other kind of plates were provided by Smith.
> 
> · That Smith forged false plates with inscriptions, was stated by John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt, wife of Apostle Orson Pratt.
> 
> · All three witnesses, plus many of the eight, left the church and embraced another faith.
> 
> · The testimony of the witnesses in their old age, proved to be embellished and exaggerated.
> 
> *Copyright 2003 - 2009. This article cannot be copied and used in a professional publication without express permission of the author.
> 
> 
> 
> The Three Witnesses to the Gold Plates: www.janishutchinson.com
Click to expand...


Wow. going to extremes to discredit the witnesses. 

Considering 2 of the 3 witnesses died members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Third one contacted the press to reaffirm his testimony of seeing the plates before he died, your claims that the left the Church and "Embraced" other faiths is a bit exagerated, don't you think?

Personally, I think the fact that all three of the 3 witnesses spent some time away from the Church and yet still continued to affirm their testimony despite hardship makes them more credible and not elss. Heck, Oliver lost multiple political elections because he wouldn't deny His testimony of the Book of Mormon, despite not being in the Church at the time. And the personal letters between David and Oliver made it clear they still affirmed their testimony. After Joseph's death Oliver even suggest to David that he still had his priesthood and keys (not knowing that Hyrum had replaced him as Second Elder0. 

They all seem like very odd things to do if "Joseph tricked them" and they didn't actually see anything.

But hey, if that's what you are going to support, it's your right. I've just studied the witnesses and your claims don't match up with first hand info I've seen.


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> If mormonism was the real truth, we'd all be mormons. So how come we're not?



Because you havent studied the Book of Mormon and gotten on your knees to ask the Lord if i was true.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored cannot even tell anyone what the message of King Benjamin is about.
> 
> Stop your lying, peanut.



While i certainly commend you in your defense, I am not convinced that you know what the message of King Benjamin is about, per several of our discussions. Though I think you have actually read it


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I just wondered why anyone was still harping on it after the "Mormon Moment" had passed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that was the end of the Mormon Moment, you haven't seen anything yet.
Click to expand...


Oh, I think that your cult is already starting to fade, thanks to the fact that the internet is informing more of your dumb sheep about what Joseph Smith really did...


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mormonism was the real truth, we'd all be mormons. So how come we're not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you havent studied the Book of Mormon and gotten on your knees to ask the Lord if i was true.
Click to expand...


Well, the thing is so horribly written that most people find it unreadable.... 

"exceedingly" badly written, in fact.  

The last time I asked the Sky Pixie for anything was to cure my mom's cancer. 

Then she died and I realized no one is listening to those prayers, so I don't waste my time with them.


----------



## JoeB131

TwistedSuze13 said:


> I was just wandering around in the Religion and Ethics section and spotted this incredible thread !
> 
> Of course I haven't read all 422 pages of posts.....but kudos to "Truthspeaker" for hanging in there all that time and answering and explaining thngs about Mormonism (even though  disappearing here and there...you came back).
> 
> I'm kind of basically Protestant, but have no issues with the Mormon version of Christianity.
> I think it's deplorable that the Southern Baptist Convention teaches that it is a cult.
> They are Soo mistaken.
> 
> Anyway, thanks, Truthspeaker......well done.



Sorry, I'm an atheist, and I think Mormonism is a cult. 

The difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult seeks to control every aspect of their members lives.   

So let's see. Mandetory Missionary work, Magic Underwear, Tithing, requiring people to recite their testimony on demand, shunning family members if they leave the faith.  

Cult.


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mormonism was the real truth, we'd all be mormons. So how come we're not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you havent studied the Book of Mormon and gotten on your knees to ask the Lord if i was true.
Click to expand...


Sure I did, I got no response. Could it be because I was laughing most of the way through?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I just wondered why anyone was still harping on it after the "Mormon Moment" had passed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that was the end of the Mormon Moment, you haven't seen anything yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I think that your cult is already starting to fade, thanks to the fact that the internet is informing more of your dumb sheep about what Joseph Smith really did...
Click to expand...


yeah, but we've already established that your depiction of reality is questionable.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mormonism was the real truth, we'd all be mormons. So how come we're not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you havent studied the Book of Mormon and gotten on your knees to ask the Lord if i was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the thing is so horribly written that most people find it unreadable....
> 
> "exceedingly" badly written, in fact.
> 
> The last time I asked the Sky Pixie for anything was to cure my mom's cancer.
> 
> Then she died and I realized no one is listening to those prayers, so I don't waste my time with them.
Click to expand...


Considering how clear it is, it sounds like you're just making excuses for your lack of effort.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> TwistedSuze13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just wandering around in the Religion and Ethics section and spotted this incredible thread !
> 
> Of course I haven't read all 422 pages of posts.....but kudos to "Truthspeaker" for hanging in there all that time and answering and explaining thngs about Mormonism (even though  disappearing here and there...you came back).
> 
> I'm kind of basically Protestant, but have no issues with the Mormon version of Christianity.
> I think it's deplorable that the Southern Baptist Convention teaches that it is a cult.
> They are Soo mistaken.
> 
> Anyway, thanks, Truthspeaker......well done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm an atheist, and I think Mormonism is a cult.
> 
> The difference between a cult and a religion is that a cult seeks to control every aspect of their members lives.
> 
> So let's see. Mandetory Missionary work, Magic Underwear, Tithing, requiring people to recite their testimony on demand, shunning family members if they leave the faith.
> 
> Cult.
Click to expand...


There, again, demonstrates your ignorance. No one is shunned. Quite the opposite, critics like yourself likewise claim we don't leave people alone. No one is forced to recite their testimony, in fact, no one is forced to do anything. People share their testimony because its meaningful to them. There is nothing magical about anyone's underwear and the obsession some of you critics have with underwear is a bit creepy. The so called mandatory missionary work is still the choice of anyone who does it.


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mormonism was the real truth, we'd all be mormons. So how come we're not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you havent studied the Book of Mormon and gotten on your knees to ask the Lord if i was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I did, I got no response. Could it be because I was laughing most of the way through?
Click to expand...


And your mocking just demonstrates that you didnt bother doing it. You think it's a joke, which is why you won't ever get an answer. You dont bother trying and if you ever are, you aren't sincere. You think God is going to answer someone actively mocking Him?


----------



## LittleNipper

One needs to compare the the writing within the Bible to those of the book of Mormon. If there is confusion, and since God is not the author of confusion, and Jesus fully supported the Bible, then one must conclude that the book of Mormon is counterfeit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored cannot even tell anyone what the message of King Benjamin is about.
> 
> Stop your lying, peanut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While i certainly commend you in your defense, I am not convinced that you know what the message of King Benjamin is about, per several of our discussions. Though I think you have actually read it
Click to expand...


I fully understand it.  Sat down with a Stake Presidency counselor a couple of years ago, and he agrees that the fusion of theocracy and religion are complete.  The people were commanded to attend and to follow their prophet king's direction.

My LDS friends here in Utah, many of whom work in the JBS and CHL, agree that your libertarian interpretation is in error.  As long as you don't defy LDS teaching publicly, you are not in heresy.  If you do, are corrected, and refuse to recant, then you are in a state of apostasy.

I hope it does not go that far.


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> One needs to compare the the writing within the Bible to those of the book of Mormon. If there is confusion, and since *God is not the author of confusion*, and Jesus fully supported the Bible, then one must conclude that the book of Mormon is counterfeit.



I thought god created everything?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15 eyewitnesses would disagree with you. As would I.
> 
> 
> 
> there were no eyewitnesses the 15 you're talking about saw it with their spiritual eye.
> 
> SUMMARY
> 
> · It is believed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon Statement for the witnesses and induced them to sign.
> 
> · Smith knew that none of the witnesses had ever seen the plates with their natural eyes, yet worded the statement as if they had.
> 
> · Historical accounts reveal that the three witnesses never saw the gold plates with their natural eyes. They were always covered with a cloth.
> 
> · The witnesses were pressured to conjure up their own personal vision after Smith intimidated and hounded them over their lack of faith. They finally envisioned the plates in an empty box.
> 
> · All of the witnesses were manipulated and pressured by Smith into seeing something that didnt physically exist, because they believed he was a Prophet of God.
> 
> · The gold plates the eight witnesses later claimed to heft in such a casual manner, would have been impossible because of the weight. This suggests that some other kind of plates were provided by Smith.
> 
> · That Smith forged false plates with inscriptions, was stated by John C. Bennett and Sarah Pratt, wife of Apostle Orson Pratt.
> 
> · All three witnesses, plus many of the eight, left the church and embraced another faith.
> 
> · The testimony of the witnesses in their old age, proved to be embellished and exaggerated.
> 
> *Copyright 2003 - 2009. This article cannot be copied and used in a professional publication without express permission of the author.
> 
> 
> 
> The Three Witnesses to the Gold Plates: www.janishutchinson.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. going to extremes to discredit the witnesses.
> 
> Considering 2 of the 3 witnesses died members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Third one contacted the press to reaffirm his testimony of seeing the plates before he died, your claims that the left the Church and "Embraced" other faiths is a bit exagerated, don't you think?
> 
> Personally, I think the fact that all three of the 3 witnesses spent some time away from the Church and yet still continued to affirm their testimony despite hardship makes them more credible and not elss. Heck, Oliver lost multiple political elections because he wouldn't deny His testimony of the Book of Mormon, despite not being in the Church at the time. And the personal letters between David and Oliver made it clear they still affirmed their testimony. After Joseph's death Oliver even suggest to David that he still had his priesthood and keys (not knowing that Hyrum had replaced him as Second Elder0.
> 
> They all seem like very odd things to do if "Joseph tricked them" and they didn't actually see anything.
> 
> But hey, if that's what you are going to support, it's your right. I've just studied the witnesses and your claims don't match up with first hand info I've seen.
Click to expand...

don't need to ,there are no plates (never were) whatever the witnesses BELIEVE they saw or imagined they saw (the spiritual eye) is no evidence of the plates existing.
humans tend to find what they want to find even when it's not there.
I have no doubt they did believe what they  imagined they saw, books on human behavior are full of accounts of misidentification.


----------



## HUGGY

It is astonishing how so many people are duped into believeing they will get rewarded for their participation in any religion after they are dead.

You some REALLY STUPID MoFos.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avatar4321 said:


> While i certainly commend you in your defense, I am not convinced that you know what the message of King Benjamin is about, per several of our discussions. Though I think you have actually read it



There is nothing for Jakematters to defend. I never "attacked" Mormonism in the first place, and have often defended it from other leftist fools like JoeB.

I am agnostic, but find Mormonism no more ridiculous than other faiths. You already know that Jake is a fraud who engages in deceit. In another thread he is purporting to be a Catholic and speak for that church. 

I don't share your faith, but I sure haven't attacked it.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> It is astonishing how so many people are duped into believeing they will get rewarded for their participation in any religion after they are dead.
> 
> You some REALLY STUPID MoFos.


no shit!
you'd think after 2000 or so years people would catch on to the scam.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While i certainly commend you in your defense, I am not convinced that you know what the message of King Benjamin is about, per several of our discussions. Though I think you have actually read it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing for Jakematters to defend. I never "attacked" Mormonism in the first place, and have often defended it from other leftist fools like JoeB.
> 
> I am agnostic, but find Mormonism no more ridiculous than other faiths. You already know that Jake is a fraud who engages in deceit. In another thread he is purporting to be a Catholic and speak for that church.
> 
> I don't share your faith, but I sure haven't attacked it.
Click to expand...


Uncensored now moves from spamming to lying.  Post the link, so I can metaphorically kick your face in there and here.  Without the link, you are merely spamming.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored know moves from spamming to lying.  Post the link, so I can metaphorically kick your face in there and here.  Without the link, you are merely spamming.



Jake, you're a lying little fuckwad, but that has nothing to do with Mormonism, that's just who you are as a person. 

Your fellow fake Republican, but genuine Bolshevik, JoeB, is the most virulent anti-Mormon bigot on the board.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Post the link, uncensored, or admit you are lying.

If you don't then the principle of Affirmative Silence condemns you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Post the link, uncensored, or admit you are lying.
> 
> If you don't then the principle of Affirmative Silence condemns you.



I'm curious, Jakematters, as a lying fuckwad, you've been exposed repeatedly, yet you lack any semblance of integrity, so you continue. Do you ever get a residual twinge of regret for your lies?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/281963-a-black-pope-6.html#post6914399

You lying pile of shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The link gives no evidence that I say I am Catholic.  You project onto me your lack of integrity.  You fail.   I am not, no more than I am Mormon, and I am beginning to think that you are not Jewish.

What is wrong with you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> The link gives no evidence that I say I am Catholic.  You project onto me your lack of integrity.  You fail.   I am not, no more than I am Mormon, and I am beginning to think that you are not Jewish.
> 
> What is wrong with you?



Jewish? Me?

BWAHAHAHAHA



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> This has nothing to do with Holy Catholicism but only apostate evangelicalism and fundamentalism,



There's a reason you are identified as a lying fuckwad, Jakematters....


----------



## JakeStarkey

So I am not Catholic and you are not Jewish?  Then why did you lie about me being Catholic?

Your own link cut off your balls, you idjit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> So I am not Catholic and you are not Jewish?  Then why did you lie about me being Catholic?
> 
> Your own link cut off your balls, you idjit.



You huff WAY to much oven cleaner, fuckwad.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> need to ,there are no plates (never were) whatever the witnesses BELIEVE they saw or imagined they saw (the spiritual eye) is no evidence of the plates existing.
> humans tend to find what they want to find even when it's not there.
> I have no doubt they did believe what they  imagined they saw, books on human behavior are full of accounts of misidentification.



Like I said, it's fine that you are going to ignore the eyewitnesses because it's inconvenient for your current perspective. That's your choice. But it doesn't change the fact that the eye witnesses exist and their testimony and behavior conflict with your viewpoint.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you havent studied the Book of Mormon and gotten on your knees to ask the Lord if i was true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the thing is so horribly written that most people find it unreadable....
> 
> "exceedingly" badly written, in fact.
> 
> The last time I asked the Sky Pixie for anything was to cure my mom's cancer.
> 
> Then she died and I realized no one is listening to those prayers, so I don't waste my time with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering how clear it is, it sounds like you're just making excuses for your lack of effort.
Click to expand...


No, I'm just effectively proven there is no God.  All other arguments became meaningless on Feb 3rd, 1983.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> It is astonishing how so many people are duped into believeing they will get rewarded for their participation in any religion after they are dead.
> 
> You some REALLY STUPID MoFos.



It's astonishing that you think just insulting people somehow proves your point. I don't think your stupid though. I just think you aren't thinking.


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While i certainly commend you in your defense, I am not convinced that you know what the message of King Benjamin is about, per several of our discussions. Though I think you have actually read it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing for Jakematters to defend. I never "attacked" Mormonism in the first place, and have often defended it from other leftist fools like JoeB.
> 
> I am agnostic, but find Mormonism no more ridiculous than other faiths. You already know that Jake is a fraud who engages in deceit. In another thread he is purporting to be a Catholic and speak for that church.
> 
> I don't share your faith, but I sure haven't attacked it.
Click to expand...


Then I apologize. Part of the problem coming it mid discussion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the thing is so horribly written that most people find it unreadable....
> 
> "exceedingly" badly written, in fact.
> 
> The last time I asked the Sky Pixie for anything was to cure my mom's cancer.
> 
> Then she died and I realized no one is listening to those prayers, so I don't waste my time with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how clear it is, it sounds like you're just making excuses for your lack of effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm just effectively proven there is no God.  All other arguments became meaningless on Feb 3rd, 1983.
Click to expand...


You can't do anything of the sort, ever.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> [
> 
> There, again, demonstrates your ignorance. No one is shunned. Quite the opposite, critics like yourself likewise claim we don't leave people alone. No one is forced to recite their testimony, in fact, no one is forced to do anything. People share their testimony because its meaningful to them. There is nothing magical about anyone's underwear and the obsession some of you critics have with underwear is a bit creepy. The so called mandatory missionary work is still the choice of anyone who does it.



Yeah, guy, I've talked to enough Ex-Mormons to know that Shunning is common and encouraged by the cult to keep people in line.  

So we can add "Liars" to the things I hate about your cult.   

But your cult was started by a liar and pedophile, it's not like I'm holding you to a standard.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the thing is so horribly written that most people find it unreadable....
> 
> "exceedingly" badly written, in fact.
> 
> The last time I asked the Sky Pixie for anything was to cure my mom's cancer.
> 
> Then she died and I realized no one is listening to those prayers, so I don't waste my time with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how clear it is, it sounds like you're just making excuses for your lack of effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm just effectively proven there is no God.  All other arguments became meaningless on Feb 3rd, 1983.
Click to expand...


You haven't proven anything. I've experienced the love and glory of God. I've recieved revelation and blessings from the Lord. I've been healed miraculously because of God. Everything in the universe testifies that there is a God. The hand of divine providence is all over the history of the world. 

Why on earth would I or anyone else who has experienced the Lord accept that there is no God simply on your word alone?


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that was the end of the Mormon Moment, you haven't seen anything yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think that your cult is already starting to fade, thanks to the fact that the internet is informing more of your dumb sheep about what Joseph Smith really did...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, but we've already established that your depiction of reality is questionable.
Click to expand...


Yeah... Ummm, hey, did they find those Nephite Ruins yet?  

You know, if the NEphite Civilization existed, there ought to be evidence of it, right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While i certainly commend you in your defense, I am not convinced that you know what the message of King Benjamin is about, per several of our discussions. Though I think you have actually read it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing for Jakematters to defend. I never "attacked" Mormonism in the first place, and have often defended it from other leftist fools like JoeB.
> 
> I am agnostic, but find Mormonism no more ridiculous than other faiths. You already know that Jake is a fraud who engages in deceit. In another thread he is purporting to be a Catholic and speak for that church.
> 
> I don't share your faith, but I sure haven't attacked it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I apologize. Part of the problem coming it mid discussion.
Click to expand...


Uncensored posted a link that proved that I was not a Catholic.  He lies as usual, Avatar.

You can ask him to post the link where I say or "purport" to be a Catholic.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Uncensored posted a link that proved that I was not a Catholic.  He lies as usual, Avatar.
> 
> You can ask him to post the link where I say or "purport" to be a Catholic.



Why do you lie so much?

Are you in reality, mentally ill? Seriously, are you a danger to yourself or others?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> There, again, demonstrates your ignorance. No one is shunned. Quite the opposite, critics like yourself likewise claim we don't leave people alone. No one is forced to recite their testimony, in fact, no one is forced to do anything. People share their testimony because its meaningful to them. There is nothing magical about anyone's underwear and the obsession some of you critics have with underwear is a bit creepy. The so called mandatory missionary work is still the choice of anyone who does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, I've talked to enough Ex-Mormons to know that Shunning is common and encouraged by the cult to keep people in line.
> 
> So we can add "Liars" to the things I hate about your cult.
> 
> But your cult was started by a liar and pedophile, it's not like I'm holding you to a standard.
Click to expand...


nonsense. Especially considering that countless ex-mormons claim we wont leave them alone. Go to any anti-mormon forum and ask if anyone has problems with mormons who wont leave them alone. They will give you tons of stories showing the exact opposite of what your claiming. So stop lying.

That's what disgusts me about anti-mormons such as yourself. You're so freakin insecure about your positions that you have to make things up.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think that your cult is already starting to fade, thanks to the fact that the internet is informing more of your dumb sheep about what Joseph Smith really did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, but we've already established that your depiction of reality is questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... Ummm, hey, did they find those Nephite Ruins yet?
> 
> You know, if the NEphite Civilization existed, there ought to be evidence of it, right?
Click to expand...


And there is if you bother looking at the evidence. The problem is identifying it and the lack of research into that area.

However, the fact that an uneducated farmboy in frontier New York described an accurate route through the Arabia Penninsula in 1 Nephi through Nahom and Bountiful, and even accurately named Nahom as the evidence shows it was known at time is pretty impressive. But I suppose thats another one of those coincidence that Joseph just happened to get right that no one knew about for nearly 200 years.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing for Jakematters to defend. I never "attacked" Mormonism in the first place, and have often defended it from other leftist fools like JoeB.
> 
> I am agnostic, but find Mormonism no more ridiculous than other faiths. You already know that Jake is a fraud who engages in deceit. In another thread he is purporting to be a Catholic and speak for that church.
> 
> I don't share your faith, but I sure haven't attacked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I apologize. Part of the problem coming it mid discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncensored posted a link that proved that I was not a Catholic.  He lies as usual, Avatar.
> 
> You can ask him to post the link where I say or "purport" to be a Catholic.
Click to expand...


I apologized for thinking he was attacking the Church. I didnt say anything about his attacks on you. You guys can work that out amongst yourselves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No problem whatsoever.  The problem was resolved.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> need to ,there are no plates (never were) whatever the witnesses BELIEVE they saw or imagined they saw (the spiritual eye) is no evidence of the plates existing.
> humans tend to find what they want to find even when it's not there.
> I have no doubt they did believe what they  imagined they saw, books on human behavior are full of accounts of misidentification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's fine that you are going to ignore the eyewitnesses because it's inconvenient for your current perspective. That's your choice. But it doesn't change the fact that the eye witnesses exist and their testimony and behavior conflict with your viewpoint.
Click to expand...

sorry shit for comprehension but I did not ignore the witnesses,  there is no way to validate what they say they saw.
their testimony and behavior only proves they believed Nothing more...


----------



## JakeStarkey

No objective way exists to validate the witnesses' stories.

Only by faith and testimony, which is subjective.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering how clear it is, it sounds like you're just making excuses for your lack of effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm just effectively proven there is no God.  All other arguments became meaningless on Feb 3rd, 1983.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You haven't proven anything. I've experienced the love and glory of God. I've recieved revelation and blessings from the Lord. I've been healed miraculously because of God. Everything in the universe testifies that there is a God. The hand of divine providence is all over the history of the world.
> 
> Why on earth would I or anyone else who has experienced the Lord accept that there is no God simply on your word alone?
Click to expand...

of course you have dear...


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm just effectively proven there is no God.  All other arguments became meaningless on Feb 3rd, 1983.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't proven anything. I've experienced the love and glory of God. I've recieved revelation and blessings from the Lord. I've been healed miraculously because of God. Everything in the universe testifies that there is a God. The hand of divine providence is all over the history of the world.
> 
> Why on earth would I or anyone else who has experienced the Lord accept that there is no God simply on your word alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course you have dear...
Click to expand...


It's his right to seek God as he wishes.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> There, again, demonstrates your ignorance. No one is shunned. Quite the opposite, critics like yourself likewise claim we don't leave people alone. No one is forced to recite their testimony, in fact, no one is forced to do anything. People share their testimony because its meaningful to them. There is nothing magical about anyone's underwear and the obsession some of you critics have with underwear is a bit creepy. The so called mandatory missionary work is still the choice of anyone who does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, I've talked to enough Ex-Mormons to know that Shunning is common and encouraged by the cult to keep people in line.
> 
> So we can add "Liars" to the things I hate about your cult.
> 
> But your cult was started by a liar and pedophile, it's not like I'm holding you to a standard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nonsense. Especially considering that countless ex-mormons claim we wont leave them alone. Go to any anti-mormon forum and ask if anyone has problems with mormons who wont leave them alone. They will give you tons of stories showing the exact opposite of what your claiming. So stop lying.
> 
> That's what disgusts me about anti-mormons such as yourself. You're so freakin insecure about your positions that you have to make things up.
Click to expand...

really ? I'm an ex Mormon and I disassociated myself from "the church" at 18... at 32 I finally had to use the law to keep them from harassing me... somebody's lying and it's not me.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't proven anything. I've experienced the love and glory of God. I've recieved revelation and blessings from the Lord. I've been healed miraculously because of God. Everything in the universe testifies that there is a God. The hand of divine providence is all over the history of the world.
> 
> Why on earth would I or anyone else who has experienced the Lord accept that there is no God simply on your word alone?
> 
> 
> 
> of course you have dear...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's his right to seek God as he wishes.
Click to expand...

true ...on the other hand he cannot prove a god exists, not by belief anyway.
you need evidence for that.
faith is evidence of faith nothing more.
anyone proclaiming it's more, is lying to themselves and others.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, stop it.  No one can "prove" God exists or not.  This is a faith thing.  You don't believe, cool.  Neither do I, in the Mormon thing.

Who cares?

Don't be as silly as JoeB.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is astonishing how so many people are duped into believeing they will get rewarded for their participation in any religion after they are dead.
> 
> You some REALLY STUPID MoFos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's astonishing that you think just insulting people somehow proves your point. I don't think your stupid though. I just think you aren't thinking.
Click to expand...


How convenient that no one has come back from the dead since you people came up with this nonsense to verify the rediculous claims made by Christians and Mormans..  OR should we just skip to the chase and call it fraud, which it is.  If this scam wasn't being conducted under the protection of freedom of religion you would all be in prison.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> No problem whatsoever.  The problem was resolved.



Good to hear.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> nonsense. Especially considering that countless ex-mormons claim we wont leave them alone. Go to any anti-mormon forum and ask if anyone has problems with mormons who wont leave them alone. They will give you tons of stories showing the exact opposite of what your claiming. So stop lying.
> 
> That's what disgusts me about anti-mormons such as yourself. You're so freakin insecure about your positions that you have to make things up.



I think that continuing to bug them isn't the same as "not shunning them".   

How about this.  When someone leaves your religion, you respect that and don't try to win them back and don't shun them and actually respect their decision.  

What a Fuckin' concept.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> sorry shit for comprehension but I did not ignore the witnesses,  there is no way to validate what they say they saw.
> their testimony and behavior only proves they believed Nothing more...



There is an easy way to validate what they saw:



> Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
> 
> And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)



That is ultimately the only way to know.

Their words and action support their testimony. But the only way to know for sure is to go to the Lord for yourself. There will be many more who will see and feel the plates before the end.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm just effectively proven there is no God.  All other arguments became meaningless on Feb 3rd, 1983.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't proven anything. I've experienced the love and glory of God. I've recieved revelation and blessings from the Lord. I've been healed miraculously because of God. Everything in the universe testifies that there is a God. The hand of divine providence is all over the history of the world.
> 
> Why on earth would I or anyone else who has experienced the Lord accept that there is no God simply on your word alone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course you have dear...
Click to expand...


You don't have to take my word for it. Like I said, that's the beauty of the Gospel, you can go to the Lord and find out for yourself.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Oh, stop it.  No one can "prove" God exists or not.  This is a faith thing.  You don't believe, cool.  Neither do I, in the Mormon thing.
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Don't be as silly as JoeB.


joe b has the right to not seek god. how does that make him more silly than avatar?


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, guy, I've talked to enough Ex-Mormons to know that Shunning is common and encouraged by the cult to keep people in line.
> 
> So we can add "Liars" to the things I hate about your cult.
> 
> But your cult was started by a liar and pedophile, it's not like I'm holding you to a standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nonsense. Especially considering that countless ex-mormons claim we wont leave them alone. Go to any anti-mormon forum and ask if anyone has problems with mormons who wont leave them alone. They will give you tons of stories showing the exact opposite of what your claiming. So stop lying.
> 
> That's what disgusts me about anti-mormons such as yourself. You're so freakin insecure about your positions that you have to make things up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really ? I'm an ex Mormon and I disassociated myself from "the church" at 18... at 32 I finally had to use the law to keep them from harassing me... somebody's lying and it's not me.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for proving my point that Joe is lying when he says we shun people who leave the Church.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is astonishing how so many people are duped into believeing they will get rewarded for their participation in any religion after they are dead.
> 
> You some REALLY STUPID MoFos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's astonishing that you think just insulting people somehow proves your point. I don't think your stupid though. I just think you aren't thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How convenient that no one has come back from the dead since you people came up with this nonsense to verify the rediculous claims made by Christians and Mormans..  OR should we just skip to the chase and call it fraud, which it is.  If this scam wasn't being conducted under the protection of freedom of religion you would all be in prison.
Click to expand...


Except they have.

1) Jesus Christ
2) Moroni
3) John the Baptist
4) Peter, James, and John

You can read the scriptures and find out more for yourself.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> true ...on the other hand he cannot prove a god exists, not by belief anyway.
> you need evidence for that.
> faith is evidence of faith nothing more.
> anyone proclaiming it's more, is lying to themselves and others.



Your lack of experience with God and His Holy Spirit doesn't mean no one else has had experience with them.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nonsense. Especially considering that countless ex-mormons claim we wont leave them alone. Go to any anti-mormon forum and ask if anyone has problems with mormons who wont leave them alone. They will give you tons of stories showing the exact opposite of what your claiming. So stop lying.
> 
> That's what disgusts me about anti-mormons such as yourself. You're so freakin insecure about your positions that you have to make things up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that continuing to bug them isn't the same as "not shunning them".
> 
> How about this.  When someone leaves your religion, you respect that and don't try to win them back and don't shun them and actually respect their decision.
> 
> What a Fuckin' concept.
Click to expand...


Why on earth should you expect people to respect you when you treat them like garbage?

And thank you for conceding the point.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, stop it.  No one can "prove" God exists or not.  This is a faith thing.  You don't believe, cool.  Neither do I, in the Mormon thing.
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Don't be as silly as JoeB.
> 
> 
> 
> joe b has the right to not seek god. how does that make him more silly than avatar?
Click to expand...


That isn't what makes him silly. His silliness is hating people who do.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry shit for comprehension but I did not ignore the witnesses,  there is no way to validate what they say they saw.
> their testimony and behavior only proves they believed Nothing more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an easy way to validate what they saw:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
> 
> And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is ultimately the only way to know.
> 
> Their words and action support their testimony. But the only way to know for sure is to go to the Lord for yourself. There will be many more who will see and feel the plates before the end.
Click to expand...

first your so called validation has no basis in fact, the actions, places, dialog  and people therein are fiction...
I guess you're right believing totally false scripture is easy.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, but we've already established that your depiction of reality is questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... Ummm, hey, did they find those Nephite Ruins yet?
> 
> You know, if the NEphite Civilization existed, there ought to be evidence of it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is if you bother looking at the evidence. The problem is identifying it and the lack of research into that area.
> 
> However, the fact that an uneducated farmboy in frontier New York described an accurate route through the Arabia Penninsula in 1 Nephi through Nahom and Bountiful, and even accurately named Nahom as the evidence shows it was known at time is pretty impressive. But I suppose thats another one of those coincidence that Joseph just happened to get right that no one knew about for nearly 200 years.
Click to expand...


Well, no, not really.  And it doesn't answer my question.  Besides the fact that geography of the Arabian penisula was known to him (they had maps in 1820) the theory about Nahom isn't accepted outside LDS circles.  

More to the point, the Nephite civilization is reputed to have lasted over a thousand years- as long as Rome.  

Yet there are no linguistic, archeological, genetic, etc. evidence to be found.  

Smith talks about grains growing in the Nephite lands that existed in his time, but not in pre-Columbian America.  He describes elephants and horses which didn't live here, either. Coinage, Chariots, Swords-  None of which Amerindians used.  

Face it guy, the Book of Mormon is bad Bible Fan-Fic.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, stop it.  No one can "prove" God exists or not.  This is a faith thing.  You don't believe, cool.  Neither do I, in the Mormon thing.
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Don't be as silly as JoeB.
> 
> 
> 
> joe b has the right to not seek god. how does that make him more silly than avatar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what makes him silly. His silliness is hating people who do.
Click to expand...


NO, what I hate are assholes who use imaginary sky pixies to control people.  

You ever notice that your sky pixie is against all the things you are against.  What a co-incidence!


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> true ...on the other hand he cannot prove a god exists, not by belief anyway.
> you need evidence for that.
> faith is evidence of faith nothing more.
> anyone proclaiming it's more, is lying to themselves and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience with God and His Holy Spirit doesn't mean no one else has had experience with them.
Click to expand...

to be accurate the no ones else's believed they have experienced god. it's far more likely they are having mild hallucinations aka  imagining thing.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nonsense. Especially considering that countless ex-mormons claim we wont leave them alone. Go to any anti-mormon forum and ask if anyone has problems with mormons who wont leave them alone. They will give you tons of stories showing the exact opposite of what your claiming. So stop lying.
> 
> That's what disgusts me about anti-mormons such as yourself. You're so freakin insecure about your positions that you have to make things up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that continuing to bug them isn't the same as "not shunning them".
> 
> How about this.  When someone leaves your religion, you respect that and don't try to win them back and don't shun them and actually respect their decision.
> 
> What a Fuckin' concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why on earth should you expect people to respect you when you treat them like garbage?
> 
> And thank you for conceding the point.
Click to expand...


Until some of you stabbed me in the back during a difficult time in my life, I was indifferent to your cult.  I didn't start this grudge match, some of your fellow religionists did.  

Defeating Romney is where I'm willing to call the score settled, but if you're feeling froggy, jump right in.  

Point is, when someone leaves your religion, they aren't "treating you like garbage".  They've just made a choice you don't like.  

Which means you don't harrass them, you don't spy on them, and you don't tell their family members they can't talk to them anymore- all stuff your church does. 

Now in 1983, after my mom died, I was done with Catholicism.  At that point, it went from being something I was already starting to consider stupid to a mean-spirited lie, which all religions are.  

But you know what. My family members who remained Catholic didn't stop talking to me, even though some of them actually WORK for the church.  Nor do they spend time preaching to me. (But probably becuase they know they'll get spanked.) They just accept the decision I've made.


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's astonishing that you think just insulting people somehow proves your point. I don't think your stupid though. I just think you aren't thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient that no one has come back from the dead since you people came up with this nonsense to verify the rediculous claims made by Christians and Mormans..  OR should we just skip to the chase and call it fraud, which it is.  If this scam wasn't being conducted under the protection of freedom of religion you would all be in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they have.
> 
> 1) Jesus Christ
> 2) Moroni
> 3) John the Baptist
> 4) Peter, James, and John
> 
> You can read the scriptures and find out more for yourself.
Click to expand...


#1 JC?  Word of mouth by uneducated people for how long?  Nonsense.  Even among a society as advanced as ours there is a reason for a statute of limitations.  Do you really think someone 200 years from now would take the word of any group of people that had not documented something that happened today?

Moroni?  Now the Morman cult is conducting a fraud even moreso than the regular crazy Christians.  There is no angel Moroni.  You people made that up out of whole cloth to cover yourselves for your penchant to sexually abuse children.

#3? see #1

#4? see #1

You are all liars and deceivers that prey on the weak minded.  You should all be thrown in prison.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Now the atheists are pretending they don't have faith that God does not exist?

They are the biggest believers of all.


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> *Now the atheists are pretending they don't have faith that God does not exist?*
> 
> They are the biggest believers of all.



*A double negative*.  You are not making any sense.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Now the atheists are pretending they don't have faith that God does not exist?
> 
> They are the biggest believers of all.


right,  that's like saying NOT COLLECTING stamps is a hobby..


----------



## JoeB131

HUGGY said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now the atheists are pretending they don't have faith that God does not exist?*
> 
> They are the biggest believers of all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A double negative*.  You are not making any sense.
Click to expand...


He rarely does. He doesn't know if he's trolling the left or the right half the time.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One needs to compare the the writing within the Bible to those of the book of Mormon. If there is confusion, and since *God is not the author of confusion*, and Jesus fully supported the Bible, then one must conclude that the book of Mormon is counterfeit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought god created everything?
Click to expand...


God created Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith seems to have fabricated the book of Mormon. Therefore the book of Mormon owes its existence to God's permissive will.


----------



## JoeB131

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the atheists are pretending they don't have faith that God does not exist?
> 
> They are the biggest believers of all.
> 
> 
> 
> right,  that's like saying NOT COLLECTING stamps is a hobby..
Click to expand...


Speaking of which, check out this guy's YouTube Channel. 

NonStampCollector - YouTube


----------



## LittleNipper

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> need to ,there are no plates (never were) whatever the witnesses BELIEVE they saw or imagined they saw (the spiritual eye) is no evidence of the plates existing.
> humans tend to find what they want to find even when it's not there.
> I have no doubt they did believe what they  imagined they saw, books on human behavior are full of accounts of misidentification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's fine that you are going to ignore the eyewitnesses because it's inconvenient for your current perspective. That's your choice. But it doesn't change the fact that the eye witnesses exist and their testimony and behavior conflict with your viewpoint.
Click to expand...


The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Until some of you stabbed me in the back during a difficult time in my life, I was indifferent to your cult.  I didn't start this grudge match, some of your fellow religionists did.
> 
> Defeating Romney is where I'm willing to call the score settled, but if you're feeling froggy, jump right in.
> 
> Point is, when someone leaves your religion, they aren't "treating you like garbage".  They've just made a choice you don't like.
> 
> Which means you don't harrass them, you don't spy on them, and you don't tell their family members they can't talk to them anymore- all stuff your church does.
> 
> Now in 1983, after my mom died, I was done with Catholicism.  At that point, it went from being something I was already starting to consider stupid to a mean-spirited lie, which all religions are.
> 
> But you know what. My family members who remained Catholic didn't stop talking to me, even though some of them actually WORK for the church.  Nor do they spend time preaching to me. (But probably becuase they know they'll get spanked.) They just accept the decision I've made.



You can't even get through a single post without some straw man attack.

No one says people who leave the Church treat anyone like garbage. I said_ you_ shouldnt expect respect when _you_ treat people like garbage.

Mormons don't shun people who leave the Church. We try to serve them and invite them to come back. We don't want them to stay away. No matter how much you claim otherwise, you're still blatantly misrepresenting reality. Families are encouraged to reach out not shun. And when we don't reach out to them regularly _it's because they specifically asked us to stop_.

I understand you hate us for some unfathomable reason. But that doesnt give you a right to completely lie.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry shit for comprehension but I did not ignore the witnesses,  there is no way to validate what they say they saw.
> their testimony and behavior only proves they believed Nothing more...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is an easy way to validate what they saw:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
> 
> And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:3-5)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is ultimately the only way to know.
> 
> Their words and action support their testimony. But the only way to know for sure is to go to the Lord for yourself. There will be many more who will see and feel the plates before the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> first your so called validation has no basis in fact, the actions, places, dialog  and people therein are fiction...
> I guess you're right believing totally false scripture is easy.
Click to expand...


Im pretty sure when God reveals to you: "I'm God and this stuff is true" It's a pretty safe conclusion that it's a fact despite what you want to claim.

Again, just because you havent had experiences, doesnt mean others haven't. No rational person can conclude otherwise.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, not really.  And it doesn't answer my question.  Besides the fact that geography of the Arabian penisula was known to him (they had maps in 1820) the theory about Nahom isn't accepted outside LDS circles.
> 
> More to the point, the Nephite civilization is reputed to have lasted over a thousand years- as long as Rome.
> 
> Yet there are no linguistic, archeological, genetic, etc. evidence to be found.
> 
> Smith talks about grains growing in the Nephite lands that existed in his time, but not in pre-Columbian America.  He describes elephants and horses which didn't live here, either. Coinage, Chariots, Swords-  None of which Amerindians used.
> 
> Face it guy, the Book of Mormon is bad Bible Fan-Fic.



The theory of Nahom isnt accepted by sources outside the Church because anyone who believed it would recognize the Book of Mormon is true and thus join the Church. Doesnt change the fact that an unlearned frontier farm boy described an accurate path through the Arabian penninsula THAT WAS UNKNOWN until about the last decade or so.

As mentioned, the evidence is there. It's just impossible to conclusively identify it as Nephite because precolumbian American history is spotty and a relatively new endevour and because the Spanish in their conquest destroyed countless records.

And considering you are unaware or ignoring of what has been found and are being dishonest in what the Book of Mormon actually claims, your position is pretty weak. Again, if it's strong, why do you feel the need to misrepresent us?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> joe b has the right to not seek god. how does that make him more silly than avatar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what makes him silly. His silliness is hating people who do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, what I hate are assholes who use imaginary sky pixies to control people.
> 
> You ever notice that your sky pixie is against all the things you are against.  What a co-incidence!
Click to expand...


Nope. Because it's not true. But I live my life so that I am for what He is for to the best of my ability.

And I know you prefer Tyrants controling you.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> true ...on the other hand he cannot prove a god exists, not by belief anyway.
> you need evidence for that.
> faith is evidence of faith nothing more.
> anyone proclaiming it's more, is lying to themselves and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of experience with God and His Holy Spirit doesn't mean no one else has had experience with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> to be accurate the no ones else's believed they have experienced god. it's far more likely they are having mild hallucinations aka  imagining thing.
Click to expand...


Because clearly you have vast insight into someone elses life.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient that no one has come back from the dead since you people came up with this nonsense to verify the rediculous claims made by Christians and Mormans..  OR should we just skip to the chase and call it fraud, which it is.  If this scam wasn't being conducted under the protection of freedom of religion you would all be in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except they have.
> 
> 1) Jesus Christ
> 2) Moroni
> 3) John the Baptist
> 4) Peter, James, and John
> 
> You can read the scriptures and find out more for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> #1 JC?  Word of mouth by uneducated people for how long?  Nonsense.  Even among a society as advanced as ours there is a reason for a statute of limitations.  Do you really think someone 200 years from now would take the word of any group of people that had not documented something that happened today?
> 
> Moroni?  Now the Morman cult is conducting a fraud even moreso than the regular crazy Christians.  There is no angel Moroni.  You people made that up out of whole cloth to cover yourselves for your penchant to sexually abuse children.
> 
> #3? see #1
> 
> #4? see #1
> 
> You are all liars and deceivers that prey on the weak minded.  You should all be thrown in prison.
Click to expand...


Why? Because you cant handle the truth?

You have to falsely accuse people of lying and sexual sin because you dont have the integrity to actually do the work necessary to find out for yourself? Why? Why do you fight so much with what you know are completely shallow arguments? 

Especially when we have modern witnesses.


----------



## Avatar4321

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One needs to compare the the writing within the Bible to those of the book of Mormon. If there is confusion, and since *God is not the author of confusion*, and Jesus fully supported the Bible, then one must conclude that the book of Mormon is counterfeit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought god created everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith seems to have fabricated the book of Mormon. Therefore the book of Mormon owes its existence to God's permissive will.
Click to expand...


God says differently.


----------



## Avatar4321

LittleNipper said:


> The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.



And yet, they exist.


----------



## LittleNipper

Avatar4321 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they exist.
Click to expand...


And there is reason not to consider them honest. If the eyewitnesses had nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and were indifferent, then what they claimed might be acceptable. But then is the issue of character. Are they known to be truthful or have they been caught in twisting the truth in the past..?


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except they have.
> 
> 1) Jesus Christ
> 2) Moroni
> 3) John the Baptist
> 4) Peter, James, and John
> 
> You can read the scriptures and find out more for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1 JC?  Word of mouth by uneducated people for how long?  Nonsense.  Even among a society as advanced as ours there is a reason for a statute of limitations.  Do you really think someone 200 years from now would take the word of any group of people that had not documented something that happened today?
> 
> Moroni?  Now the Morman cult is conducting a fraud even moreso than the regular crazy Christians.  There is no angel Moroni.  You people made that up out of whole cloth to cover yourselves for your penchant to sexually abuse children.
> 
> #3? see #1
> 
> #4? see #1
> 
> You are all liars and deceivers that prey on the weak minded.  You should all be thrown in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Because you cant handle the truth?
> 
> You have to falsely accuse people of lying and sexual sin because you dont have the integrity to actually do the work necessary to find out for yourself? Why? Why do you fight so much with what you know are completely shallow arguments?
> 
> Especially when we have modern witnesses.
Click to expand...


One can elicit similar testimony in any mental institution day room.  The sad truth is that there is no heaven nor hell so in death you will not have to pay for the evil you do.  No reward.  No punishment.  You people are too far gone to develope a conscience.

Still I think of thousands of years of deceit.  Billions of lives tricked into bidding your fraud.

It is sad how much human life and evolution you waste. Too bad there is really no such thing as justice.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LittleNipper said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is reason not to consider them honest. If the eyewitnesses had nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and were indifferent, then what they claimed might be acceptable. But then is the issue of character. Are they known to be truthful or have they been caught in twisting the truth in the past..?
Click to expand...


Some of the witnesses left the Church. But they never retracted their witness.


----------



## MHunterB

The truth about Mormons which I know is that they are a group of people who have certain religious  views in common.


Other than that, they are people just like all the rest of us - some good, some bad, some lazy, some kind.......  etc, etc ad infinitum.

The other truth I know about Mormons is that I am supposed to treat them the way I'd prefer to be treated.

What else is there to know?


----------



## Avatar4321

LittleNipper said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, they exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is reason not to consider them honest. If the eyewitnesses had nothing to gain, nothing to lose, and were indifferent, then what they claimed might be acceptable. But then is the issue of character. Are they known to be truthful or have they been caught in twisting the truth in the past..?
Click to expand...


All of the witnesses were men of strong character. Even after their falling out with Joseph, they continued to hold true to their testimony despite having every insentive not to. They could have had more money, political power, and not have been despised and maligned if they had said they didn't actually see the plates.

Martin Harris lost everything and yet, he continually affirmed He saw the plates. And despite falling away from the Church maintained His testimony of the Book of Mormon and later rejoined the Saints reaffirming his testimony to the end of His days

Oliver Cowdery lost much with his excomunication. Power he had within the Church. He sought political office and lost because he would not deny His testimony of the Book of Mormon. Yet, despite this clear separation from Joseph and the Church he continued to testify that the Book of Mormon was true. In his correspondence, he still spoke of seeing the plates and also the priesthood and keys he was a witness of during the restoration. He later rejoined the Church despite knowing he wouldn't be back in a position of power, but wanted to serve the Lord and share the Gospel and his testimony. On his death bed, he reaffirmed His testimony.

David Whitner lived the longest. He was the only one of the three main witness who didn't rejoin the Church in this life. He continued to reaffirm His testimony that He saw the plates. When a newspaper claimed he denied His testimony, he immediately went to the press and reaffirmed that the Book of Mormon was true and that He saw the plates and the angel. He had his testimony placed on his tombstone.

All three of them had every reason to expose the Book of Mormon as a fraud if they did not actually see what they saw. Yet, despite their falling out with Joseph Smith, they went to their graves (and beyond) affirming that they saw the plates and the angel.

Anyone can try to deny their testimony or try to explain it away, but their actions when they had every incentive to deny their testimony gives them alot of credibility. Ultimately, there is only one way to know the truth for yourself. You have to read the Book of Mormon for yourself and ask the Lord. He will reveal the truth through the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Avatar4321

MHunterB said:


> The truth about Mormons which I know is that they are a group of people who have certain religious  views in common.
> 
> 
> Other than that, they are people just like all the rest of us - some good, some bad, some lazy, some kind.......  etc, etc ad infinitum.
> 
> The other truth I know about Mormons is that I am supposed to treat them the way I'd prefer to be treated.
> 
> What else is there to know?



Read the Book of Mormon and see for yourself. You can get one for free right here.


----------



## MHunterB

Oh, I did forget to mention that their proselytizing really ticks me off - but anyone's does!

In the immortal words of my son age 3:   "No sanksyou - I gots my own!"


----------



## Avatar4321

MHunterB said:


> Oh, I did forget to mention that their proselytizing really ticks me off - but anyone's does!
> 
> In the immortal words of my son age 3:   "No sanksyou - I gots my own!"



You asked what else there is to know. And there is much. But the choice is always up to you.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> [
> 
> The theory of Nahom isnt accepted by sources outside the Church because anyone who believed it would recognize the Book of Mormon is true and thus join the Church. Doesnt change the fact that an unlearned frontier farm boy described an accurate path through the Arabian penninsula THAT WAS UNKNOWN until about the last decade or so.
> 
> As mentioned, the evidence is there. It's just impossible to conclusively identify it as Nephite because precolumbian American history is spotty and a relatively new endevour and because the Spanish in their conquest destroyed countless records.
> 
> And considering you are unaware or ignoring of what has been found and are being dishonest in what the Book of Mormon actually claims, your position is pretty weak. Again, if it's strong, why do you feel the need to misrepresent us?



Again, my case is strong, but arguing with a Mormon about the fraud is like trying to explain to a retarded 25 year old that there is no Santa.  You can show him pictures of his parents putting the presents under the tree, and Corky will still insist Santa brought them. 

There is not a shred of evidence for any event in the Book of Mormon, and frankly, quite a lot of them are contradicted by what we have found.  

As an example, the Roman Empire lasted as long as the Nephite civilization.  So what do we have to prove Rome existed?  

 We have Latin- which was the core langage for French, Spanish and Italian (and others). 

We have Roman ruins in Pompeii, Rome herself, etc. 

We have Roman coins that exist to this very day. 

We have a Roman religion- Christianity-  that existed long after the empire fell.  

So where are the Nephite Ruins, the Nephite languages, the Nephite Coins, and how come the Native Americans (who let's not forget, were White until God cursed them for killing the Nephites - I'd think they'd remember that - didn't at least remember Jesus?


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until some of you stabbed me in the back during a difficult time in my life, I was indifferent to your cult.  I didn't start this grudge match, some of your fellow religionists did.
> 
> Defeating Romney is where I'm willing to call the score settled, but if you're feeling froggy, jump right in.
> 
> Point is, when someone leaves your religion, they aren't "treating you like garbage".  They've just made a choice you don't like.
> 
> Which means you don't harrass them, you don't spy on them, and you don't tell their family members they can't talk to them anymore- all stuff your church does.
> 
> Now in 1983, after my mom died, I was done with Catholicism.  At that point, it went from being something I was already starting to consider stupid to a mean-spirited lie, which all religions are.
> 
> But you know what. My family members who remained Catholic didn't stop talking to me, even though some of them actually WORK for the church.  Nor do they spend time preaching to me. (But probably becuase they know they'll get spanked.) They just accept the decision I've made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even get through a single post without some straw man attack.
> 
> No one says people who leave the Church treat anyone like garbage. I said_ you_ shouldnt expect respect when _you_ treat people like garbage.
> 
> Mormons don't shun people who leave the Church. We try to serve them and invite them to come back. We don't want them to stay away. No matter how much you claim otherwise, you're still blatantly misrepresenting reality. Families are encouraged to reach out not shun. And when we don't reach out to them regularly _it's because they specifically asked us to stop_.
> 
> I understand you hate us for some unfathomable reason. But that doesnt give you a right to completely lie.
Click to expand...


Um, yeah, guy, I hate you guys for reasons that you completely deserve. Because you are evil cult that lies to people on a daily basis.  

Boy, it was so much fun watching Romney go down flailing....


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I did forget to mention that their proselytizing really ticks me off - but anyone's does!
> 
> In the immortal words of my son age 3:   "No sanksyou - I gots my own!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what else there is to know. And there is much. But the choice is always up to you.
Click to expand...


I had some mormons come to my door a while back. I told them that I could PROVE that their god doesn't exist, so they shut up to listen, a young man and a young woman, so I told them: if your god did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door for him? The girl burst out laughing to then quickly restrain herself, and I went back in the house and closed the door.


----------



## JoeB131

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I did forget to mention that their proselytizing really ticks me off - but anyone's does!
> 
> In the immortal words of my son age 3:   "No sanksyou - I gots my own!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what else there is to know. And there is much. But the choice is always up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had some mormons come to my door a while back. I told them that I could PROVE that their god doesn't exist, so they shut up to listen, a young man and a young woman, so I told them: if your god did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door for him? The girl burst out laughing to then quickly restrain herself, and I went back in the house and closed the door.
Click to expand...


I thought the Mormons didn't do co-ed missionary teams.


----------



## ima

JoeB131 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what else there is to know. And there is much. But the choice is always up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had some mormons come to my door a while back. I told them that I could PROVE that their god doesn't exist, so they shut up to listen, a young man and a young woman, so I told them: if your god did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door for him? The girl burst out laughing to then quickly restrain herself, and I went back in the house and closed the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought the Mormons didn't do co-ed missionary teams.
Click to expand...

Could of been Jehovah's witnesses or something else. They're all nutters. If the god of mormons is so great, do you think that it would need anyone to go door to door for it?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, guy, I hate you guys for reasons that you completely deserve. Because you are evil cult that lies to people on a daily basis.
> 
> Boy, it was so much fun watching Romney go down flailing....



Yeah, that's why you are the one who has been lying. How funny that is.


----------



## Avatar4321

ima said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHunterB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I did forget to mention that their proselytizing really ticks me off - but anyone's does!
> 
> In the immortal words of my son age 3:   "No sanksyou - I gots my own!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what else there is to know. And there is much. But the choice is always up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had some mormons come to my door a while back. I told them that I could PROVE that their god doesn't exist, so they shut up to listen, a young man and a young woman, so I told them: if your god did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door for him? The girl burst out laughing to then quickly restrain herself, and I went back in the house and closed the door.
Click to expand...


Yeah, those werent mormons.

And they were right to laugh. It's a stupid argument.


----------



## ima

Avatar4321 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked what else there is to know. And there is much. But the choice is always up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had some mormons come to my door a while back. I told them that I could PROVE that their god doesn't exist, so they shut up to listen, a young man and a young woman, so I told them: if your god did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door for him? The girl burst out laughing to then quickly restrain herself, and I went back in the house and closed the door.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, those werent mormons.
> 
> And they were right to laugh. It's a stupid argument.
Click to expand...


What's stupid about it? If their god is so great, why does it need people to go door to door?


----------



## Uncensored2008

ima said:


> What's stupid about it? If their god is so great, why does it need people to go door to door?



"To build ties to the community" is one of a thousand answers I can think of.

You have no grasp of logic. Your question is specious and "proves" nothing at all. Further, you're lying about the event, Mormons don't have coed missionaries.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ummm, actually, . . . JoeB is one of the finest reverse adverts for Mormonism there ever has existed.

He is amazing.  Folks must say, "What a wacka doodle, let me see for myself".

Careful, son, you might get called on a salaried expenses-paid mission for the LDS church


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> One needs to compare the the writing within the Bible to those of the book of Mormon. If there is confusion, and since *God is not the author of confusion*, and Jesus fully supported the Bible, then one must conclude that the book of Mormon is counterfeit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought god created everything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God created Joseph Smith, and Joseph Smith seems to have fabricated the book of Mormon. Therefore the book of Mormon owes its existence to God's permissive will.
Click to expand...

isn't lying a sin?


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the atheists are pretending they don't have faith that God does not exist?
> 
> They are the biggest believers of all.
> 
> 
> 
> right,  that's like saying NOT COLLECTING stamps is a hobby..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, check out this guy's YouTube Channel.
> 
> NonStampCollector - YouTube
Click to expand...

[ame=http://youtu.be/2MFmC6BD1B4]Bible Slavery: TOTALLY DIFFERENT - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ima

Uncensored2008 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stupid about it? If their god is so great, why does it need people to go door to door?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To build ties to the community" is one of a thousand answers I can think of.
> 
> You have no grasp of logic. Your question is specious and "proves" nothing at all. Further, you're lying about the event, Mormons don't have coed missionaries.
Click to expand...


If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is an easy way to validate what they saw:
> 
> 
> 
> That is ultimately the only way to know.
> 
> Their words and action support their testimony. But the only way to know for sure is to go to the Lord for yourself. There will be many more who will see and feel the plates before the end.
> 
> 
> 
> first your so called validation has no basis in fact, the actions, places, dialog  and people therein are fiction...
> I guess you're right believing totally false scripture is easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im pretty sure when God reveals to you: "I'm God and this stuff is true" It's a pretty safe conclusion that it's a fact despite what you want to claim.
> 
> Again, just because you havent had experiences, doesnt mean others haven't. No rational person can conclude otherwise.
Click to expand...

another rationalization.
btw I'm not claiming anything, what I am doing is stating fact.. you cannot disprove this statement:"first your so called validation has no basis in fact, the actions, places, dialog  and people therein are fiction..."-me 
without resorting to fiction.
btw stop assuming I had no "experiences" define what a god experience is supposed to be like? your use of the word is extremely ambiguous and completely subjective.


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's stupid about it? If their god is so great, why does it need people to go door to door?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To build ties to the community" is one of a thousand answers I can think of.
> 
> You have no grasp of logic. Your question is specious and "proves" nothing at all. Further, you're lying about the event, Mormons don't have coed missionaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

can I make a correction here the Mormon god is the same god as the Christian Muslim and Jewish god or simply put the god of Abraham.
the difference is the Mormon version of god lives on a planet called  kolob (it's also the name of the now defunct record company owned by the Osmond's.)


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "To build ties to the community" is one of a thousand answers I can think of.
> 
> You have no grasp of logic. Your question is specious and "proves" nothing at all. Further, you're lying about the event, Mormons don't have coed missionaries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can I make a correction here the Mormon god is the same god as the Christian Muslim and Jewish god or simply put the god of Abraham.
> the difference is the Mormon version of god lives on a planet called  kolob (it's also the name of the now defunct record company owned by the Osmond's.)
Click to expand...

So it's not the same god because allah doesn't live on kolob.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We watch the biggest true belief gang, the atheists, act like the worst of proselytizers.  Buncha sillies.


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mormon god is so great, why do they need to send out missionaries to convince people? That makes no sense at all.
> 
> 
> 
> can I make a correction here the Mormon god is the same god as the Christian Muslim and Jewish god or simply put the god of Abraham.
> the difference is the Mormon version of god lives on a planet called  kolob (it's also the name of the now defunct record company owned by the Osmond's.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's not the same god because allah doesn't live on kolob.
Click to expand...

 It doesn't matter because their all making this shit up as they go along...


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> We watch the biggest true belief gang, the atheists, act like the worst of proselytizers.  Buncha sillies.


how is not belief, a belief...?
since, and you said this yourself "there is no proof that good doesn't exist"-JS 
just as importantly, it also means there is no proof that god exists. 
like everything else if a god existed there would be an unmistakable sign  of it presence.
there is none.
everything god is credited for doing has been and can be explained by other means.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.

Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.

They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it.  Millions on millions of fails.

Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.
> 
> They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it.  Millions on millions of fails.
> 
> Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.


false assumption. but nice rationalizing.


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.
> 
> They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it.  Millions on millions of fails.
> 
> Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.
> 
> 
> 
> false assumption. but nice rationalizing.
Click to expand...


Which makes the only sane position to have is to be an agnostic, which to me means someone who sees no proof either way of a god existing or the non-existence of a god, but if anyone ever finds any either way, I'm open to changing my mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.
> 
> They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it.  Millions on millions of fails.
> 
> Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.
> 
> 
> 
> false assumption. but nice rationalizing.
Click to expand...


It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.

You can't disprove God, but you *believe *he does not exist.


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.
> 
> They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it.  Millions on millions of fails.
> 
> Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.
> 
> 
> 
> false assumption. but nice rationalizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which makes the only sane position to have is to be an agnostic, which to me means someone who sees no proof either way of a god existing or the non-existence of a god, but if anyone ever finds any either way, I'm open to changing my mind.
Click to expand...

I was once agnostic but to me it seemed like a half measure...
besides if any incontrovertible evidence either way was found was not enough to change a persons mind  then nothing would.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.
> 
> Thus they have faith, since they can't prove the opposite, that God does not exist.
> 
> They trip over this hurdle every attempt of leaping it.  Millions on millions of fails.
> 
> Yet the act like the worst of the religious proselytizers.
> 
> 
> 
> false assumption. but nice rationalizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.
> 
> You can't disprove God, but you *believe *he does not exist.
Click to expand...

no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in .. 
for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> false assumption. but nice rationalizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.
> 
> You can't disprove God, but you *believe *he does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
> for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.
Click to expand...


You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RetiredGySgt said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.
> 
> You can't disprove God, but you *believe *he does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
> for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.
Click to expand...


The premise stands because no can fault its logic.


----------



## daws101

RetiredGySgt said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's perfect, because the premise is 100% accurate.
> 
> You can't disprove God, but you *believe *he does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
> for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.
Click to expand...

wrong again, I said there is no evidence to prove god exists...Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1

a : to have a firm religious faith  

b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>  

since there is no evidence either way the term believe does not apply


----------



## Hollie

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist: neither scientifically nor philosophically.



They certainly can prove gods don't exist.  At least I can.

Prove I can't.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
> for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The premise stands because no can fault its logic.
Click to expand...

I just did, whether you accept it or not.


Myth:
You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.



Response:
 Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven. So, it is argued, the proposition "God exists" cannot be disproven.

But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven - for example, the claim "a black swan exists" cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn't possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven - and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be "a married bachelor exists" or "a square circle exists." Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions - pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that - for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
 2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y. 

Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets - but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists - in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists "cannot prove that God does not exist" often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim "God does not exist" and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim "God exists" and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it - or even care much about the claim in the first place.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm


----------



## JakeStarkey

The premise stands because you can't refute it.

Your attempt is called Refutation by Analogy, and like all derivative analogies, it collapses quickly.

You are a faith believer, Daws, like everyone else.  Sorry, girl, da way it is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

daws101 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no the premise is faulty, belief like faith only proves itself ,it's no evidence of the thing believed in ..
> for your premise to be correct belief would have to effect the environment in some physical way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again, I said there is no evidence to prove god exists...Definition of BELIEVE
> intransitive verb
> 1
> 
> a : to have a firm religious faith
> 
> b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
> 
> since there is no evidence either way the term believe does not apply
Click to expand...


Your definition......
b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>  . You ACCEPT the statement that God does not exist. Thus you accept as true the statement God does not exist. You BELIEVE that God does not exist.

Pretty simple concept really.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheists, yes, are faith believers.


----------



## JoeB131

ima said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had some mormons come to my door a while back. I told them that I could PROVE that their god doesn't exist, so they shut up to listen, a young man and a young woman, so I told them: if your god did exist, do you really think that he'd need you to go door to door for him? The girl burst out laughing to then quickly restrain herself, and I went back in the house and closed the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the Mormons didn't do co-ed missionary teams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Could of been Jehovah's witnesses or something else. They're all nutters. If the god of mormons is so great, do you think that it would need anyone to go door to door for it?
Click to expand...


I worked with a Jehovah's Witless for a couple  years.  While they don't match the Mormons for pure douchebaggery, they are pretty annoying.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, guy, I hate you guys for reasons that you completely deserve. Because you are evil cult that lies to people on a daily basis.
> 
> Boy, it was so much fun watching Romney go down flailing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why you are the one who has been lying. How funny that is.
Click to expand...


Naw, man, I never went around telling people God gave me Golden Tablets or some such shit...


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> The premise stands because you can't refute it.
> 
> Your attempt is called Refutation by Analogy, and like all derivative analogies, it collapses quickly.
> 
> You are a faith believer, Daws, like everyone else.  Sorry, girl, da way it is.



Myth:
You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.



Response:
Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.


----------



## daws101

RetiredGySgt said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have stated you think God does not exist. You can't prove that, thus you believe an unprovable thing. That is called faith in your beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, I said there is no evidence to prove god exists...Definition of BELIEVE
> intransitive verb
> 1
> 
> a : to have a firm religious faith
> 
> b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
> 
> since there is no evidence either way the term believe does not apply
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your definition......
> b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>  . You ACCEPT the statement that God does not exist. Thus you accept as true the statement God does not exist. You BELIEVE that God does not exist.
> 
> Pretty simple concept really.
Click to expand...

Myth:
You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.



Response:
Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise stands because you can't refute it.
> 
> Your attempt is called Refutation by Analogy, and like all derivative analogies, it collapses quickly.
> 
> You are a faith believer, Daws, like everyone else.  Sorry, girl, da way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myth:
> You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.
Click to expand...



The atheist myth is that it can be proven scientifically or philosophically that God does not exist.

That is a fable, just like religious fables.

You atheists are faith believers.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise stands because you can't refute it.
> 
> Your attempt is called Refutation by Analogy, and like all derivative analogies, it collapses quickly.
> 
> You are a faith believer, Daws, like everyone else.  Sorry, girl, da way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myth:
> You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Response:
> Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The atheist myth is that it can be proven scientifically or philosophically that God does not exist.
> 
> That is a fable, just like religious fables.
> 
> You atheists are faith believers.
Click to expand...

spoken like a true theist...
God's non-existence has already been "proven,That's if you interpret the word "exist" in terms of a physical, tangible "thing". 
if not .
then the only logical place for a debate would be a paranormal  thread .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Spoken, rather, like a rational human, unlike the believing atheist such as you.

You cannot disprove God empirically anymore than I can prove that He exists.

You atheists are such a bunch of silly bunnies.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Spoken, rather, like a rational human, unlike the believing atheist such as you.
> 
> You can disprove God empirically anymore than I can prove that He exists.
> 
> You atheists are such a bunch of silly bunnies.


by definition believing in super natural beings is NOT rational.... 
I'd have to say you are reasonable..


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken, rather, like a rational human, unlike the believing atheist such as you.
> 
> You cannot disprove God empirically anymore than I can prove that He exists.
> 
> You atheists are such a bunch of silly bunnies.
> 
> 
> 
> by definition believing in super natural beings is NOT rational....
> I'd have to say you are reasonable..
Click to expand...


We are all reasonable and irrational to respective points.

That's because we are flawed mortals.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken, rather, like a rational human, unlike the believing atheist such as you.
> 
> You cannot disprove God empirically anymore than I can prove that He exists.
> 
> You atheists are such a bunch of silly bunnies.
> 
> 
> 
> by definition believing in super natural beings is NOT rational....
> I'd have to say you are reasonable..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are all reasonable and irrational to respective points.
> 
> That's because we are flawed mortals.
Click to expand...

not me!


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> by definition believing in super natural beings is NOT rational....
> I'd have to say you are reasonable..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are all reasonable and irrational to respective points.
> 
> That's because we are flawed mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not me!
Click to expand...


OK, you and Kristy McNichols are not flawed.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are all reasonable and irrational to respective points.
> 
> That's because we are flawed mortals.
> 
> 
> 
> not me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you and Kristy McNichols are not flawed.
Click to expand...

all the women in the world and you pick her....the heart wants what it wants...


----------



## ima

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The premise stands because you can't refute it.
> 
> Your attempt is called Refutation by Analogy, and like all derivative analogies, it collapses quickly.
> 
> You are a faith believer, Daws, like everyone else.  Sorry, girl, da way it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Myth:
> You cannot prove that God doesn't exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.
> Response:
> Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist's faith.
Click to expand...

That's why the only intelligent position to have is to be agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever finds some real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Theists and atheists are not much concerned at all about what agnostics think, and generally wish them well.


----------



## ima

JakeStarkey said:


> Theists and atheists are not much concerned at all about what agnostics think, and generally wish them well.



Theists for sure care what other people who don't believe think. That's why they come to my door to try to convert me. You don't see agnostics or atheists doing that, now do you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

ima said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theists and atheists are not much concerned at all about what agnostics think, and generally wish them well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theists for sure care what other people who don't believe think. That's why they come to my door to try to convert me. You don't see agnostics or atheists doing that, now do you?
Click to expand...


Watch the atheists on this thread.  They are as big proselytizers for their beliefs as are the evangelicals and fundamentalists for theirs.


----------



## daws101

ima said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theists and atheists are not much concerned at all about what agnostics think, and generally wish them well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theists for sure care what other people who don't believe think. That's why they come to my door to try to convert me. You don't see agnostics or atheists doing that, now do you?
Click to expand...

that would be strange and funny what would they say? " hi, would you like to not  come to our meeting?"


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theists and atheists are not much concerned at all about what agnostics think, and generally wish them well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theists for sure care what other people who don't believe think. That's why they come to my door to try to convert me. You don't see agnostics or atheists doing that, now do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Watch the atheists on this thread.  They are as big proselytizers for their beliefs as are the evangelicals and fundamentalists for theirs.
Click to expand...

really? how do you proselytize something not existing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> really? how do you proselytize something not existing.



By seeking to convert others to your beliefs, as you do constantly. daws, you are more insistent that others believe as you do, than any other person in this forum.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? how do you proselytize something not existing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By seeking to convert others to your beliefs, as you do constantly. daws, you are more insistent that others believe as you do, than any other person in this forum.
Click to expand...

how'd I know you say that!?  like all your assumptions about me it's false.
I have made no attempts to convert anyone...It's not surprising you'd "think" that  as you seem to make it your life's work  to be disagreeable just for the sake of being disagreeable.


----------



## daws101

[ame=http://youtu.be/A41WZBcmnfc]Bill Maher - Atheism Not a Religion + Mitt Romney in-Law Unbaptism (Real Time New Rules 02-03-2012) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/k7XUebtJ_Jw]Bill Maher on the hypocrisy of evangelical christians. - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/RY0Y7vQF13U]Real Time - Bill Maher Educates The Tea Party On The Founding Fathers. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theists for sure care what other people who don't believe think. That's why they come to my door to try to convert me. You don't see agnostics or atheists doing that, now do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watch the atheists on this thread.  They are as big proselytizers for their beliefs as are the evangelicals and fundamentalists for theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really? how do you proselytize something not existing.
Click to expand...


Talk to them, not me.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? how do you proselytize something not existing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By seeking to convert others to your beliefs, as you do constantly. daws, you are more insistent that others believe as you do, than any other person in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how'd I know you say that!?  like all your assumptions about me it's false.
> I have made no attempts to convert anyone...It's not surprising you'd "think" that  as you seem to make it your life's work  to be disagreeable just for the sake of being disagreeable.
Click to expand...


Uncensored and I agree on almost nothing, but on this he is right.  If you are attempting to disprove that you cannot prove that God exists or not, then you are proselytizing for agnosticism.  No two ways about it.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By seeking to convert others to your beliefs, as you do constantly. daws, you are more insistent that others believe as you do, than any other person in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> how'd I know you say that!?  like all your assumptions about me it's false.
> I have made no attempts to convert anyone...It's not surprising you'd "think" that  as you seem to make it your life's work  to be disagreeable just for the sake of being disagreeable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncensored and I agree on almost nothing, but on this he is right.  If you are attempting to disprove that you cannot prove that God exists or not, then you are proselytizing for agnosticism.  No two ways about it.
Click to expand...

you're wrong too....I am speaking my mind, if that changes your pov  or not it's on you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If you are speaking your mind I hope you are speaking what you believe.

You just cut the throat of your own argument.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> If you are speaking your mind I hope you are speaking what you believe.
> 
> You just cut the throat of your own argument.


another false assumption .
the argument is yours
why is it theists insist the total opposite of belief is a belief?
 is this a factual statement " there is no incontrovertible evidence for or against the existence of god".


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are speaking your mind I hope you are speaking what you believe.
> 
> You just cut the throat of your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption .
> the argument is yours
> why is it theists insist the total opposite of belief is a belief?
> is this a factual statement " there is no incontrovertible evidence for or against the existence of god".
Click to expand...


Yes, your conclusion is false, Daws.  You can believe that a non-belief constitutes the principle that belieivng a null fact is not so.

You will not have the last word, daws, ever, on this argument.


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> Theists and atheists are not much concerned at all about what agnostics think, and generally wish them well.



Fence sitters are punks!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Huggy, you have already lost this discussion on other threads on this matter.


----------



## HUGGY

JakeStarkey said:


> Huggy, you have already lost this discussion on other threads on this matter.



Flakey Jake...  Nigga puulleeezzz!   I have lost nothing.  If all my posts just keeps one person from turning into a jello brained moron that gives up his or her hard earned money to support your criminal enterprises it will have been worth it.

There is no god.  Supporting this lie is joining in a criminal enterprise with these frauds.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are speaking your mind I hope you are speaking what you believe.
> 
> You just cut the throat of your own argument.
> 
> 
> 
> another false assumption .
> the argument is yours
> why is it theists insist the total opposite of belief is a belief?
> is this a factual statement " there is no incontrovertible evidence for or against the existence of god".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your conclusion is false, Daws.  You can believe that a non-belief constitutes the principle that belieivng a null fact is not so.
> 
> You will not have the last word, daws, ever, on this argument.
Click to expand...

nice dodge,  now answer the question..is this a factual statement " there is no incontrovertible evidence for or against the existence of god"


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws and huggy, both, you believe in what you think is so.  That is faith belief.  You have fail.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

What a bizarre argument. 

God believers cannot prove their god exists. The very definition of "faith" is to put your brain on hold in favor of blind obedience. Those who are unable to do that can never believe in the existence of a god. 

Non-believers believe in what they can see, hold in their hand. Their brain and their ability and total belief in logic and hard science gets in the way of "faith".

I don't know if any of the various gods exist but I do know that I believe in facts.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Luddly Neddite said:


> What a bizarre argument.
> 
> God believers cannot prove their god exists. The very definition of "faith" is to put your brain on hold in favor of blind obedience. Those who are unable to do that can never believe in the existence of a god.
> 
> Non-believers believe in what they can see, hold in their hand. Their brain and their ability and total belief in logic and hard science gets in the way of "faith".
> 
> I don't know if any of the various gods exist but I do know that I believe in facts.



And the FACT is you can not prove God does not exist. Which means your blind belief in something unproven is faith based.


----------



## Gadawg73

NO one can disprove my religious beliefs.
NO one can prove my religious beliefs.
NO one can prove there is a God.
NO one can prove there is not a God.


----------



## ima

That's why anyone with half a brain working would be an agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever comes up with some real tangible proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.


----------



## LittleNipper

Luddly Neddite said:


> What a bizarre argument.
> 
> God believers cannot prove their god exists. The very definition of "faith" is to put your brain on hold in favor of blind obedience. Those who are unable to do that can never believe in the existence of a god.
> 
> Non-believers believe in what they can see, hold in their hand. Their brain and their ability and total belief in logic and hard science gets in the way of "faith".
> 
> I don't know if any of the various gods exist but I do know that I believe in facts.



Faith without works is dead. So, if I have faith in the Lord but see none of His works, my faith, which comes from God cannot grow and flourish. But, I do see God's protection. I see God providing for both my family and myself. And I have witnessed God's healing power. You need to seek God and He will give you the faith...


----------



## HUGGY

ima said:


> That's why anyone with half a brain working would be an agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever comes up with some real tangible proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.



No evidense is proof of no evidense.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

HUGGY said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why anyone with half a brain working would be an agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever comes up with some real tangible proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidense is proof of no evidense.
Click to expand...


There is No evidence he does not exist as well. So by your logic he must exist.


----------



## ima

RetiredGySgt said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why anyone with half a brain working would be an agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever comes up with some real tangible proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidense is proof of no evidense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is No evidence he does not exist as well. So by your logic he must exist.
Click to expand...


I'll give you points for trying, but what you just said makes no sense.


----------



## ima

HUGGY said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why anyone with half a brain working would be an agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever comes up with some real tangible proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidense is proof of no evidense.
Click to expand...


And if anyone ever finds any real proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.


----------



## HUGGY

RetiredGySgt said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why anyone with half a brain working would be an agnostic: there is no proof either way, but if someone ever comes up with some real tangible proof either way, I'm open to changing my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No evidense is proof of no evidense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is No evidence he does not exist as well. So by your logic he must exist.
Click to expand...


There is an avalanche of evidense that the "facts" that those of faith cling to are false.


----------



## freedombecki

HUGGY said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy, you have already lost this discussion on other threads on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flakey Jake... Nigga puulleeezzz! I have lost nothing. If all my posts just keeps one person from turning into a jello brained moron that gives up his or her hard earned money to support your criminal enterprises it will have been worth it.
> 
> There is no god. Supporting this lie is joining in a criminal enterprise with these frauds.
Click to expand...

Yes there is God. God exists. He made the world and created men out of the elements of the earth. He blessed us all, gave us free will to run things, and left us in charge with a few simple rules beginning with loyalty to him and to each other by observing certain points of respect for parents who brought us here, and refraining from coveting other people's property and avoiding things for which reconciliation is not possible among humans. The reward for obedience is eternal life of the spirit.

This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!


----------



## ima

freedombecki said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huggy, you have already lost this discussion on other threads on this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flakey Jake... Nigga puulleeezzz! I have lost nothing. If all my posts just keeps one person from turning into a jello brained moron that gives up his or her hard earned money to support your criminal enterprises it will have been worth it.
> 
> There is no god. Supporting this lie is joining in a criminal enterprise with these frauds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Yes there is God. God exists.* He made the world and created men out of the elements of the earth. He blessed us all, gave us free will to run things, and left us in charge with a few simple rules beginning with loyalty to him and to each other by observing certain points of respect for parents who brought us here, and refraining from coveting other people's property and avoiding things for which reconciliation is not possible among humans. The reward for obedience is eternal life of the spirit.
> 
> This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!
Click to expand...


Proof please.


----------



## LittleNipper

ima said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flakey Jake... Nigga puulleeezzz! I have lost nothing. If all my posts just keeps one person from turning into a jello brained moron that gives up his or her hard earned money to support your criminal enterprises it will have been worth it.
> 
> There is no god. Supporting this lie is joining in a criminal enterprise with these frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes there is God. God exists.* He made the world and created men out of the elements of the earth. He blessed us all, gave us free will to run things, and left us in charge with a few simple rules beginning with loyalty to him and to each other by observing certain points of respect for parents who brought us here, and refraining from coveting other people's property and avoiding things for which reconciliation is not possible among humans. The reward for obedience is eternal life of the spirit.
> 
> This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof please.
Click to expand...


Man exists and scientists cannot even create one single celled organism. And then there are good Christians who are very open, loving and kind who have given up everything in order to be missionaries. I mean that they had great jobs and lived in fancy homes and gave it up to be servants of God and reach people in  areas "smart" people wouldn't be caught dead in...


----------



## HUGGY

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes there is God. God exists.* He made the world and created men out of the elements of the earth. He blessed us all, gave us free will to run things, and left us in charge with a few simple rules beginning with loyalty to him and to each other by observing certain points of respect for parents who brought us here, and refraining from coveting other people's property and avoiding things for which reconciliation is not possible among humans. The reward for obedience is eternal life of the spirit.
> 
> This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man exists and scientists cannot even create one single celled organism. And then there are good Christians who are very open, loving and kind who have given up everything in order to be missionaries. I mean that they had great jobs and lived in fancy homes and gave it up to be servants of God and reach people in  areas "smart" people wouldn't be caught dead in...
Click to expand...


OR in other words...they took it upon themselves to destroy native cultures...  Nice work if you can get it.

If the natives were smart they would cook the missionaries and eat em...I hear they taste like chicken.


----------



## daws101

despite having no tangible evidence of god's existence, why is it that believers seem to think that they gain some advantage when saying "you can't prove god exists".
evidence of nothing is still nothing...


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man exists and scientists cannot even create one single celled organism. And then there are good Christians who are very open, loving and kind who have given up everything in order to be missionaries. I mean that they had great jobs and lived in fancy homes and gave it up to be servants of God and reach people in  areas "smart" people wouldn't be caught dead in...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR in other words...they took it upon themselves to destroy native cultures...  Nice work if you can get it.
> 
> If the natives were smart they would cook the missionaries and eat em...I hear they taste like chicken.
Click to expand...

pork!


----------



## ima

LittleNipper said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes there is God. God exists.* He made the world and created men out of the elements of the earth. He blessed us all, gave us free will to run things, and left us in charge with a few simple rules beginning with loyalty to him and to each other by observing certain points of respect for parents who brought us here, and refraining from coveting other people's property and avoiding things for which reconciliation is not possible among humans. The reward for obedience is eternal life of the spirit.
> 
> This is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proof please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Man exists and scientists cannot even create one single celled organism. And then there are good Christians who are very open, loving and kind who have given up everything in order to be missionaries. I mean that they had great jobs and lived in fancy homes and gave it up to be servants of God and reach people in  areas "smart" people wouldn't be caught dead in...
Click to expand...


So you're saying that it's smart to give up a ggod paying job to go door to door for an invisble being?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheists and agnostics demonstrate the most flagrant of conflicted personalities: they believe in the principle that something that does not exist although they cannot prove it.  Silly thinking.


----------



## ima

JakeStarkey said:


> Atheists and agnostics demonstrate the most flagrant of conflicted personalities: they believe in the principle that something that does not exist although they cannot prove it.  Silly thinking.



wrong buddy, I'm an agnostic, which to me means I see no proof EITHER way. Show me some real proof either way and I'm open to changing my mind. I can't believe in something without proof, so until I see real proof, it's just a theory, however pleasant the theory might be.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## ima

JakeStarkey said:


>



And that's funny because...


----------



## JakeStarkey

. . . you sound just like a Baptist evangelist.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> . . . you sound just like a Baptist evangelist.


hardly ! no holy roller southern Baptist would be caught dead entertaining the idea that there no proof either way that god exists
just like you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

. . . and you still sound like a fundamentalist evangelizer.  It's the emotion unhinged from evidence that makes the connection for you and the thumpers.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> . . . and you still sound like a fundamentalist evangelizer.  It's the emotion unhinged from evidence that makes the connection for you and the thumpers.


false assumption since there is no evidence there is no emotional connection...


----------



## JakeStarkey

The connections emotionally by the atheistic and agnostic proselytizers here are quite obvious in their postings.

Come down, kids, and you use your critical thinking, hmmm?


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> The connections emotionally by the atheistic and agnostic proselytizers here are quite obvious in their postings.
> 
> Come down, kids, and you use your critical thinking, hmmm?


another false term it's analytical thinking ,
To Keep the Faith, Don't Get Analytical

by  Greg Miller   on 26 April 2012, 2:35 PM | 165 Comments 
Credit: Source: Wikimedia


Many people with religious convictions feel that their faith is rock solid. But a new study finds that prompting people to engage in analytical thinking can cause their religious beliefs to waver, if only a little. Researchers say the findings have potentially significant implications for understanding the cognitive underpinnings of religion. 
To Keep the Faith, Don't Get Analytical - ScienceNOW


----------



## JakeStarkey

Critical thinking does that to atheists and agnostics as well as religionists.

It's what it does.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Critical thinking does that to atheists and agnostics as well as religionists.
> 
> It's what it does.


another nice but inaccurate rationalization.


----------



## JakeStarkey

An absolute dead on analysis by me, faither.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> An absolute dead on analysis by me, faither.


only in your dreams ..faither?


----------



## Truthspeaker

ima said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists and agnostics demonstrate the most flagrant of conflicted personalities: they believe in the principle that something that does not exist although they cannot prove it.  Silly thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong buddy, I'm an agnostic, which to me means I see no proof EITHER way. Show me some real proof either way and I'm open to changing my mind. I can't believe in something without proof, so until I see real proof, it's just a theory, however pleasant the theory might be.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately you don't understand what faith really is. Faith is believing in something you have no proof of. Proof changes your mind for you and skips over the faith part. So you can't really believe in something that is proven; you just know. Get it?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think that your cult is already starting to fade, thanks to the fact that the internet is informing more of your dumb sheep about what Joseph Smith really did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, but we've already established that your depiction of reality is questionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah... Ummm, hey, did they find those Nephite Ruins yet?
> 
> You know, if the NEphite Civilization existed, there ought to be evidence of it, right?
Click to expand...


Sure did. Plenty of it. and plenty more to come. But you pholks call them "Maya" ruins.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> nonsense. Especially considering that countless ex-mormons claim we wont leave them alone. Go to any anti-mormon forum and ask if anyone has problems with mormons who wont leave them alone. They will give you tons of stories showing the exact opposite of what your claiming. So stop lying.
> 
> That's what disgusts me about anti-mormons such as yourself. You're so freakin insecure about your positions that you have to make things up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that continuing to bug them isn't the same as "not shunning them".
> 
> How about this.  When someone leaves your religion, you respect that and don't try to win them back and don't shun them and actually respect their decision.
> 
> What a Fuckin' concept.
Click to expand...


And just how are you being harrassed? Verbally? Monetarily? Sexually? I'd like to know some details and how you used "the law" to get such fiends off of you. 
In all likeliness you are no more original than the rest of the anti-mormons who simply cannot leave the CHURCH alone when they leave. You see , it's just the other way around. That's the way it always is. Harrassment? hah! that's rich. So the deacons come by once a month and ask for fast offerings and now you're being harrassed... right.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Avatar4321 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's astonishing that you think just insulting people somehow proves your point. I don't think your stupid though. I just think you aren't thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient that no one has come back from the dead since you people came up with this nonsense to verify the rediculous claims made by Christians and Mormans..  OR should we just skip to the chase and call it fraud, which it is.  If this scam wasn't being conducted under the protection of freedom of religion you would all be in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except they have.
> 
> 1) Jesus Christ
> 2) Moroni
> 3) John the Baptist
> 4) Peter, James, and John
> 
> You can read the scriptures and find out more for yourself.
Click to expand...


Not to mention all those guys went to prison or were exiled or murdered for their religion. Don't forget the list of other Christian prisoners: Daniel, Shadrack, Meshak, Abednigo, Alma, Amulek, Paul, Joseph Smith, Nephi and Lehi(brothers) and Abinadi.


----------



## Truthspeaker

LittleNipper said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> need to ,there are no plates (never were) whatever the witnesses BELIEVE they saw or imagined they saw (the spiritual eye) is no evidence of the plates existing.
> humans tend to find what they want to find even when it's not there.
> I have no doubt they did believe what they  imagined they saw, books on human behavior are full of accounts of misidentification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's fine that you are going to ignore the eyewitnesses because it's inconvenient for your current perspective. That's your choice. But it doesn't change the fact that the eye witnesses exist and their testimony and behavior conflict with your viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.
Click to expand...


If you think about it, it doesn't matter who they are or related to. What matters is their character. If a notary public were shown the plates you would say the same thing that he was just a friend of Smith or was bought off. That's why character is so important and the fact that none of the witnesses ever recanted their testimony despite every opportunity to do so. That is worth considering more than some guy with a stamp.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An absolute dead on analysis by me, faither.
> 
> 
> 
> only in your dreams ..faither?
Click to expand...


Yup, you live your life by faith.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's fine that you are going to ignore the eyewitnesses because it's inconvenient for your current perspective. That's your choice. But it doesn't change the fact that the eye witnesses exist and their testimony and behavior conflict with your viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you think about it, it doesn't matter who they are or related to. What matters is their character. If a notary public were shown the plates you would say the same thing that he was just a friend of Smith or was bought off. That's why character is so important and the fact that none of the witnesses ever recanted their testimony despite every opportunity to do so. That is worth considering more than some guy with a stamp.
Click to expand...


About four seconds worth.  They never actually saw the golden plates.

But  . . .  I am glad to see that you dropped in.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... Ummm, hey, did they find those Nephite Ruins yet?
> 
> You know, if the NEphite Civilization existed, there ought to be evidence of it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is if you bother looking at the evidence. The problem is identifying it and the lack of research into that area.
> 
> However, the fact that an uneducated farmboy in frontier New York described an accurate route through the Arabia Penninsula in 1 Nephi through Nahom and Bountiful, and even accurately named Nahom as the evidence shows it was known at time is pretty impressive. But I suppose thats another one of those coincidence that Joseph just happened to get right that no one knew about for nearly 200 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, not really.  And it doesn't answer my question.  Besides the fact that geography of the Arabian penisula was known to him (they had maps in 1820) the theory about Nahom isn't accepted outside LDS circles.
> 
> More to the point, the Nephite civilization is reputed to have lasted over a thousand years- as long as Rome.
> 
> Yet there are no linguistic, archeological, genetic, etc. evidence to be found.
> 
> Smith talks about grains growing in the Nephite lands that existed in his time, but not in pre-Columbian America.  He describes elephants and horses which didn't live here, either. Coinage, Chariots, Swords-  None of which Amerindians used.
> 
> Face it guy, the Book of Mormon is bad Bible Fan-Fic.
Click to expand...


(basketball buzzer sound) wrong and it shows you have not done any research of your own, only regurgitated erroneous concepts of anti-mormon haters.

You're out of your league right now and I'll show you:
Smith translated a record which talked about things which were both part of his world in the 1830's and not of his time either. Evidence of Elephants have been found in SOUTH AMERICA of all places (mastadon) as recently as 5,000 b.c. which is feasible for the Jaredite Civilization time period, remember this was not the Nephite(Maya) time period. Coinage is never discussed in the Book of Mormon ever, only their monetary value system; Funny you should mention chariots and that they haven't been found in a tropical climate when not even one chariot has been discovered in Jerusalem or the fertile crescent area from the Biblical time period either, which climate happens to be much drier than the equator and therefore better at preserving archaeology. Swords are cutting weapons swung by hand. and while there were plenty of wooden swords, no doubt any metal swords in such a climate would rust and disappear in the tropical climate long before the white man came around. Especially if the people who possessed the skill to make the swords were destroyed.
Funny how everyone accepts that lions once inhabited the middle east yet there are no archaeological remains of those found either. 
So let's cut through the crap, and focus on your real objection: you don't like the religion so you use these weak excuses to justify your attack on it.  Oh yeah, horses were found but anyone who talks about the findings is hushed immediately by the science pukes who think no new discoveries can be found. and yes the horse remains were from Nephite/Lamanite times before Columbus or Cortez.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> #1 JC?  Word of mouth by uneducated people for how long?  Nonsense.  Even among a society as advanced as ours there is a reason for a statute of limitations.  Do you really think someone 200 years from now would take the word of any group of people that had not documented something that happened today?
> 
> Moroni?  Now the Morman cult is conducting a fraud even moreso than the regular crazy Christians.  There is no angel Moroni.  You people made that up out of whole cloth to cover yourselves for your penchant to sexually abuse children.
> 
> #3? see #1
> 
> #4? see #1
> 
> You are all liars and deceivers that prey on the weak minded.  You should all be thrown in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because you cant handle the truth?
> 
> You have to falsely accuse people of lying and sexual sin because you dont have the integrity to actually do the work necessary to find out for yourself? Why? Why do you fight so much with what you know are completely shallow arguments?
> 
> Especially when we have modern witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One can elicit similar testimony in any mental institution day room.  The sad truth is that there is no heaven nor hell so in death you will not have to pay for the evil you do.  No reward.  No punishment.  You people are too far gone to develope a conscience.
> 
> Still I think of thousands of years of deceit.  Billions of lives tricked into bidding your fraud.
> 
> It is sad how much human life and evolution you waste. Too bad there is really no such thing as justice.
Click to expand...


This is truly a sad mindset. I really feel sorry for you hugs. Let's live in fantasyland and pretend that there really is no consequences to our actions:  a) there would be no point to life, no purpose whatsoever.  b) There is no reason to live or strive for improvement if it is all going to disappear. c) if both a and b are true then it would still be better to believe in a God of hope than to live in the truth of despair and pointlessness.

Back to reality now... Truth actually brings happiness because it reveals there is hope for life after death.


----------



## Truthspeaker

ima said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theists and atheists are not much concerned at all about what agnostics think, and generally wish them well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theists for sure care what other people who don't believe think. That's why they come to my door to try to convert me. You don't see agnostics or atheists doing that, now do you?
Click to expand...


That's because they're better funded and have a grip on the media so they just advertise fare more effectively than door to door. They become teachers and politicians.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The eyewitnesses all seem to have been related or friends, and not some unbiased notary public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think about it, it doesn't matter who they are or related to. What matters is their character. If a notary public were shown the plates you would say the same thing that he was just a friend of Smith or was bought off. That's why character is so important and the fact that none of the witnesses ever recanted their testimony despite every opportunity to do so. That is worth considering more than some guy with a stamp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About four seconds worth.  They never actually saw the golden plates.
> 
> But  . . .  I am glad to see that you dropped in.
Click to expand...


So you say... it's good to drop in once in a while.... I'm a busy man these days.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ima said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proof please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man exists and scientists cannot even create one single celled organism. And then there are good Christians who are very open, loving and kind who have given up everything in order to be missionaries. I mean that they had great jobs and lived in fancy homes and gave it up to be servants of God and reach people in  areas "smart" people wouldn't be caught dead in...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR in other words...they took it upon themselves to destroy native cultures...  Nice work if you can get it.
> 
> If the natives were smart they would cook the missionaries and eat em...I hear they taste like chicken.
Click to expand...


So you're saying 4 things in this last gem of yours:
1: all missionaries look to destroy native cultures
2: Natives are not smart
3: Natives should eat people
4: You know what they taste like


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> despite having no tangible evidence of god's existence, why is it that believers seem to think that they gain some advantage when saying "you can't prove god exists".
> evidence of nothing is still nothing...



My knowledge of God's existence has nothing to do with a pointless debate with you are other non-believers. My knowledge began with faith long ago when I wasn't sure but just wanted to believe. The spiritual means of discernment are very personal to me but are more real than the latests scientific discoveries. 
Your basis for not believing is that you haven't seen hardcore proof yet. You want evidence from some scientist who could revise his claim with the very next discovery. Science is always updating. 
Spiritual knowledge once gained the first time is permanent.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthspeaker said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think about it, it doesn't matter who they are or related to. What matters is their character. If a notary public were shown the plates you would say the same thing that he was just a friend of Smith or was bought off. That's why character is so important and the fact that none of the witnesses ever recanted their testimony despite every opportunity to do so. That is worth considering more than some guy with a stamp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About four seconds worth.  They never actually saw the golden plates.
> 
> But  . . .  I am glad to see that you dropped in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you say... it's good to drop in once in a while.... I'm a busy man these days.
Click to expand...


What keeps you so busy?  It was fun to watch you and Avatar make the atheists grow up.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not even a good dodge.
> 
> So you think it's okay the bible advocates smashing babies heads on rocks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't even read a psalm.  You aren't qualified to have a religious discussion.
> 
> But you won't let that stop you from flailing around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no. That Psalm is pretty clear to me.  The Bible thinks it's okay that the Judeans wanted to see the heads of their enemies babies smashed against rocks because THEY lost a war they started.
> 
> Heck, one can even be sympathetic to the Babylonians. They beat down the Jews in 697 BCE, and not learning their lesson, they started up some shit again in 687 BCE.
> 
> Sorry, the old "Well, you're taking that out of context" argument doesn't work, because there's no context the thing sounds good in.
Click to expand...


You're also talking about some songwriter who wrote the Psalms. I don't believe that such revenge against the Babylonians is inspired of God. The council of Nicea decided to put the Bible together. They were a bunch of hacks who were not inspired of God, so the Bible needs to be taken as is and not as some all knowing Being. The Bible is inspired of God when it is translated correctly and when certain parts are removed/put back.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> About four seconds worth.  They never actually saw the golden plates.
> 
> But  . . .  I am glad to see that you dropped in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you say... it's good to drop in once in a while.... I'm a busy man these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What keeps you so busy?  It was fun to watch you and Avatar make the atheists grow up.
Click to expand...


Well those kids are out of my league and I had some free time so I thought I'd make another blip on the radar. I've been working really hard lately plus I have four kids and many activities which take me away from my computer. 
I don't know when I'll be back but I'll try to stick around as much as I can.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you're so full o crap! You did not read the Bible! What a wretched lie! Or the Koran for that matter. The Book of Mormon is 100 times easier to read than the Bible and 1000 times less boring because it skips he begat him and they begat them in Numbers and Deuteronomy. If you read the Bible all the way through then I'm Mickey Frickin Mouse.
> 
> Wow that was my first post after being out for so long? Blasted School and homework and finally moving to Utah
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> Believe whatever crap you like, but the Book of Mormon is the most poorly written pile I've ever seen.
> 
> I was raised by eine sehr religiös, deutsche Mutter, die Täufer is. I read the Bible by the time I was 10.
> 
> I read the Koran after the attack on our marines in Lebanon, I wanted to know what the whole thing was about.
> 
> Both are infinitely more readable than the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...


With the last statement you made, you proved my original point. You have not read the Book of Mormon because it's obviously easier to read.


----------



## HUGGY

Truthspeaker said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> despite having no tangible evidence of god's existence, why is it that believers seem to think that they gain some advantage when saying "you can't prove god exists".
> evidence of nothing is still nothing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My knowledge of God's existence has nothing to do with a pointless debate with you are other non-believers. My knowledge began with faith long ago when I wasn't sure but just wanted to believe. The spiritual means of discernment are very personal to me but are more real than the latests scientific discoveries.
> Your basis for not believing is that you haven't seen hardcore proof yet. You want evidence from some scientist who could revise his claim with the very next discovery. Science is always updating.
> Spiritual knowledge once gained the first time is permanent.
Click to expand...


Atheists are not looking to some "new" human authority to be convinced of anything.  If anything has become self evident it is that human beings lie to each other.  I have no interest in someone else's claim that god exists or not.  I have faith in my own ability to reason.  If there is a god I would have already seen evidence of it.  There would be no mystery to solve.  There would be no need to be convinced by some snake oil salesman.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthspeaker said:


> With the last statement you made, you proved my original point. You have not read the Book of Mormon because it's obviously easier to read.



And this is where you cross from advocate, to fanatic. From adherent, to cultist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, CatchandReleaseUncensored is a fraud because obviously he has not read the BOM.  Obviously.  I have read the BoM, the Quran, and the Bible.   The BoM is the easiest of three to read.


----------



## numan

'
Mormons are not Christians.

They are heretics.

They deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of Christianity, established by the First Church Council of Nicea.

The Church Fathers were towering intellects compared to that illiterate *hick* from up-state New York who wrote the Book of Mormon.
.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> '
> Mormons are not Christians.
> 
> They are heretics.
> 
> They deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of Christianity, established by the First Church Council of Nicea.
> 
> The Church Fathers were towering intellects compared to that illiterate h*i*ck from up-state New York who wrote the Book of Mormon.
> .



Dude, you're a Gaea worshiping, Pol Pot Communist. What the fuck authority do you have to say who is a "heretic?"


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gaea creeps and Uncensoredhacks have nothing of worth to say about this subject.


----------



## daws101

Truthspeaker said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, but we've already established that your depiction of reality is questionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... Ummm, hey, did they find those Nephite Ruins yet?
> 
> You know, if the NEphite Civilization existed, there ought to be evidence of it, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure did. Plenty of it. and plenty more to come. But you pholks call them "Maya" ruins.
Click to expand...

that's the second biggest lie the Mormons have ever told..
. Argument #3: Archaeologists confirm the historical content of the B of Mormon 

1. Statements by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society: 
"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New, World and the subject matter of the Book." Official Statement, 1979 
"Neither representatives of the National Geographic Society nor, to my knowledge, archeologists connected with any other institution or equal prestige have ever used the Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Middle America or elsewhere." Dr. Neal Judd 
Historical inaccuracy of the Book of Mormon


----------



## JakeStarkey

There never has been any remote connection of any archaeological evidence to Book of Mormon stories.  Not one.  Ever.

George Q. Cannon, a senior LDS General Authority, made it very clear that the BoM was for spiritual and testimonial value, but never ever to be used for geographical or historical purposes.

The wisdom of his comments grows on the reader every year.


----------



## numan

'
God's literary ability, unaccountably, has declined over time. The Old Testament has many sections of high artistic merit. The Greek of the New Testament is mediocre, with a few sections worthy of praise, but well below the standards of Homer, Pindar, and countless other masters of the language.

When He wrote the Book of Mormon, He had developed a tin ear and the style of an illiterate (an illiterate hick from up-state New York?).

*"It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when He wished to become an author -- and that He did not learn it better."*
---_Friedrich Nietzsche_
.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> There never has been any remote connection of any archaeological evidence to Book of Mormon stories.  Not one.  Ever.
> 
> George Q. Cannon, a senior LDS General Authority, made it very clear that the BoM was for spiritual and testimonial value, but never ever to be used for geographical or historical purposes.
> 
> The wisdom of his comments grows on the reader every year.


I grew up Mormon, never bought in to the faux archeology or the faith. 
to the chagrin and ire of the members of my ward.


----------



## numan

daws101 said:


> I grew up Mormon, never bought in to the faux archeology or the faith.


Ah! That explains a lot !!
.


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up Mormon, never bought in to the faux archeology or the faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah! That explains a lot !!
> .
Click to expand...

right!?


----------



## Truthspeaker

JakeStarkey said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> About four seconds worth.  They never actually saw the golden plates.
> 
> But  . . .  I am glad to see that you dropped in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you say... it's good to drop in once in a while.... I'm a busy man these days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What keeps you so busy?  It was fun to watch you and Avatar make the atheists grow up.
Click to expand...


Four young kids (3 girls including 2 year old twins and my 8 year old son and all their activities), a sales job and a wife


----------



## Truthspeaker

Uncensored2008 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the last statement you made, you proved my original point. You have not read the Book of Mormon because it's obviously easier to read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is where you cross from advocate, to fanatic. From adherent, to cultist.
Click to expand...


Libertarian Radical is a closer description of me than fanatic.


----------



## Truthspeaker

HUGGY said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> despite having no tangible evidence of god's existence, why is it that believers seem to think that they gain some advantage when saying "you can't prove god exists".
> evidence of nothing is still nothing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My knowledge of God's existence has nothing to do with a pointless debate with you are other non-believers. My knowledge began with faith long ago when I wasn't sure but just wanted to believe. The spiritual means of discernment are very personal to me but are more real than the latests scientific discoveries.
> Your basis for not believing is that you haven't seen hardcore proof yet. You want evidence from some scientist who could revise his claim with the very next discovery. Science is always updating.
> Spiritual knowledge once gained the first time is permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists are not looking to some "new" human authority to be convinced of anything.  If anything has become self evident it is that human beings lie to each other.  I have no interest in someone else's claim that god exists or not.  I have faith in my own ability to reason.  If there is a god I would have already seen evidence of it.  There would be no mystery to solve.  There would be no need to be convinced by some snake oil salesman.
Click to expand...


This is perhaps your most rational post ever. I can actually respect it.  Now have you considered that evidence can be manifest in more forms than you allow?


----------



## Truthspeaker

numan said:


> '
> Mormons are not Christians.
> 
> They are heretics.
> 
> They deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of Christianity, established by the First Church Council of Nicea.
> 
> The Church Fathers were towering intellects compared to that illiterate *hick* from up-state New York who wrote the Book of Mormon.
> .


This is rich: first off, I am not a Mormon. I am a Christian. Mormon the man, is rolling over in his grave every time he hears someone called a "Mormon" instead of a Christian simply because they believe in Christ's restored church. Mormon was killed for his belief in Jesus Christ and was one of the top 5 greatest Christians of all time, if there were to even be such a list. "Mormon" the label began as a slur. A disrespectful reference to the Book of Mormon, the title of which I guarantee Mormon regrets.

2nd: of course we reject a doctrine that was designed for the purpose of causing confusion about God, and was created as a result of A compromise of so-called "Christians" hand picked by the pagan emperor Constantine, who had previously ordered the death of many Christians.  Do you really think that Constantine was inspired of God to choose a Bible-making team? Think about that for a minute... Let it really sink in.... Yes Constantine was the orchestrator of the Bible!!!! Do you think he might have put a few things in or excluded a few things he didn't like? Methinks that be the case.

And what in blazes does intellect have to do with revelation? If I recall correctly, Moses or the apostles personally chosen by Christ, were not the sharpest tools in the shed, yet god revealed his words to them... Why? Because the truth and the humility to receive it are all that matters when it comes to revelation.  Cutting edge ideas and high IQ's matter little to God when he measures your real worth in his eternal plan


----------



## Zona

Glenn Beck is a mormon.  I dont want any part of a religion that Glenn Beck is part of. 

Period.

God Bless.


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... Ummm, hey, did they find those Nephite Ruins yet?
> 
> You know, if the NEphite Civilization existed, there ought to be evidence of it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure did. Plenty of it. and plenty more to come. But you pholks call them "Maya" ruins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's the second biggest lie the Mormons have ever told..
> . Argument #3: Archaeologists confirm the historical content of the B of Mormon
> 
> 1. Statements by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society:
> "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New, World and the subject matter of the Book." Official Statement, 1979
> "Neither representatives of the National Geographic Society nor, to my knowledge, archeologists connected with any other institution or equal prestige have ever used the Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Middle America or elsewhere." Dr. Neal Judd
> Historical inaccuracy of the Book of Mormon
Click to expand...


Hah!!! The Smithsonian??? What a joke!!! Of course they must and absolutely must ignore the Book of Mormon! To consider it for a moment would shatter all their ideas about God not existing and their theories and convolutions about he origins of man on all continents, let alone the Western Hemisphere. Ignorance is bliss to that well funded quack society who refuses to consider all evidence.


Do you base your life on that good ol boys network?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Zona said:


> Glenn Beck is a mormon.  I dont want any part of a religion that Glenn Beck is part of.
> 
> Period.
> 
> God Bless.



What about a religion that Jesus was a part of?


----------



## tyroneweaver

being a Mormon I try and be a good Christian. Sometimes I don't do very well. Hopefully Christ will  judge with some shades of gray.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Zona said:


> Glenn Beck is a mormon.  I dont want any part of a religion that Glenn Beck is part of.
> 
> Period.
> 
> God Bless.









I managed to get the attention of a bunch of morms some years ago. They harassed us for 5 solid years. They finally left us alone when I sort of waved a little Saturday night special at them in what must have looked like the Keystone Kops. It probably would have taken my own hand of if I had fired it but it was enough to finally scare them off. 

As for reading the BoM - fergit it. Big mish-mash of nonsense. 

Unless, of course, you already speak in tongues!


----------



## daws101

Truthspeaker said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure did. Plenty of it. and plenty more to come. But you pholks call them "Maya" ruins.
> 
> 
> 
> that's the second biggest lie the Mormons have ever told..
> . Argument #3: Archaeologists confirm the historical content of the B of Mormon
> 
> 1. Statements by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society:
> "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New, World and the subject matter of the Book." Official Statement, 1979
> "Neither representatives of the National Geographic Society nor, to my knowledge, archeologists connected with any other institution or equal prestige have ever used the Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Middle America or elsewhere." Dr. Neal Judd
> Historical inaccuracy of the Book of Mormon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hah!!! The Smithsonian??? What a joke!!! Of course they must and absolutely must ignore the Book of Mormon! To consider it for a moment would shatter all their ideas about God not existing and their theories and convolutions about he origins of man on all continents, let alone the Western Hemisphere. Ignorance is bliss to that well funded quack society who refuses to consider all evidence.
> 
> 
> Do you base your life on that good ol boys network?
Click to expand...

can you rationalize any harder?


----------



## amrchaos

I guess the book of mormons is just another analogical based religious text?


----------



## daws101

amrchaos said:


> I guess the book of mormons is just another analogical based religious text?


no it's a much a fantasy as snow white.


----------



## numan

daws101 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the book of mormons is just another analogical based religious text?
> 
> 
> 
> no it's a much a fantasy as snow white.
Click to expand...

Snow White is a better story -- and more intelligently written.
.


----------



## amrchaos

Are we talking Disney's version or the r-rated movie version?


----------



## daws101

amrchaos said:


> Are we talking Disney's version or the r-rated movie version?


both !


----------



## Truthspeaker

daws101 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's the second biggest lie the Mormons have ever told..
> . Argument #3: Archaeologists confirm the historical content of the B of Mormon
> 
> 1. Statements by the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society:
> "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New, World and the subject matter of the Book." Official Statement, 1979
> "Neither representatives of the National Geographic Society nor, to my knowledge, archeologists connected with any other institution or equal prestige have ever used the Book of Mormon in locating historic ruins in Middle America or elsewhere." Dr. Neal Judd
> Historical inaccuracy of the Book of Mormon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hah!!! The Smithsonian??? What a joke!!! Of course they must and absolutely must ignore the Book of Mormon! To consider it for a moment would shatter all their ideas about God not existing and their theories and convolutions about he origins of man on all continents, let alone the Western Hemisphere. Ignorance is bliss to that well funded quack society who refuses to consider all evidence.
> 
> 
> Do you base your life on that good ol boys network?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> can you rationalize any harder?
Click to expand...

Can't rationalize any better!


----------



## numan

'

If science produces very clear results, and some people still cannot accept the facts, then there is little point in taking them seriously.

They are throwing themselves into the garbage bin of history.

I certainly won't stand intheir way.
.


----------



## oldfart

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the book of mormons is just another analogical based religious text?
> 
> 
> 
> no it's a much a fantasy as snow white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snow White is a better story -- and more intelligently written.
> .
Click to expand...


But there's more sex and violence in the BoM!


----------



## Avatar4321

One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.


been there done that!


----------



## numan

Avatar4321 said:


> One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.


I was certainly surprised -- and appalled -- that anyone could have brains so crude that they could not immediately perceive that such garbage was the production of a 19th century illiterate hick from upstate New York. 

I still regret the hours I spent as a teenager plowing through such fecal matter in a misguided attempt to be fair to the opinions of religious cranks. To think I could have been improving my mind by reading the works of Machiavelli !!

Forget about the absurd content of this long, tedious screed -- the pathetic attempt to imitate the style of the Bible should be an abomination to anyone with sensitive feelings.

Anyone who could read such poorly written trash without feeling offended certainly did not deserve to graduate from a high school English class !!
.


----------



## oldfart

Avatar4321 said:


> One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.



That sword cuts both ways.  I have run into many Mormons who express highly negative opinions of mainstream Christianity with no knowledge of the doctrine, history, or practice of the groups they are trashing.  BYU is a particularly fertile ground for misinformation and naked prejudice.  

BTW I have no dog in the fight, not being Christian of any flavor myself.  And I refrain from comment on the BoM or D&C as I have not read them (and have no desire to).


----------



## daws101

oldfart said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sword cuts both ways.  I have run into many Mormons who express highly negative opinions of mainstream Christianity with no knowledge of the doctrine, history, or practice of the groups they are trashing.  BYU is a particularly fertile ground for misinformation and naked prejudice.
> 
> BTW I have no dog in the fight, not being Christian of any flavor myself.  And I refrain from comment on the BoM or D&C as I have not read them (and have no desire to).
Click to expand...

I HAVE. take my word for it, the phone book is a better read.


----------



## Truthspeaker

oldfart said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sword cuts both ways.  I have run into many Mormons who express highly negative opinions of mainstream Christianity with no knowledge of the doctrine, history, or practice of the groups they are trashing.  BYU is a particularly fertile ground for misinformation and naked prejudice.
> 
> BTW I have no dog in the fight, not being Christian of any flavor myself.  And I refrain from comment on the BoM or D&C as I have not read them (and have no desire to).
Click to expand...


Anyone who trashes another's faith is trashing themselves, regardless of their affiliation. Education, reason, discussion, are beyond such as have already manifest themselves on his now ancient thread


----------



## JoeB131

numan said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.
> 
> 
> 
> I was certainly surprised -- and appalled -- that anyone could have brains so crude that they could not immediately perceive that such garbage was the production of a 19th century illiterate hick from upstate New York.
> 
> I still regret the hours I spent as a teenager plowing through such fecal matter in a misguided attempt to be fair to the opinions of religious cranks. To think I could have been improving my mind by reading the works of Machiavelli !!
> 
> Forget about the absurd content of this long, tedious screed -- the pathetic attempt to imitate the style of the Bible should be an abomination to anyone with sensitive feelings.
> 
> Anyone who could read such poorly written trash without feeling offended certainly did not deserve to graduate from a high school English class !!
> .
Click to expand...


The BoM is bad Bible Fan Fic.  

I was kind of hoping the defeat of Mitt Romney would mean I wouldn't have to talk about these fools anymore.  

Here's the overall problem.  Unlike the Bible, which can be seen as a collection of slanted history, there is only one conclusion one can draw from the Book of Mormon. 

Joseph Smith made it all up.   That is proven by the fact that there is no evidence of the Nephite civilization having ever existed.


----------



## HUGGY

JoeB131 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of these days, I'd like the critics of the Book of Mormon to actually read it for themselves instead of relying on what others say about it. I think it would surprise them.
> 
> 
> 
> I was certainly surprised -- and appalled -- that anyone could have brains so crude that they could not immediately perceive that such garbage was the production of a 19th century illiterate hick from upstate New York.
> 
> I still regret the hours I spent as a teenager plowing through such fecal matter in a misguided attempt to be fair to the opinions of religious cranks. To think I could have been improving my mind by reading the works of Machiavelli !!
> 
> Forget about the absurd content of this long, tedious screed -- the pathetic attempt to imitate the style of the Bible should be an abomination to anyone with sensitive feelings.
> 
> Anyone who could read such poorly written trash without feeling offended certainly did not deserve to graduate from a high school English class !!
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BoM is bad Bible Fan Fic.
> 
> I was kind of hoping the defeat of Mitt Romney would mean I wouldn't have to talk about these fools anymore.
> 
> Here's the overall problem.  Unlike the Bible, which can be seen as a collection of slanted history, there is only one conclusion one can draw from the Book of Mormon.
> 
> Joseph Smith made it all up.   That is proven by the fact that there is no evidence of the Nephite civilization having ever existed.
Click to expand...


Ya but them Neophites be some fiesty MoFos... doncha know...    To hear them tell it in the Boooook of the Mormans they were kickin ass and taking names all through the Mideast.  That is when they weren't getting THIER asses handed to them..  

Kinda reminds me of the Arabs ..pre-Muhammed.. Can't live with em... can't kill em off fast enough...


----------



## longknife

It never ceases to amaze me how the Redneck Liberal hate crowd just cannot let some things go!


----------



## Uncensored2008

longknife said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how the Redneck Liberal hate crowd just cannot let some things go!



Mormons tend to be;


Conservative
Educated
Patriotic

It's really no wonder that leftists hate them.


----------



## Snookie

The Mormon religion is a cult, imo.


----------



## longknife

Snookie said:


> The Mormon religion is a cult, imo.



Who cares? Not me!


----------



## Snookie

longknife said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mormon religion is a cult, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares? Not me!
Click to expand...


Meh, me either.  I'll never be one.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I decided to test the Book of Mormon . If I could read it, and keep a straight face, then I would consider it worthy of study.

I could not.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> I decided to test the Book of Mormon . If I could read it, and keep a straight face, then I would consider it worthy of study.
> 
> I could not.



Yeah, but you never could get through "Green Eggs and Ham" by yourself, so it isn't much of a test.


I'm just sayin....


----------



## Snookie

Some mormon history, fyi.

A Utah Massacre And Mormon Memory - NYTimes.com


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> Some mormon history, fyi.
> 
> A Utah Massacre And Mormon Memory - NYTimes.com


one thing that article left out: the Mormons auctioned off the possessions of the victims...a fine act of Christian charity.


----------



## Snookie

daws101 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some mormon history, fyi.
> 
> A Utah Massacre And Mormon Memory - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that article left out: the Mormons auctioned off the possessions of the victims...a fine act of Christian charity.
Click to expand...


Well, it's a business, imo.


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some mormon history, fyi.
> 
> A Utah Massacre And Mormon Memory - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> one thing that article left out: the Mormons auctioned off the possessions of the victims...a fine act of Christian charity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's a business, imo.
Click to expand...

I'm stating the obvious here business is the true religion of the lds church.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mormons tend to be;
> 
> 
> Conservative
> Educated
> Patriotic


Conservatism may or may not be a virtue -- it depends on whether it is rational or not.
Mormons definitely start out with a serious handicap in the rationality department.

_Educated__? !!_ Don't make me laugh!! · · 

Patriotic? Well, maybe -- but then, *"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"*

And you left off #4 :

4. Loony  tune

.


----------



## HUGGY

Uncensored2008 said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how the Redneck Liberal hate crowd just cannot let some things go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons tend to be;
> 
> 
> Conservative
> Educated
> Patriotic
> 
> It's really no wonder that leftists hate them.
Click to expand...


These guys mistake educated for brainwashed.  Believing in myths and out right lies is not "educated".


----------



## daws101

huggy said:


> uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> it never ceases to amaze me how the redneck liberal hate crowd just cannot let some things go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mormons tend to be;
> 
> 
> conservative
> educated
> patriotic
> 
> it's really no wonder that leftists hate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> these guys mistake educated for brainwashed.  Believing in myths and out right lies is not "educated".
Click to expand...

god says it is!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Nothing of substance to respond to here in the last month. Just a large collection of Juvenile statements


----------



## Snookie

Truthspeaker said:


> Nothing of substance to respond to here in the last month. Just a large collection of Juvenile statements



I would not say that.


----------



## Avatar4321

HUGGY said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how the Redneck Liberal hate crowd just cannot let some things go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons tend to be;
> 
> 
> Conservative
> Educated
> Patriotic
> 
> It's really no wonder that leftists hate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These guys mistake educated for brainwashed.  Believing in myths and out right lies is not "educated".
Click to expand...


So you admit you arent educated?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avatar4321 said:


> So you admit you arent educated?



My good friend Bil Stunbmun has a PhD. in the migration patterns of Peruvian sea slugs; so it could be that Rev. Jim (huggy) has some sort of eduction...


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit you arent educated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My good friend Bil Stunbmun has a PhD. in the migration patterns of Peruvian sea slugs; so it could be that Rev. Jim (huggy) has some sort of eduction...
Click to expand...


Oh im sure he has some sort of education. I just find it ironic that by his standard he doesn't have an education.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> Nothing of substance to respond to here in the last month. Just a large collection of Juvenile statements



Then why do you keep coming back?  

Do you really think that people who don't like your weird little cult were going to change their minds without you spewing nonsense?  (Or with you spewing nonsense, for that matter.)


----------



## Snookie

JoeB131 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing of substance to respond to here in the last month. Just a large collection of Juvenile statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep coming back?
> 
> Do you really think that people who don't like your weird little cult were going to change their minds without you spewing nonsense?  (Or with you spewing nonsense, for that matter.)
Click to expand...

They have the belief that their belief is the only true belief.

They have a low tolerance for mainstream society.

I wish they would jump in their rocket ships and leave the planet.


----------



## JoeB131

Snookie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing of substance to respond to here in the last month. Just a large collection of Juvenile statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep coming back?
> 
> Do you really think that people who don't like your weird little cult were going to change their minds without you spewing nonsense?  (Or with you spewing nonsense, for that matter.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the belief that their belief is the only true belief.
> 
> They have a low tolerance for mainstream society.
> 
> I wish they would jump in their rocket ships and leave the planet.
Click to expand...


Actually, I wrote this cool Science Fiction story where they did exactly that.  The ending was pretty hilarious.


----------



## jwoodie

Seriously, what is the difference between Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard?  Both had shady pasts and outlandish beliefs that their followers have had to repudiate.


----------



## JoeB131

jwoodie said:


> Seriously, what is the difference between Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard?  Both had shady pasts and outlandish beliefs that their followers have had to repudiate.



What's the difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? 

Original and Extra Crispy!!!!!


----------



## Friends

I voted that Mormons are friendly. I have always liked them. I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries. I have read The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. I have also read the Bible including the Apocrypha in several English translations. 

Mormonism is unique among religions in that it lends itself to a rational evaluation. The other religions base their authority on miracles that happened so long ago that they are impossible to prove or disprove. We cannot know if Jesus died on the cross, and rose from the dead three days later. We cannot know if the Angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed. 

The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre Columbian America from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. If it is such a history, there must be archaeological evidence that the events described in The Book of Mormon happened. Nevertheless, there is not. None of the cities described in The Book of Mormon have been discovered by archaeologists. There is no evidence of any of the battles.

Since The Book of Mormon was written a great deal has been learned about what was really happening in the New World between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D. There is no similarity between what has been learned and what The Book of Mormon claims was happening.  

The Smithsonian Institution has written a letter that thoroughly refutes Mormon claims for The Book of Mormon. That letter can be found here.

Smithsonian Letter

Another issue is The Book of Abraham. That is part of The Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith bought an ancient Egyptian manuscript, and claimed to translate it into the Book of Abraham. He said that it is a first person account by Abraham of his travels in Egypt. The manuscript exists. It has been translated by reputable scholars of ancient Egypt. The true translation is in no way similar to the translation Joseph Smith claimed to make. 

As much as I like Mormons I have to point out that Joseph Smith was a clever charlatan, and that the Mormon religion is built on lies.


----------



## numan

'

My goodness!! Is this dopey thread still going strong?

The very idea that there could be some connection between "truth" and Mormonism !!!

I notice that "crazy" has finally edged out "friendly" in the poll. About time!!

That anyone could consider them "Christian" shows that the supposedly religious Americans have a very feeble grasp of theology.

.


----------



## Friends

numan said:


> '
> 
> My goodness!! Is this dopey thread still going strong?
> 
> The very idea that there could be some connection between "truth" and Mormonism !!!
> 
> I notice that "crazy" has finally edged out "friendly" in the poll. About time!!
> 
> That anyone could consider them "Christian" shows that the supposedly religious Americans have a very feeble grasp of theology.


 
The fraud of The Book of Abraham was exposed in 1968. Since then the number of Mormons worldwide has grown from 2,684,073 to 14,782,473.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

The Mormon missionary system is an effective way of increasing converts. Most converts are poorly educated and credulous. Nevertheless, Mormons born into the religion like Mitt Romney can be quite well educated and intelligent. These never question the basis of their faith.

The Mormon faith requires significant sacrifices of time and money, so I do not think there are many closet doubters among them. 

For one who is not attracted to alcohol, tobacco, and casual sex, and who wants to marry a virgin, the Mormon religion can be appealing. 

Nevertheless, people do leave the faith. Once I read an autobiographical account by a man who had converted to Mormonism, who developed doubts, and who eventually left. He said that the Mormon religion is like a beautiful Victorian mansion in the town one grows up in. When one becomes an adult one buys the mansion without examining the foundations. Finally one goes down into the basement, turns on the lights, and sees what one does not want to see.  

I want politicians, and especially the President of the United States to have some sort of religious affiliation, either Christian or Jewish. Nevertheless, I would not vote for a Mormon even if I agreed with him on the issues. This is because the falseness of Mormonism should be obvious to any intelligent person who makes a dispassionate examination. I want leaders who recognize the truth, even with it is displeasing to them.


----------



## Friends

JoeB131 said:


> There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.
> 
> 1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man.  What a crock of shit.
> 
> There isn't a gray area on this one.


 
A Roman Catholic can believe that Martin Luther was sincere, but misguided. I imagine many do. 

Joseph Smith was not misguided. He was not sincere. He was a deliberate liar. That can be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. There is too much detail in Mormonism. Joseph Smith could not have imagined the golden plates. He knew they did not exist.

Nevertheless, I have difficulty believing in conspiracies lasting for a long time, and involving large numbers of people. Those who testified to have seen the the golden plates were obviously in on the hoax. I wonder about others. Did Brigham Young know? For him Mormonism meant wealth, power, and many wives, some of whom I imagine were beautiful. 

The only time you can be sure of a believer's sincerity is when the believer accepts death, even a painful death, when all he needs to do to stay alive is say, "I do not really believe it."


----------



## MisterBeale

What do Mormons believe is the sacred and proper use of the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?"


----------



## Snookie

Friends said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> My goodness!! Is this dopey thread still going strong?
> 
> The very idea that there could be some connection between "truth" and Mormonism !!!
> 
> I notice that "crazy" has finally edged out "friendly" in the poll. About time!!
> 
> That anyone could consider them "Christian" shows that the supposedly religious Americans have a very feeble grasp of theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fraud of The Book of Abraham was exposed in 1968. Since then the number of Mormons worldwide has grown from 2,684,073 to 14,782,473.
> 
> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints membership history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The Mormon missionary system is an effective way of increasing converts. Most converts are poorly educated and credulous. Nevertheless, Mormons born into the religion like Mitt Romney can be quite well educated and intelligent. These never question the basis of their faith.
> 
> The Mormon faith requires significant sacrifices of time and money, so I do not think there are many closet doubters among them.
> 
> For one who is not attracted to alcohol, tobacco, and casual sex, and who wants to marry a virgin, the Mormon religion can be appealing.
> 
> Nevertheless, people do leave the faith. Once I read an autobiographical account by a man who had converted to Mormonism, who developed doubts, and who eventually left. He said that the Mormon religion is like a beautiful Victorian mansion in the town one grows up in. When one becomes an adult one buys the mansion without examining the foundations. Finally one goes down into the basement, turns on the lights, and sees what one does not want to see.
> 
> I want politicians, and especially the President of the United States to have some sort of religious affiliation, either Christian or Jewish. Nevertheless, I would not vote for a Mormon even if I agreed with him on the issues. This is because the falseness of Mormonism should be obvious to any intelligent person who makes a dispassionate examination. I want leaders who recognize the truth, even with it is displeasing to them.
Click to expand...


Like the muslims, the mormons love the virgins.

Urban Dictionary: mormon virgin


----------



## JoeB131

Friends said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.
> 
> 1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man.  What a crock of shit.
> 
> There isn't a gray area on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Roman Catholic can believe that Martin Luther was sincere, but misguided. I imagine many do.
> 
> Joseph Smith was not misguided. He was not sincere. He was a deliberate liar. That can be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. There is too much detail in Mormonism. Joseph Smith could not have imagined the golden plates. He knew they did not exist.
> 
> Nevertheless, I have difficulty believing in conspiracies lasting for a long time, and involving large numbers of people. Those who testified to have seen the the golden plates were obviously in on the hoax. I wonder about others. Did Brigham Young know? For him Mormonism meant wealth, power, and many wives, some of whom I imagine were beautiful.
> 
> The only time you can be sure of a believer's sincerity is when the believer accepts death, even a painful death, when all he needs to do to stay alive is say, "I do not really believe it."
Click to expand...


In Catholic School, they actually admitted Luther had a point about the Church's corruption c 1520.  They even admitted Henry VIII had a point.  But these were matters of interpretation.  

In the case of Joseph Smith, either he had a divine experience, or he was making it up. There really isn't a middle ground.


----------



## Snookie

the mormon mafia.

The Mormon Mafia Mind Control ? No Different than Warren Jeffs! | The Story Behind The Story

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,632041


----------



## Friends

Snookie said:


> the mormon mafia.
> 
> The Mormon Mafia Mind Control ? No Different than Warren Jeffs! | The Story Behind The Story
> 
> The Mormon Mafia, Howard Hughes, Bain Capital and Mitt Romney


 
That is a powerful letter. Unfortunately, the author is too optimistic about the potential rationality of most Mormons. He does explain why many intelligent, questioning Mormons remain in the faith after their faith is gone.


----------



## Snookie

Friends said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mormon mafia.
> 
> The Mormon Mafia Mind Control ? No Different than Warren Jeffs! | The Story Behind The Story
> 
> The Mormon Mafia, Howard Hughes, Bain Capital and Mitt Romney
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a powerful letter. Unfortunately, the author is too optimistic about the potential rationality of most Mormons. He does explain why many intelligent, questioning Mormons remain in the faith after their faith is gone.
Click to expand...


Cult syndrome.


----------



## longknife

Snookie said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the mormon mafia.
> 
> The Mormon Mafia Mind Control ? No Different than Warren Jeffs! | The Story Behind The Story
> 
> The Mormon Mafia, Howard Hughes, Bain Capital and Mitt Romney
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a powerful letter. Unfortunately, the author is too optimistic about the potential rationality of most Mormons. He does explain why many intelligent, questioning Mormons remain in the faith after their faith is gone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cult syndrome.
Click to expand...


You simply cannot let this subject go, can you?

Do you truly hate Mormons that much?

You must lead a very sad life. You have my deepest sympathies.


----------



## Snookie

longknife said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a powerful letter. Unfortunately, the author is too optimistic about the potential rationality of most Mormons. He does explain why many intelligent, questioning Mormons remain in the faith after their faith is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cult syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply cannot let this subject go, can you?
> 
> Do you truly hate Mormons that much?
> 
> You must lead a very sad life. You have my deepest sympathies.
Click to expand...


Yes, I really hate those bible thumping hypocrites who think they are the chosen ones.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> Yes, I really hate those bible thumping hypocrites who think they are the chosen ones.



Cuz Louis Farrakhan told you that YOU are the chosen one, and white devils are from Satan.....

Right Komrade Klansman?


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I really hate those bible thumping hypocrites who think they are the chosen ones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz Louis Farrakhan told you that YOU are the chosen one, and white devils are from Satan.....
> 
> Right Komrade Klansman?
Click to expand...


Wrong, peckerwood.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> Wrong, peckerwood.



Come on SnooKKKie, you know you hate Mormons because they're mostly white....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Almost all atheists hate religions that are successful.  A few are cultic and harmful, the great majority are not.  Atheists as a whole, and I have know quite a few, are angry and full of self loathing.  Shame.  But it is what it is.


----------



## numan

'

Name a religion that is not harmful.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Show that atheism is not harmful.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> '
> 
> Name a religion that is not harmful.
> 
> .



Obamunism?

Oh, wait.....


----------



## Friends

longknife said:


> You simply cannot let this subject go, can you?
> 
> Do you truly hate Mormons that much?
> 
> You must lead a very sad life. You have my deepest sympathies.


 
I like Mormons. i wanted to become a Mormon. I was very disappointed when I learned that Joseph Smith was a fraud.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, peckerwood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on SnooKKKie, you know you hate Mormons because they're mostly white....
Click to expand...


Dam, I thought they were canadians.


----------



## MisterBeale

numan said:


> '
> 
> Name a religion that is not harmful.
> 
> .


Pastafarianism?

Care to join me in Pastafarian prayer?









> Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day, our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. RAmen.
> 
> The Flying Spaghetti Monster Holy Prayer  Unknown


----------



## Snookie

JakeStarkey said:


> Show that atheism is not harmful.



Atheists never burned anyone at the stake.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can't prove that, snookums, but you can check out atheist Russia and atheist China and atheist Cambodia persecuting and executing Christians in their hundreds of thousands if not millions.


----------



## Snookie

JakeStarkey said:


> You can't prove that, snookums, but you can check out atheist Russia and atheist China and atheist Cambodia persecuting and executing Christians in their hundreds of thousands if not millions.



Can you prove that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Common knowledge, as you well know.

Now run off to the playgrounds.


----------



## Snookie

I am a druid.

Thomas Paine on Free Masonry


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> Atheists never burned anyone at the stake.



No, but they did slaughter 200 million plus in the 20th century - making Atheism the most deadly belief system in history.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists never burned anyone at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but they did slaughter 200 million plus in the 20th century - making Atheism the most deadly belief system in history.
Click to expand...


BS, even Hitler had a religion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> I am a druid.
> 
> Thomas Paine on Free Masonry



Ah Komrade Klansman, you are ignorant...

{By the 1840s, however, Smith and several prominent Mormons had become Freemasons and founded a lodge in Nauvoo, Illinois, in March 1842. Soon after joining Freemasonry, Smith introduced a new temple "Endowment" ceremony including a number of symbolic elements that were essentially identical with their analogues within Freemasonry. Smith remained a Freemason until his death;}

Mormonism and Freemasonry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> BS, even Hitler had a religion.



Perhaps, but the greatest mass murders in history, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, Kim, et al - professed Atheism.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a druid.
> 
> Thomas Paine on Free Masonry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah Komrade Klansman, you are ignorant...
> 
> {By the 1840s, however, Smith and several prominent Mormons had become Freemasons and founded a lodge in Nauvoo, Illinois, in March 1842. Soon after joining Freemasonry, Smith introduced a new temple "Endowment" ceremony including a number of symbolic elements that were essentially identical with their analogues within Freemasonry. Smith remained a Freemason until his death;}
> 
> Mormonism and Freemasonry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


To call me ignorant you would have to call Tom Paine ignorant.  The freemasons have become corrupt since its origin.  I have had a bad experience with a judge who was a freemason who had a conflict of interest.  I almost got the sob disbarred.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> To call me ignorant you would have to call Tom Paine ignorant.



False dichotomy, a logical fallacy. Of course, if not for fallacy, you'd have nothing approaching logic.

No, your ignorance is in not grasping that Smith was a Mason and the much of the Mormon religion is lifted directly from Freemasonry.



> The freemasons have become corrupt since its origin.  I have had a bad experience with a judge who was a freemason who had a conflict of interest.  I almost got the sob disbarred.



Really? But did you get released from prison?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Ask free masons about the feminist support co-masons, and all they can do is whine "clandestine, clandestine."


----------



## numan

Snookie said:


> To call me ignorant you would have to call Tom Paine ignorant.


Tom Paine *WAS* sufficiently ignorant to imagine that supporting insurrection by self-seeking terrorists would be of benefit to the American Colonies.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

numan said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To call me ignorant you would have to call Tom Paine ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine *WAS* sufficiently ignorant to imagine that supporting insurrection by self-seeking terrorists would be of benefit to the American Colonies..
Click to expand...


Paine was right, and you are left, Numan.  I crack myself up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> Tom Paine *WAS* sufficiently ignorant to imagine that supporting insurrection by self-seeking terrorists would be of benefit to the American Colonies.
> 
> .



Regardless of the merit or lack of in your argument, be aware that the ignorance I pointed out in SnooKKKies post had nothing at all to do with Paine.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine *WAS* sufficiently ignorant to imagine that supporting insurrection by self-seeking terrorists would be of benefit to the American Colonies.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of the merit or lack of in your argument, be aware that the ignorance I pointed out in SnooKKKies post had nothing at all to do with Paine.
Click to expand...


You are hallucinating again, I see.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> You are hallucinating again, I see.



I see you're ignorant again, SnooKKKie.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are hallucinating again, I see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're ignorant again, SnooKKKie.
Click to expand...


I see you are as stupid as ever.  Can't fix stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Snookums and Uncensoredbedwetter are dithering.


----------



## Snookie

JakeStarkey said:


> Snookums and Uncensoredbedwetter are dithering.


Dithering?  Put this in your bong and smoke it.


The Mormon Curtain - MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> Dithering?  Put this in your bong and smoke it.
> 
> 
> The Mormon Curtain - MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE



Good you could come up with something recent, SnooKKKie...

By all means get your little tin god and that corrupt fuck Holder to swear out a warrant for the arrest of Brigham Young!


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> By all means get your little tin god and that corrupt fuck Holder to swear out a warrant for the arrest of Brigham Young!


What they should do is seize all the property of the Mormon Church, as being the illicit gains of confidence tricksters.

That would really get the Mafiosi who run the operation where it hurts !!

.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dithering?  Put this in your bong and smoke it.
> 
> 
> The Mormon Curtain - MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good you could come up with something recent, SnooKKKie...
> 
> By all means get your little tin god and that corrupt fuck Holder to swear out a warrant for the arrest of Brigham Young!
Click to expand...

What happened?  Did someone shit in your mess kit?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Atheists are as wacky as Koshergrl and the other social trads.

Good heavens.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> What they should do is seize all the property of the Mormon Church, as being the illicit gains of confidence tricksters.
> 
> That would really get the Mafiosi who run the operation where it hurts !!
> 
> .



As long as they hit all the Envirowackos first. Start with Aljazeera Gore.


----------



## Snookie

Magic mormon underwea  Protects you from evil.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cbfgmorIGE]Magic Mormon Underwear - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> What happened?  Did someone shit in your mess kit?



I find it amusing that you had to reach back over a hundred years to support your bigotry. 

Now of course you'll support and promote the Muslims.

Now let's see what they did yesterday...


2013.07.29 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) - Fedayeen shouting 'Allah Akbar' attack a prison, killing guards and beheading Shiite prisoners.

2013.07.29 (Spin Boldak, Afghanistan) - A mother and her two children are exterminated by a fundamentalist bomb blast.

2013.07.29 (Samawa, Iraq) - A half-dozen people at a Shia market are laid out by a Sunni shrapnel bomb.

2013.07.29 (Kut, Iraq) - Islamists bomb a market and construction site, sending at least ten innocents to their deaths.


----------



## numan

'
Some people just can't see the difference between delusional, trickster cults and the constant criticism and up-dating that goes on in science.

But then, what can one expect from the ignorant Great Unwashed -- especially when they are obsessional hysterics?

.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened?  Did someone shit in your mess kit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that you had to reach back over a hundred years to support your bigotry.
> 
> Now of course you'll support and promote the Muslims.
> 
> Now let's see what they did yesterday...
> 
> 
> 2013.07.29 (Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan) - Fedayeen shouting 'Allah Akbar' attack a prison, killing guards and beheading Shiite prisoners.
> 
> 2013.07.29 (Spin Boldak, Afghanistan) - A mother and her two children are exterminated by a fundamentalist bomb blast.
> 
> 2013.07.29 (Samawa, Iraq) - A half-dozen people at a Shia market are laid out by a Sunni shrapnel bomb.
> 
> 2013.07.29 (Kut, Iraq) - Islamists bomb a market and construction site, sending at least ten innocents to their deaths.
Click to expand...


Show me one post where I supported the muslims.  You are making up lies.  I am not surprised.


----------



## Snookie

10 bat shit crazy mormon beliefs. Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs | Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs


----------



## Snookie

Snookie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happened?  Did someone shit in your mess kit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it amusing that you had to reach back over a hundred years to support your bigotry.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In case you have never heard of it, it is called history.
Click to expand...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> Magic mormon underwea  Protects you from evil.



Like the white robe and hood you wear?

BTW corkey - the symbols on those magic underwear, are all Masonic....


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magic mormon underwea  Protects you from evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like the white robe and hood you wear?
> 
> BTW corkey - the symbols on those magic underwear, are all Masonic....
Click to expand...

So what?  Like I said before, the freemasons are now corrupt.  They suck.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> So what?  Like I said before, the freemasons are now corrupt.  They suck.



LOL

Masons were always corrupt - back to the middle ages.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  Like I said before, the freemasons are now corrupt.  They suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Masons were always corrupt - back to the middle ages.
Click to expand...


I agree.  The only time they were not corrupt is during its origin.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> I agree.  The only time they were not corrupt is during its origin.



You didn't read your own cite, Paine well proved the supposed "origin" is a complete fraud. The Masons arose in the Middle Ages as a means of preserving the old Aristocracy.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  The only time they were not corrupt is during its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read your own cite, Paine well proved the supposed "origin" is a complete fraud. The Masons arose in the Middle Ages as a means of preserving the old Aristocracy.
Click to expand...


Picky, picky, picky.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  The only time they were not corrupt is during its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read your own cite, Paine well proved the supposed "origin" is a complete fraud. The Masons arose in the Middle Ages as a means of preserving the old Aristocracy.
Click to expand...

 my brother in law is the worshipful master at his lodge. if by corrupt you mean a bunch of men dressing up...ok then.


----------



## JakeStarkey

All secret societies, whether Masons or the LDS priesthood or the Catholic Church administration or brothers-in-law and their friends on county governments, tend to corruption. 

They have shared interests in secret they may work against the public interest.


----------



## Snookie

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.  The only time they were not corrupt is during its origin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read your own cite, Paine well proved the supposed "origin" is a complete fraud. The Masons arose in the Middle Ages as a means of preserving the old Aristocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> my brother in law is the worshipful master at his lodge. if by corrupt you mean a bunch of men dressing up...ok then.
Click to expand...

I have experienced conflict of interest in the court system among masons.


----------



## jwoodie

Where is Truthseeker?  AWOL?


----------



## JakeStarkey

He said several months ago he is very, very busy, but does try to drop in from time to time.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> my brother in law is the worshipful master at his lodge. if by corrupt you mean a bunch of men dressing up...ok then.



No, I mean a group engaged in insider trading and grey market activity designed to enrich the group at the expense of the public at large.

Has there ever been a CEO of Kraft Foods who was not a Mason? Do you wonder why that is?


----------



## jwoodie

Start a new thread.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I would like to read the entries on the free masons and co-masons.


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read your own cite, Paine well proved the supposed "origin" is a complete fraud. The Masons arose in the Middle Ages as a means of preserving the old Aristocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> my brother in law is the worshipful master at his lodge. if by corrupt you mean a bunch of men dressing up...ok then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have experienced conflict of interest in the court system among masons.
Click to expand...

how's that
?!


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> my brother in law is the worshipful master at his lodge. if by corrupt you mean a bunch of men dressing up...ok then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean a group engaged in insider trading and grey market activity designed to enrich the group at the expense of the public at large.
> 
> Has there ever been a CEO of Kraft Foods who was not a Mason? Do you wonder why that is?
Click to expand...

maybe it's traditional?


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> maybe it's traditional?



A traditional old boys club?

Masons are bound by oath to give preferential treatment to other Masons - especially in business.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe it's traditional?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A traditional old boys club?
> 
> Masons are bound by oath to give preferential treatment to other Masons - especially in business.
Click to expand...

really my first hand experience with masons  says difference..


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> Masons are bound by oath to give preferential treatment to other Masons - especially in business.


I would be very surprised if American Masons, in line with their good ol' Yankee equalitarian business ethics, were not happy to cheat _everyone_ -- including other Masons.
.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> really my first hand experience with masons  says difference..



I take it you're level 33?


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> I would be very surprised if American Masons, in line with their good ol' Yankee equalitarian business ethics, were not happy to cheat _everyone_ -- including other Masons.
> .



I would be very surprised if you could find your ears; groping around in the darkness of your anus as you are...


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really my first hand experience with masons  says difference..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you're level 33?
Click to expand...

not a member ...to be a member you have to believe in god or a higher power AKA GOD...
BESIDES i GOT OVER GUY BONDING RITUALS IN THE BOY SCOUTS..


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Masons are bound by oath to give preferential treatment to other Masons - especially in business.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be very surprised if American Masons, in line with their good ol' Yankee equalitarian business ethics, were not happy to cheat _everyone_ -- including other Masons.
> .
Click to expand...

cheating is one of this country's oldest and most revered traditions!..you communist !


----------



## JakeStarkey

Every good _voir dire _here asks if potential jurors belong to oath-bound secret combinations. Masons and Mormons will give preferential treatment.


----------



## jwoodie

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really my first hand experience with masons  says difference..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you're level 33?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not a member ...to be a member you have to believe in god or a higher power AKA GOD...
Click to expand...


Congratulations on being the highest power in the universe.  How depressing...


----------



## daws101

jwoodie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take it you're level 33?
> 
> 
> 
> not a member ...to be a member you have to believe in god or a higher power AKA GOD...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Congratulations on being the highest power in the universe.  How depressing...
Click to expand...

is there a club where all you chronically false assumers go?


----------



## numan

daws101 said:


> cheating is one of this country's oldest and most revered traditions!..you communist !


I am well aware of that...you dolt ! · · 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> cheating is one of this country's oldest and most revered traditions!..you communist !
> 
> 
> 
> I am well aware of that...you dolt ! · ·
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

you did understand I was agreeing with you...the smiley  wasn't enough, or do you have to be kicked in the balls?,


----------



## numan

daws101 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> cheating is one of this country's oldest and most revered traditions!..you communist !
> 
> 
> 
> I am well aware of that...you dolt ! · ·
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you did understand I was agreeing with you...the smiley  wasn't enough, or do you have to be kicked in the balls?
Click to expand...

I agreed with what you wrote that was true, and chastised you for what you wrote that was false.


Is that so hard to understand -- dolt? · · 

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And the Doltish Union, with Head Dolt Numan, will protect its members as well.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> you did understand I was agreeing with you...the smiley  wasn't enough, or do you have to be kicked in the balls?,



You better have a damned good aim to hit those little guys.....


----------



## Snookie

daws101 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> my brother in law is the worshipful master at his lodge. if by corrupt you mean a bunch of men dressing up...ok then.
> 
> 
> 
> I have experienced conflict of interest in the court system among masons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how's that
> ?!
Click to expand...


I went to  circuit court to claim a breech of contract.  The judge was a mason.  My opponent was a mason as was his lawyer.  I got totally screwed by the judge. He ridiculed me for not having a lawyer and set a ten thousand cash appeal bond.

They were good old boys from Portsmouth, Virginia, a very corrupt city.

Originally in the case I had a black judge.  The mason was the chief judge and he replaced the black judge with himself.

At the end of the case the whole court let out a gasp.  They knew I had been screwed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sounds like Masons everywhere.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you did understand I was agreeing with you...the smiley  wasn't enough, or do you have to be kicked in the balls?,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You better have a damned good aim to hit those little guys.....
Click to expand...

me thinks it's an empty scrotum


----------



## Christopher

Snookie said:


> 10 bat shit crazy mormon beliefs. Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs | Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs



Did you even visit your own link?  There are more than 10 beliefs claimed as Mormon beliefs on that site and it is open to anyone to add to the list.  Here is one of them:



> They believe in being honest, true, chaste benevolent, virtuous, and in doing to all men; indeed, they may say that they follow the admonition of Paul-they believe all thing, they hope all things, they have endured many things,  and hope to be able to endure all things


----------



## Snookie

Christopher said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 bat shit crazy mormon beliefs. Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs | Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even visit your own link?  There are more than 10 beliefs claimed as Mormon beliefs on that site and it is open to anyone to add to the list.  Here is one of them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They believe in being honest, true, chaste benevolent, virtuous, and in doing to all men; indeed, they may say that they follow the admonition of Paul-they believe all thing, they hope all things, they have endured many things,  and hope to be able to endure all things
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


that's funny


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> All secret societies, whether Masons or the LDS priesthood or the Catholic Church administration or brothers-in-law and their friends on county governments, tend to corruption.
> 
> They have shared interests in secret they may work against the public interest.



There is no secret LDS priesthood society


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dithering?  Put this in your bong and smoke it.
> 
> 
> The Mormon Curtain - MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good you could come up with something recent, SnooKKKie...
> 
> By all means get your little tin god and that corrupt fuck Holder to swear out a warrant for the arrest of Brigham Young!
Click to expand...


I think he'd be acquitted pretty easily considering the letter he sent telling them to leave the caravan be. Not to mention the Statute of  Limitations having run. Shame the postal service too so long in that day.


----------



## Avatar4321

Friends said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply cannot let this subject go, can you?
> 
> Do you truly hate Mormons that much?
> 
> You must lead a very sad life. You have my deepest sympathies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like Mormons. i wanted to become a Mormon. I was very disappointed when I learned that Joseph Smith was a fraud.
Click to expand...


No need to be disappointed. The accusations of him being a fraud are greatly exagerated.


----------



## Avatar4321

Snookie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show that atheism is not harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists never burned anyone at the stake.
Click to expand...


No. They have prefered gas chambers and killing fields. Kills more people that way


----------



## Avatar4321

Snookie said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cult syndrome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply cannot let this subject go, can you?
> 
> Do you truly hate Mormons that much?
> 
> You must lead a very sad life. You have my deepest sympathies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I really hate those bible thumping hypocrites who think they are the chosen ones.
Click to expand...


We don't Bible thump.

Though if we did, we would win.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show that atheism is not harmful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists never burned anyone at the stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. They have prefered gas chambers and killing fields. Kills more people that way
Click to expand...

the nazi's  were christians..Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) proclaimed the belt buckles of the Nazi SS storm troopers


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists never burned anyone at the stake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. They have prefered gas chambers and killing fields. Kills more people that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the nazi's  were christians..Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) proclaimed the belt buckles of the Nazi SS storm troopers
Click to expand...


Social deviants are not religious.  Most are atheist.  Look it up.  China and Cambodia were atheist regiemes.  Look it up.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. They have prefered gas chambers and killing fields. Kills more people that way
> 
> 
> 
> the nazi's  were christians..Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) proclaimed the belt buckles of the Nazi SS storm troopers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social deviants are not religious.  Most are atheist.  Look it up.  China and Cambodia were atheist regiemes.  Look it up.
Click to expand...

really :Deviance in Religion | Sociology of Deviant Behavior


----------



## JakeStarkey

Really.  Is Dr. Thompson an atheist by any chance.  Her class syllabus reads in part, "Dr. Beverly Yuen Thompson.

This course will introduce students to sociological concepts and contemporary issues within the sociological field of deviance: labeling, embodiment, identity, behaviors, and criminality. We will analyze the labeling process of behaviors that fall outside of the statistical norm and the sociological impact of being so labeled. Students will learn how to analyze academic articles, documentary film, lead classroom discussions, write critical short essays, and utilize web 2.0 tools to facilitate discussions and contribute content for the course."

And are you ignoring that Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, North Vietnam, and China were or atheist states?


----------



## numan

'

It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.

Canada is pretty good that way -- at least, western Canada (always with the dreadful exception of Alberta). 

.


----------



## Truthspeaker

JoeB131 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing of substance to respond to here in the last month. Just a large collection of Juvenile statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep coming back?
> 
> Do you really think that people who don't like your weird little cult were going to change their minds without you spewing nonsense?  (Or with you spewing nonsense, for that matter.)
Click to expand...

Nah... I just check n from time to time and do a little troll sifting and occasionally there's a decent comment from a reasonable human being to respond to


----------



## Truthspeaker

Friends said:


> I voted that Mormons are friendly. I have always liked them. I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries. I have read The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. I have also read the Bible including the Apocrypha in several English translations.
> 
> Mormonism is unique among religions in that it lends itself to a rational evaluation. The other religions base their authority on miracles that happened so long ago that they are impossible to prove or disprove. We cannot know if Jesus died on the cross, and rose from the dead three days later. We cannot know if the Angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed.
> 
> The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre Columbian America from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. If it is such a history, there must be archaeological evidence that the events described in The Book of Mormon happened. Nevertheless, there is not. None of the cities described in The Book of Mormon have been discovered by archaeologists. There is no evidence of any of the battles.
> 
> Since The Book of Mormon was written a great deal has been learned about what was really happening in the New World between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D. There is no similarity between what has been learned and what The Book of Mormon claims was happening.
> 
> The Smithsonian Institution has written a letter that thoroughly refutes Mormon claims for The Book of Mormon. That letter can be found here.
> 
> Smithsonian Letter
> 
> Another issue is The Book of Abraham. That is part of The Pearl of Great Price. Joseph Smith bought an ancient Egyptian manuscript, and claimed to translate it into the Book of Abraham. He said that it is a first person account by Abraham of his travels in Egypt. The manuscript exists. It has been translated by reputable scholars of ancient Egypt. The true translation is in no way similar to the translation Joseph Smith claimed to make.
> 
> As much as I like Mormons I have to point out that Joseph Smith was a clever charlatan, and that the Mormon religion is built on lies.



There is ample evidence. I've posted mountains of it. But it sounds like you are not doing any REAL research of your own. Just listening to the babblings of institutions who are deathly afraid of admitting any of the mountainous evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, which continues to be the most correct book on earth. You can go back through the thread for yourself and read what I have already posted in great detail on the subject. 
I'm done repeating myself. Every point in your statement has been thrown down and explained thoroughly if you care to know. 

You are a newcomer here. Perhaps you should start from the beginning


----------



## Truthspeaker

Friends said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are only two approaches you can take towards Mormonism.
> 
> 1) Joseph Smith was a prophet, where do I sign up.
> 
> and
> 
> 2) Joseph Smith was a pedophile con man.  What a crock of shit.
> 
> There isn't a gray area on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Roman Catholic can believe that Martin Luther was sincere, but misguided. I imagine many do.
> 
> Joseph Smith was not misguided. He was not sincere. He was a deliberate liar. That can be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. There is too much detail in Mormonism. Joseph Smith could not have imagined the golden plates. He knew they did not exist.
> 
> Nevertheless, I have difficulty believing in conspiracies lasting for a long time, and involving large numbers of people. Those who testified to have seen the the golden plates were obviously in on the hoax. I wonder about others. Did Brigham Young know? For him Mormonism meant wealth, power, and many wives, some of whom I imagine were beautiful.
> 
> The only time you can be sure of a believer's sincerity is when the believer accepts death, even a painful death, when all he needs to do to stay alive is say, "I do not really believe it."
Click to expand...

Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity


----------



## Truthspeaker

MisterBeale said:


> What do Mormons believe is the sacred and proper use of the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?"



No idea what that is


----------



## Truthspeaker

Friends said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply cannot let this subject go, can you?
> 
> Do you truly hate Mormons that much?
> 
> You must lead a very sad life. You have my deepest sympathies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like Mormons. i wanted to become a Mormon. I was very disappointed when I learned that Joseph Smith was a fraud.
Click to expand...


You'll shake hands with the man one day and realize he was as pure as they came


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> []
> Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity



By that same measure, David Koresh was "sincere".  

Or maybe he just didn't want to give up the nice little scam he had going. 

Shit, Smith had an awesome scam.  Less smart people were giving him money and letting him screw their teenage daughters so they could get into the Celestial Heaven. I'm sure he "Sincerely" didn't want to give that shit up.


----------



## Snookie

JoeB131 said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> []
> Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that same measure, David Koresh was "sincere".
> 
> Or maybe he just didn't want to give up the nice little scam he had going.
> 
> Shit, Smith had an awesome scam.  Less smart people were giving him money and letting him screw their teenage daughters so they could get into the Celestial Heaven. I'm sure he "Sincerely" didn't want to give that shit up.
Click to expand...


You forgot Jim Jones.


----------



## JoeB131

Snookie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> []
> Curious that you would say someone is sincere if they die for their beliefs but if the Prophet Joseph Smith does it, you fail to recognize his sincerity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that same measure, David Koresh was "sincere".
> 
> Or maybe he just didn't want to give up the nice little scam he had going.
> 
> Shit, Smith had an awesome scam.  Less smart people were giving him money and letting him screw their teenage daughters so they could get into the Celestial Heaven. I'm sure he "Sincerely" didn't want to give that shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot Jim Jones.
Click to expand...


Well, not really. I'd like to forget JIm Jones, or what Religous Crazy can do to people.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Interesting session two day's ago.  Many active LDS I know adjust their belief in LDS scriptures from divinely inspired to morally inspired (look up the dif if you don't get it because I won't argue it with anybody).

One paper posited that humans know what is, almost instinctively, what is 'right and wrong'.  Looking at the Bible's story of Jehovah ordering the Israelites to commit genocide of one of the hill tribes, the question arises "how does one reconcile the command with the idea of a loving God?"  Or the LDS story of Nephi and Laban, "how does one reconcile that murder as a command by a loving God with 'that it is better one wicked man die than a people dwindle in unbelief'"?

One active LDS member in the audience, a member of his stake's high council, said one approach is to adopt the Catholic system that all examples are profitable for good or bad or in between.  Meaning that a child asking about Nephi and Laban can be answered with sometimes writers, like Nephi, justify bad things in the name of their God, but a bad thing is still a bad thing.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Interesting session two day's ago.  Many active LDS I know adjust their belief in LDS scriptures from divinely inspired to morally inspired (look up the dif if you don't get it because I won't argue it with anybody).
> 
> One paper posited that humans know what is, almost instinctively, what is 'right and wrong'.  Looking at the Bible's story of Jehovah ordering the Israelites to commit genocide of one of the hill tribes, the question arises "how does one reconcile the command with the idea of a loving God?"  Or the LDS story of Nephi and Laban, "how does one reconcile that murder as a command by a loving God with 'that it is better one wicked man die than a people dwindle in unbelief'"?
> 
> One active LDS member in the audience, a member of his stake's high council, said one approach is to adopt the Catholic system that all examples are profitable for good or bad or in between.  Meaning that a child asking about Nephi and Laban can be answered with sometimes writers, like Nephi, justify bad things in the name of their God, but a bad thing is still a bad thing.



Wow, Jake, are you finally coming out of the closet and admitting you are LDS?   

The problem with the bible is that in that time period, genocide was considered moral, as was homophobia, slavery and religous intolerence.  

And thankfully, today, we are more civilized, but we need to find excuses as to why this is still in the Holy Books.  

Now, for the Book Of Mormon, or as I like to call it, "Bad Bible Fan-Fic", Smith should have known a lot of this stuff was immoral, but he tried to  justify it anyway.


----------



## JakeStarkey

> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting session two day's ago.  Many active LDS I know adjust their belief in LDS scriptures from divinely inspired to morally inspired (look up the dif if you don't get it because I won't argue it with anybody).
> 
> One paper posited that humans know what is, almost instinctively, what is 'right and wrong'.  Looking at the Bible's story of Jehovah ordering the Israelites to commit genocide of one of the hill tribes, the question arises "how does one reconcile the command with the idea of a loving God?"  Or the LDS story of Nephi and Laban, "how does one reconcile that murder as a command by a loving God with 'that it is better one wicked man die than a people dwindle in unbelief'"?
> 
> One active LDS member in the audience, a member of his stake's high council, said one approach is to adopt the Catholic system that all examples are profitable for good or bad or in between.  Meaning that a child asking about Nephi and Laban can be answered with sometimes writers, like Nephi, justify bad things in the name of their God, but a bad thing is still a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, are you . . . admitting you are LDS?
Click to expand...


I said I was at conference.  It was a Sunstone history conference held at UofU (look it up on the web), which has atheists to religious believers of all sorts offering papers on matters of conscience and religion and non-religion for that matter about Mormonism.  I am not LDS, never have been.

Some who have been former Mormons, such as the questioner above, have real trouubles with the faith that they have left.


----------



## Christopher

Snookie said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10 bat shit crazy mormon beliefs. Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs | Top 10 Craziest Mormon Beliefs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even visit your own link?  There are more than 10 beliefs claimed as Mormon beliefs on that site and it is open to anyone to add to the list.  Here is one of them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They believe in being honest, true, chaste benevolent, virtuous, and in doing to all men; indeed, they may say that they follow the admonition of Paul-they believe all thing, they hope all things, they have endured many things,  and hope to be able to endure all things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's funny
Click to expand...


Yes, funny that some people dont even verify their sources.

It often reveals someones bias and/or prejudice.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> '
> 
> It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.



North Korea awaits you, sparky.

You'll fit right in.


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea awaits you, sparky.
> 
> You'll fit right in.
Click to expand...


No he won't. He's well fed


----------



## numan

Avatar4321 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> 
> It would be nice to live in an atheist state. Very restful and relaxing.
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea awaits you, sparky.
> 
> You'll fit right in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No he won't. He's well fed
Click to expand...

· · · · 

Good point !! I should have written, "rational and/or non-corrupt" atheist state.

Since no human society has ever been, or is ever likely to be, rational or non-corrupt, I am pretty well safe from ever being disillusioned!! · · 

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> · · · ·
> 
> Good point !! I should have written, "rational and/or non-corrupt" atheist state.



There's never been one - and never will be.



> Since no human society has ever been, or is ever likely to be, rational or non-corrupt, I am pretty well safe from ever being disillusioned!! · ·
> 
> .



Atheists are especially nasty - butchering more in the first 50 years of the 20th century than all other "isms" combined, in all of history.


----------



## daws101

How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?

Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Myth:
How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism? 

Response:
 None, probably. 

How can that be? After all, millions and millions of people died in Russia and China under communist governments  and those governments were both secular and atheistic, right? So weren't all of those people killed because of atheism  indeed, in the name of atheism and secularism? 

No, that conclusion does not follow. Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness. 

People were killed in communist nations for a lot of different reasons. Some were communists who disagreed with those in power and were killed because of that. Some were anti-communists opposed the government and were killed for that. Some were simply in the way or inconvenient and were killed for that. These are political disagreements that people were being killed over, not murder in the name of atheism. 

But weren't a lot of people killed because they were Christian? Certainly  but not simply because they were Christian. Communists typically regarded religious organizations as a hinderance towards the creation of a worker's paradise. Some religious groups also opposed the communists. Once again, we are generally looking at political issues, not a question of atheism. 

Even if some people were killed simply because they followed a religion, it does not follow that they were killed in the name of atheism. Why? Because atheism is not inherently opposed to religion: it is possible to be both an atheist and religious and some religions are themselves atheistic. Atheism also isn't a belief system or ideology which can, by itself, inspire people to do things  good or bad. 

To understand this better, consider times in the past when religion has been involved with violence  the Inquisition would be good. How many people were killed during the Inquisition in the name of theism? None. Those doing the killing acted not because of theism, but rather because of Christian doctrines. The belief system is what inspired people to act (sometimes for good, sometimes for ill). The single belief of theism, however, did not. 

Similarly, communism certainly inspired people to act and gave them motivations to do certain things, but atheism  which is the absence of a belief and not even a belief itself  did not. The assumption that people in Russia and China were killed merely on account of atheism is based upon two other myths: first, that atheism is itself some sort of philosophy or belief system which can motivate people, and second that atheism is somehow interchangeable with the actual belief system of communism. It also pretends that all the various elements of communist totalitarianism were irrelevant to what happened  which is utter nonsense. 

The aforementioned parallel explains why this response is not one which religious theists can use to deny their religion's responsibility for violence in the past. Atheism and theism may not themselves be sufficient to justify violence and murder (or good behavior, for that matter), but belief systems which incorporate them are more than sufficient. Communism (or at least certain forms of it) can be blamed for communist violence; Christianity (or at least certain forms of it) can also be blamed for Christian violence. As a belief system with specific doctrines that were openly held up as justifying or sanctioning violence, religion must be held responsible for the violence committed in its name. 

Whether theism can be slightly more culpable than atheism is a matter of dispute. Not being any belief at all, atheism can't motivate anyone in any direction to do anything. Theism is a belief, however, so at least the potential for some sort of motivation in some direction exists. It's been argued, for example, that monotheism is inherently more prone to violence because of the way it tends to be exclusivist  unlike polytheism, which tends to be more tolerant of cultural and religious differences. 

It's difficult to say, though, how many of these problems are really inherent in the type of theism and how many are cultural products of the religious belief systems that incorporate them. Whatever culpability theism itself might have, it's likely small enough to dismiss, allowing us to treat it and atheism as functionally equal in this context. 
How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism? Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism


----------



## numan

'
*"Magic words of 'Poof-poof Piffle!!'"*

History shows that neither religion nor non-religion has much effect on what people actually do. Ideology is just window-dressing to disguise human behavior.

If political "leaders" have been more satanic in recent times, it merely shows that we have "better" and more efficient means to be dirty, filthy monsters than Genghis Khan or  Ivan the Terrible had at their disposal.

_[I've read that Ivan the Terrible was very religious -- or superstitious, as would be my way of putting it]_

.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You and Mark Twain would have gotten along famously in his last years.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
> 
> Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism
> 
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> 
> Myth:
> How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?
> 
> Response:
> None, probably.




ROFL

Credibility = zero...


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
> 
> Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism
> 
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> 
> Myth:
> How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?
> 
> Response:
> None, probably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Credibility = zero...
Click to expand...

how did I know you'd say that ? it's false as are all of your rationalizations...
fact more people have been killed in the name of god then any other cause .
Listed are only events that solely occurred on command or participation of church authorities or were committed in the name of Christianity. 
Ancient Pagans 

As soon as Christianity became legal in the Roman Empire by imperial edict (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed. 
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain. 
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis. 
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468] 
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468] 
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..." 
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights. 
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466] 
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
[DO19-25]

ExChristian.Net - Articles: How many people have been killed by Christians since Biblical times?


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> how did I know you'd say that ? it's false as are all of your rationalizations...



Because you're a hack apologist, and even you know you don't warrant a serious response.


----------



## Avatar4321

numan said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Korea awaits you, sparky.
> 
> You'll fit right in.
> 
> 
> 
> No he won't. He's well fed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> · · · ·
> 
> Good point !! I should have written, "rational and/or non-corrupt" atheist state.
> 
> Since no human society has ever been, or is ever likely to be, rational or non-corrupt, I am pretty well safe from ever being disillusioned!! · ·
> 
> .
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a rational, non-corrupt atheist state because there is nothing rational or non-corrupt about Atheism


----------



## Avatar4321

numan said:


> '
> *"Magic words of 'Poof-poof Piffle!!'"*
> 
> History shows that neither religion nor non-religion has much effect on what people actually do. Ideology is just window-dressing to disguise human behavior.
> 
> If political "leaders" have been more satanic in recent times, it merely shows that we have "better" and more efficient means to be dirty, filthy monsters than Genghis Khan or  Ivan the Terrible had at their disposal.
> 
> _[I've read that Ivan the Terrible was very religious -- or superstitious, as would be my way of putting it]_
> 
> .
> 
> .



I disagree. The Word of God has a much more powerful effect on the hearts of man than anything else, including the threat of violence.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
> 
> Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism
> 
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> 
> Myth:
> How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?
> 
> Response:
> None, probably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Credibility = zero...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how did I know you'd say that ?
Click to expand...


Because you knew it was nonsense


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Credibility = zero...
> 
> 
> 
> how did I know you'd say that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you knew it was nonsense
Click to expand...

most all of what you and dumbcensored post is nonsense...
what's your point?


----------



## JakeStarkey

daws and numan can yell all they want, which will never change that the USSR, Red China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, et al, are atheist states and amongst them all, have killed tens of millions of human beings.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> most all of what you and dumbcensored post is nonsense...
> what's your point?



Daws, you are what is known as a "fanatic." You allow your absurd religion to dictate the rest of your life. 

It's kinda sad....


----------



## Snookie

JakeStarkey said:


> daws and numan can yell all they want, which will never change that the USSR, Red China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, et al, are atheist states and amongst them all, have killed tens of millions of human beings.


So have we, so have we.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, we have.  Atheists and religionists are not much different at all is the point.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> So have we, so have we.



We have? 

Is this like the millions of blacks lynched by honky motherfuckers according to Oprah? You know, a complete fabrication by a racist?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Extreme conservative reactionaries have been big supporters of slavery, Indian massacres, the KKK, fascism, and Jim Crow laws.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> daws and numan can yell all they want, which will never change that the USSR, Red China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, et al, are atheist states and amongst them all, have killed tens of millions of human beings.


what is with you guys and false assumptions...
the point is religion's (place denomination here) hands are just as bloody as any atheist state.
all the rationalizing there is will not change that. 
from that pov one is no more righteous or fair as the other.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> most all of what you and dumbcensored post is nonsense...
> what's your point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws, you are what is known as a "fanatic." You allow your absurd religion to dictate the rest of your life.
> 
> It's kinda sad....
Click to expand...

you just keep dreamin' that.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So have we, so have we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have?
> 
> Is this like the millions of blacks lynched by honky motherfuckers according to Oprah? You know, a complete fabrication by a racist?
Click to expand...

the total is around 4000 from the 1880's to the 1930's
before that is anybody's guess . 
it's fair to say that all of the lynchers were god fearing christians.


----------



## Snookie

Uncensored2008 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So have we, so have we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have?
> 
> Is this like the millions of blacks lynched by honky motherfuckers according to Oprah? You know, a complete fabrication by a racist?
Click to expand...


Dresden fire bombings, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Civil War, Spanish American War, The war of 1812, the Revolutionary War, The Indian wars,  The War On Drugs, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the mother of them all, Granada.

Just a few.  Counting the collateral damage it adds up to millions.


----------



## Snookie

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> So have we, so have we.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have?
> 
> Is this like the millions of blacks lynched by honky motherfuckers according to Oprah? You know, a complete fabrication by a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the total is around 4000 from the 1880's to the 1930's
> before that is anybody's guess .
> it's fair to say that all of the lynchers were god fearing christians.
Click to expand...


God works in mysterious ways, duh.


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have?
> 
> Is this like the millions of blacks lynched by honky motherfuckers according to Oprah? You know, a complete fabrication by a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> the total is around 4000 from the 1880's to the 1930's
> before that is anybody's guess .
> it's fair to say that all of the lynchers were god fearing christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God works in mysterious ways, duh.
Click to expand...

violent ones too!


----------



## JakeStarkey

What you religionists and atheists are all proving is . . . that man is a bloodthirsty animal.


----------



## Snookie

JakeStarkey said:


> What you religionists and atheists are all proving is . . . that man is a bloodthirsty animal.



I believe humans are the only species who kill for fun.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Snookie, other species kill for fun.  Cats do; they enjoy tormenting and killing then walking away.


----------



## Snookie

JakeStarkey said:


> Snookie, other species kill for fun.  Cats do; they enjoy tormenting and killing then walking away.



Maybe that's why I love cats.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Snookie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie, other species kill for fun.  Cats do; they enjoy tormenting and killing then walking away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that's why I love cats.
Click to expand...


Well, date night with you must be WWF Unchained or Gladiator Games.


----------



## Snookie

JakeStarkey said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie, other species kill for fun.  Cats do; they enjoy tormenting and killing then walking away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that's why I love cats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, date night with you must be WWF Unchained or Gladiator Games.
Click to expand...


I prefer WWE and Lizard Lick Towing, Hard 
Core Pawn, to name a few.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I thought watching "Wolverine" was tough guy, but . . .


----------



## Snookie

I watch Duck Dynasty for moral inspiration.


----------



## Friends

daws101 said:


> How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
> 
> Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism
> 
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> 
> Myth:
> How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?
> 
> Response:
> None, probably.


 
What about Adolf Hitler? Does he get a free pass?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only from the right wing extremist reactonaries.


----------



## Avatar4321

Friends said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
> 
> Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism
> 
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> 
> Myth:
> How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?
> 
> Response:
> None, probably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about Adolf Hitler? Does he get a free pass?
Click to expand...


Of course not. The Christians are blamed for him.


----------



## Friends

Truthspeaker said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre Columbian America from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. If it is such a history, there must be archaeological evidence that the events described in The Book of Mormon happened. Nevertheless, there is not. None of the cities described in The Book of Mormon have been discovered by archaeologists. There is no evidence of any of the battles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is ample evidence. I've posted mountains of it. But it sounds like you are not doing any REAL research of your own. Just listening to the babblings of institutions who are deathly afraid of admitting any of the mountainous evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...


Two Mormon missionaries proselytized me in 1969. I really did want to become a Mormon, but I wanted proof. 

When I learned that the papyri for Book of Abraham had recently been found in the archives of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, and in the LDS Church archives, I thought here was the proof. All that was necessary was to translate the ancient manuscript. If it confirms the translation Joseph wrote that is in The Pearl of Great Price, Mormonism is true. If it does not, Mormonism is not true, and Joseph Smith is a religious charlatan. 

The Mormon missionaries I was talking to knew little of The Book of Mormon, but they found for me several articles Hugh Nibley wrote about the recently discovered manuscript. Hugh Nibley was a Mormon scholar who could read ancient Egyptian writing. I expected him to triumphantly say, "Here is the proof of Mormonism. The manuscript has been found. It says what Joseph Smith said is says. This has been confirmed by non Mormon Egyptologists who can read the ancient writings."

Instead, Professor Nibley's articles had an apprehensive tone. He spoke vaguely of "the problem of The Book of Abraham," and so on.

What problem? I wondered. Here was proof of Mormonism. Why wasn't he saying so? 

Fortunately, the articles included copies of the papyri. I began to suspect that the manuscript was The Book of the Dead. This was a book that was entombed with Egyptian mummies. It had nothing to do with Abraham's travels in Egypt, but concerned ancient Egyptian gods and goddesses. 

I went to a nearby public library and checked out E. A. Wallis Budge's translation of The Book of the Dead. 

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-Dead-Wallis-Budge/dp/1605974897]The Book of the Dead: E. A. Wallis Budge: 9781605974897: Amazon.com: Books[/ame] 

This includes photos of an original manuscript of The Book of the Dead. I could readily see similarities between those photos and the papyri Joseph Smith claimed to translate into The Book of Abraham.  

Needless to say, the Mormon missionaries were astonished. 

Years later I learned that The Book of Abraham papyri was a copy of The Book of Breathings. This was a later version of The Book of the Dead, current during the Roman Empire. 

So, contrary to what you posted Truthspeaker, I did my own research, and independently arrived at conclusions that have since then become the non Mormon consensus. 

This video exposes the fraud of The Book of Abraham. Keep in mind that I came to essentially the same conclusions on my own before the narrator in the video was born. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2CuIc19fbU]The Book of Abraham, Did Joseph Smith Lie? - YouTube[/ame]

This is a much longer video on the same topic. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE]The Lost Book of Abraham - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Friends

Truthspeaker said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre Columbian America from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. If it is such a history, there must be archaeological evidence that the events described in The Book of Mormon happened. Nevertheless, there is not. None of the cities described in The Book of Mormon have been discovered by archaeologists. There is no evidence of any of the battles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is ample evidence. I've posted mountains of it. But it sounds like you are not doing any REAL research of your own. Just listening to the babblings of institutions who are deathly afraid of admitting any of the mountainous evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...

 
Dear Michelle Grim:

Thank you for contacting the National Geographic Society.

The National Geographic Society has not examined the historical claims of the Book of Mormon.  We know of no archaeological evidence that corroborates the ancient history of the Western Hemisphere as presented in the Book of Mormon, nor are we aware of empirical verification of the places named in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is clearly a work of great spiritual power; millions have read and revered its words, first published by Joseph Smith in 1830.

Yet Smiths narration is not generally taken as a scientific source for the history of the Americas. Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemispheres past, and the Society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.

In fact, students of prehistoric America by and large conclude that the New Worlds earliest inhabitants arrived from Asia via the Bering land bridge.

(Lower sea levels during ice ages exposed the continental shelf beneath Bering Strait, allowing generations of ancient Siberians to migrate east.) National Geographic carried the article Hunt for the First Americans and the map supplement The Dawn of Humans: Peopling of the Americas in the December 2000 issue, perhaps on your librarys shelf.

You might want to write the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History and ask for their latest statement on this topic.  You can write the museum in care  of

P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C.
  20013-7012.
Book of Mormon: Smithsonian and National Geographic Responds - Life After Ministries


----------



## Friends

Truthspeaker said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Book of Mormon claims to be a detailed history of pre Columbian America from about 600 B.C. to about 421 A.D. If it is such a history, there must be archaeological evidence that the events described in The Book of Mormon happened. Nevertheless, there is not. None of the cities described in The Book of Mormon have been discovered by archaeologists. There is no evidence of any of the battles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is ample evidence. I've posted mountains of it. But it sounds like you are not doing any REAL research of your own. Just listening to the *babblings* of institutions who are deathly afraid of admitting any of the mountainous evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...

 
Truthspeaker,

The Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society do not "babble." They are respectable and prestigious authorities on archaeology. They are not, "deathly afraid of admitting any of the mountainous evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon."

What is this "mountainous evidence?" Tell me in your own words. 

I have read The Book of Mormon myself, as well as The Doctrine and Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. 

After reading all that, I did what the Mormon missionaries told me to do. I prayed to ask if it was true. However, I did not get "a burning in my bosom." 

The absence of even a warm feeling confirmed what I had already concluded: The Book of Mormon is a fraud; Joseph Smith, Jr. was a clever charlatan. Discovering that came as a disappointment because _I really wanted Mormonism to be true_. 

Mormons like to claim that pre Columbian cities built by American Indians were built by the Nephites and Lamanites whom Joseph Smith wrote about in The Book of Mormon. Smith claimed that the Nephites and Lamanites were descendants of Lehi and his wife, who were Hebrews who left Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian Captivity. 

Nevertheless, there is no resemblance between Hebrew architecture of buildings excavated in Israel and the architecture of American Indian cities. 

The Book of Mormon claims that a version of Christianity existed for several centuries in the New World before the time of Columbus. Religions leave durable evidence in the archaeological record. There is no evidence of any religion similar to Christianity in the New World from when the Book of Mormon claims Jesus appeared in the New World in 34 A.D. to the end of The Book of Mormon narrative in 421 A.D.

The American Indian civilizations that existed during this time were the Zapotec, the Maya, and the Teotihuacan. These were polytheistic and practiced human sacrifice. 

A brief explanation of what was really happening in the New World during The Book of Mormon time frame can be found in the following article, which appeared in The New York Times in March 15, 2005:

Mother Culture, or Only a Sister?

The Book of Mormon mentions animals and crops that are known to have been absent in the New World from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D. It mentions the use of steel, which did not appear until the arrival of the Spaniards. 

There is no evidence of Hebrew writing in the New World during that time, as there would be if the inhabitants of the American Indian cities were founded by Israelite refugees.


----------



## numan

'
The Book of Mormon is a load of rubbish concocted by a charlatan, filled with nonsense, disproven on all historical points from here to doomsday,  and which serious science regards with contempt.

However, the Smithsonian has to tippy-toe writing about it, because they dare not cause a ruckus with the ignorant, superstitious fools who regard it as the Word of God.
Worry about funding always prevents religion being treated with the scorn it deserves.

.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> What you religionists and atheists are all proving is . . . that man is a bloodthirsty animal.


why would the trait that is central to our dominance of this planet need proving?


----------



## daws101

Friends said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Many Were Killed by Communists in the Name of Atheism & Secularism?
> 
> Stalin, Mao, Other Communists Killed Millions on Behalf of Atheism
> 
> By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
> 
> Myth:
> How many people in Communist Russia and China have been killed because of atheism and secularism?
> 
> Response:
> None, probably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about Adolf Hitler? Does he get a free pass?
Click to expand...

hitler was a christian.....and no ...


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> '
> The Book of Mormon is a load of rubbish concocted by a charlatan, filled with nonsense, disproven on all historical points from here to doomsday,  and which serious science regards with contempt.
> 
> However, the Smithsonian has to tippy-toe writing about it, because they dare not cause a ruckus with the ignorant, superstitious fools who regard it as the Word of God.
> Worry about funding always prevents religion being treated with the scorn it deserves.
> 
> .


I was a mormon...and you're absolutely right .
but then again a stopped clock  is correct twice a day.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> the total is around 4000 from the 1880's to the 1930's
> before that is anybody's guess .
> it's fair to say that all of the lynchers were god fearing christians.



So millions would be complete bullshit then?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> Dresden fire bombings, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Civil War, Spanish American War, The war of 1812, the Revolutionary War, The Indian wars,  The War On Drugs, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the mother of them all, Granada.
> 
> Just a few.  Counting the collateral damage it adds up to millions.



You are once again serving dog shit and claiming it is Chateaubriand...

War != Democide


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> I believe humans are the only species who kill for fun.



Then you've never seen a cat with a mouse - or you're just an idiot...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Friends said:


> What about Adolf Hitler? Does he get a free pass?



Daws only gives a pass to Atheists.

Old Adolf was a Satanist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> '
> The Book of Mormon is a load of rubbish concocted by a charlatan, filled with nonsense, disproven on all historical points from here to doomsday,  and which serious science regards with contempt.



All true.

Still, Mormons tend to be kind and decent people.



> However, the Smithsonian has to tippy-toe writing about it, because they dare not cause a ruckus with the ignorant, superstitious fools who regard it as the Word of God.
> Worry about funding always prevents religion being treated with the scorn it deserves.
> 
> .



Looks like they were pretty blunt with it to me.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the total is around 4000 from the 1880's to the 1930's
> before that is anybody's guess .
> it's fair to say that all of the lynchers were god fearing christians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So millions would be complete bullshit then?
Click to expand...

no... but you wish it was .
the government kept no records on slave murder until the 1880's .
there had been slaves in america for about 400 years before that.
so millions is a good guess..you seem to conveniently forget they were not even thought of as human but property in this country until the civil war.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about Adolf Hitler? Does he get a free pass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daws only gives a pass to Atheists.
> 
> Old Adolf was a Satanist.
Click to expand...

hitler was a christian.....and no .....
if you'd read the post before trying to talk shit you'd  know that.

another classic false assumption.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> no... but you wish it was .



Oh, so then 4000 is the same as millions?

And you wonder why you have not credibility.



> the government kept no records on slave murder until the 1880's .
> there had been slaves in america for about 400 years before that.
> so millions is a good guess..you seem to conveniently forget they were not even thought of as human but property in this country until the civil war.



That's nice, but has not a fucking thing to do with "lynching," as you should know.

And idiot, were there "millions" of slaves?

ROFL

What a fucking tool.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> hitler was a christian.....and no .....



Does that make feel better about your own silly assed religion?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Occult-War-Michael-FitzGerald/dp/070908871X]Hitler&#39;s Occult War: Michael FitzGerald: 9780709088714: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]




> if you'd read the post before trying to talk shit you'd  know that.
> 
> another classic false assumption.



Dood - you're the fucktard claiming that 4000 is the same as millions.

You're a fucking doofus, nothing you say can be taken seriously.


----------



## Snookie

Hitler was addicted to amphetamines.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no... but you wish it was .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so then 4000 is the same as millions?
> 
> And you wonder why you have not credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the government kept no records on slave murder until the 1880's .
> there had been slaves in america for about 400 years before that.
> so millions is a good guess..you seem to conveniently forget they were not even thought of as human but property in this country until the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's nice, but has not a fucking thing to do with "lynching," as you should know.
> 
> And idiot, were there "millions" of slaves?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> What a fucking tool.
Click to expand...

excellent show of willful ignorance...!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Snookie said:


> Hitler was addicted to amphetamines.



And fed them to his troops.

It's probably why he lost the war. Had he NOT attacked Russia and just taken Western Europe, he could not have been stopped. But speed makes people over confident - then deranged. (And Hitler pretty well defines deranged!)


----------



## Snookie

Our side used them too.  JFK used to get speed shots regulatory

After the war they used to hand out scrips for them like candy.  Mother's little helpers..


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> hitler was a christian.....and no .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that make feel better about your own silly assed religion?
> 
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Occult-War-Michael-FitzGerald/dp/070908871X]Hitler's Occult War: Michael FitzGerald: 9780709088714: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you'd read the post before trying to talk shit you'd  know that.
> 
> another classic false assumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dood - you're the fucktard claiming that 4000 is the same as millions.
> 
> You're a fucking doofus, nothing you say can be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

no.. you are claiming THAT i CLAIMED THAT...AND YOU'RE WRONG AS ALWAYS ..
I'll write more slowly this time....no.....records........of .....slave....... murder..... were ...kept ....till ......the 18.....80's.........
so......it's ......highly ......probable......that....millions ......of........ slaves ...were.....
 lynched. .....or..... killed..... in.....  other..... ways..

How Many Slaves Were Brought to America?


Answer
An estimated 645,000 slaves were brought over to areas what is now the United States, though the total number of slaves peaked at 3.9 million in the early 1860s as most slavery was then abolished by 1865. 

How Many Slaves Were Brought to America? - Ask.com Answers


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> no.. you are claiming THAT i CLAIMED THAT...AND YOU'RE WRONG AS ALWAYS ..




Yeah, I see that porky..


http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/65057-the-truth-about-mormons-450.html#post7650352






> I'll write more slowly this time....no.....records........of .....slave....... murder..... were ...kept ....till ......the 18.....80's.........
> so......it's ......highly ......probable......that....millions ......of........ slaves ...were.....
> lynched. .....or..... killed..... in.....  other..... ways..
> 
> How Many Slaves Were Brought to America?
> 
> 
> Answer
> An estimated 645,000



Yet they killed 10 times the number they had...

This is DAWS LOGIC in action...





> slaves were brought over to areas what is now the United States, though the total number of slaves peaked at 3.9 million in the early 1860s as most slavery was then abolished by 1865.
> 
> How Many Slaves Were Brought to America? - Ask.com Answers



You didn't know this, because you live in a fairy tale - but the extrajudicial killing of a slave was illegal in the South?

I know, you have this fantasy of EVIL WHITES who just killed the noble black man because they were depraved animals driven by a blood lust that consumes the soul of all whites...

ROFL

Daws, you're a complete fool - and you're a good one - you make me laugh...


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no.. you are claiming THAT i CLAIMED THAT...AND YOU'RE WRONG AS ALWAYS ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I see that porky..
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/65057-the-truth-about-mormons-450.html#post7650352
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll write more slowly this time....no.....records........of .....slave....... murder..... were ...kept ....till ......the 18.....80's.........
> so......it's ......highly ......probable......that....millions ......of........ slaves ...were.....
> lynched. .....or..... killed..... in.....  other..... ways..
> 
> How Many Slaves Were Brought to America?
> 
> 
> Answer
> An estimated 645,000
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet they killed 10 times the number they had...
> 
> This is DAWS LOGIC in action...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slaves were brought over to areas what is now the United States, though the total number of slaves peaked at 3.9 million in the early 1860s as most slavery was then abolished by 1865.
> 
> How Many Slaves Were Brought to America? - Ask.com Answers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't know this, because you live in a fairy tale - but the extrajudicial killing of a slave was illegal in the South?
> 
> I know, you have this fantasy of EVIL WHITES who just killed the noble black man because they were depraved animals driven by a blood lust that consumes the soul of all whites...
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Daws, you're a complete fool - and you're a good one - you make me laugh...
Click to expand...

no you make me laugh.... do you have any idea how ironic this statement "the extrajudicial killing of a slave was illegal in the South?"is?
when did something that was illegal ever stop anybody? 

this is also fucking hilarious.... Yet they killed 10 times the number they had...

This is DAWS LOGIC in action...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Silly argument.  Christians and atheists and Muslims are all blood thirsty groups.


----------



## daws101

JakeStarkey said:


> Silly argument.  Christians and atheists and Muslims are all blood thirsty groups.


true, but according to whats been posted here only christians have permission to be...


----------



## Friends

numan said:


> '
> The Book of Mormon is a load of rubbish concocted by a charlatan, filled with nonsense, disproven on all historical points from here to doomsday,  and which serious science regards with contempt.
> 
> However, the Smithsonian has to tippy-toe writing about it, because they dare not cause a ruckus with the ignorant, superstitious fools who regard it as the Word of God.


 
What matters is that the Smithsonian Statement destroys any reason a rational person could believe in Mormonism, and that it does so quickly, and in ways anyone can understand. 

Smithsonian Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon

Mormons have responded to the statement, but they do so with a lot of complex and meaningless warbeling that can only convince someone who wants desperately to believe in Mormonism. When reading that nonsense I doubt most Mormons even understand it. Nevertheless, they think so many complex sentences and big words must be true.


----------



## Friends

daws101 said:


> hitler was a christian.....and no .....
> if you'd read the post before trying to talk shit you'd  know that.
> 
> another classic false assumption.


 
daws101, the false assumption is yours. If you were better informed you'd know that. 

Hitler's Table Talk is a collection of comments Adolf Hitler made in private to close friends and associates. It was written down by one of Hitler's secretaries with Hitler's permission.

My version was translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, and published by Enigma Books. In it we find passages like: 

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate Child. Both are inventions of the Jew. p. 7 

The man of to-day, who is formed by the disciplines of science, has likewise ceased taking the teaching of religion very seriously. What is in opposition to the laws of nature cannot come from God. Moreover, thunderbolts do not spare churches. A system of metaphysics that is drawn from Christianity and founded on outmoded notions does not correspond to the level of modern knowledge. p. 123

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. p. 343

The Church of to-day is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity. p. 607


----------



## JakeStarkey

People believe what they want.


----------



## Avatar4321

numan said:


> '
> The Book of Mormon is a load of rubbish concocted by a charlatan, filled with nonsense, disproven on all historical points from here to doomsday,  and which serious science regards with contempt.
> 
> However, the Smithsonian has to tippy-toe writing about it, because they dare not cause a ruckus with the ignorant, superstitious fools who regard it as the Word of God.
> Worry about funding always prevents religion being treated with the scorn it deserves.
> 
> .



Which, of course, is why the more we learn the more evidence there is for the Book of Mormon. When there should be absolutely no evidence for that. Though I am sure it's just a coincidence and Joseph just "guessed" correctly. Just like he just "guessed" correctly when he included principles actually found in the ancient church while rejecting just the doctrines that were later developments.

The fact is Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God or he was the luckiest man to have ever walked the earth because the sheer volume of things he managed to get correct is highly improbable for a fraud.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, there  has never been more evidence for the BoM.

Only more wishful hopes.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly argument.  Christians and atheists and Muslims are all blood thirsty groups.
> 
> 
> 
> true, but according to whats been posted here only christians have permission to be...
Click to expand...


Who on earth has claimed that?


----------



## Avatar4321

Friends said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> The Book of Mormon is a load of rubbish concocted by a charlatan, filled with nonsense, disproven on all historical points from here to doomsday,  and which serious science regards with contempt.
> 
> However, the Smithsonian has to tippy-toe writing about it, because they dare not cause a ruckus with the ignorant, superstitious fools who regard it as the Word of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What matters is that the Smithsonian Statement destroys any reason a rational person could believe in Mormonism, and that it does so quickly, and in ways anyone can understand.
> 
> Smithsonian Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon
> 
> Mormons have responded to the statement, but they do so with a lot of complex and meaningless warbeling that can only convince someone who wants desperately to believe in Mormonism. When reading that nonsense I doubt most Mormons even understand it. Nevertheless, they think so many complex sentences and big words must be true.
Click to expand...


The Smithsonian statement is completely irrelevant and was addressed and refuted DECADES ago.

The only way to know whether the Book of Mormon is true is to ask God.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Smithsonian Statement has never been refuted.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly argument.  Christians and atheists and Muslims are all blood thirsty groups.
> 
> 
> 
> true, but according to whats been posted here only christians have permission to be...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who on earth has claimed that?
Click to expand...

the crusaders is a good place to start..


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> the crusaders is a good place to start..



Is it 1088 already? damn but the years fly by....

Standard Disclaimer: What a ridiculous troll you are. What wonderful entertainment your foolish antics provide us all... Don't ever change!


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the crusaders is a good place to start..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it 1088 already? damn but the years fly by....
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: What a ridiculous troll you are. What wonderful entertainment your foolish antics provide us all... Don't ever change!
Click to expand...

your quip is relevant how?

I love it when you minimize and rationalize the destructive side of faith and the "white race".
we are no better or no worse than all the "races"...for assholes like you it's an insurmountable concept.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> your quip is relevant how?
> 
> I love it when you minimize and rationalize the destructive side of faith and the "white race".
> we are no better or no worse than all the "races"...for assholes like you it's an insurmountable concept.



The Crusades were relevant - a thousand years ago.

Today, not so much. 

Keep on..


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your quip is relevant how?
> 
> I love it when you minimize and rationalize the destructive side of faith and the "white race".
> we are no better or no worse than all the "races"...for assholes like you it's an insurmountable concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Crusades were relevant - a thousand years ago.
> 
> Today, not so much.
> 
> Keep on..
Click to expand...

 lol! by that twisted logic everything that ever happened would not be relevant... for assholes like you it's an insurmountable concept.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> true, but according to whats been posted here only christians have permission to be...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who on earth has claimed that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the crusaders is a good place to start..
Click to expand...


Forgive me, but I thought we were talking about people actually in this discussion.

And the crusades were in response to agression from muslims.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on earth has claimed that?
> 
> 
> 
> the crusaders is a good place to start..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but I thought we were talking about people actually in this discussion.
> 
> And the crusades were in response to agression from muslims.
Click to expand...

that's true but it has no relevance ..both parties believe in the same god...and mutually tossed the thou shalt not kill..commandment out with the chamber pot.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> lol! by that twisted logic everything that ever happened would not be relevant... for assholes like you it's an insurmountable concept.



As with bread, there is a shelf life to events.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> that's true but it has no relevance ..both parties believe in the same god...and mutually tossed the thou shalt not kill..commandment out with the chamber pot.



In fairness to the Muslims, they actually have a "Thou SHALL kill" commandment.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol! by that twisted logic everything that ever happened would not be relevant... for assholes like you it's an insurmountable concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with bread, there is a shelf life to events.
Click to expand...

tell the muslims jews and christians that..


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's true but it has no relevance ..both parties believe in the same god...and mutually tossed the thou shalt not kill..commandment out with the chamber pot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness to the Muslims, they actually have a "Thou SHALL kill" commandment.
Click to expand...

it would seem the christians do to :
The relationship of Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because some of its teachings advocate peace, love and compassion, whereas other teachings have been used to justify the use of violence.[1][2][3] Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching. However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church Fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified. Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, certain teachings from the Old Testament, the New Testament and Christian theology have been used to justify the use of force against heretics, sinners and external enemies.

In Letter to a Christian Nation, critic of religion Sam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[4] However, Professor David Bentley Hart argues that while "Some kill because their faith commands them to" others "kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill - indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted.".[5]

Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and "love of enemies". For example, Weaver asserts that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism."[
Christianity and violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> tell the muslims jews and christians that..



Why?

Muslims attacked yesterday - no need to go back very far.

All you Atheist bigots can come up with is events a thousand years in the past.

Standard Disclaimer: Yeah, it sort of does make you seem desperate....


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell the muslims jews and christians that..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Muslims attacked yesterday - no need to go back very far.
> 
> All you Atheist bigots can come up with is events a thousand years in the past.
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: Yeah, it sort of does make you seem desperate....
Click to expand...

really? our guys have been knocking off their guys for better than 10 years now ..as always your minimizing.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the crusaders is a good place to start..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but I thought we were talking about people actually in this discussion.
> 
> And the crusades were in response to agression from muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that's true but it has no relevance ..both parties believe in the same god...and mutually tossed the thou shalt not kill..commandment out with the chamber pot.
Click to expand...


Whether we both believe in the same God is debatable. And the command is "Thou shall not murder." Self defense. Fighting in wars, etc are not a violation of that commandment. So it's completely relevant


----------



## daws101

s to your intentional misrepresentation of  the passage BULLSHIT!
 exodus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 Thou shalt not kill.
IS UNAMBIGUOUS....


----------



## numan

Snookie said:


> Hitler was addicted to amphetamines.


Caused by his doctors -- and Hitler's own ignorance.

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> really? our guys have been knocking off their guys for better than 10 years now ..as always your minimizing.



"Your guys?" Atheists? 

ROFL

Always the unintentional clown...


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> And idiot, were there "millions" of slaves?


Of course there were millions of slaves, idiot.

And millions of them died in the European and American slave trade even before they could reach the New World.

.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? our guys have been knocking off their guys for better than 10 years now ..as always your minimizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Your guys?" Atheists?
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Always the unintentional clown...
Click to expand...

there's that pesky intentional alteration condition you suffer from..rearing it's desperate and misshapen head. 
never said your guys...coward.


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And idiot, were there "millions" of slaves?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there were millions of slaves, idiot.
> 
> And millions of them died in the European and American slave trade even before they could reach the New World.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

hey wait! those are facts ..UC08 goes bat shit when facts are used!


----------



## numan

Friends said:


> Hitler's Table Talk....
> 
> *"The Church of to-day is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity."*


· · ·  · · I like that one! Shows that Hitler was not always wrong!

.


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler's Table Talk....
> 
> *"The Church of to-day is nothing more than a hereditary joint stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity."*
> 
> 
> 
> · · ·  · · I like that one! Shows that Hitler was not always wrong!
> 
> .
Click to expand...

if he was always wrong he'd be rush limbaugh....


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> Of course there were millions of slaves, idiot.
> 
> And millions of them died in the European and American slave trade even before they could reach the New World.
> 
> .



There were 649,000 imported to America - porky.

Try reading - or get "Hooked on Phonics," or something..


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> · · ·  · · I like that one! Shows that Hitler was not always wrong!
> 
> .



Always figured you for a Hitler fan.

Most democrats have a LOT in common ideologically with Adolf.


----------



## numan

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> your quip is relevant how?
> 
> I love it when you minimize and rationalize the destructive side of faith and the "white race".
> we are no better or no worse than all the "races"...for assholes like you it's an insurmountable concept.
> 
> 
> 
> The Crusades were relevant - a thousand years ago.
Click to expand...

Would Buddhists or Daoists have started the Crusades?

Even a thousand years ago?

.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there were millions of slaves, idiot.
> 
> And millions of them died in the European and American slave trade even before they could reach the New World.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were 649,000 imported to America - porky.
> 
> Try reading - or get "Hooked on Phonics," or something..
Click to expand...

are you being dense on purpose or is it your hubris.. 
that number is the amount that arrived NOT the amount sent.. 
all this blatant idiocy because you hate oprah and blacks in general..


----------



## numan

'
*The Atlantic Slave Trade*



> Current estimates are that about 12 million were shipped across the Atlantic, although the actual number purchased by the traders is considerably higher....
> 
> The transatlantic slave trade resulted in a vast and as yet still unknown loss of life for African captives both in and outside of America. Approximately 1.2  2.4 million Africans died during their transport to the New World. More died soon upon their arrival. The amount of life lost in the actual procurement of slaves remains a mystery, but may equal or exceed the amount actually enslaved....
> 
> Most historians now agree that at least 12 million slaves left the continent between the 15th and 19th century, but 10 to 20% died on board ships....
> 
> Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage itself, even more slaves probably died in the slave raids in Africa....possibly 6 million were killed by other blacks in African tribal wars and raiding parties aimed at securing slaves for transport to America.



.


----------



## Friends

Avatar4321 said:


> Which, of course, is why the more we learn the more evidence there is for the Book of Mormon. When there should be absolutely no evidence for that. Though I am sure it's just a coincidence and Joseph just "guessed" correctly. Just like he just "guessed" correctly when he included principles actually found in the ancient church while rejecting just the doctrines that were later developments.
> 
> The fact is Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God or he was the luckiest man to have ever walked the earth because the sheer volume of things he managed to get correct is highly improbable for a fraud.


 
Evidence for The Book of Mormon would certainly include DNA evidence linking the American Indians to the ancient Hebrews. It would also include similarities between Hebrew and existing American Indian languages. Finally, it would include evidence that Christianity was practiced in the New World from 34 A.D. to 421 A.D. None of that exists.

Proof of The Book of Abraham would consist of a re translation of the papyri discovered in 1966 by accredited and non Mormon Egyptologists. Non Mormon Egyptologists have translated the papyri independently of each other. Their translations agree that the papyri are manuscripts of The Book of Breathings. 

The fraud of The Book of Abraham can be explained in a few sentences that are easy to understand. Joseph Smith was a lying, womanizing pedophile. He was also a clever scoundrel who was able to fool a lot of credulous yokels. 

If Joseph Smith was alive today I can see him establishing a mega church somewhere in the Bible Belt. He would have a nationally broadcast television ministry financed by contributions from poor, lonely, and elderly women. Eventually his ministry would be destroyed by a sex scandal when several fourteen year old girls testified against him.


----------



## daws101

Friends said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why the more we learn the more evidence there is for the Book of Mormon. When there should be absolutely no evidence for that. Though I am sure it's just a coincidence and Joseph just "guessed" correctly. Just like he just "guessed" correctly when he included principles actually found in the ancient church while rejecting just the doctrines that were later developments.
> 
> The fact is Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God or he was the luckiest man to have ever walked the earth because the sheer volume of things he managed to get correct is highly improbable for a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence for The Book of Mormon would certainly include DNA evidence linking the American Indians to the ancient Hebrews. It would also include similarities between Hebrew and existing American Indian languages. Finally, it would include evidence that Christianity was practiced in the New World from 34 A.D. to 421 A.D. None of that exists.
> 
> Proof of The Book of Abraham would consist of a re translation of the papyri discovered in 1966 by accredited and non Mormon Egyptologists. Non Mormon Egyptologists have translated the papyri independently of each other. Their translations agree that the papyri are manuscripts of The Book of Breathings.
> 
> The fraud of The Book of Abraham can be explained in a few sentences that are easy to understand. Joseph Smith was a lying, womanizing pedophile. He was also a clever scoundrel who was able to fool a lot of credulous yokels.
> 
> If Joseph Smith was alive today I can see him establishing a mega church somewhere in the Bible Belt. He would have a nationally broadcast television ministry financed by contributions from lonely and elderly women. Eventually his ministry would be destroyed by a sex scandal when several fourteen year old girls testified against him.
Click to expand...

or boy!


----------



## Friends

numan said:


> Would Buddhists or Daoists have started the Crusades?
> 
> Even a thousand years ago?


 
Under Hideyoshi and then under the succeeding Tokugawa shogunate, Catholic Christianity was repressed and adherents were persecuted. During these times, many Christians were killed in Japan, some by crucifixion; most famously, the twenty-six martyrs of Japan were tortured and crucified on crosses outside Nagasaki to discourage Christianity in 1597. Following a brief respite that occurred as Tokugawa Ieyasu rose to power and pursued trade with the Portuguese powers, there were further persecutions and martyrdoms in 1613, 1630, and 1632.
Christianity in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Toyotomi Hideyoshi was a Buddhist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> are you being dense on purpose or is it your hubris..
> that number is the amount that arrived NOT the amount sent..
> all this blatant idiocy because you hate oprah and blacks in general..




ROFL

what a fool you are,

"Americans LYNCHED MILLIONS OF BLACKS."

Uh, no - it was about 4000

Americans murdered MILLIONS of slaves

Uh, only 640,000 were imported - guess they killed all their stock, dug em' up, and killed em' again..


ROFL - you're stupid - but you keep me laughing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

numan said:


> '
> *The Atlantic Slave Trade*
> 
> .



Maybe you and Porky should fight it out and get back to me when you have consensus...

www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/65057-the-truth-about-mormons-451.html#post7650496


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who on earth has claimed that?
> 
> 
> 
> the crusaders is a good place to start..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but I thought we were talking about people actually in this discussion.
> 
> And the crusades were in response to agression from muslims.
Click to expand...


They cut off trade routes, but did not deny access to sites considered holy by Jews and Christians.


----------



## daws101

jakestarkey said:


> avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the crusaders is a good place to start..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forgive me, but i thought we were talking about people actually in this discussion.
> 
> And the crusades were in response to agression from muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they cut off trade routes, but did not deny access to sites considered holy by jews and christians.
Click to expand...

why does that sound familiar ?


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you being dense on purpose or is it your hubris..
> that number is the amount that arrived NOT the amount sent..
> all this blatant idiocy because you hate oprah and blacks in general..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> what a fool you are,
> 
> "Americans LYNCHED MILLIONS OF BLACKS."
> 
> Uh, no - it was about 4000
> 
> Americans murdered MILLIONS of slaves
> 
> Uh, only 640,000 were imported - guess they killed all their stock, dug em' up, and killed em' again..
> 
> 
> ROFL - you're stupid - but you keep me laughing.
Click to expand...

what's  really funny is the joke's on you....


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> what's  really funny is the joke's on you....



Your Pipboy says, Course it is, dorky.....


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what's  really funny is the joke's on you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Course it is, dorky.....
Click to expand...

this response is proof of it!


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> this response is proof of it!



LOL


----------



## Uncensored2008




----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


>


even better!


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the crusaders is a good place to start..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but I thought we were talking about people actually in this discussion.
> 
> And the crusades were in response to agression from muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They cut off trade routes, but did not deny access to sites considered holy by Jews and Christians.
Click to expand...


Doesn't change the fact that they invaded Christian nations and Christians waged the crusades as a response to defend their fellow Christians.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but I thought we were talking about people actually in this discussion.
> 
> And the crusades were in response to agression from muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They cut off trade routes, but did not deny access to sites considered holy by Jews and Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doesn't change the fact that they invaded Christian nations and Christians waged the crusades as a response to defend their fellow Christians.
Click to expand...

as i SAID, LEAVING THOU SHALT NOT KILL IN THE DUST..


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> as i SAID, LEAVING THOU SHALT NOT KILL IN THE DUST..



You know sporky - that was written in Hebrew, and actually does translate to "you may not murder."

Look it up on your PipBoy


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as i SAID, LEAVING THOU SHALT NOT KILL IN THE DUST..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know sporky - that was written in Hebrew, and actually does translate to "you may not murder."
> 
> Look it up on your PipBoy
Click to expand...

if true, then it proves that christians are just as blood thirsty as muslims !


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> if true, then it proves that christians are just as blood thirsty as muslims !



I understand that you need this to be true to support your mindless bigotry - but it simply isn't.

Number of terror attacks in the name of Allah/Islam in 2012 - 3047
Number of terror attacks in the name of Jesus/Christianity in 2012 - ZERO

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if true, then it proves that christians are just as blood thirsty as muslims !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you need this to be true to support your mindless bigotry - but it simply isn't.
> 
> Number of terror attacks in the name of Allah/Islam in 2012 - 3047
> Number of terror attacks in the name of Jesus/Christianity in 2012 - ZERO
> 
> Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time
Click to expand...

actually it you who has an addiction to bigotry....
fact our military forces represent not only  secular power but  the religious beliefs of this country.
more the a few of us soldiers thinks of the two wars as a crusade and are killing just as much for jesus as the muslims are for allah...
all your minimizing and rationalizing doesn't change that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> actually it you who has an addiction to bigotry....



I'm not addicted to your posts...

I can quite anytime I want....



> fact our military forces represent not only  secular power but  the religious beliefs of this country.



Utter fucking retardation.

You've reached RDean level.



> more the a few of us soldiers thinks of the two wars as a crusade and are killing just as much for jesus as the muslims are for allah...
> all your minimizing and rationalizing doesn't change that.



Again, you're a mindless bigot and a retard.

The USA is not a theocracy - fuckwad.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually it you who has an addiction to bigotry....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not addicted to your posts...
> 
> I can quite anytime I want....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fact our military forces represent not only  secular power but  the religious beliefs of this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter fucking retardation.
> 
> You've reached RDean level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more the a few of us soldiers thinks of the two wars as a crusade and are killing just as much for jesus as the muslims are for allah...
> all your minimizing and rationalizing doesn't change that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're a mindless bigot and a retard.
> 
> The USA is not a theocracy - fuckwad.
Click to expand...

 as always the facts get your panites in a wad..
none of you yammering disproves what I posted...


----------



## Friends

Let's get back on topic and expose the scam of Mormonism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> as always the facts get your panites in a wad..



BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Facts...

Daws...

Nah...



> none of you yammering disproves what I posted...



You're a drooling retard - which is highly entertaining.

However, in big peoples world, the onus is upon the claimant to prove their assertions - not on others to disprove the wild tales and idiotic lies told..

TM trained you well, though you clearly are not as bright as she.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Friends said:


> Let's get back on topic and expose the scam of Mormonism.



Smith was a two bit con-artist. The Book of Mormon is boring fraud plagiarized from the Old Testament. The claims of Mormon civilization in the New World is complete idiocy with zero substantiation by archeology or anthropology.

What else is there to say?

Oh, most Morons are really nice, decent people.


----------



## Snookie

Friends said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which, of course, is why the more we learn the more evidence there is for the Book of Mormon. When there should be absolutely no evidence for that. Though I am sure it's just a coincidence and Joseph just "guessed" correctly. Just like he just "guessed" correctly when he included principles actually found in the ancient church while rejecting just the doctrines that were later developments.
> 
> The fact is Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God or he was the luckiest man to have ever walked the earth because the sheer volume of things he managed to get correct is highly improbable for a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence for The Book of Mormon would certainly include DNA evidence linking the American Indians to the ancient Hebrews. It would also include similarities between Hebrew and existing American Indian languages. Finally, it would include evidence that Christianity was practiced in the New World from 34 A.D. to 421 A.D. None of that exists.
> 
> Proof of The Book of Abraham would consist of a re translation of the papyri discovered in 1966 by accredited and non Mormon Egyptologists. Non Mormon Egyptologists have translated the papyri independently of each other. Their translations agree that the papyri are manuscripts of The Book of Breathings.
> 
> The fraud of The Book of Abraham can be explained in a few sentences that are easy to understand. Joseph Smith was a lying, womanizing pedophile. He was also a clever scoundrel who was able to fool a lot of credulous yokels.
> 
> If Joseph Smith was alive today I can see him establishing a mega church somewhere in the Bible Belt. He would have a nationally broadcast television ministry financed by contributions from poor, lonely, and elderly women. Eventually his ministry would be destroyed by a sex scandal when several fourteen year old girls testified against him.
Click to expand...

Bump, worth reading again.^


----------



## Snookie

mormonism exposed,.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMyggnt6y6o]The Strange But True Story of Mormonism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> as always the facts get your panites in a wad..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Facts...
> 
> Daws...
> 
> Nah...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> none of you yammering disproves what I posted...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a drooling retard - which is highly entertaining.
> 
> However, in big peoples world, the onus is upon the claimant to prove their assertions - not on others to disprove the wild tales and idiotic lies told..
> 
> TM trained you well, though you clearly are not as bright as she.
Click to expand...

who the hell is TM? 
once again everything you've just posted is meaningless.
I need to prove nothing  as what I posted is fact .. ..


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> mormonism exposed,.
> 
> The Strange But True Story of Mormonism - YouTube


would that clip be just a tad bias .. since it was produced by the mormon church!


----------



## Friends

The internet makes it difficult to control the spread of facts and opinions. I would think that intelligent Mormons, especially intelligent Mormon teenagers, would access anti Mormon websites and discover troubling arguments they cannot answer. 

Mormonism can be attractive to people who have no interest in alcohol, tobacco, and casual sex, and who want to marry a virgin. That was the way I was when I was first proselytized. Nevertheless, even these people include some with intelligent, questioning, and rational minds.


----------



## Friends

Uncensored2008 said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back on topic and expose the scam of Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smith was a two bit con-artist. The Book of Mormon is boring fraud plagiarized from the Old Testament. The claims of Mormon civilization in the New World is complete idiocy with zero substantiation by archeology or anthropology.
> 
> What else is there to say?
> 
> Oh, most Morons are really nice, decent people.
Click to expand...

 
I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries. They are so young, fresh, and innocent that if I was gay, or if they were girls I would be attracted to them.

I talk to them with respect. However, it is always the case that I know more about their religion than they do. I have to tell them about The Book of Abraham. When I explain about the papyri that was discovered in 1966 they smile, but without any indication that they understand what I am saying.

It takes courage to knock on doors and talk to strangers the way Mormon Missionaries do.  

Usually they encounter polite indifference. Sometimes they encounter hostility. On rare occasions they find someone who is receptive to their message. I imagine my kind of response is most rare. Nevertheless, they must encounter someone like me now and then. Perhaps they encounter a former Mormon who is polite to them, and knowledgeable in the faith. 

I imagine that many intelligent well educated Mormons lose their faith on their missions.


----------



## daws101

Friends said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back on topic and expose the scam of Mormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smith was a two bit con-artist. The Book of Mormon is boring fraud plagiarized from the Old Testament. The claims of Mormon civilization in the New World is complete idiocy with zero substantiation by archeology or anthropology.
> 
> What else is there to say?
> 
> Oh, most Morons are really nice, decent people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries. They are so young, fresh, and innocent that if I was gay, or if they were girls I would be attracted to them.
> 
> I talk to them with respect. However, it is always the case that I know more about their religion than they do. I have to tell them about The Book of Abraham. When I explain about the papyri that was discovered in 1966 they smile, but without any indication that they understand what I am saying.
> 
> It takes courage to knock on doors and talk to strangers the way Mormon Missionaries do.
> 
> Usually they encounter polite indifference. Sometimes they encounter hostility. On rare occasions they find someone who is receptive to their message. I imagine my kind of response is most rare. Nevertheless, they must encounter someone like me now and then. Perhaps they encounter a former Mormon who is polite to them, and knowledgeable in the faith.
> 
> I imagine that many intelligent well educated Mormons lose their faith on their missions.
Click to expand...

were you mormon? I was ...there is a rationalization for why adolescent males are chosen to be missionaries ..can you guess what it is?


----------



## Snookie

daws101 said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smith was a two bit con-artist. The Book of Mormon is boring fraud plagiarized from the Old Testament. The claims of Mormon civilization in the New World is complete idiocy with zero substantiation by archeology or anthropology.
> 
> What else is there to say?
> 
> Oh, most Morons are really nice, decent people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries. They are so young, fresh, and innocent that if I was gay, or if they were girls I would be attracted to them.
> 
> I talk to them with respect. However, it is always the case that I know more about their religion than they do. I have to tell them about The Book of Abraham. When I explain about the papyri that was discovered in 1966 they smile, but without any indication that they understand what I am saying.
> 
> It takes courage to knock on doors and talk to strangers the way Mormon Missionaries do.
> 
> Usually they encounter polite indifference. Sometimes they encounter hostility. On rare occasions they find someone who is receptive to their message. I imagine my kind of response is most rare. Nevertheless, they must encounter someone like me now and then. Perhaps they encounter a former Mormon who is polite to them, and knowledgeable in the faith.
> 
> I imagine that many intelligent well educated Mormons lose their faith on their missions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> were you mormon? I was ...there is a rationalization for why adolescent males are chosen to be missionaries ..can you guess what it is?
Click to expand...

Because they are naive.


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy talking to Mormon missionaries. They are so young, fresh, and innocent that if I was gay, or if they were girls I would be attracted to them.
> 
> I talk to them with respect. However, it is always the case that I know more about their religion than they do. I have to tell them about The Book of Abraham. When I explain about the papyri that was discovered in 1966 they smile, but without any indication that they understand what I am saying.
> 
> It takes courage to knock on doors and talk to strangers the way Mormon Missionaries do.
> 
> Usually they encounter polite indifference. Sometimes they encounter hostility. On rare occasions they find someone who is receptive to their message. I imagine my kind of response is most rare. Nevertheless, they must encounter someone like me now and then. Perhaps they encounter a former Mormon who is polite to them, and knowledgeable in the faith.
> 
> I imagine that many intelligent well educated Mormons lose their faith on their missions.
> 
> 
> 
> were you mormon? I was ...there is a rationalization for why adolescent males are chosen to be missionaries ..can you guess what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they are naive.
Click to expand...

close...


----------



## Friends

daws101 said:


> were you mormon? I was ...there is a rationalization for why adolescent males are chosen to be missionaries ..can you guess what it is?


 
No I can't. 

Did you leave the Church of Latter Day Saints because you got tired of all the prohibitions, or because you investigated the Mormon Church like I did and discovered that it was built on a foundation of lies? 

I wanted very much for Mormonism to be true. For me the prohibitions were no problem.


----------



## daws101

Friends said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> were you mormon? I was ...there is a rationalization for why adolescent males are chosen to be missionaries ..can you guess what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I can't.
> 
> Did you leave the Church of Latter Day Saints because you got tired of all the prohibitions, or because you investigated the Mormon Church like I did and discovered that it was built on a foundation of lies?
> 
> I wanted very much for Mormonism to be true. For me the prohibitions were no problem.
Click to expand...

the prohibitions were a huge part of why I left ..any 16 I couldn't stand the idea of being forcefully precluded from a life I had not yet lived.
as to the dogma ,from the very first time I heard the "golden plates" bullshit I wanted out.


----------



## numan

Friends said:


> I would think that intelligent Mormons, especially intelligent Mormon teenagers, would access anti Mormon websites and discover troubling arguments they cannot answer.


The phrase "intelligent Mormon" appears to me to be an oxymoron. If a person is intelligent, they could not possibly be a Mormon, and if they are a Mormon, they could not possibly be intelligent.

The only two exceptions I can think of would be intelligent young people who want out of the cult, but have not yet found a way to leave.

The other exception would be intelligent con-men who know the cult is a lie, but who use it to swindle and cheat gullible fools.

.


----------



## daws101

here's a handy hint:the mormons do not drop you from their records for non participation.
to leave "the church" you must fill out some paperwork stating why you left..
and  be subject to a church court.
talking about overreaching.
I left the "church" in 1975 and periodically over the years have had visits from  elders and missionaries threatening or pleading with me to come back into the fold.


----------



## numan

daws101 said:


> here's a handy hint:the mormons do not drop you from their records for non participation.
> to leave "the church" you must fill out some paperwork stating why you left..
> and  be subject to a church court.
> talking about overreaching.
> I left the "church" in 1975 and periodically over the years have had visits from  elders and missionaries threatening or pleading with me to come back into the fold.


So typical of all totalitarian organizations -- from Stalin"s gulag to the sinister militarists ruling the US government.

Just as in Orwell's *1984*, they will not leave you alone until you are bludgeoned into Praising Big Brother.

.


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's a handy hint:the mormons do not drop you from their records for non participation.
> to leave "the church" you must fill out some paperwork stating why you left..
> and  be subject to a church court.
> talking about overreaching.
> I left the "church" in 1975 and periodically over the years have had visits from  elders and missionaries threatening or pleading with me to come back into the fold.
> 
> 
> 
> So typical of all totalitarian organizations -- from Stalin"s gulag to the sinister militarists ruling the US government.
> 
> Just as in Orwell's *1984*, they will not leave you alone until you are bludgeoned into Praising Big Brother.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Sample Resignation Letter | Mormon No More


----------



## Friends

numan said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that intelligent Mormons, especially intelligent Mormon teenagers, would access anti Mormon websites and discover troubling arguments they cannot answer.
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "intelligent Mormon" appears to me to be an oxymoron. If a person is intelligent, they could not possibly be a Mormon, and if they are a Mormon, they could not possibly be intelligent.
> 
> The only two exceptions I can think of would be intelligent young people who want out of the cult, but have not yet found a way to leave.
> 
> The other exception would be intelligent con-men who know the cult is a lie, but who use it to swindle and cheat gullible fools.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

 
Intelligence is a biological characteristic, not an ideological characteristic. I have read that most of those who convert to Mormonism are poorly educated, but many born into the faith are intelligent, and stay in the faith.

I have known intelligent Mormons. They were the one's who became uncomfortable when I talked to them about The Book of Abraham. The others hardly understood what I was talking about. 

Mitt Romney had to be intelligent to get into Harvard Business School. Quite a few Mormons who were born into the faith have good academic credentials. 

Mormonism requires major sacrifices of time and money from its members. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of those who remain in the faith are sincere.

Nevertheless, once the sacrifices have been made smart Mormons may want to believe that their previous sacrifices were worth it, so they suppress their doubts.


----------



## Snookie

Friends said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that intelligent Mormons, especially intelligent Mormon teenagers, would access anti Mormon websites and discover troubling arguments they cannot answer.
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase "intelligent Mormon" appears to me to be an oxymoron. If a person is intelligent, they could not possibly be a Mormon, and if they are a Mormon, they could not possibly be intelligent.
> 
> The only two exceptions I can think of would be intelligent young people who want out of the cult, but have not yet found a way to leave.
> 
> The other exception would be intelligent con-men who know the cult is a lie, but who use it to swindle and cheat gullible fools.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intelligence is a biological characteristic, not an ideological characteristic. I have read that most of those who convert to Mormonism are poorly educated, but many born into the faith are intelligent, and stay in the faith.
> 
> I have known intelligent Mormons. They were the one's who became uncomfortable when I talked to them about The Book of Abraham. The others hardly understood what I was talking about.
> 
> Mitt Romney had to be intelligent to get into Harvard Business School. Quite a few Mormons who were born into the faith have good academic credentials.
> 
> Mormonism requires major sacrifices of time and money from its members. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of those who remain in the faith are sincere.
> 
> Nevertheless, once the sacrifices have been made smart Mormons may want to believe that their previous sacrifices were worth it, so they suppress their doubts.
Click to expand...


They believe in mammon.


----------



## daws101

mammon


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Perhaps you could address why the Mormon church believes Satan is the brother of Jesus.  I've included a link quoting Mormon explanation for your convenience.  



http://www.bible-truth.org/jesusbro.htm


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Hmm... it's been about 2 1/2 hours now.  I guess that one stumped you.  Let me know when you figure it out.  Thanks.  - J.


----------



## Snookie

Jeremiah said:


> Hmm... it's been about 2 1/2 hours now.  I guess that one stumped you.  Let me know when you figure it out.  Thanks.  - J.



It's beyond understanding that mormons believe these tachings yet do not believe in the science of evolution.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Jeremiah said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could address why the Mormon church believes Satan is the brother of Jesus.  I've included a link quoting Mormon explanation for your convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bible-truth.org/jesusbro.htm
Click to expand...


Jesus is an Angel as was Satan. Pretty simple concept.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Snookie said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... it's been about 2 1/2 hours now.  I guess that one stumped you.  Let me know when you figure it out.  Thanks.  - J.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's beyond understanding that mormons believe these tachings yet do not believe in the science of evolution.
Click to expand...


I am a Mormon and I believe that evolution exists within a species. And until someone proves that one mammalian species ever evolved into 2 DISTINCTLY different species I will not believe it can happen.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could address why the Mormon church believes Satan is the brother of Jesus.  I've included a link quoting Mormon explanation for your convenience.
> 
> http://www.bible-truth.org/jesusbro.htm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jesus is an Angel as was Satan. Pretty simple concept.
Click to expand...


Actually, it's a pretty silly concept.  But about what I expect out of LDS types.


----------



## numan

'

Simple answers for simple minds, eh? · · 

.


----------



## daws101

RetiredGySgt said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm... it's been about 2 1/2 hours now.  I guess that one stumped you.  Let me know when you figure it out.  Thanks.  - J.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's beyond understanding that mormons believe these tachings yet do not believe in the science of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a Mormon and I believe that evolution exists within a species. And until someone proves that one mammalian species ever evolved into 2 DISTINCTLY different species I will not believe it can happen.
Click to expand...

8 Examples of Evolution in Action
LORDZB NOVEMBER 19, 2011
Check out our new companion site: KnowledgeNuts
Evolution is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Armed with the knowledge of the interconnectedness of all life on earth, biologists have made startling discoveries. There is so much evidence in favor of evolution, that arguing against it is like denying that there is a moon in the sky. Yet people do still actively deny evolution occurs. Speciation, the formation of a new species from an ancestor species, takes a very long time yet there are evolutionary steps which can be observed. Here are eight examples, amongst many, of evolution in action.8
The Peppered Moth
Peppered-Moth-Evolution-ScienceIll start this list with a classic example of evolution which can be found in many textbooks. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia) had a light, mottled coloring which was a good camouflage against predators. Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95% of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths were eaten more frequently by birds. The peppered moth as an example of evolution has been attacked recently, usually as to the cause of the shift in coloration, but the example still stands as a major shift in a species caused by mutations leading to variation and natural selection.7
Live Birth in Three-toed Skinks
The-Three-Toed-Skink-Saiphos-EqualisThe example of the peppered moth is a nice one for textbooks because it uses a single trait. Speciation involves many mutations leading to significant changes. The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth. Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mothers body providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two populations will at some point separate into different species as each population becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy. This brings up a common question in creationists  If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.6
The Arms Race between Crabs and Mussels
Hemigrapsus SanguineusEvolution often happens in tandem; a predator evolves an improved hunting method, and any mutations in the prey species that aid survivability will be selected for leading to a change in the prey population. We do not have to wait for a predator to evolve to observe this, however; modern humans have been transporting species around the world, and thus we can observe new species interactions. The Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) is an invasive species in New England which feeds on the native blue mussels. It has recently been observed that mussels, when they detect Asian shore crabs, develop thicker shells to stop the crabs eating them. This shell thickening behavior is costly to the mussels, and so is heavily regulated. The evolutionary factor here is that only mussels from regions where Asian shore crabs are endemic will thicken their walls when exposed to the crabs. Those mussels from other regions do not detect the crabs as a threat. Here we observe the starting shots in an evolutionary arms race.
8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse


----------



## Friends

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am a Mormon and I believe that evolution exists within a species. And until someone proves that one mammalian species ever evolved into 2 DISTINCTLY different species I will not believe it can happen.


 
What kind of proof do you want? DNA evidence, paleontological evidence, and simple eyesight demonstrate that house cats and tigers have a common ancestor. Although tigers are many times larger and heavier than house cats, they look similar in ways that cannot be coincidental. 

The same can be said of humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have hands and finger prints. They even have some of the same blood types. Yes, that is right. Humans can take blood transfusions from chimpanzees and visa versa.


----------



## daws101

Friends said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a Mormon and I believe that evolution exists within a species. And until someone proves that one mammalian species ever evolved into 2 DISTINCTLY different species I will not believe it can happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of proof do you want? DNA evidence, paleontological evidence, and simple eyesight demonstrate that house cats and tigers have a common ancestor. Although tigers are many times larger and heavier than house cats, they look similar in ways that cannot be coincidental.
> 
> The same can be said of humans and chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have hands and finger prints. They even have some of the same blood types. Yes, that is right. Humans can take blood transfusions from chimpanzees and visa versa.
Click to expand...

back in the 1920's and 30's several horror films were made with that as a plot line..the island of doctor moreau ..comes to mind..


----------



## Zona

Beck and RetiredGYSgt are mormons.

Nuff said.


----------



## daws101

Zona said:


> Beck and RetiredGYSgt are mormons.
> 
> Nuff said.


mormons can retire from mormonism?


----------



## Friends

numan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's a handy hint:the mormons do not drop you from their records for non participation.
> to leave "the church" you must fill out some paperwork stating why you left..
> and  be subject to a church court.
> talking about overreaching.
> I left the "church" in 1975 and periodically over the years have had visits from  elders and missionaries threatening or pleading with me to come back into the fold.
> 
> 
> 
> So typical of all totalitarian organizations -- from Stalin"s gulag to the sinister militarists ruling the US government.
> 
> Just as in Orwell's *1984*, they will not leave you alone until you are bludgeoned into Praising Big Brother.
Click to expand...

 
Imagine what the United States would be like under a totalitarian dictatorship with Mormonism as the established religion. 

Mormonism and totalitarianism would reinforce each other. Mormons believe fanatically in factual assertions they do not question. A totalitarian dictator would benefit from this tendency. 

At the same time Mormonism is vulnerable to a rational evaluation using facts that are not in serious dispute. A totalitarian dictatorship could suppress the propagation of those facts, and make it illegal and highly dangerous to question Mormon doctrines.

Such a dictator would have to control the internet. The internet is a great force for intellectual freedom. There is a lot of nonsense on the internet, but those with intelligent, questioning minds can sift between what is factual and what is not.

A problem with any kind of totalitarianism is that it impedes scientific inquiry. Scientific research is necessary to develop more advanced weapons. This is probably one of the reasons the Soviet Union fell.


----------



## Snookie

To say that mormons follow the teachings of Jesus would be an oxymormonism.


----------



## daws101

Friends said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> here's a handy hint:the mormons do not drop you from their records for non participation.
> to leave "the church" you must fill out some paperwork stating why you left..
> and  be subject to a church court.
> talking about overreaching.
> I left the "church" in 1975 and periodically over the years have had visits from  elders and missionaries threatening or pleading with me to come back into the fold.
> 
> 
> 
> So typical of all totalitarian organizations -- from Stalin"s gulag to the sinister militarists ruling the US government.
> 
> Just as in Orwell's *1984*, they will not leave you alone until you are bludgeoned into Praising Big Brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Imagine what the United States would be like under a totalitarian dictatorship with Mormonism as the established religion.
> 
> Mormonism and totalitarianism would reinforce each other. Mormons believe fanatically in factual assertions they do not question. A totalitarian dictator would benefit from this tendency.
> 
> At the same time Mormonism is vulnerable to a rational evaluation using facts that are not in serious dispute. A totalitarian dictatorship could suppress the propagation of those facts, and make it illegal and highly dangerous to question Mormon doctrines.
> 
> Such a dictator would have to control the internet. The internet is a great force for intellectual freedom. There is a lot of nonsense on the internet, but those with intelligent, questioning minds can sift between what is factual and what is not.
> 
> A problem with any kind of totalitarianism is that it impedes scientific inquiry. Scientific research is necessary to develop more advanced weapons. This is probably one of the reasons the Soviet Union fell.
Click to expand...

any theocrasy would have the same effect..


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Snookie said:


> To say that mormons follow the teachings of Jesus would be an oxymormonism.



Mormons follow Jesus as the son of God. They recognize he was sacrificed to save us all. We believe in the Holy Bible and it's teachings. Jesus was or is an Angel of God, he is the first "born" of God. God created Jesus first and delivered powers to him that other Angels do not have.

It is not my problem that you close minded bigots are so against a peaceful religion.

By the way? Cite for us any example of Mormons trying to take over the US and make it have a single religion. In fact cite for us any Christian religion in the US trying to establish a theocracy.

Just an aside Senator Reid is a Mormon.


----------



## Snookie

RetiredGySgt said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that mormons follow the teachings of Jesus would be an oxymormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons follow Jesus as the son of God. They recognize he was sacrificed to save us all. We believe in the Holy Bible and it's teachings. Jesus was or is an Angel of God, he is the first "born" of God. God created Jesus first and delivered powers to him that other Angels do not have.
> 
> It is not my problem that you close minded bigots are so against a peaceful religion.
> 
> By the way? Cite for us any example of Mormons trying to take over the US and make it have a single religion. In fact cite for us any Christian religion in the US trying to establish a theocracy.
> 
> Just an aside Senator Reid is a Mormon.
Click to expand...


Pat Robertson tried it.


----------



## Luissa

RetiredGySgt said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that mormons follow the teachings of Jesus would be an oxymormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons follow Jesus as the son of God. They recognize he was sacrificed to save us all. We believe in the Holy Bible and it's teachings. Jesus was or is an Angel of God, he is the first "born" of God. God created Jesus first and delivered powers to him that other Angels do not have.
> 
> It is not my problem that you close minded bigots are so against a peaceful religion.
> 
> By the way? Cite for us any example of Mormons trying to take over the US and make it have a single religion. In fact cite for us any Christian religion in the US trying to establish a theocracy.
> 
> Just an aside Senator Reid is a Mormon.
Click to expand...


They are peaceful and have every right to practice your religion, I just don't get how you can believe anything Smith said or the teachings of LDS. 
You are smart man, I don't understand how you can logically believe it. But to each their own.


----------



## Snookie

The camel , the eye of a needle, and Mitt Romney.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Snookie said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that mormons follow the teachings of Jesus would be an oxymormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons follow Jesus as the son of God. They recognize he was sacrificed to save us all. We believe in the Holy Bible and it's teachings. Jesus was or is an Angel of God, he is the first "born" of God. God created Jesus first and delivered powers to him that other Angels do not have.
> 
> It is not my problem that you close minded bigots are so against a peaceful religion.
> 
> By the way? Cite for us any example of Mormons trying to take over the US and make it have a single religion. In fact cite for us any Christian religion in the US trying to establish a theocracy.
> 
> Just an aside Senator Reid is a Mormon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pat Robertson tried it.
Click to expand...


Provide evidence that Pat Robertson ever had the power to change the Constitution and a majority in both Houses of Congress.


----------



## Snookie

RetiredGySgt said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons follow Jesus as the son of God. They recognize he was sacrificed to save us all. We believe in the Holy Bible and it's teachings. Jesus was or is an Angel of God, he is the first "born" of God. God created Jesus first and delivered powers to him that other Angels do not have.
> 
> It is not my problem that you close minded bigots are so against a peaceful religion.
> 
> By the way? Cite for us any example of Mormons trying to take over the US and make it have a single religion. In fact cite for us any Christian religion in the US trying to establish a theocracy.
> 
> Just an aside Senator Reid is a Mormon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pat Robertson tried it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide evidence that Pat Robertson ever had the power to change the Constitution and a majority in both Houses of Congress.
Click to expand...


I didn't say he did it.  I said he tried it, with a little help from his friends.


----------



## Zona

Well, as a black man, I looked into how the mormons dealt with blacks.  

I am out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Zona said:


> Well, as a black man, I looked into how the mormons dealt with blacks.
> 
> I am out.



Blacks were always welcome in the Church. But until mid 70's they could not hold priesthood titles.


----------



## Snookie

Of all the organized faiths, one of the few that I respect are the Amish.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Snookie said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pat Robertson tried it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide evidence that Pat Robertson ever had the power to change the Constitution and a majority in both Houses of Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say he did it.  I said he tried it, with a little help from his friends.
Click to expand...


Quote foir me and link to it where he ever proposed any such thing. Then explain how he ever had a reasonable shot at doing it.


----------



## Snookie

RetiredGySgt said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide evidence that Pat Robertson ever had the power to change the Constitution and a majority in both Houses of Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say he did it.  I said he tried it, with a little help from his friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote foir me and link to it where he ever proposed any such thing. Then explain how he ever had a reasonable shot at doing it.
Click to expand...


Look man, He is from my area.  There have been numerous stories about his desire to make the bible the law of the land.  Funny, he's a billionaire.  The way he explains it, is that he is blessed.

It is depressing to read about him.


----------



## Snookie

The founding document of the United States of America acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus Christ because we are a Christian nation.
Pat Robertson

He did run for president of this country.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Snookie said:


> The founding document of the United States of America acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus Christ because we are a Christian nation.
> Pat Robertson
> 
> He did run for president of this country.



The President has ZERO power or authority to do anything about the Constitution. That takes Congress and the States. A President has no power to change the Country to a theocracy.

What a President can do is what Obama does. Quit enforcing laws and use signing statements to change others, until or unless Congress or the Courts rein him in.

Robertson ran as third party Candidate after losing in the primary. Remind me of ANY 3rd party EVER winning the Presidency. Hell I think the most any ever got was 18 percent of the vote not even enough to qualify for matching funds.

And I repeat, link and quote where Robertson ever said he wanted the United States to be a theocracy.


----------



## JoeB131

RetiredGySgt said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as a black man, I looked into how the mormons dealt with blacks.
> 
> I am out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks were always welcome in the Church. But until mid 70's they could not hold priesthood titles.
Click to expand...


There's also that whacky bit where God made them black to curse them for what Ham did after the flood.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Truthspeaker said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that I found interesting was Mormon Baptism for the Dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What questions do you have about baptism for the dead?
Click to expand...


How do you know that the dead person wants to be baptized?


----------



## Uncensored2008

RetiredGySgt said:


> Blacks were always welcome in the Church. But until mid 70's they could not hold priesthood titles.



Seriously?

The church taught that black skin was the mark of Cain, that blacks were accursed of god, and the children of Satan.

I may not care for Zona, but I can see where black people would hold this all against Mormonism.


----------



## daws101

RetiredGySgt said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that mormons follow the teachings of Jesus would be an oxymormonism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons follow Jesus as the son of God. They recognize he was sacrificed to save us all. We believe in the Holy Bible and it's teachings. Jesus was or is an Angel of God, he is the first "born" of God. God created Jesus first and delivered powers to him that other Angels do not have.
> 
> It is not my problem that you close minded bigots are so against a peaceful religion.
> 
> By the way? Cite for us any example of Mormons trying to take over the US and make it have a single religion. In fact cite for us any Christian religion in the US trying to establish a theocracy.
> 
> Just an aside Senator Reid is a Mormon.
Click to expand...

Marching As To War: The Attempted Christian Takeover of the U.S. Military | Atheist Oasis ? A Rational Refuge


----------



## daws101

Zona said:


> Well, as a black man, I looked into how the mormons dealt with blacks.
> 
> I am out.


you could hold the priesthood now but ...if you were somehow made a bishop you'd get a ward in the asshole of nowhere..
btw  I was a member


----------



## daws101

Bumberclyde said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that I found interesting was Mormon Baptism for the Dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What questions do you have about baptism for the dead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you know that the dead person wants to be baptized?
Click to expand...

Tuesday November 11, 2008 

Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews


NEW YORK (AP)  Holocaust survivors said Monday they are through trying to negotiate with the Mormon church over posthumous baptisms of Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps, saying the church has repeatedly violated a 13-year-old agreement barring the practice. 

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints say they are making changes to their massive genealogical database that will make it more difficult for names of Holocaust victims to be entered for posthumous baptism by proxy, a rite that has been a common Mormon practice for more than a century.
Baptism for the dead

Baptism for the dead is one of many un-biblical practices of the Mormon Church  which, theologicaly, is a cult of Christianity

What is Baptism for the Dead?

The Mormon/Jewish Controversy chronicles the controversy between leaders of the Jewish faith and of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regarding the Mormon practice of posthumously baptizing deceased Jews into the Mormon faith.

But Ernest Michel, honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors, said that is not enough. At a news conference in New York City on Monday, he said the church also must implement a mechanism to undo what you have done.

Baptism of a Jewish Holocaust victim and then merely removing that name from the database is just not acceptable, said Michel, whose parents died at Auschwitz. He spoke on the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the Nazi-incited riots against Jews.

We ask you to respect us and our Judaism just as we respect your religion, Michel said in a statement released ahead of the news conference. We ask you to leave our six million Jews, all victims of the Holocaust, alone, they suffered enough.

Michel said talks with Mormon leaders, held as recently as last week, have ended. He said his group will not sue, and that the only thing left, therefore, is to turn to the court of public opinion.

In 1995, Mormons and Jews inked an agreement to limit the circumstances that allow for the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims. Ending the practice outright was not part of the agreement and would essentially be asking Mormons to alter their beliefs, church Elder Lance B. Wickman said Monday in an interview with reporters in Salt Lake City.

We dont think any faith group has the right to ask another to change its doctrines, Wickman said. If our work for the dead is properly understood  it should not be a source of friction to anyone. Its merely a freewill offering.

Michels decision to unilaterally end discussion of the issue through a news conference leaves the church uncertain about how to proceed, Wickman said.

Baptism by proxy allows faithful Mormons to have their ancestors baptized into the 178-year-old church, which they believe reunites families in the afterlife.

Using genealogy records, the church also baptizes people who have died from all over the world and from different religions. Mormons stand in as proxies for the person being baptized and immerse themselves in a baptismal pool.
 [...]

Church spokesman Otterson said the church kept its part of the agreement by removing more than 260,000 names from the genealogical index.

But since 2005, ongoing monitoring of the database by an independent Salt Lake City-based researcher shows both resubmissions and new entries of names of Dutch, Greek, Polish and Italian Jews.

The researcher, Helen Radkey, who has done contract work for the Holocaust group, said her research suggests that lists of Holocaust victims obtained from camp and government records are being dumped into the database. She said she has seen and recorded a sampling of several thousand entries that indicate baptisms had been conducted for Holocaust victims as recently as July.

Wickman said lists of names have been entered into the database by a small number of well-meaning members who were acting outside of policy. He said that church monitors have identified and removed 42,000 names from the database on their own, and that the church welcomes research from others.

Church officials say a new version of the database, called New Family Search, is being tested overseas and should reduce the problems.
 [...]

In May, the Vatican ordered Catholic dioceses worldwide to withhold member registries from Mormons so that Catholics could not be baptized. 

- Source: Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews, AP via CNN, Nov. 11, 2008  Summarized by Religion News Blog

info Original content © Copyright Religion News Blog. All rights reserved.
Holocaust survivors to Mormons: Stop baptisms of dead Jews


----------



## daws101

fun fact:the mormon church had it's own army:


From 1857 to 1858, President James Buchanan sent U.S. forces to the Utah Territory, in what became known as the Utah Expedition. The Mormons, fearful that the large U.S. military force had been sent to annihilate them[citation needed], made preparations for defense. Though bloodshed was to be avoided, and the U.S. government also hoped that its purpose might be attained without the loss of life, preparations were made for war. Firearms were manufactured or repaired by the Mormons, scythes were turned into bayonets, and long-unused sabres were burnished and sharpened.

Rather than engaging the enemy directly, Mormon strategy was one of hindering and weakening them. Daniel H. Wells, lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo legion, instructed Major Joseph Taylor:
On ascertaining the locality or route of the troops, proceed at once to annoy them in every possible way. Use every exertion to stampede their animals and set fire to their trains. Burn the whole country before them and on their flanks. Keep them from sleeping, by night surprises; blockade the road by felling trees or destroying the river fords where you can. Watch for opportunities to set fire to the grass on their windward, so as, if possible, to envelop their trains. Leave no grass before them that can be burned. Keep your men concealed as much as possible, and guard against surprise
The Mormons blocked the army's entrance into the Salt Lake Valley, and weakened the U.S. Army by hindering them from receiving provisions.[6]

However, while the confrontation between the Mormon militia, called the Nauvoo Legion, and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property and a few brief skirmishes in what is today southwestern Wyoming, no actual battles occurred between the contending military forces.

Despite this, the confrontation was not bloodless. At the height of the tensions, on September 11, 1857, more than 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, Missouri and other states, including unarmed men, women and children, were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militiamen. They first claimed that the migrants were killed by Native Americans. This event was later called the Mountain Meadows massacre and the motives behind the incident remain a mystery.

The "Aiken massacre" took place the following month. In October 1857, Mormons arrested six Californians traveling through Utah and charged them with being spies for the U.S. Army. They were released but later murdered and robbed of their stock and $25,000.[7][8][dead link][9] Other incidents of violence have also been linked to the Utah War, including an Indian attack on the Mormon mission of Fort Limhi in eastern Oregon Territory. They killed two Mormons and wounded several others. The historian Brigham Madsen notes, "[T]he responsibility for the [Fort Limhi raid] lay mainly with the Bannock."[10] David Bigler concludes that the raid was probably instigated by members of the Utah Expedition who were trying to replenish their stores of livestock which had been stolen by Mormon raiders.[11][12]

Taking all incidents into account, MacKinnon estimates that approximately 150 people died as a direct result of the year-long Utah War, including the 120 migrants killed at Mountain Meadows. He points out that this was close to the number of people killed during the seven-year contemporaneous struggle in "Bleeding Kansas."[13]

In the end, negotiations between the United States and the Latter-day Saints resulted in a full pardon for the Mormons, the transfer of Utah's governorship from church President Brigham Young to non-Mormon Alfred Cumming, and the peaceful entrance of the U.S. Army into Utah.
Utah War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Avatar4321

Zona said:


> Well, as a black man, I looked into how the mormons dealt with blacks.
> 
> I am out.



Yeah being treated like everyone else must be totally rough.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as a black man, I looked into how the mormons dealt with blacks.
> 
> I am out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah being treated like everyone else must be totally rough.
Click to expand...

best lie ever!


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> Marching As To War: The Attempted Christian Takeover of the U.S. Military | Atheist Oasis ? A Rational Refuge



I've said it before Daws, you fanatics are just a bit less rational than the Scientologists...

Fucking Atheists......


----------



## Bumberclyde

So where can I see the golden plates?


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> So where can I see the golden plates?



Right here. You can get a free copy.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as a black man, I looked into how the mormons dealt with blacks.
> 
> I am out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah being treated like everyone else must be totally rough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> best lie ever!
Click to expand...


No need to lie.



> For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)



I would think you'd know the scriptures better. Of course, that's assuming you ever seriously studied them.

I would think you'd also be aware that the Church has always taught that all men and women will have the opportunity to recieve every blessing the Lord has for them if they choose to accept those blessings.

Like I've said before, you should know better.


----------



## Snookie

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah being treated like everyone else must be totally rough.
> 
> 
> 
> best lie ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think you'd know the scriptures better. Of course, that's assuming you ever seriously studied them.
> 
> I would think you'd also be aware that the Church has always taught that all men and women will have the opportunity to recieve every blessing the Lord has for them if they choose to accept those blessings.
> 
> Like I've said before, you should know better.
Click to expand...

Churches talk the talk but most of them don't walk the walk.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where can I see the golden plates?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right here. You can get a free copy.
Click to expand...


Um... Um... it's a link to a black book, not golden plates. Please try again.


----------



## Snookie

A little church/state stuff.

Baby Messiah: Tennessee judge orders baby's name to changed from Messiah to Martin since Jesus Christ is the only true messiah.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marching As To War: The Attempted Christian Takeover of the U.S. Military | Atheist Oasis ? A Rational Refuge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before Daws, you fanatics are just a bit less rational than the Scientologists...
> 
> Fucking Atheists......
Click to expand...

funny, what would you know about being rational..
by definition belief in god is not rational.....
what I posted is fact .
you believing I'm a fanatic that's not just irrational it's paranoid.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah being treated like everyone else must be totally rough.
> 
> 
> 
> best lie ever!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26:33)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would think you'd know the scriptures better. Of course, that's assuming you ever seriously studied them.
> 
> I would think you'd also be aware that the Church has always taught that all men and women will have the opportunity to recieve every blessing the Lord has for them if they choose to accept those blessings.
> 
> Like I've said before, you should know better.
Click to expand...

thanks for posting the best evidence for the lie....
another thing you don't seem to comprehend is studying the "scriptures" is not the same as buying the bullshit contained in them..
mormon "scriptures" are fiction written in the style of the JKG VERSION OF THE BIBLE..which any one who has ever taken a comparative religion course..will tell you that kjv is also fiction..


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> A little church/state stuff.
> 
> Baby Messiah: Tennessee judge orders baby's name to changed from Messiah to Martin since Jesus Christ is the only true messiah.


it will be overthrown..what's she (the judge )gonna do about all the people named jesus?


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> funny, what would you know about being rational..
> by definition belief in god is not rational.....
> what I posted is fact .
> you believing I'm a fanatic that's not just irrational it's paranoid.



You are a fanatic - you spend your time and effort trying to force your faith on others.

The ONLY rational statement is that we have no fucking clue - and EVERYONE, on all sides, knows it.

Your shit-filled certainty that there is no god and cannot be one is just as delusional as the belief of a Mormon that he will get the Celestial kingdom and become a god of a planet of his own.

There is ZERO evidence to support either proposition.

You know Daws, I don't give a shit that you're a delusional fanatic, I really don't. BUT you demand that the full weight and implied force of the state be employed to force others to follow your silly-assed faith - and that I won't abide with.

I don't give a shit if someone says the lords prayer, why would I? I don't believe that shit - it has no power over me.

But it has power over you - you fucking come unglued - like a Taliban fanatic reacting to blasphemy. If you truly didn't believe it - you wouldn't care - it would be no more meaningful than a bird chirping. But you do care - and you dedicate your life to silencing the utterance of those who speak these words you fear.

And that, makes you a fanatic.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny, what would you know about being rational..
> by definition belief in god is not rational.....
> what I posted is fact .
> you believing I'm a fanatic that's not just irrational it's paranoid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a fanatic - you spend your time and effort trying to force your faith on others.
> 
> The ONLY rational statement is that we have no fucking clue - and EVERYONE, on all sides, knows it.
> 
> Your shit-filled certainty that there is no god and cannot be one is just as delusional as the belief of a Mormon that he will get the Celestial kingdom and become a god of a planet of his own.
> 
> There is ZERO evidence to support either proposition.
> 
> You know Daws, I don't give a shit that you're a delusional fanatic, I really don't. BUT you demand that the full weight and implied force of the state be employed to force others to follow your silly-assed faith - and that I won't abide with.
> 
> I don't give a shit if someone says the lords prayer, why would I? I don't believe that shit - it has no power over me.
> 
> But it has power over you - you fucking come unglued - like a Taliban fanatic reacting to blasphemy. If you truly didn't believe it - you wouldn't care - it would be no more meaningful than a bird chirping. But you do care - and you dedicate your life to silencing the utterance of those who speak these words you fear.
> 
> And that, makes you a fanatic.
Click to expand...

and I'm' delusional!!!



btw who the fuck is everyone ..you make that statement like it has some weight or power behind it.
I've never much cared what everybody thought ..it's been my experience when assholes like you say shit like that ,it's because they,- you lack any self confidence and need the approval of the nebulous everybody.
 btw there are a number of people on this site who share much of the same philosophy I do are they all delusional too....and does EVERYONE KNOW IT?


----------



## numan

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where can I see the golden plates?
> 
> 
> 
> Right here. You can get a free copy.
Click to expand...

How good are the pages for starting fires?
.


----------



## Snookie

daws101 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little church/state stuff.
> 
> Baby Messiah: Tennessee judge orders baby's name to changed from Messiah to Martin since Jesus Christ is the only true messiah.
> 
> 
> 
> it will be overthrown..what's she (the judge )gonna do about all the people named jesus?
Click to expand...


Or Mohammed?  lol.


----------



## HUGGY

I think the Roman that judged Christ had it right.


----------



## Uncensored2008

HUGGY said:


> I think the Roman that judged Christ had it right.



Rev. Jim, you and thinking in the same sentence is a misnomer...


----------



## daws101

numan said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where can I see the golden plates?
> 
> 
> 
> Right here. You can get a free copy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How good are the pages for starting fires?
> .
Click to expand...

much better than using them for toilet paper.


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> I think the Roman that judged Christ had it right.


funny thing is  the judging of jesus is a moot point as it was god /his plan to die anyway.
jesus himself forced the issue ...


----------



## Bumberclyde

So who's got the magic plates?


----------



## daws101

Bumberclyde said:


> So who's got the magic plates?


the alleged angel moroni took them back...convenient  isn't it !


----------



## Snookie

Moses.  Moses names should be banned.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's got the magic plates?
> 
> 
> 
> the alleged angel moroni took them back...convenient  isn't it !
Click to expand...


Indian giver....


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> Moses.  Moses names should be banned.


any name taken from the bible..


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's got the magic plates?
> 
> 
> 
> the alleged angel moroni took them back...convenient  isn't it !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indian giver....
Click to expand...

wow! that was pointless.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who's got the magic plates?
> 
> 
> 
> the alleged angel moroni took them back...convenient  isn't it !
Click to expand...


Well considering he has to protect the sealed portion that hasnt been translated, yeah it is probably convenient for him to have the plates in his effort to protect them. We have the content in English and countless other language. You are free to examine it at your leisure. As mentioned earlier, you can get a copy for free. Given some of your other posts, I should let you that Books better used to read than to wipe ones butt.

Considering the Book of Mormon is a type for Christ, it's appropriate that we have 12 witnesses to the plates. Because we had 12 witnesses for the Risen Lord as well.

I hope that one day you will seek the Lord and try to learn how He operates. The Law of witnesses being one of those ways. "By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the alleged angel moroni took them back...convenient  isn't it !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian giver....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! that was pointless.
Click to expand...


And how is that different than just about every post on this message board?


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the alleged angel moroni took them back...convenient  isn't it !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian giver....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow! that was pointless.
Click to expand...


You truly are not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag....

Standard Explanation for the chronically stupid: Mormon belief is that Israelite traveled to America and became the Indians. Moroni was an angel of Elohim to these Indians, Moroni later gave Joe Smith - fortune teller elite - some golden plates with the Book of Mormon on them. But Indian Angel Moroni then took his gift back, making him an......

Seriously dude, it's clever when we don't have to explain it to retards.....


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indian giver....
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that was pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You truly are not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag....
> 
> Standard Explanation for the chronically stupid: Mormon belief is that Israelite traveled to America and became the Indians. Moroni was an angel of Elohim to these Indians, Moroni later gave Joe Smith - fortune teller elite - some golden plates with the Book of Mormon on them. But Indian Angel Moroni then took his gift back, making him an......
> 
> Seriously dude, it's clever when we don't have to explain it to retards.....
Click to expand...

today is the day for you to prove once and for all that you're delusional.
you did know I was a mormon...I've said it only about a million times.
what you've just spewed is sunday school stuff for 6-8 year olds in the mormon church..
best part is there is no evidence any of it happened. 

your willful ignorance is hilarious.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indian giver....
> 
> 
> 
> wow! that was pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how is that different than just about every post on this message board?
Click to expand...

most especial your's


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> today is the day for you to prove once and for all that you're delusional.
> you did know I was a mormon...I've said it only about a million times.
> what you've just spewed is sunday school stuff for 6-8 year olds in the mormon church..



And yet, you were still too stupid to grasp an overt quip...


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> today is the day for you to prove once and for all that you're delusional.
> you did know I was a mormon...I've said it only about a million times.
> what you've just spewed is sunday school stuff for 6-8 year olds in the mormon church..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you were still too stupid to grasp an overt quip...
Click to expand...

wrong! the only overt thing about it, like all your quips is it's meaningless..and beneath notice..the stupidity is as always yours.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> wrong! the only overt thing about it, like all your quips is it's meaningless..and beneath notice..the stupidity is as always yours.



ROFL

You're a hoot when you get caught acting stupid.

Odd, I'd think you'd be used to it by now....


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! the only overt thing about it, like all your quips is it's meaningless..and beneath notice..the stupidity is as always yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> You're a hoot when you get caught acting stupid.
> 
> Odd, I'd think you'd be used to it by now....
Click to expand...

really? seem to me all your yammering is tantrum because you're totally lame attempt at humor was ignored. 
now that's a hoot..!


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> really? seem to me all your yammering is tantrum because you're totally lame attempt at humor was ignored.
> now that's a hoot..!



If only you had actually ignored it, huh sporky?

LOL

It's alright Daws, it isn't like this is a revelation of your dull wit...  I'm certain the vast majority know that you're "special."


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? seem to me all your yammering is tantrum because you're totally lame attempt at humor was ignored.
> now that's a hoot..!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you had actually ignored it, huh sporky?
> 
> LOL
> 
> It's alright Daws, it isn't like this is a revelation of your dull wit...  I'm certain the vast majority know that you're "special."
Click to expand...

the vast imaginary majority you're constantly needing to impress.
I gave it the answer it deserved then ignored it .
however watching you get your panties in a bunch over it has been fun.


----------



## Truthspeaker

Holy Smokes! You guys just won't let this thread die will you?!


----------



## Truthspeaker

Friends said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> 
> '
> The Book of Mormon is a load of rubbish concocted by a charlatan, filled with nonsense, disproven on all historical points from here to doomsday,  and which serious science regards with contempt.
> 
> However, the Smithsonian has to tippy-toe writing about it, because they dare not cause a ruckus with the ignorant, superstitious fools who regard it as the Word of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What matters is that the Smithsonian Statement destroys any reason a rational person could believe in Mormonism, and that it does so quickly, and in ways anyone can understand.
> 
> Smithsonian Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon
> 
> Mormons have responded to the statement, but they do so with a lot of complex and meaningless warbeling that can only convince someone who wants desperately to believe in Mormonism. When reading that nonsense I doubt most Mormons even understand it. Nevertheless, they think so many complex sentences and big words must be true.
Click to expand...

The Smithsonian exposed themselves with that wordy, embarrassing attempt at a scholarly response. They would have been better off saying: We really don't know very much about the possibilities of Book of Mormon claims because we haven't found anything that fits our theories. 
That's basically what they said. You could hear the fear in their writings; fear of any of the Book of Mormon being true.


----------



## JoeB131

Truthspeaker said:


> [
> The Smithsonian exposed themselves with that wordy, embarrassing attempt at a scholarly response. They would have been better off saying: We really don't know very much about the possibilities of Book of Mormon claims because we haven't found anything that fits our theories.
> That's basically what they said. You could hear the fear in their writings; fear of any of the Book of Mormon being true.



Here's an article by an Ex-Mormon who points out the obvious. 

If the Nephite Civilization was as large and as long lasting as Rome, why do we not have any relics of it like we have Relics of the Roman Empire?  

Romans and Nephites



> _*If there is anything that this comparison proves, it is the one tremendous difference between the two stories, a difference which casts huge doubt upon the accuracy of the Nephite story. And that difference can be seen in museums and archaeological sites all over Europe: The Romans left behind millions of artifacts, from everyday coins, kitchen utensils and pots to glorious art and architecture. Their historical record is also confirmed by hundreds of independent contemporary written records.
> 
> But the Nephites? Nothing even vaguely similar. Nothing. No museum has any Nephite artifact. No art. No architecture. No records other than the Book of Mormon, which is accepted as history by not a single non-Mormon historian.
> 
> Why not? One would think that the archaeological and historical record of two great ancient peoples, contemporaries, spanning a thousand years, would leave similar signs of their existence behind. No one doubts the existence of the Romans for that thousand years, or the essential accuracy of their history. Everyone but the Mormons themselves disbelieves the story of the Nephites. *_


----------



## Peterf

Truthspeaker said:


> Holy Smokes! You guys just won't let this thread die will you?!




I hope not as I have just joined it.    All religions are irrational.   The things that you Mormons believe are no more absurd (read 'stark raving mad') than all the others.

Where you score highly is your moderation.   As far I know you are not given to executing apostates or murdering passers-by to prove that your god is loving and merciful.

Mormons have the reputation of being nice people but never having met one I cannot personally confirm that.


----------



## JoeB131

Peterf said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Smokes! You guys just won't let this thread die will you?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not as I have just joined it.    All religions are irrational.   The things that you Mormons believe are no more absurd (read 'stark raving mad') than all the others.
> 
> Where you score highly is your moderation.   As far I know you are not given to executing apostates or murdering passers-by to prove that your god is loving and merciful.
> 
> Mormons have the reputation of being nice people but never having met one I cannot personally confirm that.
Click to expand...


I have. 

They are the most "Smile in your face, stab you in the back" people I've ever met in my life.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Actually, you have described yourself, JoeB.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> Actually, you have described yourself, JoeB.



I don't smile in your face.  

If I'm hostile, I'm pretty upfront about it...


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB, you are what you are, have been since you been on the Board.

Actually, other than religion, you have some minor good points.

But as an atheist, you simply suck in its defense.


----------



## JoeB131

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB, you are what you are, have been since you been on the Board.
> 
> Actually, other than religion, you have some minor good points.
> 
> But as an atheist, you simply suck in its defense.



Actually, I mop the board with you theists.... 

Just most of you can't deal with the fact there are no Magic Sky Pixies...


----------



## Snookie

There is a lot of inbreeding among mornons,


----------



## Peterf

JoeB131 said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy Smokes! You guys just won't let this thread die will you?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope not as I have just joined it.    All religions are irrational.   The things that you Mormons believe are no more absurd (read 'stark raving mad') than all the others.
> 
> Where you score highly is your moderation.   As far I know you are not given to executing apostates or murdering passers-by to prove that your god is loving and merciful.
> 
> Mormons have the reputation of being nice people but never having met one I cannot personally confirm that.[/QUOTE
> 
> I have.
> 
> They are the most "Smile in your face, stab you in the back" people I've ever met in my life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.  Another illusion shattered.
Click to expand...


----------



## daws101

KarlaM said:


> Do the women wear magic underwear also? Or is it just the men? And can a woman have more than 1 husband or is that reserved for the men?


yes women wear them too.
both my parents had several pairs ..
only men in the reformed mormon church not the mainstream mormon church can have what they call plural marriage.
women in both sects hold no high offices can not be priests or bishops..
their job is for the most part  is to make little mormons cook and keep house.
if you hadn't already guessed  I'm an ex mormon.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have described yourself, JoeB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't smile in your face.
> 
> If I'm hostile, I'm pretty upfront about it...
Click to expand...


If? When aren't you?


----------



## Avatar4321

KarlaM said:


> Do the women wear magic underwear also? Or is it just the men? And can a woman have more than 1 husband or is that reserved for the men?



There is no such thing as magic underwear.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB, you are what you are, have been since you been on the Board.
> 
> Actually, other than religion, you have some minor good points.
> 
> But as an atheist, you simply suck in its defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I mop the board with you theists....
> 
> Just most of you can't deal with the fact there are no Magic Sky Pixies...
Click to expand...


Ive never heard anyone argue for any magic sky pixies.

God, Our Heavenly Father, on the other hand is very much real and a part of your life even if you ignore Him.


----------



## Avatar4321

Snookie said:


> There is a lot of inbreeding among mornons,



Well, I hope whomever they are, they are happy regardless.


----------



## Avatar4321

Peterf said:


> Sorry to hear that.  Another illusion shattered.



Don't take Joe too seriously when he is talking about Mormons. He has never met one he doesnt love to hate. Not sure why. It's not really healthy.


----------



## daws101

the last 4 post are rationalizing....


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> the last 4 post are rationalizing....



Amazing what one can do when one actually thinks. You can look at things rationally and you don't need to rely on straw men.

But then, facts always are an anti-mormon's worst enemy. Which is precisely why they have to distort, misrepresent, fabricate, and gloss over them. Any excuse made to avoid studying the Doctrines of Christ and learning through the Spirit.

Much better to just hate.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the last 4 post are rationalizing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing what one can do when one actually thinks. You can look at things rationally and you don't need to rely on straw men.
> 
> But then, facts always are an anti-mormon's worst enemy. Which is precisely why they have to distort, misrepresent, fabricate, and gloss over them. Any excuse made to avoid studying the Doctrines of Christ and learning through the Spirit.
> 
> Much better to just hate.
Click to expand...

wrong! O self righteous yammerer.
studying the scriptures and comparing them to actual evidence is a major reason why I can state unequivocally that the LDS faith is sheer fantasy.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you have described yourself, JoeB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't smile in your face.
> 
> If I'm hostile, I'm pretty upfront about it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If? When aren't you?
Click to expand...


When I'm not talking to Koolaid drinking cultists....


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB, you are what you are, have been since you been on the Board.
> 
> Actually, other than religion, you have some minor good points.
> 
> But as an atheist, you simply suck in its defense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I mop the board with you theists....
> 
> Just most of you can't deal with the fact there are no Magic Sky Pixies...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ive never heard anyone argue for any magic sky pixies.
> 
> God, Our Heavenly Father, on the other hand is very much real and a part of your life even if you ignore Him.
Click to expand...


No, you give a "Magic Sky Pixie" more impressive titles, like 

God
Lord
The Almighty

and so on.  

but at the end of the day, he's a magic Sky Pixie who grants your wishes.  or not.  ANd if he doesn't, he had a darned good reason.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.  Another illusion shattered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't take Joe too seriously when he is talking about Mormons. He has never met one he doesnt love to hate. Not sure why. It's not really healthy.
Click to expand...


Because basically, I don't like stupidity or fraud. 

Joseph Smith pulled a fraud.  Maybe at some point, he even deluded himself. But he wasn't talking to God. There were no Nephites.  

Incidently, I was indifferent to you people until I had the bad luck to encounter some of you in the 1980's... and found out what backstabbing scumwads you are.


----------



## whitehall

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



Why would an alleged Mormon open up a thread which was sure to be critical of the Mormon faith?


----------



## Chuckt

whitehall said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would an alleged Mormon open up a thread which was sure to be critical of the Mormon faith?
Click to expand...


The reason is some people might have empathy.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the last 4 post are rationalizing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing what one can do when one actually thinks. You can look at things rationally and you don't need to rely on straw men.
> 
> But then, facts always are an anti-mormon's worst enemy. Which is precisely why they have to distort, misrepresent, fabricate, and gloss over them. Any excuse made to avoid studying the Doctrines of Christ and learning through the Spirit.
> 
> Much better to just hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong! O self righteous yammerer.
> studying the scriptures and comparing them to actual evidence is a major reason why I can state unequivocally that the LDS faith is sheer fantasy.
Click to expand...


Self righteous? Any righteousness I have is because of Christ and Christ alone. 

If anyone is self righteous in this thread, it is you my friend. You are the one who thinks you are superior. You're the one claiming you are smarter and better than us because you see through the "ruse". Regardless, let the Lord judge between you and me and do according to his will.

Study the scriptures and go to the Lord. He will teach you the truth of all things. He still loves you. Because if you have to rely on straw men, then you arent as secure in your evidence as you believe.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that.  Another illusion shattered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't take Joe too seriously when he is talking about Mormons. He has never met one he doesnt love to hate. Not sure why. It's not really healthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because basically, I don't like stupidity or fraud.
> 
> Joseph Smith pulled a fraud.  Maybe at some point, he even deluded himself. But he wasn't talking to God. There were no Nephites.
> 
> Incidently, I was indifferent to you people until I had the bad luck to encounter some of you in the 1980's... and found out what backstabbing scumwads you are.
Click to expand...


You shouldn't hate yourself. it's not healthy


----------



## Avatar4321

whitehall said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would an alleged Mormon open up a thread which was sure to be critical of the Mormon faith?
Click to expand...


Maybe he hoped it would be respectful.

Of course, that requires people not lie about us.


----------



## Snookie

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't take Joe too seriously when he is talking about Mormons. He has never met one he doesnt love to hate. Not sure why. It's not really healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because basically, I don't like stupidity or fraud.
> 
> Joseph Smith pulled a fraud.  Maybe at some point, he even deluded himself. But he wasn't talking to God. There were no Nephites.
> 
> Incidently, I was indifferent to you people until I had the bad luck to encounter some of you in the 1980's... and found out what backstabbing scumwads you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't hate yourself. it's not healthy
Click to expand...


Is that backed up by a money back guarantee?


----------



## daws101

Chuckt said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would an alleged Mormon open up a thread which was sure to be critical of the Mormon faith?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason is some people might have empathy.
Click to expand...

some people have six fingers too.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing what one can do when one actually thinks. You can look at things rationally and you don't need to rely on straw men.
> 
> But then, facts always are an anti-mormon's worst enemy. Which is precisely why they have to distort, misrepresent, fabricate, and gloss over them. Any excuse made to avoid studying the Doctrines of Christ and learning through the Spirit.
> 
> Much better to just hate.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! O self righteous yammerer.
> studying the scriptures and comparing them to actual evidence is a major reason why I can state unequivocally that the LDS faith is sheer fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Self righteous? Any righteousness I have is because of Christ and Christ alone.
> 
> If anyone is self righteous in this thread, it is you my friend. You are the one who thinks you are superior. You're the one claiming you are smarter and better than us because you see through the "ruse". Regardless, let the Lord judge between you and me and do according to his will.
> 
> Study the scriptures and go to the Lord. He will teach you the truth of all things. He still loves you. Because if you have to rely on straw men, then you arent as secure in your evidence as you believe.
Click to expand...

like I said, self righteous...
I've never said I was superior or even inferred it...
what I am, is a whole lot less needy and gullible then you.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't take Joe too seriously when he is talking about Mormons. He has never met one he doesnt love to hate. Not sure why. It's not really healthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because basically, I don't like stupidity or fraud.
> 
> Joseph Smith pulled a fraud.  Maybe at some point, he even deluded himself. But he wasn't talking to God. There were no Nephites.
> 
> Incidently, I was indifferent to you people until I had the bad luck to encounter some of you in the 1980's... and found out what backstabbing scumwads you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You shouldn't hate yourself. it's not healthy
Click to expand...


Okay, that made no sense.


----------



## MonaGonna

Why do Mormons worship a con man?


----------



## daws101

MonaGonna said:


> Why do Mormons worship a con man?


neediness


----------



## Snookie

MonaGonna said:


> Why do Mormons worship a con man?


the richest con men in the world use religions as their tools.


----------



## daws101

Snookie said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Mormons worship a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> the richest con men in the world use religions as their tools.
Click to expand...

the mormon church is the top 10 of richest churches..ironic that!


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> Snookie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Mormons worship a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> the richest con men in the world use religions as their tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the mormon church is the top 10 of richest churches..ironic that!
Click to expand...


They got run out of every place they appeared until they discovered some land in Utah that no white people wanted.  They were lucky because the Native Americans were already on the run and offered little or no resistance to the crazy Mormans.  

The good thing about the Morman church and what they really have going in thier favor is that thier members are stupid.  I mean if you will fall for the Christianity on steroids that is thier doctrine you really have some blind and ignorant followers.  That gives thier leaders an advantage in getting things done for thier religion.  Early on they got real sneaky in taking advantage of what was left of the Native Americans in the Southwest.  Then they got real good at swindling people like Howard Hughes which added a lot of cash to thier operation.  Then they worked closely with the Mafia and helped finance and money launder the gambling in Nevada.  They worked hard to win local elections similar to what the Tea Baggers have done recently elsewhere and stacked the deck to give themselves great advantage in many Southwestern communities.  They have brilliantly infected much of the planet with thier "missions" preying on isolated and uncivilized peoples of third world countries.  They make it thier "mission" to take advantage of the weak.  Not hard to profit when basically you are a organized crime syndicate disguised as a religion.


----------



## MonaGonna

Truthspeaker said:


> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
Click to expand...


Disciplined? Like a spanking? Cut off from the teen wife pool? ...


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! O self righteous yammerer.
> studying the scriptures and comparing them to actual evidence is a major reason why I can state unequivocally that the LDS faith is sheer fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self righteous? Any righteousness I have is because of Christ and Christ alone.
> 
> If anyone is self righteous in this thread, it is you my friend. You are the one who thinks you are superior. You're the one claiming you are smarter and better than us because you see through the "ruse". Regardless, let the Lord judge between you and me and do according to his will.
> 
> Study the scriptures and go to the Lord. He will teach you the truth of all things. He still loves you. Because if you have to rely on straw men, then you arent as secure in your evidence as you believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like I said, self righteous...
> I've never said I was superior or even inferred it...
> what I am, is a whole lot less needy and gullible then you.
Click to expand...


yeah... and I doubt you even noticed the contradiction that you wrote.

The Lord loves you though. I hope that you return to Him in this life and not the next.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because basically, I don't like stupidity or fraud.
> 
> Joseph Smith pulled a fraud.  Maybe at some point, he even deluded himself. But he wasn't talking to God. There were no Nephites.
> 
> Incidently, I was indifferent to you people until I had the bad luck to encounter some of you in the 1980's... and found out what backstabbing scumwads you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shouldn't hate yourself. it's not healthy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, that made no sense.
Click to expand...


Then I guess you didn't bother reading what you wrote.


----------



## Avatar4321

MonaGonna said:


> Why do Mormons worship a con man?



Christ was a con man? News to me.


----------



## Avatar4321

MonaGonna said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chloe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm I wonder how many Bishops believe that. Also Relief Society is quite different depending on the Ward as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disciplined? Like a spanking? Cut off from the teen wife pool? ...
Click to expand...


There is a teen wife pool? Is it near the hot tub?


----------



## MonaGonna

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you asking how many bishops believe in preaching official church doctrine? If someone is found preaching false church doctrine, they are taken to church court and disciplined and if necessary, excommunicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Disciplined? Like a spanking? Cut off from the teen wife pool? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a teen wife pool? Is it near the hot tub?
Click to expand...


You need to go get your share asap.


----------



## MonaGonna

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Mormons worship a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ was a con man? News to me.
Click to expand...


Joe Smith.


----------



## Avatar4321

MonaGonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Disciplined? Like a spanking? Cut off from the teen wife pool? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a teen wife pool? Is it near the hot tub?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to go get your share asap.
Click to expand...


i prefer a hot tub this time of the year


----------



## Avatar4321

MonaGonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Mormons worship a con man?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ was a con man? News to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe Smith.
Click to expand...


but we've never worshiped "Joe" Smith. Only the Lord.


----------



## MonaGonna

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ was a con man? News to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Smith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but we've never worshiped "Joe" Smith. Only the Lord.
Click to expand...


So why do you believe anything a con man says?


----------



## LittleNipper

MonaGonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but we've never worshiped "Joe" Smith. Only the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
Click to expand...


Joseph Smith = FALSE PROPHET


----------



## Avatar4321

MonaGonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Smith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but we've never worshiped "Joe" Smith. Only the Lord.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
Click to expand...


I don't. you're making false assumptions.

BTW most people dont sacrifice their life for a con.


----------



## Avatar4321

LittleNipper said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we've never worshiped "Joe" Smith. Only the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = FALSE PROPHET
Click to expand...


So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?


----------



## MonaGonna

Avatar4321 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = FALSE PROPHET
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
Click to expand...


He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.


----------



## Avatar4321

MonaGonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = FALSE PROPHET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
Click to expand...


Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
Click to expand...


Smith also said he saw the Angel Moroni, God, and a White Salamander.   

Oh, wait, no, that was a forgery.  

He said the "Book of Abraham" was an account of Abraham's life in Egypt.  Then someone translated them and discovered they were a Ptomoleic funerary scroll.  

He claimed that Kinderhook Tablets were an account of someone who lived in Bible times.  But they were fakes made by his neighbors.


----------



## MonaGonna

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
Click to expand...


A good con man can fake shit like that very easily. Man, you sure are gullible.


----------



## JoeB131

MonaGonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good con man can fake shit like that very easily. Man, you sure are gullible.
Click to expand...


Got to admire that.  He was a con-man who is still fooling less smart people 170 years after he died.


----------



## Chuckt

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
Click to expand...


He was a money digger who was arrested.

What is the difference between Joseph Smith and Brian David Mitchell who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart?



> As Immanuel, Mitchell wrote a two-part text which he claimed were Revelations from God, called the "Book of Immanuel David Isaiah" (I & II).[13] The first of these revelations, completed in April 2002, included instructions for Mitchell to marry 7 more wives; God's chastisement of members for rejecting the Book of Mormon and especially the words of Ezra Taft Benson; for loving money and seeking the praise of the world; for ignoring the poor and needy; for failing to testify against secret combinations; and for turning to doctors to cure illness instead of relying on faith, herbs, and fruits.[14]



Brian David Mitchell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Snookie

churches are about amassed fortunes.  Souls are about amassed grace which can not be purchased from the church but it never keeps the fools from trying.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smith also said he saw the Angel Moroni, God, and a White Salamander.
> 
> Oh, wait, no, that was a forgery.
> 
> He said the "Book of Abraham" was an account of Abraham's life in Egypt.  Then someone translated them and discovered they were a Ptomoleic funerary scroll.
> 
> He claimed that Kinderhook Tablets were an account of someone who lived in Bible times.  But they were fakes made by his neighbors.
Click to expand...


So you have to resort to the White Salamander forgery to attack Joseph Smith? How exactly are forgeries made over a century later at all relevant to Joseph Smith?

The Book of Abraham that Joseph translated are still missing. They had a red binding that is completely missing from all the pieces that have been translated.

He never made any claim about the Kinderhook plates. The only thing that even suggests that he did was a third hand source that was changed to imply that he himself said it. But the evidence suggests he had no interest in them. For example, with the Book of Abraham, he went out of his ways to purchase the records. The evidence with the Kinderhook plates shows that not only did he not even try to purchase them, they left town without any fan fair and with absolutely no interest from him.

See, this is the problem with you anti mormons. You try to shot gun approach the situation. Make a bunch of accusations that you think look good for your case and that need indepth analysis to really see if they are true, which you conveniently ignore. And you pretend as if there are no responses despite them being refuted decades ago.

I have no doubt you'll again completely ignore what I post, return to your old talking points hoping that those who don't have the time to do the actual research will blindly believe you because it looks like you know what you are talking about and they are looking for an excuse not to listen.

The problem is I have done my research. I won't be swayed. But then Im not really the target. It's those who are reading the conversation that haven't.

That's why I'd much rather short circuit this and go directly to the source. God knows whether Joseph Smith was His prophet or not. And He is more than happy to tell people the truth that He was.

I challenge you to actually read the Book of Mormon and the other relevations and ask God for yourself. Do a 30 day experiment. Study the scriptures and every day ask the Lord to tell you whether it's true. He will. Even if the only faith you have is to do the experiment. 

Because quite frankly you and I could go back and forth on this and it wont solve a thing. But the Spirit of the Lord can end the discussion for anyone interested very quickly.

When I was studying things out for myself. It became very apparently that those who hate the Church like yourself didn't have much of a leg for your arguments. But that didn't mean the Church did either. As I researched, I would find nothing but outright lies, out of context quotes, highly editted quotes, and many other deceptive arguments to attack the Church. And when I would see the responses, I would see some good responses, some poorly thought responses, but I repeatedly saw those responding to the critics tell me not to take their word for it but to go to the Lord.

Eventually, I concluded that going to the Lord was the only way to know for myself. I didn't know whether there was a God. I didn't know how He would let me know if He was there. I just reasoned, that I could experiment on the Word as the scriptures taught and if He was there, He would let me know. And it's only through the revelation of the Holy Spirit that I obtained that knowledge. Now, I know there is a God. I know He loves me. I know He loves you too. I know He wants me to love you, though I will freely admit I find that difficult. I know from the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I know that through Him I can overcome my many, many weaknesses. Through the Spirit I learned that the Book of Mormon was true and that Joseph Smith was indeed called by Him to be a prophet. His story is incredible. Even he said that he wouldn't believe it if he hadn't experienced it. As imperfect as he was, he was a prophet. I know that Priesthood has been restored along with the keys to direct it.

The Holy Spirit has told me this not only that time but many many others. I've learned countless things from listening to the Spirit. My life has been enriched because of it. The fruits of the Spirit are good and have brought joy, peace, and power to my life.

I invite you and anyone else who reads this to experiment on the word as I suggested. It's the only way to truly know God. Otherwise, we are just doing mental exercises that benefit absolutely no one.


----------



## Avatar4321

MonaGonna said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A good con man can fake shit like that very easily. Man, you sure are gullible.
Click to expand...


And yet, no one ever has. It's easy to make claims. Prove someone can fake it. You can only use resources available in the 1800s.

Or you could try reading the Book of Mormon and Bible and testing it out for yourself.


----------



## Avatar4321

Chuckt said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't know that for sure, he wasn't there. That Jesus rose from the grave is called hearsay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was a money digger who was arrested.
> 
> What is the difference between Joseph Smith and Brian David Mitchell who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Immanuel, Mitchell wrote a two-part text which he claimed were Revelations from God, called the "Book of Immanuel David Isaiah" (I & II).[13] The first of these revelations, completed in April 2002, included instructions for Mitchell to marry 7 more wives; God's chastisement of members for rejecting the Book of Mormon and especially the words of Ezra Taft Benson; for loving money and seeking the praise of the world; for ignoring the poor and needy; for failing to testify against secret combinations; and for turning to doctors to cure illness instead of relying on faith, herbs, and fruits.[14]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brian David Mitchell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Christ was arrested to. He was put to death for His supposed crime. If the Son of God, being Holy, was falsely arrested and put to death, why should we expect a Servant to do better?

And yes Joseph was arrested many times. Wasn't found guilty of anything.

And as for the difference between Joseph and BDM. He didn't kidnap anyone for instance. He was very public in his faith. BDM was hiding. Joseph didn't merely have experiences and tell people about them. He invited those around them to participate in those experiences.

Almost every event in the Restoration had 2 or more people participating.

For example, Oliver was with Joseph at each time they recieved Priesthood and keys from Divine messengers. Sydney was with Joseph at the time they recieved the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory along with many others who were present and testified. Joseph was with others when he healed the sick in Nauvoo. When the Spiritual gifts were poured out on the Saints at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple countless saw Angels and experienced the outpowering of the Spirit. The others in the School of the Prophets were present at times when the Lord appeared to them.

Where did BDM have a second witness to anything he claimed to experience?

the scriptures say that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, God will establish every Word. It's a law of heaven.


----------



## MonaGonna

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good con man can fake shit like that very easily. Man, you sure are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, no one ever has. It's easy to make claims. Prove someone can fake it. You can only use resources available in the 1800s.
> 
> Or you could try reading the Book of Mormon and Bible and testing it out for yourself.
Click to expand...


I have a brother who's totally convinced that he's sees Jesus all the time and talk to him. Is he the next prophet?


----------



## Chuckt

Avatar4321 said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he can. He saw Christ. Multiple times. As did many who were with him. They were eye witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was a money digger who was arrested.
> 
> What is the difference between Joseph Smith and Brian David Mitchell who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Immanuel, Mitchell wrote a two-part text which he claimed were Revelations from God, called the "Book of Immanuel David Isaiah" (I & II).[13] The first of these revelations, completed in April 2002, included instructions for Mitchell to marry 7 more wives; God's chastisement of members for rejecting the Book of Mormon and especially the words of Ezra Taft Benson; for loving money and seeking the praise of the world; for ignoring the poor and needy; for failing to testify against secret combinations; and for turning to doctors to cure illness instead of relying on faith, herbs, and fruits.[14]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brian David Mitchell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ was arrested to. He was put to death for His supposed crime. If the Son of God, being Holy, was falsely arrested and put to death, why should we expect a Servant to do better?
> 
> And yes Joseph was arrested many times. Wasn't found guilty of anything.
> 
> And as for the difference between Joseph and BDM. He didn't kidnap anyone for instance. He was very public in his faith. BDM was hiding. Joseph didn't merely have experiences and tell people about them. He invited those around them to participate in those experiences.
> 
> Almost every event in the Restoration had 2 or more people participating.
> 
> For example, Oliver was with Joseph at each time they recieved Priesthood and keys from Divine messengers. Sydney was with Joseph at the time they recieved the Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory along with many others who were present and testified. Joseph was with others when he healed the sick in Nauvoo. When the Spiritual gifts were poured out on the Saints at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple countless saw Angels and experienced the outpowering of the Spirit. The others in the School of the Prophets were present at times when the Lord appeared to them.
> 
> Where did BDM have a second witness to anything he claimed to experience?
> 
> the scriptures say that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, God will establish every Word. It's a law of heaven.
Click to expand...


I believe the Book of Mormon was stolen from another book:



> Numerous scholars have identified the significant parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. In 1922 B.H. Roberts (1857&#8211;1933), a prominent LDS apologist and historian,[10] was asked by the LDS Apostle James E. Talmage to answer a non-believer's five critical questions. He produced a confidential report that summarized eighteen points of similarity between the two works.[11]



View of the Hebrews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When was the book of Mormon written?  I don't have my notes in front of me but they claim:



> The writings were said to describe a people whom God had led from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere 600 years before Jesus&#8217; birth



Book of Mormon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question is if the book of Mormon was supposedly written years earlier then how come it contains quotations from the 1611 Bible including mistakes?  The book of Mormon has been changed nearly 4,000 times or more and it has been documented.

From what I heard, Mormons advertised in England about an Oasis and women got out of the stage coach and hissed when they saw Utah.  Our pastor showed us advertising that they did.

If you have a lynch mob at the jail, I'm guessing the people were very angry at Joseph Smith.  

Some notable American was in jail in Italy.  There was no evidence that she did it.  Right?  If you slapped my face, it would turn red, no?  There were dead bodies, right?  And I'm not implying she did it but.

I went to college and saw a cult called the Boston Church of Christ or New York movement in action.  They got thrown out of college because a member refused to let a Christian minister speak and they were going through the Christian club's files seeking phone numbers, names, addresses.  Even after they got kicked out, they continued to find empty rooms in college to do their Bible studies.  When they were caught, they claimed they were persecuted.  When they weren't caught, they claimed they were doing God's will even though they were trespassing through not having permission.

Joseph Smith "was killed while jailed in Carthage, Illinois, on charges relating to his ordering the destruction of facilities producing the Nauvoo Expositor,"

Death of Joseph Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In response to public outrage generated by the paper, the Nauvoo city council passed an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers. They reached this decision after lengthy[specify] discussion, including citation of William Blackstone's legal canon, which included a libelous press as a public nuisance. According to the council's minutes, Smith said he "...would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people, and bringing death and destruction upon us."[5]



The people caught Joseph Smith doing things wrong so Joseph Smith set out to have the paper destroyed.

There are accusations that Joseph Smith took other men's wives and had child brides and all I have to do is look it up but when you get involved with other men's wives like that, I'm guessing he made someone angry and tried to cover it up by destroying their paper.



> Don't take my word for this. Go to your local Deseret Book shop, order any CD-ROM that contains back issues of church newspapers, such as Gospel Link. Read them all for yourself. Notice the date. 1842. If you look on FamilySearch.org, you will see that Joseph Smith had already married several other women by then.
> 
> Not convionced? Look at the date of section 132,. it was published in 1843. The next year, in 1844, Joseph Smith published this in the church newspaper Times and Seasons, volume 5, page 423. Go and buy the Deseret CD-ROM and see for yourself.



Face the Facts

If you slap me in the face, would my face turn red?  Yes.  Would there be any evidence?  No.


----------



## DGS49

Avatar's ramblings, though certainly sincere and well intentioned, are a good illustration of the difference between faith and science.

When a scientist finds evidence that contradicts his current theory, he investigates fully, to see whether the evidence is flawed, or his theory requires re-thinking.  The two must be reconciled one way or another.

When a person of faith finds evidence that contradicts his BELIEFS, he seeks to contrive an explanation that allows the belief to remain intact. He never questions the beliefs or adjusts them to meet the evidence.  In some cases, the explanation is so strained that the person of faith looks foolish.

Ironically, the LDS church has been quite liberal in modifying articles of faith to suit their earthly objectives.  Joe Smith and Brigham Young both taught that plural wives were mandatory for those who could afford it, as the practice was part of God's plan.  And yet, when polygamy became an obstacle to statehood, they (at least formally) abolished the practice.

Whole books have been written debunking the Book of Mormon.  It is stuff and nonsense, and not very well presented either.  Same for the Book of Abraham.  And far from being a holy or "good" man, Joe Smith was a known schemer, whose whole life before his "discovery" of the golden plates was one get-rich-quick scheme after another.  His marital history alone is enough to demonstrate that he was a self-indulgent blowhard, but Mormons are able to simply explain it away.

Maybe all religions are bullshit.  Jesus never walked on water, Mohammed never moved a mountain, and Elijah Muhammad never walked with god.  But LDS has the unhappy burden of a whole mountain of evidence of its being founded on nonsense.  And a mountain of nonsense (BOM) with no archaeological evidence to support it.  It is more sad than outrageous.


----------



## LittleNipper

Avatar4321 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = FALSE PROPHET
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
Click to expand...


James 2:19
New International Version
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.


----------



## daws101

LittleNipper said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = FALSE PROPHET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James 2:19
> New International Version
> You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
Click to expand...

assumption on all points!


----------



## Chuckt

daws101 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James 2:19
> New International Version
> You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> assumption on all points!
Click to expand...


Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.


----------



## Chuckt

Avatar4321 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we've never worshiped "Joe" Smith. Only the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't. you're making false assumptions.
> 
> BTW most people dont sacrifice their life for a con.
Click to expand...


It depends on how you phrase it.  People do go to jail for cons.  And then there was David Koresh and he just messed up the assumption you quoted.

What is the difference between David Koresh and Joseph Smith?
(I actually have an old copy of this file from the BBS and have permission to post it but I will just give a link

Parallels between Joseph Smith and David Koresh

The Watchman Expositor: David Koresh and Joseph Smith - False Prophets


----------



## Avatar4321

DGS49 said:


> Avatar's ramblings, though certainly sincere and well intentioned, are a good illustration of the difference between faith and science.
> 
> When a scientist finds evidence that contradicts his current theory, he investigates fully, to see whether the evidence is flawed, or his theory requires re-thinking.  The two must be reconciled one way or another.
> 
> When a person of faith finds evidence that contradicts his BELIEFS, he seeks to contrive an explanation that allows the belief to remain intact. He never questions the beliefs or adjusts them to meet the evidence.  In some cases, the explanation is so strained that the person of faith looks foolish.
> 
> Ironically, the LDS church has been quite liberal in modifying articles of faith to suit their earthly objectives.  Joe Smith and Brigham Young both taught that plural wives were mandatory for those who could afford it, as the practice was part of God's plan.  And yet, when polygamy became an obstacle to statehood, they (at least formally) abolished the practice.
> 
> Whole books have been written debunking the Book of Mormon.  It is stuff and nonsense, and not very well presented either.  Same for the Book of Abraham.  And far from being a holy or "good" man, Joe Smith was a known schemer, whose whole life before his "discovery" of the golden plates was one get-rich-quick scheme after another.  His marital history alone is enough to demonstrate that he was a self-indulgent blowhard, but Mormons are able to simply explain it away.
> 
> Maybe all religions are bullshit.  Jesus never walked on water, Mohammed never moved a mountain, and Elijah Muhammad never walked with god.  But LDS has the unhappy burden of a whole mountain of evidence of its being founded on nonsense.  And a mountain of nonsense (BOM) with no archaeological evidence to support it.  It is more sad than outrageous.



And yet, there is archaelogical evidence, not that it's important. Do a web search. You will find plenty on the Book of Mormon, Bountiful and Nahom. Unless you think it's just a random coincidence that Joseph Smith described a trail that actually exists through Arabia. 

That's the problem with the critics. They have to ignore the countless coincidences that we would have to believe exist in order for Joseph to have been a fraud.

It's just a coincidence that Joseph ignored the doctrines in Christianity that developed over the centuries such as Creation Ex Nihilo and adopted the doctrines found in ancient Christianity that are neglected now, like the Doctrine of Deification and the premortal existence.

It's just a coincidence that Joseph predicted the civil war to start in South Carolina 30 years before it happened.

It's just a coincidence that he "made up" names in the Book of Mormon that are actual ancient names.

It's just a coincidence that Chiasmus exist in the Book of Mormon.

That's hardly a full list of things he "guessed" correctly. Yet, For some it's much easier to believe that he just guessed correctly on so many things than to believe he was an honest man.

It's much easier to believe he was a con man despite the fact that he was poor his entire life. He was a con man despite the fact that the reason he did so poorly in business was because he kept giving away his merchandise to those in need. And he was a con man just trying to take people's money so much that he recieved a revelation saying he was going to be poor his whole life and that finances were not the gift he was giving. And he was a con man who, went voluntarily to his death when he was already in the free and clear in the frontier and could have spared his life by simply renouncing his so called fraud.

And yet he was supposedly a schemer his whole life despite that the people who actually new him said they never knew he was anything other than a good honest man until he had the visions.

As I've said earlier, any criticism against him and the Church has been debunked years ago. There hasnt been any no criticism in decades.

And the most beautiful part of all this is no one has to take my word for it. They can study themselves. They can ask the Lord. The Book of Mormon and all the other revelations are available for all to study. And the Lord gives wisdom liberally to all who ask of Him. 

Experiment on the Word like I suggested earlier. Isn't it interesting that there are so many people encouraging you all to not experiment for yourself and not pray for yourself? Why do you think that is? What do you have to fear?


----------



## Avatar4321

LittleNipper said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith = FALSE PROPHET
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So he lied when He said that Christ was real and rose from the grave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James 2:19
> New International Version
> You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
Click to expand...


But I don't shudder at the knowledge of my Savior. Nor did Joseph. We take great joy and peace at the knowledge that Christ lives. Joseph and countless others have seen Him. My witness of the living Christ comes from the Holy Ghost.

He lives and He loves you. Read the Book of Mormon because they contain the words of Christ. You will know that from the Spirit.


----------



## Avatar4321

Chuckt said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. you're making false assumptions.
> 
> BTW most people dont sacrifice their life for a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on how you phrase it.  People do go to jail for cons.  And then there was David Koresh and he just messed up the assumption you quoted.
> 
> What is the difference between David Koresh and Joseph Smith?
> (I actually have an old copy of this file from the BBS and have permission to post it but I will just give a link
> 
> Parallels between Joseph Smith and David Koresh
> 
> The Watchman Expositor: David Koresh and Joseph Smith - False Prophets
Click to expand...


Was Koresh a con man or insane?

And he didn't voluntarily go to his death. he was killed by the government quite involuntarily.

Joseph on the other hand had no need to go to Carthage. He was in the frontiers of Iowa and could have remained there until the Saints started heading to Utah. But the Saints asked him to return and he did despite knowing he would die.

Please feel free to read John Taylor's account. He was there and shot four times by the mob. Doctrine and Covenants 135*

Joseph didn't only die for his testimony. His beloved brother Hyrum died with him.

Also, you might want to be careful about your Koresh comparison. Many might compare him to Christ as a way to discredit Christianity as a whole.


----------



## Chuckt

Avatar4321 said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Watchman Expositor: David Koresh and Joseph Smith - False Prophets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was Koresh a con man or insane?
> 
> And he didn't voluntarily go to his death. he was killed by the government quite involuntarily.
> 
> Joseph on the other hand had no need to go to Carthage. He was in the frontiers of Iowa and could have remained there until the Saints started heading to Utah. But the Saints asked him to return and he did despite knowing he would die.
> 
> Please feel free to read John Taylor's account. He was there and shot four times by the mob. Doctrine and Covenants 135*
> 
> Joseph didn't only die for his testimony. His beloved brother Hyrum died with him.
> 
> Also, you might want to be careful about your Koresh comparison. Many might compare him to Christ as a way to discredit Christianity as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh could have surrendered or gave up.  His right hand man decided to die but not for a fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the FBI, Steve Schneider, Koresh's right-hand man who "probably realized he was dealing with a fraud", shot and killed Koresh and then committed suicide with the same gun.[23]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Koresh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I don't really believe you will accuse Christ but if you are ready to make that comparison...
Click to expand...


----------



## Vandalshandle

It is really fun to engage a Mormon about Joseph Smith. They really don't want to talk about him, because his fraud is so transparant that it is embarrasing. ..


----------



## daws101

Chuckt said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> James 2:19
> New International Version
> You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
> 
> 
> 
> assumption on all points!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Click to expand...

also assumption, there is no proof that this exchange ever took place....


----------



## daws101

Chuckt said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do you believe anything a con man says?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. you're making false assumptions.
> 
> BTW most people dont sacrifice their life for a con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on how you phrase it.  People do go to jail for cons.  And then there was David Koresh and he just messed up the assumption you quoted.
> 
> What is the difference between David Koresh and Joseph Smith?
> (I actually have an old copy of this file from the BBS and have permission to post it but I will just give a link
> 
> Parallels between Joseph Smith and David Koresh
> 
> The Watchman Expositor: David Koresh and Joseph Smith - False Prophets
Click to expand...

Mission Statement
Our mission

Since 1979, our mission has been to fill a crucial need in the Church as a Christian counter-cult* and watchdog ministry. We have three primary goals:  to educate the community, to equip the church, and to evangelize the cults.

Educate the Community

Watchman Fellowship impacts local communities through educational conferences, mass mailings and the media. An important aspect of educating the community comes through those who receive our training. Our goal is to leave behind trained believers to continue the work in their area long after we leave.

Equipping the Church

Our foremost responsibility is to the Church. Jesus warned us to "beware of the false prophets." How can one beware unless one is first aware? By equipping the Church, we accomplish our other goals: equipping Christians to evangelize the cultist and to educate their neighbor against deception.

Evangelizing the Cults

Watchman Fellowship is actively involved in counseling and witnessing to those involved in cults. This is accomplished by a variety of methods such as mission projects, pre-recorded telephone messages, warning ads in local newspapers, and by one-on-one or small group visits.  Much of the evangelism is being done in the homes of believers who have been trained by our staff to share their faith with those who are recruiting for the cults.

Freedom of Religion

Watchman Fellowship endorses freedom of religion in both thought and expression. While endorsing the rights of everyone to hold and practice divergent beliefs, Watchman Fellowship is compelled to exercise its freedoms (religious, speech and press) to expose questionable doctrines and abusive or manipulative practices, and to offer spiritual alternatives in the form of traditional Christian faith.

*The fact that we maintain a file on these groups does not necessarily mean that we classify them as cults, but it does mean that we have received questions or complaints about them.

one cult bad mouthing another, how fucking typical!


----------



## HUGGY

daws101 said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. you're making false assumptions.
> 
> BTW most people dont sacrifice their life for a con.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you phrase it.  People do go to jail for cons.  And then there was David Koresh and he just messed up the assumption you quoted.
> 
> What is the difference between David Koresh and Joseph Smith?
> (I actually have an old copy of this file from the BBS and have permission to post it but I will just give a link
> 
> Parallels between Joseph Smith and David Koresh
> 
> The Watchman Expositor: David Koresh and Joseph Smith - False Prophets
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mission Statement
> Our mission
> 
> Since 1979, our mission has been to fill a crucial need in the Church as a Christian counter-cult* and watchdog ministry. We have three primary goals:  to educate the community, to equip the church, and to evangelize the cults.
> 
> Educate the Community
> 
> Watchman Fellowship impacts local communities through educational conferences, mass mailings and the media. An important aspect of educating the community comes through those who receive our training. Our goal is to leave behind trained believers to continue the work in their area long after we leave.
> 
> Equipping the Church
> 
> Our foremost responsibility is to the Church. Jesus warned us to "beware of the false prophets." How can one beware unless one is first aware? By equipping the Church, we accomplish our other goals: equipping Christians to evangelize the cultist and to educate their neighbor against deception.
> 
> Evangelizing the Cults
> 
> Watchman Fellowship is actively involved in counseling and witnessing to those involved in cults. This is accomplished by a variety of methods such as mission projects, pre-recorded telephone messages, warning ads in local newspapers, and by one-on-one or small group visits.  Much of the evangelism is being done in the homes of believers who have been trained by our staff to share their faith with those who are recruiting for the cults.
> 
> Freedom of Religion
> 
> Watchman Fellowship endorses freedom of religion in both thought and expression. While endorsing the rights of everyone to hold and practice divergent beliefs, Watchman Fellowship is compelled to exercise its freedoms (religious, speech and press) to expose questionable doctrines and abusive or manipulative practices, and to offer spiritual alternatives in the form of traditional Christian faith.
> 
> *The fact that we maintain a file on these groups does not necessarily mean that we classify them as cults, but it does mean that we have received questions or complaints about them.
> 
> one cult bad mouthing another, how fucking typical!
Click to expand...


You are doing the good work here Daws...


----------



## MonaGonna

I feel sorry for Avatar...


----------



## daws101

HUGGY said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on how you phrase it.  People do go to jail for cons.  And then there was David Koresh and he just messed up the assumption you quoted.
> 
> What is the difference between David Koresh and Joseph Smith?
> (I actually have an old copy of this file from the BBS and have permission to post it but I will just give a link
> 
> Parallels between Joseph Smith and David Koresh
> 
> The Watchman Expositor: David Koresh and Joseph Smith - False Prophets
> 
> 
> 
> Mission Statement
> Our mission
> 
> Since 1979, our mission has been to fill a crucial need in the Church as a Christian counter-cult* and watchdog ministry. We have three primary goals:  to educate the community, to equip the church, and to evangelize the cults.
> 
> Educate the Community
> 
> Watchman Fellowship impacts local communities through educational conferences, mass mailings and the media. An important aspect of educating the community comes through those who receive our training. Our goal is to leave behind trained believers to continue the work in their area long after we leave.
> 
> Equipping the Church
> 
> Our foremost responsibility is to the Church. Jesus warned us to "beware of the false prophets." How can one beware unless one is first aware? By equipping the Church, we accomplish our other goals: equipping Christians to evangelize the cultist and to educate their neighbor against deception.
> 
> Evangelizing the Cults
> 
> Watchman Fellowship is actively involved in counseling and witnessing to those involved in cults. This is accomplished by a variety of methods such as mission projects, pre-recorded telephone messages, warning ads in local newspapers, and by one-on-one or small group visits.  Much of the evangelism is being done in the homes of believers who have been trained by our staff to share their faith with those who are recruiting for the cults.
> 
> Freedom of Religion
> 
> Watchman Fellowship endorses freedom of religion in both thought and expression. While endorsing the rights of everyone to hold and practice divergent beliefs, Watchman Fellowship is compelled to exercise its freedoms (religious, speech and press) to expose questionable doctrines and abusive or manipulative practices, and to offer spiritual alternatives in the form of traditional Christian faith.
> 
> *The fact that we maintain a file on these groups does not necessarily mean that we classify them as cults, but it does mean that we have received questions or complaints about them.
> 
> one cult bad mouthing another, how fucking typical!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are doing the good work here Daws...
Click to expand...

thanks chief!


----------



## daws101

MonaGonna said:


> I feel sorry for Avatar...


why ? he /she is an adult.


----------



## JoeB131

MonaGonna said:


> I feel sorry for Avatar...



I used to, but frankly, it takes an effort to remain that dedicated to a cult...


----------



## TheShinyOne

Avatar4321 said:


> ...
> See, this is the problem with you anti mormons. You try to shot gun approach the situation. Make a bunch of accusations that you think look good for your case and that need indepth analysis to really see if they are true, which you conveniently ignore. And you pretend as if there are no responses despite them being refuted decades ago.
> ...



Don't worry, they are losers. It's really obvious to the casual observer.

I should read Book of Mormon, would make for interesting discussion. Strangely, if I didn't already have some possible evidence of a connection between the Middle East and North America of ancient times, I wouldn't be interested at all.


----------



## Avatar4321

TheShinyOne said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> See, this is the problem with you anti mormons. You try to shot gun approach the situation. Make a bunch of accusations that you think look good for your case and that need indepth analysis to really see if they are true, which you conveniently ignore. And you pretend as if there are no responses despite them being refuted decades ago.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry, they are losers. It's really obvious to the casual observer.
> 
> I should read Book of Mormon, would make for interesting discussion. Strangely, if I didn't already have some possible evidence of a connection between the Middle East and North America of ancient times, I wouldn't be interested at all.
Click to expand...


You can order a free copy online. You could also read it online.

I don't think they are losers. Just misguided. Thankfully the Lord is merciful and they will have an opportunity to recieve the Gospel when He feels they are ready.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for Avatar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to, but frankly, it takes an effort to remain that dedicated to a cult...
Click to expand...


Odd, I think it takes more of an effort to fight the truth as you are than to follow it.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MonaGonna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel sorry for Avatar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to, but frankly, it takes an effort to remain that dedicated to a cult...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Odd, I think it takes more of an effort to fight the truth as you are than to follow it.
Click to expand...


Well, of course you do. 

You're in a cult, and if you started saying something like, "Hey, there's no evidence there ever was a Nephite Civilization", all the other cult members would shun you.


----------



## uhkilleez

You should have replaced 'Friendly' with 'All of the above'.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to, but frankly, it takes an effort to remain that dedicated to a cult...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, I think it takes more of an effort to fight the truth as you are than to follow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course you do.
> 
> You're in a cult, and if you started saying something like, "Hey, there's no evidence there ever was a Nephite Civilization", all the other cult members would shun you.
Click to expand...


See, you go and make some bullcrap claim like this. No one would shun me. Quite the opposite. They would reach out to me and try to help me.

Not that I'd lie like that anyway. The Book of Mormon is evidence. you might not find it credible evidence, but it's still evidence. But then you probably don't really understand what evidence is. Many people don't.

But you anti mormons need to get a consistant message. Do we shun less active/former members or do we not stop bothering them? 

And serious daws, you liked this? when have i ever shunned you? You should know better.


----------



## Uncensored2008

The Truth about Mormons is that they can debate a whole lot better than Comrade JoeB Stalin can....


----------



## TheShinyOne

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to, but frankly, it takes an effort to remain that dedicated to a cult...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, I think it takes more of an effort to fight the truth as you are than to follow it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course you do.
> 
> You're in a cult, and if you started saying something like, "Hey, there's no evidence there ever was a Nephite Civilization", all the other cult members would shun you.
Click to expand...


I don't know how to define Mormons as a cult, seems like to be mistaking them for something like those Heavens Gate people with the comet and UFO. I don't know how far out that is. Most of them seem to be normal people to me.

Anyone can be superstitious, that's easy. If you're absolute blind faith into the existence of Nephite civilization, maybe you see evidence of it everywhere. Not everything is like that, though.  Civilization is, essentially, there's a calendar and religion, and they record the past and anticipate the future. To find artifacts which have shapes and forms in common with things described in the Bible, some see while others don't for what they know.

There's another way of looking at it. I've no idea who these Nephite people are or what all the Mormons are even talking about them. Even so, the idea that ancient civilizations are so cut-off, isolated from each other, that is just as far fetched. It's more reasonable they are known to each other by different names.

I'm skeptical of archeology, seems they invent some imaginary civilizations in order to attribute their findings to them. Maybe they play it safe, avoids potential "Redskins" scandals. Maybe they just want to disregard native histories as nonsense, or disregard religious scriptures as fairy tales. There's always reasons to be skeptical if there is bias involved somewhere.

If the artifact, that it appears to be telling a very specific story from a very specific book, and there automatically counting days and months of the year as sundials would automatically count the hours in a day, that is sophisticated enough to consider for evidence. That maybe not proof one way or the other in and of itself, though.

I'm curious to know what they have to say about that, probably too much all at once.


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> [
> 
> See, you go and make some bullcrap claim like this. No one would shun me. Quite the opposite. They would reach out to me and try to help me.
> 
> Not that I'd lie like that anyway. The Book of Mormon is evidence. you might not find it credible evidence, but it's still evidence. But then you probably don't really understand what evidence is. Many people don't.
> 
> But you anti mormons need to get a consistant message. Do we shun less active/former members or do we not stop bothering them?
> 
> And serious daws, you liked this? when have i ever shunned you? You should know better.



Shunning of ex-Mormons is well documented. 

Even Mitt ROmney's cousin, Park. 

Park Romney, Other Ex-Mormons 'Shunned' by Mitt's Church



> Not that I'd lie like that anyway. The Book of Mormon is evidence. you might not find it credible evidence, but it's still evidence. But then you probably don't really understand what evidence is. Many people don't.



No, guy. Evidence is proof that can be verified. 

For instance, I can read the bible and conclude that there was this thing called "The Roman Empire". 

But I also have ruins, coins, a language that can be documented (Latin), other historical accounts, statues of people who were named in the BIble (Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero) and so on.  

And for the Nephites we have. 

Nothing. 

Not one archeological artifact, not one example of their language that doesn't turn out to be qeustionable.  

(There was a booming business in the 19th century making frauds like the Kinderhook Tablets, mostly based on trying to make the Mormons look foolish.)


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> See, you go and make some bullcrap claim like this. No one would shun me. Quite the opposite. They would reach out to me and try to help me.
> 
> Not that I'd lie like that anyway. The Book of Mormon is evidence. you might not find it credible evidence, but it's still evidence. But then you probably don't really understand what evidence is. Many people don't.
> 
> But you anti mormons need to get a consistant message. Do we shun less active/former members or do we not stop bothering them?
> 
> And serious daws, you liked this? when have i ever shunned you? You should know better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shunning of ex-Mormons is well documented.
> 
> Even Mitt ROmney's cousin, Park.
> 
> Park Romney, Other Ex-Mormons 'Shunned' by Mitt's Church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I'd lie like that anyway. The Book of Mormon is evidence. you might not find it credible evidence, but it's still evidence. But then you probably don't really understand what evidence is. Many people don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy. Evidence is proof that can be verified.
> 
> For instance, I can read the bible and conclude that there was this thing called "The Roman Empire".
> 
> But I also have ruins, coins, a language that can be documented (Latin), other historical accounts, statues of people who were named in the BIble (Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero) and so on.
> 
> And for the Nephites we have.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> Not one archeological artifact, not one example of their language that doesn't turn out to be qeustionable.
> 
> (There was a booming business in the 19th century making frauds like the Kinderhook Tablets, mostly based on trying to make the Mormons look foolish.)
Click to expand...

how indoctrinated to you have to believe the complete fiction contained in the B.O.M. ?


----------



## froggy

The truth is they're just like all the rest. A pack of thieves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Mormons, like any other religious group, can't prove what they preach.

But Mormons, like most religious and spiritual people, are groovy folks.

And their Main Street and Temple Square displays at Christmas are incredible, perhaps the best in the world.

And the Mormon Conference Center Christmas program is second on TV only to Christmas at Belmont.

So Mormon bashing is stupid.


----------



## froggy

oh how easily the human can be fooled. that flash of glamor probably nets them millions.


----------



## Avatar4321

JakeStarkey said:


> Mormons, like any other religious group, can't prove what they preach.
> 
> But Mormons, like most religious and spiritual people, are groovy folks.
> 
> And their Main Street and Temple Square displays at Christmas are incredible, perhaps the best in the world.
> 
> And the Mormon Conference Center Christmas program is second on TV only to Christmas at Belmont.
> 
> So Mormon bashing is stupid.



That's why we invite people to ask the Lord whether what we preach is true or not. Because it's not our job to prove it. We are commanded to preach it. But it's on the hearer to act on it and recieve their own witness one way or another. And in order for that to occur, one has to go to the Lord. Because He is the only one who can convince people one way or another.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> oh how easily the human can be fooled. that flash of glamor probably nets them millions.



What does politics have to do with the topic on hand?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Truthspeaker said:


> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.



If the South Park episode about the orign of Mormonism wasn't sufficient, a few minutes on lds.org will clinch it. Just because you're nice, doesn't mean you're not crazy too. 

Especially worthwhile is their belief of prior existence in Heaven before being born to this world. That was a new one for me. 

As ever, wanna learn about a religion, go to the source, not any non-official site or ex-faith site.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

JakeStarkey said:


> Mormons, like any other religious group, can't prove what they preach.
> 
> But Mormons, like most religious and spiritual people, are groovy folks.
> 
> And their Main Street and Temple Square displays at Christmas are incredible, perhaps the best in the world.
> 
> And the Mormon Conference Center Christmas program is second on TV only to Christmas at Belmont.
> 
> So Mormon bashing is stupid.



Well as you say, no religion can prove what they teach so they open the door to being ridiculed. But I'd say there's justifiable ridicule, and just being nasty. Wanna challenge a religious assertion cite it and offer evidence that refutes it. Don't just say 'what a load of rubbish.' or the like.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Delta4Embassy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, like any other religious group, can't prove what they preach.
> 
> But Mormons, like most religious and spiritual people, are groovy folks.
> 
> And their Main Street and Temple Square displays at Christmas are incredible, perhaps the best in the world.
> 
> And the Mormon Conference Center Christmas program is second on TV only to Christmas at Belmont.
> 
> So Mormon bashing is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well as you say, no religion can prove what they teach *so they open the door to being ridiculed. *But I'd say there's justifiable ridicule, and just being nasty. Wanna challenge a religious assertion cite it and offer evidence that refutes it. Don't just say 'what a load of rubbish.' or the like.
Click to expand...


*All opinions are open to ridicule*.   Consider the racialism and defense of it we see.  No positive evidence for such nonsense, but folks do it.


----------



## Avatar4321

Delta4Embassy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South Park episode about the orign of Mormonism wasn't sufficient, a few minutes on lds.org will clinch it. Just because you're nice, doesn't mean you're not crazy too.
> 
> Especially worthwhile is their belief of prior existence in Heaven before being born to this world. That was a new one for me.
> 
> As ever, wanna learn about a religion, go to the source, not any non-official site or ex-faith site.
Click to expand...


If you're relying on South Park, you definitely aren't getting an accurate picture. Caricatures aren't wise.

The premortal life is found throughout the Bible if you know where to look. It's once of those small and simple things that was lost over time.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, like any other religious group, can't prove what they preach.
> 
> But Mormons, like most religious and spiritual people, are groovy folks.
> 
> And their Main Street and Temple Square displays at Christmas are incredible, perhaps the best in the world.
> 
> And the Mormon Conference Center Christmas program is second on TV only to Christmas at Belmont.
> 
> So Mormon bashing is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we invite people to ask the Lord whether what we preach is true or not. Because it's not our job to prove it. We are commanded to preach it. But it's on the hearer to act on it and recieve their own witness one way or another. And in order for that to occur, one has to go to the Lord. Because He is the only one who can convince people one way or another.
Click to expand...

and since god never answers you can always use the old standby...
nice racket!


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons, like any other religious group, can't prove what they preach.
> 
> But Mormons, like most religious and spiritual people, are groovy folks.
> 
> And their Main Street and Temple Square displays at Christmas are incredible, perhaps the best in the world.
> 
> And the Mormon Conference Center Christmas program is second on TV only to Christmas at Belmont.
> 
> So Mormon bashing is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we invite people to ask the Lord whether what we preach is true or not. Because it's not our job to prove it. We are commanded to preach it. But it's on the hearer to act on it and recieve their own witness one way or another. And in order for that to occur, one has to go to the Lord. Because He is the only one who can convince people one way or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and since god never answers you can always use the old standby...
> nice racket!
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? God answers all the time. Just because you don't listen doesn't mean He doesn't answer.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why we invite people to ask the Lord whether what we preach is true or not. Because it's not our job to prove it. We are commanded to preach it. But it's on the hearer to act on it and recieve their own witness one way or another. And in order for that to occur, one has to go to the Lord. Because He is the only one who can convince people one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> and since god never answers you can always use the old standby...
> nice racket!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? God answers all the time. Just because you don't listen doesn't mean He doesn't answer.
Click to expand...

bullshit!


----------



## TheShinyOne

Delta4Embassy said:


> If the South Park episode about the orign of Mormonism wasn't sufficient, a few minutes on lds.org will clinch it. Just because you're nice, doesn't mean you're not crazy too.
> 
> Especially worthwhile is their belief of prior existence in Heaven before being born to this world. That was a new one for me.
> 
> As ever, wanna learn about a religion, go to the source, not any non-official site or ex-faith site.



_Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?_

That episode of South Park cartoons, that's an official source?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Is when it's right.


----------



## daws101

TheShinyOne said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the South Park episode about the orign of Mormonism wasn't sufficient, a few minutes on lds.org will clinch it. Just because you're nice, doesn't mean you're not crazy too.
> 
> Especially worthwhile is their belief of prior existence in Heaven before being born to this world. That was a new one for me.
> 
> As ever, wanna learn about a religion, go to the source, not any non-official site or ex-faith site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?_
> 
> That episode of South Park cartoons, that's an official source?
Click to expand...

the Mormon south park episode is accurate 

All About Mormons (Season 7, Episode 12) - Full Episode Player - South Park Studios


----------



## TheShinyOne

If one cartoon says to another, yeah, it's accurate, who can dispute that?


----------



## Avatar4321

TheShinyOne said:


> If one cartoon says to another, yeah, it's accurate, who can dispute that?



People who are informed.


----------



## FA_Q2

Delta4Embassy said:


> Truthspeaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have started this post because it still seems there are a lot of people out there that don't understand our religion. One thing I know I can do is clarify a lot misconceptions that people have.
> I served a two year mission in South Africa, and I think I have pretty much heard it all. I actually would welcome some questions that I haven't heard before.
> I know some of you aren't interested in what we really believe, but are only going to be interested in trying to trap me in my words, but that's ok. I welcome those attempts as well. Let's see what this develops into.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the South Park episode about the orign of Mormonism wasn't sufficient, a few minutes on lds.org will clinch it. Just because you're nice, doesn't mean you're not crazy too.
> 
> Especially worthwhile is their belief of prior existence in Heaven before being born to this world. That was a new one for me.
> 
> As ever, wanna learn about a religion, go to the source, not any non-official site or ex-faith site.
Click to expand...


Mormons are no more or less crazy than that of other faiths are to their non believers.  Nothing they beeline in is anymore nutz to me than the catholic infallible pope or the various creation stories.  Face it, religion is personal and to attack any other religion's beliefs when they are not demanding you comply or affecting you is asinine.



Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TheShinyOne

Avatar4321 said:


> TheShinyOne said:
> 
> 
> 
> If one cartoon says to another, yeah, it's accurate, who can dispute that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People who are informed.
Click to expand...


That almost goes without saying.

Seriously?
South Park?

A quasi-pornographic television comedy cartoon has become an "official source" on religion?

Only in America.


----------



## Moonglow

I can tell you the Christians hated ol' Joe, so  much so they killed him for expressing his beliefs. The Mormons still own land in northern Missouri where Joe was killed. The land was bought for Christ to alit when he returns.


----------



## JoeB131

FA_Q2 said:


> [
> 
> Mormons are no more or less crazy than that of other faiths are to their non believers.  Nothing they beeline in is anymore nutz to me than the catholic infallible pope or the various creation stories.  Face it, religion is personal and to attack any other religion's beliefs when they are not demanding you comply or affecting you is asinine.
> 2



There's a major difference. 

Most Catholics really don't believe that the Pope is infallible.  in fact, honestly, I never heard that doctrine discussed in 12 years of Catholic Education.  Most Catholics also accept evolution.  

ON the other hand, Mormons really, really think there were Hebrew Tribes in America, and that their Prophets, from Joseph Smith to Monson, are really talking to God.


----------



## JoeB131

Moonglow said:


> I can tell you the Christians hated ol' Joe, so  much so they killed him for expressing his beliefs. The Mormons still own land in northern Missouri where Joe was killed. The land was bought for Christ to alit when he returns.



Couple minor corrections.  


Joseph Smith was killed in Navou, IL.  

They didn't kill him because he was expressing his beliefs.  They killed him because he had raised his own private army and were terrorizing the region, including shutting down a local newspaper when it exposed the fact he was a polygamist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> the Mormon south park episode is accurate
> 
> All About Mormons (Season 7, Episode 12) - Full Episode Player - South Park Studios



Ah, the "scholarly" foundation of duhs101 and the insane Atheist posse....

You fools would be funny - if it weren't for all your Gulags and killing fields, and shit...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Moonglow said:


> I can tell you the Christians hated ol' Joe, so  much so they killed him for expressing his beliefs. The Mormons still own land in northern Missouri where Joe was killed. The land was bought for Christ to alit when he returns.



Actually, the state militia killed Joseph Smith in a gun fight as he tried to escape from Carthage jail. He and Hyrum murdered 3 soldiers during the escape. Now granted, Joe Smith was going to hang for treason - but then, he WAS guilty of treason, so the penalty was just.


----------



## Uncensored2008

JoeB131 said:


> Couple minor corrections.
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was killed in Navou, IL.
> 
> They didn't kill him because he was expressing his beliefs.  They killed him because he had raised his own private army and were terrorizing the region, including shutting down a local newspaper when it exposed the fact he was a polygamist.



As usual, you are ignorant and offering false claims, Comrade Stalin.

The Smith brothers were killed in Carthage, IL. Navoo was controlled by the Mormons and had fired on both Federal and State troops. Thus, the Smiths were arrested on charges of treason and taken to the county seat of Carthage.

Smith deployed the Navoo legion to attack the "Grey Militia,"  a state militia dispatched by the Governor. Hyrum and Joseph had hand guns and started a break out, not realizing the Navoo legion was not present. No martyrs were these two, they shot and killed three soldiers before they were cut down in the fight. Some say that Smith was caught alive, and stood against a wall for a firing squad, but this is probably just a myth. 

Either way, Joseph Smith was a traitor and died the death of a traitor.


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you the Christians hated ol' Joe, so  much so they killed him for expressing his beliefs. The Mormons still own land in northern Missouri where Joe was killed. The land was bought for Christ to alit when he returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the state militia killed Joseph Smith in a gun fight as he tried to escape from Carthage jail. He and Hyrum murdered 3 soldiers during the escape. Now granted, Joe Smith was going to hang for treason - but then, he WAS guilty of treason, so the penalty was just.
Click to expand...


Not true in the slightest. He hadn't committed treason. it was another trump up charge as the countless preceding ones were.

A mob is not a state militia. Governor Ford promised that they would be safe if they turned themselves in. They did so and their guards were specifically removed so the mob could do what they wanted. A state militia would not have to paint themselves black to conceal their identity.

Hyrum was shot as the mob stormed the prison. He neither had a gun or had time to discharge one if he wanted to.

Joseph fired three rounds blindly down the stairs in order to buy enough time to get out the window and save his friends who were still in the cell with them. Only 3 shots were actually fired. Of which there are rumors that people died, but no one can identify a single person who was actually killed. At least, as of now. And I've asked countless people to please do so. And if you can do it, more power to it. Fact is the shots were fired as a delaying tactic. After Hyrum had been executed by the mob.

And it was an execution, period. No crime had been committed.


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple minor corrections.
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was killed in Navou, IL.
> 
> They didn't kill him because he was expressing his beliefs.  They killed him because he had raised his own private army and were terrorizing the region, including shutting down a local newspaper when it exposed the fact he was a polygamist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are ignorant and offering false claims, Comrade Stalin.
> 
> The Smith brothers were killed in Carthage, IL. Navoo was controlled by the Mormons and had fired on both Federal and State troops. Thus, the Smiths were arrested on charges of treason and taken to the county seat of Carthage.
> 
> Smith deployed the Navoo legion to attack the "Grey Militia,"  a state militia dispatched by the Governor. Hyrum and Joseph had hand guns and started a break out, not realizing the Navoo legion was not present. No martyrs were these two, they shot and killed three soldiers before they were cut down in the fight. Some say that Smith was caught alive, and stood against a wall for a firing squad, but this is probably just a myth.
> 
> Either way, Joseph Smith was a traitor and died the death of a traitor.
Click to expand...


That's what the Jews and Romans said about Christ.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Avatar4321 said:


> That's what the Jews and Romans said about Christ.



Joseph Smith has an advantage over Jesus; he actually existed.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the Jews and Romans said about Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith has an advantage over Jesus; he actually existed.
Click to expand...

he also did exactly what the south park episode showed him doing...


----------



## JoeB131

Uncensored2008 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple minor corrections.
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was killed in Navou, IL.
> 
> They didn't kill him because he was expressing his beliefs.  They killed him because he had raised his own private army and were terrorizing the region, including shutting down a local newspaper when it exposed the fact he was a polygamist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are ignorant and offering false claims, Comrade Stalin.
> 
> The Smith brothers were killed in Carthage, IL. Navoo was controlled by the Mormons and had fired on both Federal and State troops. Thus, the Smiths were arrested on charges of treason and taken to the county seat of Carthage.
> 
> Smith deployed the Navoo legion to attack the "Grey Militia,"  a state militia dispatched by the Governor. Hyrum and Joseph had hand guns and started a break out, not realizing the Navoo legion was not present. No martyrs were these two, they shot and killed three soldiers before they were cut down in the fight. Some say that Smith was caught alive, and stood against a wall for a firing squad, but this is probably just a myth.
> 
> Either way, Joseph Smith was a traitor and died the death of a traitor.
Click to expand...


Not sure why you are whining, we are pretty much in agreement that Smith was an awful person.  

That said, it wasn't a "soldier" who killed the Smiths, it was an angry lynch mob.  Not saying they didn't have it coming, but what was done was a murder.


----------



## daws101

JoeB131 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couple minor corrections.
> 
> 
> Joseph Smith was killed in Navou, IL.
> 
> They didn't kill him because he was expressing his beliefs.  They killed him because he had raised his own private army and were terrorizing the region, including shutting down a local newspaper when it exposed the fact he was a polygamist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you are ignorant and offering false claims, Comrade Stalin.
> 
> The Smith brothers were killed in Carthage, IL. Navoo was controlled by the Mormons and had fired on both Federal and State troops. Thus, the Smiths were arrested on charges of treason and taken to the county seat of Carthage.
> 
> Smith deployed the Navoo legion to attack the "Grey Militia,"  a state militia dispatched by the Governor. Hyrum and Joseph had hand guns and started a break out, not realizing the Navoo legion was not present. No martyrs were these two, they shot and killed three soldiers before they were cut down in the fight. Some say that Smith was caught alive, and stood against a wall for a firing squad, but this is probably just a myth.
> 
> Either way, Joseph Smith was a traitor and died the death of a traitor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure why you are whining, we are pretty much in agreement that Smith was an awful person.
> 
> That said, it wasn't a "soldier" who killed the Smiths, it was an angry lynch mob.  Not saying they didn't have it coming, but what was done was a murder.
Click to expand...

Death of Joseph Smith




Death of Joseph Smith

pt.wikipedia.org

The death of Joseph Smith, Jr. on June 27, 1844, marked a turning point for the Latter Day Saint movement, of which Smith was the founder and leader. When he was attacked and killed by a mob, Smith was the mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, and running for President of the United States. He was killed while jailed in Carthage, Illinois, on charges relating to his ordering the destruction of facilities producing the Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper whose first and only edition claimed Smith was practicing polygamy and that he intended to set himself up as a theocratic king. Smith voluntarily surrendered to the authorities at the county seat at Carthage to face the charges that he was accused of. While he was in jail awaiting trial an armed mob of men with painted faces stormed the jail and shot him and his brother Hyrum to death. The Latter Day Saints view Joseph and Hyrum as martyrs.


----------



## froggy

Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.


----------



## daws101

froggy said:


> Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.



Which is the richest church in the world?




The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or better known as the Mormon Church is the richest. Hands down it has the most liquidity and cash on hand to spend at any time


----------



## froggy

Mormons Do Not Believe God Created the Universe


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.



Really? If that's the case, when am I going to be paid for all my church service?


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the richest church in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or better known as the Mormon Church is the richest. Hands down it has the most liquidity and cash on hand to spend at any time
Click to expand...


I think the Catholics may have more. They have had a 1500 year head start.


----------



## Bumberclyde

So where are the ancient submarines? I'd like to have a look at those.


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> So where are the ancient submarines? I'd like to have a look at those.



Considering no one has made a claim about ancient submarines, you might be looking for a while.

This is one of the many reasons I think people should read the Book of Mormon instead of relying on what people who lie about the Book of Mormon say.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are the ancient submarines? I'd like to have a look at those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering no one has made a claim about ancient submarines, you might be looking for a while.
> 
> This is one of the many reasons I think people should read the Book of Mormon instead of relying on what people who lie about the Book of Mormon say.
Click to expand...


To carry the Jaredites across the ocean, "barges" resembling ancient submarines were constructed under the continual direction of the Lord (2:6,16). Verse 17 describes their appearance:

"And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."

Immediately the brother of Jared noticed vision, steering, and ventilation problems with God's design. He complained:

"O Lord, in them there is no light; whether shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish" (2:19).

To solve the problem of ventilation, God suggests making a "hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood."


----------



## Uncensored2008

froggy said:


> Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.



Maybe that's why I like them?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the richest church in the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or better known as the Mormon Church is the richest. Hands down it has the most liquidity and cash on hand to spend at any time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the Catholics may have more. They have had a 1500 year head start.
Click to expand...

in propriety yes but as stated before : Hands down it has the most liquidity and cash on hand


----------



## daws101

Bumberclyde said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are the ancient submarines? I'd like to have a look at those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering no one has made a claim about ancient submarines, you might be looking for a while.
> 
> This is one of the many reasons I think people should read the Book of Mormon instead of relying on what people who lie about the Book of Mormon say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To carry the Jaredites across the ocean, "barges" resembling ancient submarines were constructed under the continual direction of the Lord (2:6,16). Verse 17 describes their appearance:
> 
> "And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."
> 
> Immediately the brother of Jared noticed vision, steering, and ventilation problems with God's design. He complained:
> 
> "O Lord, in them there is no light; whether shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish" (2:19).
> 
> To solve the problem of ventilation, God suggests making a "hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood."
Click to expand...

 in fiction anything is possible...


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? If that's the case, when am I going to be paid for all my church service?
Click to expand...

you won't  that's how the church stays rich...great scam!


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> in propriety yes but as stated before : Hands down it has the most liquidity and cash on hand



Given the rash of sex scandals, (which oddly, the Mormons don't have,) don't you suppose that the Catholics might be less than forthcoming about their assets?


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in propriety yes but as stated before : Hands down it has the most liquidity and cash on hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the rash of sex scandals, (which oddly, the Mormons don't have,) don't you suppose that the Catholics might be less than forthcoming about their assets?
Click to expand...

wrong! the Mormons have sex scandals too ..
they're just better at covering them up....

http://www.realclearreligion.org/2012/03/21/125-year-old_mormon_sex_scandal_246848.html


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> wrong! the Mormons have sex scandals too ..
> they're just better at covering them up....
> 
> RealClearReligion - 125-Year-Old Mormon Sex Scandal



Damn, a hate site that lists "scandals" from 125 years ago....

You drooling Atheists are so convincing....


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! the Mormons have sex scandals too ..
> they're just better at covering them up....
> 
> RealClearReligion - 125-Year-Old Mormon Sex Scandal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, a hate site that lists "scandals" from 125 years ago....
> 
> You drooling Atheists are so convincing....
Click to expand...

I never drool that alone is proof you make shit up!
also I posted that particular because it highlights how much better Mormons are at keep their nasty shit secret..
125 years  1000 years.... a scandal is still a scandal...

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/09/23/the-growing-mormon-sex-abuse-scandal/


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where are the ancient submarines? I'd like to have a look at those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering no one has made a claim about ancient submarines, you might be looking for a while.
> 
> This is one of the many reasons I think people should read the Book of Mormon instead of relying on what people who lie about the Book of Mormon say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To carry the Jaredites across the ocean, "barges" resembling ancient submarines were constructed under the continual direction of the Lord (2:6,16). Verse 17 describes their appearance:
> 
> "And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."
> 
> Immediately the brother of Jared noticed vision, steering, and ventilation problems with God's design. He complained:
> 
> "O Lord, in them there is no light; whether shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish" (2:19).
> 
> To solve the problem of ventilation, God suggests making a "hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood."
Click to expand...


So because you claim the are submarines, the text which says nothing of the sort nor implies anything of the sort does so too?


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mormons serve the almighty dollar more than God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? If that's the case, when am I going to be paid for all my church service?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you won't  that's how the church stays rich...great scam!
Click to expand...


So we either serve the Almight dollar or we do service without compensation which is it?


----------



## Avatar4321

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> in propriety yes but as stated before : Hands down it has the most liquidity and cash on hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the rash of sex scandals, (which oddly, the Mormons don't have,) don't you suppose that the Catholics might be less than forthcoming about their assets?
Click to expand...


Last time I checked neither Church had their assets public.

His assertions could be true. But they are guesses.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? If that's the case, when am I going to be paid for all my church service?
> 
> 
> 
> you won't  that's how the church stays rich...great scam!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we either serve the Almight dollar or we do service without compensation which is it?
Click to expand...

like everything in real life, it's both and neither at the same time


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong! the Mormons have sex scandals too ..
> they're just better at covering them up....
> 
> RealClearReligion - 125-Year-Old Mormon Sex Scandal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, a hate site that lists "scandals" from 125 years ago....
> 
> You drooling Atheists are so convincing....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never drool that alone is proof you make shit up!
> also I posted that particular because it highlights how much better Mormons are at keep their nasty shit secret..
> 125 years  1000 years.... a scandal is still a scandal...
> 
> The Growing Mormon Sex Abuse Scandal | Mormon Matters
Click to expand...


I've heard about it. He was excommunicated for his actions. Pretty much the extent of what can happen.

From your post I have to draw two conclusions:

1) Your need to go back 125 years to find a scandal, speaks positively for the Church. 

2) The fact that this information is public knowledge and that you know about is evidence that we aren't really hiding anything.


----------



## MDiver

The silliest thing I hear about Mormons is that they have to wear special underwear to get into heaven.
As there was no such thing as underwear in Jesus' time.  I doubt that's a criteria.


----------



## Avatar4321

daws101 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you won't  that's how the church stays rich...great scam!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we either serve the Almight dollar or we do service without compensation which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> like everything in real life, it's both and neither at the same time
Click to expand...


In other words, it's whatever is convenient to attack us with.


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, a hate site that lists "scandals" from 125 years ago....
> 
> You drooling Atheists are so convincing....
> 
> 
> 
> I never drool that alone is proof you make shit up!
> also I posted that particular because it highlights how much better Mormons are at keep their nasty shit secret..
> 125 years  1000 years.... a scandal is still a scandal...
> 
> The Growing Mormon Sex Abuse Scandal | Mormon Matters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've heard about it. He was excommunicated for his actions. Pretty much the extent of what can happen.
> 
> From your post I have to draw two conclusions:
> 
> 1) Your need to go back 125 years to find a scandal, speaks positively for the Church.
> 
> 2) The fact that this information is public knowledge and that you know about is evidence that we aren't really hiding anything.
Click to expand...

and you'd be wrong read the second link.
I used the old scandal to show how much better the mormons are at keeping their dirty little secrets then the papacy.. 
cherry pick much?


----------



## daws101

Avatar4321 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we either serve the Almight dollar or we do service without compensation which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> like everything in real life, it's both and neither at the same time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, it's whatever is convenient to attack us with.
Click to expand...

false!
 stop playing the martyr.


----------



## daws101

MDiver said:


> The silliest thing I hear about Mormons is that they have to wear special underwear to get into heaven.
> As there was no such thing as underwear in Jesus' time.  I doubt that's a criteria.


the truth is stranger then fiction...


----------



## Bumberclyde

daws101 said:


> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silliest thing I hear about Mormons is that they have to wear special underwear to get into heaven.
> As there was no such thing as underwear in Jesus' time.  I doubt that's a criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> the truth is stranger then fiction...
Click to expand...


Wasn't Jesus wearing a diaper on the cross?


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Considering no one has made a claim about ancient submarines, you might be looking for a while.
> 
> This is one of the many reasons I think people should read the Book of Mormon instead of relying on what people who lie about the Book of Mormon say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To carry the Jaredites across the ocean, "barges" resembling ancient submarines were constructed under the continual direction of the Lord (2:6,16). Verse 17 describes their appearance:
> 
> "And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."
> 
> Immediately the brother of Jared noticed vision, steering, and ventilation problems with God's design. He complained:
> 
> "O Lord, in them there is no light; whether shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish" (2:19).
> 
> To solve the problem of ventilation, God suggests making a "hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because you claim the are submarines, the text which says nothing of the sort nor implies anything of the sort does so too?
Click to expand...


Are you hard of deducing? 

Anyways, so where are these craft? I want to take a look.


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> To carry the Jaredites across the ocean, "barges" resembling ancient submarines were constructed under the continual direction of the Lord (2:6,16). Verse 17 describes their appearance:
> 
> "And they were built after a manner that they were exceedingly tight, even that they would hold water like unto a dish; and the bottom thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the ends thereof were peaked; and the top thereof was tight like unto a dish; and the length thereof was the length of a tree; and the door thereof, when it was shut, was tight like unto a dish."
> 
> Immediately the brother of Jared noticed vision, steering, and ventilation problems with God's design. He complained:
> 
> "O Lord, in them there is no light; whether shall we steer? And also we shall perish, for in them we cannot breathe, save it is the air which is in them; therefore we shall perish" (2:19).
> 
> To solve the problem of ventilation, God suggests making a "hole in the top, and also in the bottom; and when thou shalt suffer for air thou shalt unstop the hole and receive air. And if it be so that water come in upon thee, behold, ye shall stop the hole, that ye may not perish in the flood."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So because you claim the are submarines, the text which says nothing of the sort nor implies anything of the sort does so too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you hard of deducing?
> 
> Anyways, so where are these craft? I want to take a look.
Click to expand...


You're familiar with the process of rot and decay or do you think that everything that existed thousands of years ago has been preserved perfectly.

And no. Not hard of deducing. I just feel no need to read something that doesn't exist into texts and pretending that I should ignore the text based on what I put in there instead of what is actually said.


----------



## Chuckt

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So because you claim the are submarines, the text which says nothing of the sort nor implies anything of the sort does so too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you hard of deducing?
> 
> Anyways, so where are these craft? I want to take a look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're familiar with the process of rot and decay or do you think that everything that existed thousands of years ago has been preserved perfectly.
> 
> And no. Not hard of deducing. I just feel no need to read something that doesn't exist into texts and pretending that I should ignore the text based on what I put in there instead of what is actually said.
Click to expand...

 
 But we would have had something...

Israel unearthed a boat in the Sea of Galilee like the one Jesus might have been on but no submarine.



> 5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.


 Smithsonian Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon


----------



## Bumberclyde

Ok, no subs. How about the golden plates, where can I find those?


----------



## FA_Q2

Bumberclyde said:


> Ok, no subs. How about the golden plates, where can I find those?



Asking for physical evidence of religious tenants is asinine.  Religion is a personal belief system that has to be proven to each individual spiritually not scientifically.  At that time you can start to see the "evidence" as you now believe and see things in that light.  I never understood the pursuit of "proof" for religion by the non religious, nothing they can provide will suffice and you know that.  What is the point then?



Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Uncensored2008

I've known a lot of Mormons in my time. 

Mormons work, have a solid work ethic and a belief in self-sufficiency.

Mormons have a solid family structure and good values in regard to family.

Mormons are generally kind, generally ethical.

SO - I really don't give a damn that they started out as a wacky cult a 150 years ago.

Mormons today are decent people, which is good enough for me.


----------



## Avatar4321

Chuckt said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you hard of deducing?
> 
> Anyways, so where are these craft? I want to take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're familiar with the process of rot and decay or do you think that everything that existed thousands of years ago has been preserved perfectly.
> 
> And no. Not hard of deducing. I just feel no need to read something that doesn't exist into texts and pretending that I should ignore the text based on what I put in there instead of what is actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we would have had something...
> 
> Israel unearthed a boat in the Sea of Galilee like the one Jesus might have been on but no submarine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smithsonian Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon
Click to expand...


It would be nice if we had some physical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. But that's not what the Lord has established. Instead, He has called witnesses for the resurrection and for the Book of Mormon. And through those witnesses the Holy Spirit testifies to the reality that Jesus is the Christ and the Book of Mormon is true.

As you've demonstrated with your example, they have found a boat. They didn't find many. Why? Because wood decomposes and rots over time. When such remains are found it's a remarkable and unique find. But simply because we only find one, doesn't mean the ships were somehow infrequent until modern times.

As for the Smithsonian statement, it's a little out of date. And I would hardly expect them to use a religious texts for anything they are doing. Are you really sure you want to continue persuing your line of arguing when the same arguments can be used against the reality of the Resurrection?


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> Ok, no subs. How about the golden plates, where can I find those?



Ask the Lord. He may show you by His grace the same way He showed the other witnesses. However, those that have seen were those who humbly sought the Lord.

Far more important than seeing the plates is learning whether the Book of Mormon is true. The Lord will reveal to all humble read it and sincerely seek to know by the power of the Holy Spirit. And He does because that's how I learned it was true. 

If we want the blessings the Lord has to provide, we must seek them out the way He has ordained.


----------



## Avatar4321

FA_Q2 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, no subs. How about the golden plates, where can I find those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asking for physical evidence of religious tenants is asinine.  Religion is a personal belief system that has to be proven to each individual spiritually not scientifically.  At that time you can start to see the "evidence" as you now believe and see things in that light.  I never understood the pursuit of "proof" for religion by the non religious, nothing they can provide will suffice and you know that.  What is the point then?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my ADR8995 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


What I haven't understood is why expect others to prove it to you and rely on them when the Lord has told all men that they can go directly to Him to find out the truth. If you want to know the things of God and the Spirit, you learn them from God.

I am a man, I could lie. I could be mistaken. Trusting in my testimony on my testimony alone will not convince someone that God is real. However, seeking out the truth for yourself. Asking the Lord as He instructs and having a personal experience with Him will be much more powerful than any physical evidence we can see. Which is precisely why even those who see angels but fail to have the spiritual experience can fall away and not be converted.

God has ordained a way for us to know the truth. By the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. And the primary witness is the Holy Spirit.


----------



## daws101

Bumberclyde said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MDiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> The silliest thing I hear about Mormons is that they have to wear special underwear to get into heaven.
> As there was no such thing as underwear in Jesus' time.  I doubt that's a criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> the truth is stranger then fiction...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Jesus wearing a diaper on the cross?
Click to expand...

I've always wonder that myself?
my guess it's likethe added on cloths in the Sistine chapel jesus's junk hanging out is too much for the sexually immature christian.
or since he was not quite human did he have genitalia at all...?


----------



## SalaamAkir

Well, poll options not mutually exclusive. Many Mormons can be friendly, but also crazy.


----------



## daws101

SalaamAkir said:


> Well, poll options not mutually exclusive. Many Mormons can be friendly, but also crazy.


just because they're nuts doesn't make them serial killers..


----------



## froggy

Smith sent the tribe out west promising to bring winter supplies but failed to do so because he spent all the money


----------



## Chuckt

Uncensored2008 said:


> I've known a lot of Mormons in my time.
> 
> Mormons work, have a solid work ethic and a belief in self-sufficiency.
> 
> Mormons have a solid family structure and good values in regard to family.
> 
> Mormons are generally kind, generally ethical.
> 
> SO - I really don't give a damn that they started out as a wacky cult a 150 years ago.
> 
> Mormons today are decent people, which is good enough for me.



A lot of that is probably true.
I have empathy for Mormons.
Without the true gospel, they will go to hell.
That is why I bother with them.
That is why I tell them the truth.
It is their choice.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Smith sent the tribe out west promising to bring winter supplies but failed to do so because he spent all the money



Does anyone know what froggy is talking about here?


----------



## Avatar4321

Chuckt said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've known a lot of Mormons in my time.
> 
> Mormons work, have a solid work ethic and a belief in self-sufficiency.
> 
> Mormons have a solid family structure and good values in regard to family.
> 
> Mormons are generally kind, generally ethical.
> 
> SO - I really don't give a damn that they started out as a wacky cult a 150 years ago.
> 
> Mormons today are decent people, which is good enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of that is probably true.
> I have empathy for Mormons.
> Without the true gospel, they will go to hell.
> That is why I bother with them.
> That is why I tell them the truth.
> It is their choice.
Click to expand...


The true Gospel? The Gospel we believe is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, atoned and died for the sins of the world and rose on the Third day ascending to heaven. That because of Him we can overcome death and sin.

What Gospel should we be following?


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've known a lot of Mormons in my time.
> 
> Mormons work, have a solid work ethic and a belief in self-sufficiency.
> 
> Mormons have a solid family structure and good values in regard to family.
> 
> Mormons are generally kind, generally ethical.
> 
> SO - I really don't give a damn that they started out as a wacky cult a 150 years ago.
> 
> Mormons today are decent people, which is good enough for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of that is probably true.
> I have empathy for Mormons.
> Without the true gospel, they will go to hell.
> That is why I bother with them.
> That is why I tell them the truth.
> It is their choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The true Gospel? The Gospel we believe is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, atoned and died for the sins of the world and rose on the Third day ascending to heaven. That because of Him we can overcome death and sin.
> 
> What Gospel should we be following?
Click to expand...


Well, I'd suggest you not follow Bronze Age Fairy Tales.  

But I think he refers to the Gospel Where Jesus comes to America and rides an Elephant... you k now, the bad Bible Fan-Fic that Joseph Smith wrote when he wasn't deflowering teenage girls.  

The Difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? 

Original and Extra-Crispy.


----------



## froggy

Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, no subs. How about the golden plates, where can I find those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ask the Lord. He may show you by His grace the same way He showed the other witnesses. However, those that have seen were those who humbly sought the Lord.
> 
> Far more important than seeing the plates is learning whether the Book of Mormon is true. The Lord will reveal to all humble read it and sincerely seek to know by the power of the Holy Spirit. And He does because that's how I learned it was true.
> 
> If we want the blessings the Lord has to provide, we must seek them out the way He has ordained.
Click to expand...


So what happened to the Nephites and the Lamanites? Did they become indians? Die out? And the Jaredites? Any archeological evidence?


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuckt said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of that is probably true.
> I have empathy for Mormons.
> Without the true gospel, they will go to hell.
> That is why I bother with them.
> That is why I tell them the truth.
> It is their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The true Gospel? The Gospel we believe is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, atoned and died for the sins of the world and rose on the Third day ascending to heaven. That because of Him we can overcome death and sin.
> 
> What Gospel should we be following?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'd suggest you not follow Bronze Age Fairy Tales.
> 
> But I think he refers to the Gospel Where Jesus comes to America and rides an Elephant... you k now, the bad Bible Fan-Fic that Joseph Smith wrote when he wasn't deflowering teenage girls.
> 
> The Difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
Click to expand...


No bronze age fairy tale.

Also, you might want read the Book of Mormon sometime.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Gospel? The Gospel we believe is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, atoned and died for the sins of the world and rose on the Third day ascending to heaven. That because of Him we can overcome death and sin.
> 
> What Gospel should we be following?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd suggest you not follow Bronze Age Fairy Tales.
> 
> But I think he refers to the Gospel Where Jesus comes to America and rides an Elephant... you k now, the bad Bible Fan-Fic that Joseph Smith wrote when he wasn't deflowering teenage girls.
> 
> The Difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No bronze age fairy tale.
> 
> Also, you might want read the Book of Mormon sometime.
Click to expand...


But that Book of Mormon is a fairy tale book.


----------



## daws101

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd suggest you not follow Bronze Age Fairy Tales.
> 
> But I think he refers to the Gospel Where Jesus comes to America and rides an Elephant... you k now, the bad Bible Fan-Fic that Joseph Smith wrote when he wasn't deflowering teenage girls.
> 
> The Difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bronze age fairy tale.
> 
> Also, you might want read the Book of Mormon sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But that Book of Mormon is a fairy tale book.
Click to expand...

a nineteenth century fairy tale..that's an important distinction..


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true Gospel? The Gospel we believe is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, atoned and died for the sins of the world and rose on the Third day ascending to heaven. That because of Him we can overcome death and sin.
> 
> What Gospel should we be following?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd suggest you not follow Bronze Age Fairy Tales.
> 
> But I think he refers to the Gospel Where Jesus comes to America and rides an Elephant... you k now, the bad Bible Fan-Fic that Joseph Smith wrote when he wasn't deflowering teenage girls.
> 
> The Difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No bronze age fairy tale.
> 
> Also, you might want read the Book of Mormon sometime.
Click to expand...


I started to read up on it, but they talked about Nephites, Lamanites and the Jaredites. What happened to them? They weren't on Noah's boat, so they all died in the flood?


----------



## JoeB131

Bumberclyde said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd suggest you not follow Bronze Age Fairy Tales.
> 
> But I think he refers to the Gospel Where Jesus comes to America and rides an Elephant... you k now, the bad Bible Fan-Fic that Joseph Smith wrote when he wasn't deflowering teenage girls.
> 
> The Difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bronze age fairy tale.
> 
> Also, you might want read the Book of Mormon sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started to read up on it, but they talked about Nephites, Lamanites and the Jaredites. What happened to them? They weren't on Noah's boat, so they all died in the flood?
Click to expand...


To spare you the horror of reading the BOM, these guys all travelled to America AFTER Noah's flood. The Jaredites slightly after, and the Nephites/Lamanites about the time of the fall of the Kingdom of Judah.


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd suggest you not follow Bronze Age Fairy Tales.
> 
> But I think he refers to the Gospel Where Jesus comes to America and rides an Elephant... you k now, the bad Bible Fan-Fic that Joseph Smith wrote when he wasn't deflowering teenage girls.
> 
> The Difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh?
> 
> Original and Extra-Crispy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No bronze age fairy tale.
> 
> Also, you might want read the Book of Mormon sometime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started to read up on it, but they talked about Nephites, Lamanites and the Jaredites. What happened to them? They weren't on Noah's boat, so they all died in the flood?
Click to expand...


Read the book and find out


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you the Christians hated ol' Joe, so  much so they killed him for expressing his beliefs. The Mormons still own land in northern Missouri where Joe was killed. The land was bought for Christ to alit when he returns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the state militia killed Joseph Smith in a gun fight as he tried to escape from Carthage jail. He and Hyrum murdered 3 soldiers during the escape. Now granted, Joe Smith was going to hang for treason - but then, he WAS guilty of treason, so the penalty was just.
Click to expand...


Horse shit, straight up.  The Carthage Greys, assigned to guard the jail, dressed up as Indians (anytime whites who dressed up as Indians, and that includes the Mormons at Mountain Meadows or the patriots at Boston, you know something illegal is going to happen, and it may be murderous), and the militiamen assaulted the jail.

Smith had been smuggled in a pepperbox revolver.  By the time it was over, Smith had killed two and wounded one of the Grays at the cell door on the second floor (no break out, Uncensored), his brother, Hyrum was dead, John Taylor had been shot to doll's rags but would survive, and Joseph had been shot out of the second floor window while verbally and visually making Masonic signals of distress and succor.

His dying body was dragged and propped up against the stone side of the jail, and an impromptu firing squad executed him.

Some of you need to understand that you have a duty to get a story straight and not spread propaganda.


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No bronze age fairy tale.
> 
> Also, you might want read the Book of Mormon sometime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started to read up on it, but they talked about Nephites, Lamanites and the Jaredites. What happened to them? They weren't on Noah's boat, so they all died in the flood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read the book and find out
Click to expand...

So you don't know?


----------



## froggy

Story of Jaredites copy of Sodom & Gomorrah


----------



## JoeB131

So in addition to being a pedophile and a con artist, Joseph Smith was also a plagarist?


----------



## froggy

Sound like Noahs story? those copiers of the bible

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISfswBHwfB4&feature=share&list=PLdFSu4hW4Cddl0u2p86PXGUO0zq-ZdQ1u&index=3]Chapter 51: The Jaredites Travel to the Promised Land - YouTube[/ame]

And to be able to build a air tight ship.


----------



## froggy

JoeB131 said:


> So in addition to being a pedophile and a con artist, Joseph Smith was also a plagarist?



You got it. crook from head to toe.


----------



## froggy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dAmz-Qt_TA&list=PLE0E6EBADBA783DFF&feature=share]Romney, Beck, etc, who are the Mormons? What do they believe? Are they Christians? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## froggy

[ame=http://youtu.be/SD0ZqVJTMCI]HIDDEN VIDEO Mitt Romney & his God - YouTube[/ame]

WOW! they really believe that?


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started to read up on it, but they talked about Nephites, Lamanites and the Jaredites. What happened to them? They weren't on Noah's boat, so they all died in the flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the book and find out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you don't know?
Click to expand...


I know. The point is for you to know. And it's much better for you to get first hand knowledge than second hand knowledge. Even if it's accurate.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Story of Jaredites copy of Sodom & Gomorrah
> 
> 
> Chapter 52: The Destruction of the Jaredites - YouTube



There is nothing similiar whatoever between the Jaredites destruction and Sodom & Gomorrah.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> So in addition to being a pedophile and a con artist, Joseph Smith was also a plagarist?



You cant plagarize what you claim was written by others.

And for someone with such a self proclaimed knowledge of Mormons, you seem to be asking alot of ignorant questions.


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in addition to being a pedophile and a con artist, Joseph Smith was also a plagarist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You got it. crook from head to toe.
Click to expand...


Then why do you need to lie about it?


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in addition to being a pedophile and a con artist, Joseph Smith was also a plagarist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant plagarize what you claim was written by others.
> 
> And for someone with such a self proclaimed knowledge of Mormons, you seem to be asking alot of ignorant questions.
Click to expand...


Actually, it was a rhertorical question.  Joseph Smith's Plagarism is an established fact. 

Mormonism Disproved - Plagiarism


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the book and find out
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. The point is for you to know. And it's much better for you to get first hand knowledge than second hand knowledge. Even if it's accurate.
Click to expand...


Ok, so the Ns and the Ls fought in the Americas over and over. So my question would be: is there any archeological evidence of the battles or the people? If not, how can I be expected to believe this?


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Story of Jaredites copy of Sodom & Gomorrah
> 
> 
> Chapter 52: The Destruction of the Jaredites - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing similiar whatoever between the Jaredites destruction and Sodom & Gomorrah.
Click to expand...


people turned wicked. prophet sent to tell them to repent. all jaredites destroyed except ether.  All S&Gians destroyed except lot. no similarity at all.


----------



## Avatar4321

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in addition to being a pedophile and a con artist, Joseph Smith was also a plagarist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant plagarize what you claim was written by others.
> 
> And for someone with such a self proclaimed knowledge of Mormons, you seem to be asking alot of ignorant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a rhertorical question.  Joseph Smith's Plagarism is an established fact.
> 
> Mormonism Disproved - Plagiarism
Click to expand...


If by established fact, you mean there is absolutely zero evidence of plagarism. Then yes it's an established fact.

In order to be plagarized, you have to:

1) Take credit for someone else's work
2) Without citing that work

You're biggest hurdle in your charge is that Joseph Smith never claimed to write the Book of Mormon. He claimed that Mormon and Moroni wrote most of it.

There have been countless attempts by people to show a comtemporary of Joseph Smith wrote it instead. Problem is when you actually look at the works that the Book of Mormon was supposedly "stolen" from they are _nothing_ alike.

And you can't say he plagarized from the Bible because the Bible chapters found in the Book of Mormon are correctly cited to their author, Mostly Isaiah.

But of course you'll just ignore this and claim he plagarized it. Just like you continue to make the false claim of pedophilia against him. Because you don't really care about the truth.

Tell me, if it's established fact that Joseph Smith plagarized the Book of Mormon, why is it that almost 200 years later, critics of the Book of Mormon are still trying to find a credible explanation for where it comes from?


----------



## Avatar4321

Bumberclyde said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. The point is for you to know. And it's much better for you to get first hand knowledge than second hand knowledge. Even if it's accurate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so the Ns and the Ls fought in the Americas over and over. So my question would be: is there any archeological evidence of the battles or the people? If not, how can I be expected to believe this?
Click to expand...


by reading the Book of Mormon and finding out from God whether it's true.

There is no archaelogical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. That doesn't make it false. There is no archaelogical evidence for alot of things we know. 

The fact that you are making the call for archaelogical evidence tells me you don't understand the difficulty of finding evidence, even for history that is established or what archaelogy actually tells us. We could have tons of archaelogical evidence that would be simply impossible to identify as Nephite or Lamanite.

But if you want some Archaelogical evidence. look up Nahom/Bountiful trip through Arabia. Some pretty good evidence right now. Evidence which demands an answer to a question: How did an uneducated farmboy on the edge of the American frontier describe a path from Jerusalem to the East coast of Arabia that exists with the correct names of locations which was hidden from the world until nearly 150 years after he described it perfectly?


----------



## Avatar4321

froggy said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Story of Jaredites copy of Sodom & Gomorrah
> 
> 
> Chapter 52: The Destruction of the Jaredites - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing similiar whatoever between the Jaredites destruction and Sodom & Gomorrah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people turned wicked. prophet sent to tell them to repent. all jaredites destroyed except ether.  All S&Gians destroyed except lot. no similarity at all.
Click to expand...


What prophet was sent to tell S&G to repent? How is the Jaredites destroying each other anywhere close to the same as Fire from heaven destroying S&G?

The fact that they both happened and both resulted in people being destroyed doesn't mean they are copies of one another. Joshua's conquest of Canaan would be more of a parallel and even that seems like a stretch.

Also, more Jaredites survived than just Ether. I highly recommend reading the Book of Mormon for yourself and finding out.


----------



## froggy

Avatar4321 said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing similiar whatoever between the Jaredites destruction and Sodom & Gomorrah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people turned wicked. prophet sent to tell them to repent. all jaredites destroyed except ether.  All S&Gians destroyed except lot. no similarity at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What prophet was sent to tell S&G to repent? How is the Jaredites destroying each other anywhere close to the same as Fire from heaven destroying S&G?
> 
> The fact that they both happened and both resulted in people being destroyed doesn't mean they are copies of one another. Joshua's conquest of Canaan would be more of a parallel and even that seems like a stretch.
> 
> Also, more Jaredites survived than just Ether. I highly recommend reading the Book of Mormon for yourself and finding out.
Click to expand...


Lot


----------



## Bumberclyde

Avatar4321 said:


> Bumberclyde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. The point is for you to know. And it's much better for you to get first hand knowledge than second hand knowledge. Even if it's accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so the Ns and the Ls fought in the Americas over and over. So my question would be: is there any archeological evidence of the battles or the people? If not, how can I be expected to believe this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> by reading the Book of Mormon and finding out from God whether it's true.
> 
> There is no archaelogical evidence for the resurrection of Christ. That doesn't make it false. There is no archaelogical evidence for alot of things we know.
> 
> The fact that you are making the call for archaelogical evidence tells me you don't understand the difficulty of finding evidence, even for history that is established or what archaelogy actually tells us. We could have tons of archaelogical evidence that would be simply impossible to identify as Nephite or Lamanite.
> 
> But if you want some Archaelogical evidence. look up Nahom/Bountiful trip through Arabia. Some pretty good evidence right now. Evidence which demands an answer to a question: How did an uneducated farmboy on the edge of the American frontier describe a path from Jerusalem to the East coast of Arabia that exists with the correct names of locations which was hidden from the world until nearly 150 years after he described it perfectly?
Click to expand...

So there's zero proof whatsoever of them? That means you have nothing, just fiction, not fact.


----------



## daws101

hey guys let me let you in on a little secret avatar is practicing what in the Mormon  church is called priest speak it it's mostly used  BY the FLDS (FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS)
it's was designed to keep you off balance and make it easier for avatar to dodge questions 
remember his sources are all mormon sources making them bias....and false...


----------



## JoeB131

Avatar4321 said:


> [
> 
> If by established fact, you mean there is absolutely zero evidence of plagarism. Then yes it's an established fact.
> 
> In order to be plagarized, you have to:
> 
> 1) Take credit for someone else's work
> 2) Without citing that work
> 
> You're biggest hurdle in your charge is that Joseph Smith never claimed to write the Book of Mormon. He claimed that Mormon and Moroni wrote most of it.
> 
> There have been countless attempts by people to show a comtemporary of Joseph Smith wrote it instead. Problem is when you actually look at the works that the Book of Mormon was supposedly "stolen" from they are _nothing_ alike.
> 
> And you can't say he plagarized from the Bible because the Bible chapters found in the Book of Mormon are correctly cited to their author, Mostly Isaiah.
> 
> But of course you'll just ignore this and claim he plagarized it. Just like you continue to make the false claim of pedophilia against him. Because you don't really care about the truth.
> 
> Tell me, if it's established fact that Joseph Smith plagarized the Book of Mormon, why is it that almost 200 years later, critics of the Book of Mormon are still trying to find a credible explanation for where it comes from?



Guy outside of your cult,  NO ONE really believes anyone but Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon.  

As for Isaiah, the problem with that claim is that Isaiah wrote AFTER the Kingdom of Judah fell, so there is no way the Nephites could have known what he said one way or the other.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*If Joseph Smith had the Internet..... *

Helen Mar Kimball sits on her bed, computer in her lap.
sweetiepie14 (online)

Suddenly a pop-up message appears on her computer screen: nastyboyJS wants to chat ~ ACCEPT/DENY ~ She accepts.

nastyboyJS: hi. got your address from heber.
sweetiepie14: my dad?? who is this?
nastyboyJS: brother joseph
sweetiepie14: oh! hi!!! wow! 
nastyboy14: how RU?
sweetiepie14: ur a nastyboy???
nastyboyJS: j/k - a joke i made up LOL
sweetiepie14: lol
nastyboyJS: R u alone?
sweetiepie14: yes. why?
nastyboyJS: ur sweet
sweetiepie14: LOL
nastyboyJS: and pretty
sweetiepie14:  lol
nastyboyJS: when ur dad talks 2 u tonite, listen 2 him
sweetiepie14: what RU talking about?
nastyboyJS: just remember i talk with god, K?
sweetiepie14: k
nastyboyJS: & god tells me what to say
sweetiepie14: k
nastyboyJS: ur perfect
sweetiepie14: ROFL - no
nastyboyJS: i saw you last week in your white dress
sweetiepie14: oh 
nastyboyJS: you looked so pure and innocent
sweetiepie14: thx i think ur cute! 
nastyboyJS: thats good. real good.
sweetiepie14: gotta help mom - ttyl
nastyboyJS: listen 2 ur dad - a commandment by God
sweetiepie14: k cya

Joseph Smith sits at his computer in a hidden location (for his safety).
fanny4U has signed in

nastyboyjs continues for another dozen pages at Thoughts by Sister Mary Lisa: If Joseph Smith had the Internet.....


----------



## JakeStarkey

An associate and a person I know by reputation are facing excommunication because the LDS Church limits their personal authenticity.  The body of Christ, the believers, are and own the church, not self-proclaimed leaders.

"One by one they throw us from the tower. And we spread our wings and fly."  Carol Lynn Pearson

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/u...atened-with-excommunication.html?src=twr&_r=1


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara

TC, you look good in that photo  You got some sexy hair


----------



## emilynghiem

JakeStarkey said:


> An associate and a person I know by reputation are facing excommunication because the LDS Church limits their personal authenticity.  The body of Christ, the believers, are and own the church, not self-proclaimed leaders.
> 
> "One by one they throw us from the tower. And we spread our wings and fly."  Carol Lynn Pearson
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/u...atened-with-excommunication.html?src=twr&_r=1



I had trouble following when you are using
"church" to mean the local policies/body
and when you are using
"church" to mean the collective universal whole (ie all humanity as one church)

I would AGREE with you that the people as a whole
define the whole church on that universal scale.

Until we all agree, then the LOCAL church groups and policies depend on THEIR MEMBERS
to define an agreed policy/interpretation for the LOCAL level of "church."

That is where you lost me, because there were conflicting groups/interpretations within the same membership or body.

So when you have a rift between the traditionally recognized leaders
and the members who are represented by a challenging new interpretation,
then only the policy that is IN COMMON represents the church body. The part in conflict is not decided yet.

The conflict would need to be resolved before it is clear what the church policy is on it.
In the meantime, the parts that ARE universally accepted, those are clearly church policy.
I would not give one group more or less authority over another: if they cannot resolve their
differences, let them govern separately and not compete if they both represent people of different views.


----------



## emilynghiem

daws101 said:


> hey guys let me let you in on a little secret avatar is practicing what in the Mormon  church is called priest speak it it's mostly used  BY the FLDS (FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS)
> it's was designed to keep you off balance and make it easier for avatar to dodge questions
> remember his sources are all mormon sources making them bias....and false...



Hi Daws: regardless of what may or may not be true about Mormon teaching,
when I discuss Constitutional concepts with Avatar, I've received VERY helpful insights.
Just because someone may be biased in one area does not preclude all others!

When Jesus spoke in the Bible about the example of the Good Samaritan,
the affiliation he chose to make his point, the Samaritans, were considered
the most unholy and farthest from God, to the point of blasphemy and walking
AROUND their land instead of walking through it for fear of being affected.

And this is the person Jesus used to show anyone can serve as your neighbor in Christ.
Even those you least expect or respect. God may use that person to serve a good purpose.

It depends on the spirit and content, not on judging by label or appearance.
We all may be biased or wrong in some areas, but right on target elsewhere.
Why not bring out the best in each other, while correcting the areas we each fall short?


----------



## JakeStarkey

emilynghiem said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An associate and a person I know by reputation are facing excommunication because the LDS Church limits their personal authenticity.  The body of Christ, the believers, are and own the church, not self-proclaimed leaders.
> 
> "One by one they throw us from the tower. And we spread our wings and fly."  Carol Lynn Pearson
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/u...atened-with-excommunication.html?src=twr&_r=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had trouble following when you are using
> "church" to mean the local policies/body
> and when you are using
> "church" to mean the collective universal whole (ie all humanity as one church)
> 
> I would AGREE with you that the people as a whole
> define the whole church on that universal scale.
> 
> Until we all agree, then the LOCAL church groups and policies depend on THEIR MEMBERS
> to define an agreed policy/interpretation for the LOCAL level of "church."
> 
> That is where you lost me, because there were conflicting groups/interpretations within the same membership or body.
> 
> So when you have a rift between the traditionally recognized leaders
> and the members who are represented by a challenging new interpretation,
> then only the policy that is IN COMMON represents the church body. The part in conflict is not decided yet.
> 
> The conflict would need to be resolved before it is clear what the church policy is on it.
> In the meantime, the parts that ARE universally accepted, those are clearly church policy.
> I would not give one group more or less authority over another: if they cannot resolve their
> differences, let them govern separately and not compete if they both represent people of different views.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your comments, Emily.

I am not LDS but have been around them all of my life, know so many of them, of the various denominations and sects.

I feel for my friends who have been trying to build bridges for those who are confused and hurting yet wish to remain members if possible.

Reminds me of a story about a Baptist guy who was shipwrecked.  When rescused he gave a tour of his area.  He pointed out his hut, and his church hut, and when questioned about failing to mention the third hut, he replied, "That's where I used to go to church."


----------



## sealybobo

daws101 said:


> hey guys let me let you in on a little secret avatar is practicing what in the Mormon  church is called priest speak it it's mostly used  BY the FLDS (FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS)
> it's was designed to keep you off balance and make it easier for avatar to dodge questions
> remember his sources are all mormon sources making them bias....and false...



I love the different twists between religions.  Catholics say they are the original and all the others are posers.  Born agains say Catholics are baptized as children and so that doesn't count.  They say you have to decide and do it on your own as an adult.  So every church has its own twist on what it is special/better or different.

Joseph Smith in 1800 couldn't decide which church to join so he prayed and god told him to start his own church because the others were corrupt/bad/not authentic anymore.  I agree all the others are bullshit but so is the Mormon faith.

My Mormon friend explained to me that when Jesus died, he didn't pass the baton on to one of his disciples and that person didn't pass on the baton to the next person and so on all the way down to where the current Pope or any leader of any normal Christian church.  In other words, the link broke.  So the normal christian churches don't really have jesus' authority anymore.  They admit that the jesus story 2000 years ago happened but somewhere down the road the link between jesus and them was broken.

But that isn't the case with the Mormons.  Jesus talked to Joseph Smith in 1800 and he passed his authority down from one church leader to the next until the current leader of the Mormon church today.  That link was never broken, like regular christians.  Brilliant!


----------



## Luddly Neddite

JoeB131 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So in addition to being a pedophile and a con artist, Joseph Smith was also a plagarist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant plagarize what you claim was written by others.
> 
> And for someone with such a self proclaimed knowledge of Mormons, you seem to be asking alot of ignorant questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a rhertorical question.  Joseph Smith's Plagarism is an established fact.
> 
> Mormonism Disproved - Plagiarism
Click to expand...


But, that whole "lying for the lord" is an accepted way of furthering their agenda. 

When Mittens was "running", I did a lot of reading ... 

What I think is, just like christians, if they keep their nuttiness to themselves, it is probably pretty harmless.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

daws101 said:


> hey guys let me let you in on a little secret avatar is practicing what in the Mormon  church is called priest speak it it's mostly used  BY the FLDS (FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS)
> it's was designed to keep you off balance and make it easier for avatar to dodge questions
> remember his sources are all mormon sources making them bias....and false...



Yes, I remember reading about that. Also, a documentary I saw discussed it. 

A good friend lived in Utah for most of his life. According to him, morms (his name for them) are dishonest and very willing to say or do pretty much whatever they have to in order to get what they want. 

I also knew a few morm families in Tucson. They were a "ward" in and of themselves. They were the most dishonest group I've ever come across. 

Even if Mittens had been qualified, that willingness to lie, in itself, is more than enough reason to keep morms out of higher office. 

And, yes, I do know that Harry Reid is morm.


----------



## Disir

STATE OF NEW YORK v. JOSEPH SMITH

Warrant issued upon written complaint upon oath of Peter G. Bridgeman, who informed that one Joseph Smith of Bainbridge was a disorderly person and an imposter. Prisoner brought before Court March 20, 1826.
Prisoner examined: says that he came from the town of Palmyra, and had been at the house of Josiah Stowel in Bainbridge most of time since; had small part of time been employed in looking for mines, but the major part had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school. That he had a certain stone which he had occasionally look at to determine where hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth were; that he professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were at a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowel several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures, and Mr. Stowel had been engaged in digging for them. That at Palmyra he pretended to tell by looking at this stone where coined money was buried in Pennsylvania and while at Palmyra had frequently ascertained in that way where lost property was of various kinds; that he had occasionally been in the habit of looking through this stone to find lost property for three years, but of late had pretty much given it up on account of its injuring his health, especially his eyes, making them sore; that he did not solicit business of this kind, and had always declined having anything to do with this business.
Josiah Stowel sworn: says that prisoner had been at his house something like five months; had been employed by him to work on farm part of time; that he pretended to have skill of telling where hidden treasures in the earth were by means of looking through a certain stone; that prisoner had looked for him sometimes; once to tell him about money buried in Bend Mountain in Pennsylvania, once for gold on Monument Hill, and once for a salt spring; and that he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and did possess the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone; that he found the [word illegible] at Bend and Monument Hill as prisoner represented it; that prisoner had looked through said stone for Deacon Attleton for a mine, did not exactly find it but got a p- [word unfinished] of ore which resembled gold, he thinks; that prisoner had told by means of this stone where a Mr. Bacon had buried money; that he and prisoner had been in search of it; that prisoner had said it was in a certain root of a stump five feet from the surface of the earth, and with it would be found a tail feather; that said Stowel and prisoner thereupon commenced digging, found a tail feather, but money was gone; that he supposed the money moved down. That prisoner did offer his services; that he never deceived him; that prisoner looked through stone and described Josiah Stowels house and outhouses, while at Palmyra at Simpson Stowels, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree, with a mans head painted upon it, by means of said stone. That he had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoners skill.
Arad Stowel sworn: says that he went to see whether prisoner could convince him that he possessed the skill he professed to have, upon which prisoner laid a book upon a white cloth, and proposed looking through another stone which was white and transparent, hold the stone to the candle, turn his head to look, and read. The deception appeared so palpable that witness went off disgusted.
McMaster sworn: says he went with Arad Stowel, and likewise came away disgusted. Prisoner pretended to him that he could discover objects at a distance by holding this white stone to the sun or candle; that prisoner rather declined looking into a hat at his dark colored stone, as he said that it hurt his eyes.
Jonathon Thompson: says that prisoner was requested to look for chest of money; did look, and pretended to know where it was; and prisoner, Thompson and Yeomans went in search of it; that Smith arrived at spot first; was at night; that Smith looked in hat while there, and when very dark, and told how the chest was situated. After digging several feet, struck something sounding like a board or plant. Prisoner would not look again, pretending that he was alarmed on account of the circumstances relating to the trunk being buried [which] came all fresh to his mind. That the last time he looked he discovered distinctly the two Indians who buried the trunk, that a quarrel ensued between them, and that one of said Indians was killed by the other, and thrown into the hold beside the trunk, to guard it, as he supposed. Thompson says that he believes in the prisoners professed skill; that the board he struck his spade upon was probably the chest, but on account of an enchantment the trunk kept settling away from under them when digging; that notwithstanding they continued constantly removing the dirt, yet the trunk kept about the same distance from them. Says prisoner said that it appeared to him that salt might be found at Bainbridge, and that he is certain that prisoner can divine things by means of said stone. That as evidence of the fact prisoner looked into his hat to tell him about some money witness lost sixteen years ago, and that he described the amn the witness supposed had taken it, and the disposition of the money: And therefore the Court find the Defendant guilty.
Mormon Quotes on Joseph Smith's trial of 1826


----------



## Avatar4321

Luddly Neddite said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cant plagarize what you claim was written by others.
> 
> And for someone with such a self proclaimed knowledge of Mormons, you seem to be asking alot of ignorant questions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a rhertorical question.  Joseph Smith's Plagarism is an established fact.
> 
> Mormonism Disproved - Plagiarism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, that whole "lying for the lord" is an accepted way of furthering their agenda.
> 
> When Mittens was "running", I did a lot of reading ...
> 
> What I think is, just like christians, if they keep their nuttiness to themselves, it is probably pretty harmless.
Click to expand...


You've clearly been reading bad sources because lying is not approved of for any reason.

Why don't you take your own advice and keep your nuttiness to yourself? Then maybe others would follow suit.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Avatar4321 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a rhertorical question.  Joseph Smith's Plagarism is an established fact.
> 
> Mormonism Disproved - Plagiarism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, that whole "lying for the lord" is an accepted way of furthering their agenda.
> 
> When Mittens was "running", I did a lot of reading ...
> 
> What I think is, just like christians, if they keep their nuttiness to themselves, it is probably pretty harmless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've clearly been reading bad sources because lying is not approved of for any reason.
> 
> Why don't you take your own advice and keep your nuttiness to yourself? Then maybe others would follow suit.
Click to expand...


I've read a number of sources, known people, watched documentaries and what I think is, 

You may well be lying because its acceptable to lie to further the morm agenda.


----------



## Disir

Luddly Neddite said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, that whole "lying for the lord" is an accepted way of furthering their agenda.
> 
> When Mittens was "running", I did a lot of reading ...
> 
> What I think is, just like christians, if they keep their nuttiness to themselves, it is probably pretty harmless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've clearly been reading bad sources because lying is not approved of for any reason.
> 
> Why don't you take your own advice and keep your nuttiness to yourself? Then maybe others would follow suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read a number of sources, known people, watched documentaries and what I think is,
> 
> You may well be lying because its acceptable to lie to further the morm agenda.
Click to expand...


Luddly, you're talking to a brick wall.  LDS is a cult. Keep on knockin' but nobodies home.


----------



## Avatar4321

Avatar4321 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it was a rhertorical question.  Joseph Smith's Plagarism is an established fact.
> 
> Mormonism Disproved - Plagiarism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, that whole "lying for the lord" is an accepted way of furthering their agenda.
> 
> When Mittens was "running", I did a lot of reading ...
> 
> What I think is, just like christians, if they keep their nuttiness to themselves, it is probably pretty harmless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've clearly been reading bad sources because lying is not approved of for any reason.
> 
> Why don't you take your own advice and keep your nuttiness to yourself? Then maybe others would follow suit.
Click to expand...




Luddly Neddite said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, that whole "lying for the lord" is an accepted way of furthering their agenda.
> 
> When Mittens was "running", I did a lot of reading ...
> 
> What I think is, just like christians, if they keep their nuttiness to themselves, it is probably pretty harmless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've clearly been reading bad sources because lying is not approved of for any reason.
> 
> Why don't you take your own advice and keep your nuttiness to yourself? Then maybe others would follow suit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've read a number of sources, known people, watched documentaries and what I think is,
> 
> You may well be lying because its acceptable to lie to further the morm agenda.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter how much you repeat it or what alleged "sources" you supposedly have, it's still blatantly false.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Avatar, the truth is somewhere in between, as always.

I have known many Mormons and would rather live next to than next to evangelicals who will steal you blind if given a chance.

Do you know how to keep a Mormon or a Baptists from drinking all your beer on a fishing trip?  Bring two Mormons or two Baptists.


----------



## Avatar4321

Sorry jake. There is no in between here. Lying simply isn't allowable for any reason. It's taught against from the highest offices to the lowliest deacon. In fact, being dishonest with your fellow man can keep you out of the Temple.

I'm not saying every saint is perfectly honest. People are flawed. And there are tares among the wheat. But no one is taught to "lie for the Lord". That is a blatant lie.


----------



## FA_Q2

Avatar4321 said:


> Sorry jake. There is no in between here. Lying simply isn't allowable for any reason. It's taught against from the highest offices to the lowliest deacon. In fact, being dishonest with your fellow man can keep you out of the Temple.
> 
> I'm not saying every saint is perfectly honest. People are flawed. And there are tares among the wheat. But no one is taught to "lie for the Lord". That is a blatant lie.



There is always the village idiot demanding that because one or more do something wrong the entire institution somehow condones it.

Under that guise, Catholics are mass murderers and molesters.  Atheists as well.  Muslims endorse terrorism.  Hell, almost every major institution must endorse mass murder...

No one is perfect, that does not make the institution inherently wrong.


----------



## Avatar4321

FA_Q2 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry jake. There is no in between here. Lying simply isn't allowable for any reason. It's taught against from the highest offices to the lowliest deacon. In fact, being dishonest with your fellow man can keep you out of the Temple.
> 
> I'm not saying every saint is perfectly honest. People are flawed. And there are tares among the wheat. But no one is taught to "lie for the Lord". That is a blatant lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is always the village idiot demanding that because one or more do something wrong the entire institution somehow condones it.
> 
> Under that guise, Catholics are mass murderers and molesters.  Atheists as well.  Muslims endorse terrorism.  Hell, almost every major institution must endorse mass murder...
> 
> No one is perfect, that does not make the institution inherently wrong.
Click to expand...


I completely agree.


----------



## JakeStarkey

'lying' was mentioned by Luddly, Avatar, not me.

However, 'lying for the Lord,' as documented by Carmon Hardy is indeed a fact.

http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/lying_for_the_lord.pdf in Solemn Covenant.

If you deny what is clearly documented in the essay, then you are 'lying for the Lord', and that is not acceptable.


----------



## JakeStarkey

My wife made an interesting comparison of Kate Kelly and Rosa Parks, each fighting for an authentic identity and right to exist.

It's a good one.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JakeStarkey said:


> 'lying' was mentioned by Luddly, Avatar, not me.
> 
> However, 'lying for the Lord,' as documented by Carmon Hardy is indeed a fact.
> 
> http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/lying_for_the_lord.pdf in Solemn Covenant.
> 
> If you deny what is clearly documented in the essay, then you are 'lying for the Lord', and that is not acceptable.



^ This, avatar.

You are unable to it back up.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Google "lying for the lord". 

It's as though Avatar is the only mormon who is not familiar with it. 


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## HUGGY

Just wanted to show "The Boss" what a couple of REALLY large threads looks like.

That is ones that don't call themselves Coffee Shop or Bar ...obvious thread and rep ho platforms...


----------



## Peach

Avatar4321 said:


> Sorry jake. There is no in between here. Lying simply isn't allowable for any reason. It's taught against from the highest offices to the lowliest deacon. In fact, being dishonest with your fellow man can keep you out of the Temple.
> 
> I'm not saying every saint is perfectly honest. People are flawed. And there are tares among the wheat. But no one is taught to "lie for the Lord". That is a blatant lie.



I knew one man who USED the Church, received help from the Relief Society, and split the state, to run a "nightclub". When that didn't pan out he called my friend for another handout. The answer was then, "No, i cannot help you anymore". 

There is a reason Howard Hughes surrounded himself with LDS, he found they wouldn't STEAL. All the silly claims LDS are not Christian and talk of "magic underwear" is useless. One can ask, "Why lower you head to pray, you can get hit easier, idiot"? "Why wear those skullcaps, why read a book written centuries ago", etc., ad nasuem.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I have always wondered how any rational person could read the Book of Mormon, and the say, with a totally straight face, that it reveals the truth....


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Vandalshandle said:


> I have always wondered how any rational person could read the Book of Mormon, and the say, with a totally straight face, that it reveals the truth....



Ain't that the truth.

I had a family member who was morm, looked down her nose at me for drinking coffee (!) and recently died of lung cancer after a lifetime of eating everything that wasn't nailed down, smoking 3 packs a day, 3 heart attacks - all while living off welfare. I actually watched her eat an entire key lime pie after having eating a huge lunch and then tossing down a few brownies for "desert". Apparently, she never saw the hypocrisy of her lifestyle choices ...

Anyway, she used to sic the weirdos on me. They'd send out the book of mormon along with tracts and videos. I did actually spend a little time reading bits and pieces of the book of mormon ... it truly defines "speaking in tongues".


----------



## froggy

The truth about Mormons is they serve the almighty dollar and are out for personal gains


----------



## Truthspeaker

I guess you look up and realize it's been years since I posted in here... I totally forgot how big this thread was... I may be able to pay attention this time. Yes folks I am back. Bring it on


----------



## tyroneweaver

eots said:


> *the truth about mormons*..they tend to smile to much..they tend to be polite..and their sock drawers are well organized and stocked and even tho there are 50 pairs in there they will notice if you have _barrow_ a pair cause your not a mormon and therefore all yours are dirty...but being mormon they will just say.. make sure you put them back into their laundry hamper when your done with them so they can be washed and not put them with all your dirty ones ok ?.....


ya know, I post on this forum quite a bit. And probably have the worst grammar of anyone on this forum; just cause I'm to lazy to worry about it.
I noticed your post has perfect punctuation and whole bit
Interesting paradox you're exhibiting there...if ya get my drift


----------



## Vandalshandle

tyroneweaver said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *the truth about mormons*..they tend to smile to much..they tend to be polite..and their sock drawers are well organized and stocked and even tho there are 50 pairs in there they will notice if you have _barrow_ a pair cause your not a mormon and therefore all yours are dirty...but being mormon they will just say.. make sure you put them back into their laundry hamper when your done with them so they can be washed and not put them with all your dirty ones ok ?.....
> 
> 
> 
> ya know, I post on this forum quite a bit. And probably have the worst grammar of anyone on this forum; just cause I'm to lazy to worry about it.
> I noticed your post has perfect punctuation and whole bit
> Interesting paradox you're exhibiting there...if ya get my drift
Click to expand...


i think that you are confused. this is a paradox:






But this begs the question:

Viaduc?


----------



## Truthspeaker

Vandalshandle said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *the truth about mormons*..they tend to smile to much..they tend to be polite..and their sock drawers are well organized and stocked and even tho there are 50 pairs in there they will notice if you have _barrow_ a pair cause your not a mormon and therefore all yours are dirty...but being mormon they will just say.. make sure you put them back into their laundry hamper when your done with them so they can be washed and not put them with all your dirty ones ok ?.....
> 
> 
> 
> ya know, I post on this forum quite a bit. And probably have the worst grammar of anyone on this forum; just cause I'm to lazy to worry about it.
> I noticed your post has perfect punctuation and whole bit
> Interesting paradox you're exhibiting there...if ya get my drift
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think that you are confused. this is a paradox:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this begs the question:
> 
> Viaduc?
Click to expand...


----------



## Truthspeaker

That would be a paradux


----------



## Vandalshandle

Truthspeaker said:


> That would be a paradux



No. You are thinking about:


----------



## waltky

truthspeaker wrote: _That would be a paradux_

A paradux...

... is a couple o' quackers.


----------



## Vandalshandle

waltky said:


> truthspeaker wrote: _That would be a paradux_
> 
> A paradux...
> 
> ... is a couple o' quackers.



No, you are thinking of these:


----------



## Truthspeaker

Really no thoughts on the Church recently?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Truthspeaker said:


> Really no thoughts on the Church recently?



Mormons, and thinking, are two concepts that do not mix.


----------

